MOTIONS

2020-08-27 46 1 4 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 27 August 2020

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine 1 09:31 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I seek leave of the House to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes that: (a) on 25 August 2020, the Member for Hughes gave a speech in the Federation Chamber supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19; (b) in his speech, the Member said that "media bias", "groupthink" and the "complete abandonment of reason" were driving a "war" on hydroxychloroquine and "the big hand of government … interfer[ing] in a doctor-patient relationship", and cited a number of medical commentators including: (i) Professor Christian Perronne, who is being investigated by the French College of Physicians for his comments on hydroxychloroquine; (ii) Dr Harvey Risch, who was rebuked by 25 Yale University colleagues for promoting "conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots"; and (iii) Dr Kulvinder Gill, who was criticised by other Canadian doctors for misleading tweets on hydroxychloroquine; (c) in Australia, potential therapies are assessed for safety and efficacy by the independent Therapeutic Goods Administration, and the TGA "strongly discourages the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 … or prevent COVID-19"; and— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for McMahon will just pause for a second. I've made this point previously about motions. I have been looking at the clock. A motion—the majority of it—needs to contain a concise proposition the House can determine. The member for McMahon, I can see, has one page—I hope it's only one. An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 No, I'm just going to make my point. It's been a while since we sat, and he's in company with a number of others. If this persists, I'll need to take action to return to the practice of many decades ago. The member for McMahon needs to come to what the proposition is, not debate in the way that he would at other times during the day. Mr BOWEN DZS I understand, and I appreciate that. The motion continues: (d) the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, comprised of 29 peak health bodies, has also advised that "hydroxychloroquine is potentially harmful and no more effective than standard care"; and (2) affirms that it is the responsibility of all public officeholders to acknowledge and support the independence and expertise of the TGA and counter misinformation and conspiracy theories. Leave not granted. Mr BOWEN DZS I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for McMahon from moving the following motion—That the House: (1) notes that: (a) on 25 August 2020, the Member for Hughes gave a speech in the Federation Chamber supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19; (b) in his speech, the Member said that "media bias", "groupthink" and the "complete abandonment of reason" were driving a "war" on hydroxychloroquine and "the big hand of government … interfer[ing] in a doctor-patient relationship", and cited a number of medical commentators including: (i) Professor Christian Perronne, who is being investigated by the French College of Physicians for his comments on hydroxychloroquine; (ii) Dr Harvey Risch, who was rebuked by 25 Yale University colleagues for promoting "conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots"; and (iii) Dr Kulvinder Gill, who was criticised by other Canadian doctors for misleading tweets on hydroxychloroquine; (c) in Australia, potential therapies are assessed for safety and efficacy by the independent Therapeutic Goods Administration, and the TGA "strongly discourages the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 … or prevent COVID-19"; and (d) the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, comprised of 29 peak health bodies, has also advised that "hydroxychloroquine is potentially harmful and no more effective than standard care"; and (2) affirms that it is the responsibility of all public officeholders to acknowledge and support the independence and expertise of the TGA and counter misinformation and conspiracy theories. These are difficult times. There is a lot of misinformation— 09:36 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 10000 The question is that the member for McMahon be no further heard.

The House divided. [09:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

39 AYES Allen, K Archer, BK Conaghan, PJ Coulton, M Dutton, PC Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Goodenough, IR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Martin, FB McCormack, MF O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 35 NOES Albanese, AN Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR (teller) Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Wells, AS Zappia, A 35 PAIRS Alexander, JG Aly, A Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Bell, AM Mulino, D Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Butler, TM Chester, D Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Connelly, V Neumann, SK Drum, DK Coker, EA Entsch, WG Dick, MD Evans, TM O'Neil, CE Gillespie, DA Owens, JA Hastie, AW Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Perrett, GD Howarth, LR Georganas, S Irons, SJ Giles, AJ Joyce, BT Ryan, JC Laming, A Jones, SP Landry, ML Kearney, G Liu, G Keogh, MJ Marino, NB Khalil, P McIntosh, MI Smith, DPB McVeigh, JJ King, CF Morton, B Shorten, WR O'Brien, LS Snowdon, WE O'Brien, T Marles, RD Thompson, P McBride, EM Vasta, RX Swanson, MJ Wallace, AB Thwaites, KL Wicks, LE Vamvakinou, M Wilson, RJ Mitchell, BK Wilson, TR Watts, TG Wood, JP Wilson, JH Young, T Mitchell, RG

Question agreed to.

09:43 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 09:43 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I second the motion. The member for Hughes is the most dangerous man in this parliament. He rants— 09:43 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That the Member be no longer heard. A division having been called, the bells having been rung and an incident having occurred in the chamber— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland is warned. The question is that the member for Macarthur be no further heard.

The House divided. [09:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

09:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson They never tried to shut down the member for Hughes peddling conspiracy theories, but they shut down people wanting to defend medical advice and they shut down people defending the TGA. 09:46 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [09:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

09:50 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be disagreed to.

The House divided. [09:50]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

09:51 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, on indulgence—Just following the process we have been using for members of the crossbench who aren't able to be here for votes, I received a text during the last divisions that the member for Melbourne, had he been here, would have voted with the opposition on those three divisions. The SPEAKER 00APG That's no problem, and of course both whips deal with those matters for those large numbers of members who are paired or can't be here. BILLS 8 BILLS Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 8

Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:52 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australians have quickly embraced the development of emerging aviation technologies such as remotely piloted aircraft—otherwise known as RPA—systems, also commonly known as drones. RPA systems have presented opportunities for innovation but also new safety challenges to the broader aviation industry. A strong aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the regulatory system which governs it. As more and more RPA systems are flown each year, carrying an increased risk of potential harm they can cause, it is increasingly important for RPA systems to be appropriately regulated to ensure the safety of the public, the drones' pilots and other airspace users. This has placed increased pressure on the government regulators, especially in areas of aviation safety, noise, security, privacy and the environment, to ensure that RPA systems are used in an appropriate manner. Australia's safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) continues to provide regulatory functions to RPA users to ensure the safe and efficient integration of RPA systems into the broader Australian aviation network. As the numbers of RPA system users grow, there is more demand for CASA's regulatory approvals. Today I introduce into the parliament two bills which will assist CASA to meet this demand and provide appropriate safety guidance, compliance and enforcement services to facilitate safe RPA system use. The principal bill, the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020, establishes a legal mechanism that will be used in the future to enable a levy to be cost-recovered from RPA operators. The complementary bill, the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020 establishes a legal mechanism to collect the levy, whereby the Commonwealth will pay to CASA the levy amounts collected by CASA on behalf of the Commonwealth. These bills inform the ongoing implementation of government regulation and ensure that commercial RPA system users contribute to the cost of the functions they receive. The cost recovery levy will be set at no cost for the current financial year, and any increase to the cost will be based on evidence collected from the registration scheme, and considered in the context of future funding arrangements for CASA in 2021-22 and the government's broader approach to regulation and service delivery for the RPA sector. These bills will also support CASA's efforts, such as RPA registration, to ensure the long-term safe and lawful operation of RPA systems. Registration of RPA systems will support future RPA compliance activities for a number of different government regulators and will provide further understanding of the scope, size and needs of the industry. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020 8

Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In my previous second reading speech, I introduced the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020, which established a legal mechanism to enable a levy to be cost recovered from remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operators. Complementary to that bill, I am also introducing into the parliament the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020. This bill establishes a legal mechanism to collect the levy, whereby the Commonwealth will pay to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) the levy amounts collected by CASA on behalf of the Commonwealth. Together, these bills support CASA to ensure the long-term safe and lawful operation of RPAs use. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 9

National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:58 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government recognises the great sacrifices made by our serving and former Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and their families, on behalf of the Australian community. As a government, we are totally committed to supporting our ADF members and veterans during their service, in transitioning from service, and in their lives beyond service. The government has a 'towards zero' agenda on suicides nationally. We know that the rates of suicide amongst our Defence and veteran men and women are unacceptably high, with more than 400 deaths by suicide since 2001. These tragic deaths deeply impact the families, the Defence and veteran communities, and the wider Australian community. The data shows that ex-serving men and women are particularly at risk—the age-adjusted rate of suicide over 2002 to 2017 was 18 per cent higher for ex-serving men than men in the broader Australian population, and 115 per cent (or 2.15 times) higher among ex-serving women compared to women in the broader population, noting the limited data available for women. Addressing this is a key priority for the government. That is why the Prime Minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison MP, announced on 5 February 2020 that a powerful new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will be established with a dedicated role to inquire into, and support the prevention of, ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide. The national c ommissioner's inquiry powers The framework of inquiry powers in this bill, including the accompanying offences for noncompliance, will enable full and genuine inquiries into the circumstances of both past and future ADF member or veteran deaths by suicide. The national commissioner will have broad discretion to inquire into these tragic deaths, including issues arising during a person's service, their transition from service, the health and wellbeing support services that were available to them as a member and veteran, and any other matters the national commissioner considers relevant in the circumstances of each case. The bill provides that the national commissioner will be an independent statutory office holder, appointed by the Governor-General, with inquiry powers which are broadly equivalent to those of a royal commission. However, unlike a royal commission, the national commissioner will be an enduring institution, with the power to monitor the implementation of their recommendations into the future. The national commissioner will provide a report on their findings and recommendations to the parliament each year, as well as other reports they consider necessary. The government will be fully accountable, being required to report to the parliament on action taken in response to the national commissioner's reports. This means that there will be a continuous voice to government, the parliament, and the public on these important issues, and that long-term solutions can be delivered. The national commissioner's inquiry powers will include the ability to compel information, summons witnesses and convene public and private hearings. This includes compelling the production of information from the departments of defence and veterans' affairs. Hearing from families and others affected by these deaths The national commissioner will provide the opportunity for families, veterans, and other people who have been personally affected by an ADF member or veteran death by suicide, to share their story in a supported way. Their contributions will be critical to inform the national commissioner's work. The bill provides that, as a guiding principle, the national commissioner should take a trauma informed and restorative approach in exercising their functions, and should recognise that families and others affected by a death by suicide have a unique contribution to make to the national commissioner's work. To ensure transparency, the national commissioner's hearings will generally be open to the public. However, the bill will also allow for part or all of a hearing to be held in private, such as where personal and private information about a deceased person, or their family, friends or associates, may arise. This provides the flexibility for the commissioner to account for the wishes and interests of families and other parties who may seek to share their experiences in a more confidential setting. Working with other bodies and referral mechanism s The work of the national commissioner will complement the work of the Prime Minister's National Suicide Prevention Adviser. It will also complement the work of the new Veteran Family Advocate, who will work closely with the national commissioner, so that the national commissioner's recommendations can be rapidly translated into advice to government on policies and programs that better support veterans and their families. The national commissioner will also work collaboratively with a range of other stakeholders to understand the full range of issues contributing to ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide. This includes state and territory coroners. The bill provides pathways for information sharing between the national commissioner and other bodies, to support their close collaboration. In the event the national commissioner identifies potentially criminal or other improper conduct in the course of their work, they may refer these matters to police or prosecution bodies for independent investigation. This aligns with an equivalent referral process available to a royal commission. Consultation process es The government is committed to developing the legislation to establish the national commissioner in a consultative manner. The Attorney-General's Department will today commence a national public and stakeholder consultation process, to hear from the families of those affected by an ADF member or veteran death by suicide, the community and stakeholders about the design of the national commissioner's role. The department will be receiving submissions on the bills for a four-week period until 24 September 2020. The submissions received during the consultation process will inform the ongoing refinement of the bill during its passage through the parliament. Conclusion Through these bills, the national commissioner will deliver genuine transparency, and uncover the factors and root causes contributing to ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide. As with a royal commission, the national commissioner will have independence and powers necessary to recommend strategies to prevent future deaths of this kind, and to give voice to the families and other persons who have been affected by these tragic deaths. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 10

National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:06 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 (the bill) operates in conjunction with the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, which establishes the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention as an independent statutory officer holder. The bill amends relevant Commonwealth legislation to give effect to, or as a consequence of, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020 11

Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:08 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Radiofrequency spectrum is a vital resource which underpins many aspects of Australia's digital economy, such as the operation of fixed and mobile wireless communications networks. It is essential that the legislation governing the management of that spectrum is flexible and effective. With markets and technology having changed markedly since the current legislative framework took effect, there is a clear need to update that framework. The Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, which I introduce here today, will modernise the management of spectrum and radiocommunications in Australia. A lot has changed since the Radiocommunications Act 1992was first introduced. For example, when the act was introduced in 1992, a typical equipment supply chain was from manufacturer, to retailer, to customer. Today, shopping on the internet means that modern supply chains are more diverse and complex making it more difficult to identify and place requirements on different parties in a supply chain and to hold those parties to account. The processes in the act for allocating and re-allocating spectrum, licensing and renewal can be significantly improved, meaning less red tape. Spectrum not being allocated quickly and easily imposes unnecessary costs on both industry and government. It slows the pace of innovation being driven by emerging technology and the enthusiasm of the sector to make better, more creative and productive use of the spectrum. The government's 2015 Spectrum Review highlighted the limitations of the current framework and looked to reform the way spectrum is managed. Consultation on an initial draft bill was undertaken in in 2017. When I became minister, I considered the outcomes of this consultation process and I listened to the concerns of stakeholders around the costs of transition to a new act to regulate spectrum. I concluded that the best way to achieve effective reform was through a series of targeted amendments. Following this, further stakeholder consultation occurred in June and July this year, with stakeholders indicating broad support for the bill that I am introducing today. The proposed amendments in this bill are in line with the original recommendations of the Spectrum Review and take into account the feedback received from stakeholders. The amendments will clarify the object of the act and streamline spectrum allocation and reallocation processes. They will remove unnecessary prescription and legislative barriers, add flexibility and more clearly delineate the roles of the minister and the regulator in spectrum allocation processes. Amendments include: extending maximum spectrum licence terms from 15 to 20 years and maximum apparatus licence terms from five to 20 years; providing greater flexibility in decision-making for allocating spectrum licences and apparatus licences; modernising the compliance and enforcement regime through increased regulatory options; and additional information gathering powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). I will now provide a brief overview of the proposed reforms of the bill. In schedule 1 of the bill, the object of the act has been streamlined so that the intention of the act is clear and long-term public interest is promoted. In addition, issues such as public safety and defence have been made more prominent to further support the national interest. Schedule 2 of the bill introduces two new means for clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the minister in setting government policy and the regulator in implementing that policy. These are ministerial policy statements and the annual work program. Ministerial policy statements allow the minister to provide ACMA with policy guidance or to convey government expectations and strategic priorities for ACMA's spectrum management functions. ACMA will be required to produce an annual work program, with the aim of giving more and better information to users and the market. Importantly, the annual work program will be prepared in consultation with stakeholders and ACMA will be required to report back on its performance in its annual report. This builds on the work that ACMA currently undertakes through the annual development and publication of its five-year spectrum outlook. Schedule 3 of the bill is focused on licensing and associated processes. Through this schedule the maximum licence terms for apparatus and spectrum licences are extended to 20 years. To provide greater assurance to licensees, renewal statements will be introduced for spectrum licences and complex apparatus licences. This will make clear the requirements for any further licence. This, in turn, will assist licensees to make long-term planning decisions. Where a licence is proposed to be renewed for a period of 10 years or longer, ACMA must be satisfied that the issue of the licence is in the public interest. As part of the schedule, the scope of responsibility for ACMA in the allocation and reallocation of spectrum is broadened, in line with the intention to devolve more responsibilities to ACMA while enabling the minister to provide policy guidance. ACMA is granted the power to set allocation limits to promote competition and to make spectrum reallocation declarations to promote efficient planning and use of spectrum bands. Schedule 4 enables ACMA to regulate equipment through statutory rules that prescribe technical standards, record-keeping requirements and labelling obligations. These rules will be imposed from the point of supply, so an ordinary user can operate a radiocommunications device with confidence that the device complies with a spectrum authorisation or licence. The bill will introduce civil penalties for breaches of equipment rules, as well as infringement notices for noncompliant users. The schedule gives ACMA the power to make interim and permanent equipment bans backed up with significant criminal and civil penalties. Schedule 5 expands the powers of accredited persons and is intended to provide ACMA the flexibility to broaden the scope of the existing accreditation powers. This would allow ACMA to devolve certain kinds of administrative or technical work to qualified individuals. This gives ACMA greater flexibility to align resources with priority outcomes. Schedule 6 introduces a more simplified and streamlined set of compliance and enforcement powers. This means ACMA takes enforcement action that is proportionate to the seriousness of the breach. The amendments also include a new civil penalty provision that provides that a person must not engage in conduct that results in substantial interference, substantial disruption or substantial disturbance to radiocommunications within Australia (or between a place in Australia and a place outside Australia). Schedule 7 provides targeted information gathering powers to enable ACMA to require persons to provide information about unlawful possession of devices or compliance or noncompliance with licence conditions. This is relevant to ACMA's administration of various parts of the act, which have to do with planning, licensing (including reissue and renewal), interference management and compliance. Schedule 8 gives ACMA powers to grant certain activities or persons with exemption from compliance with parts of the act and, amongst other measures, gives ACMA authority to use computer assisted decision-making, particularly in the renewal of licences. These types of improvements will provide greater decision-making certainty to the sector and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Schedule 9 of the bill repeals the datacasting transmitter licence framework. This licensing framework has not been used to date. Schedule 10 repeals ACMA's power to hold public inquiries about radiocommunications, which has also not been used. In summary, this bill provides a clear reform pathway to modernise our spectrum management framework, which will deliver benefits to spectrum users by cutting red tape. It provides a more flexible framework, and allows a longer term investment horizon, to allow industry to better adapt to future innovations and changing demand for spectrum, including the rollout of future generation wireless technology. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020 12

Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

First Reading 12 Second Reading 13 10:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this bill be now read a second time. As part of the government's reform of spectrum management, today I am also introducing this bill, the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020. This bill is a companion bill to the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020. That bill extends the maximum licence terms for apparatus licences (including receiver licences) and spectrum licences to 20 years. As a consequence of those amendments, this bill seeks to align some of the arrangements for the payments licensees make for the value of the spectrum that they use under their licences. The arrangements for spectrum licences include paying a spectrum access charge at a time specified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. By comparison, the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act 1983 provides the licensees of a receiver licence of more than 12 months duration with a choice in when tax is imposed—either a full amount on their licence being issued or annual instalments. Recognising that long-term, high-value receiver licences would become more available under the government's reforms, the amendments in this bill will enable ACMA to determine whether the holder of specified classes of receiver licences pay tax upfront or in annual instalments. This will include ACMA being able to specify that all licences for a particular use or of a particular duration need to pay upfront, consistent with general practice for spectrum licences, to avoid causing a distortion in the demand for different licence types. These amendments will only apply to licences issued after commencement, and will not make changes to how the amount of tax that licensees pay for their licence will be calculated. The amendments in this bill will support the reforms of spectrum management proposed by the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, which are designed to provide a more flexible regulatory framework to support the adoption of new technologies. Debate adjourned. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020 13

Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

First Reading 13 Second Reading 13 10:20 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to be introducing this supporting bill, the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020, as part of the government's spectrum management reforms. This bill is a companion bill to the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020. That bill extends the maximum licence terms for apparatus licences (including transmitter licences) and spectrum licences to 20 years. As a consequence of those amendments, this bill seeks to align some of the arrangements for the payments licensees make for the value of the spectrum that they use under their licences. The Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act 1983 provides the licensees of a transmitter licence of more than 12 months duration with a choice in whether tax is imposed as a full amount on their licence being issued, or as annual instalment payments. In comparison, the arrangements for spectrum licensees include paying a spectrum access charge at a time specified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Recognising that long-term, high-value transmitter licences would become more available under the government's spectrum management reforms, the amendments in this bill will enable ACMA to determine whether the holder of specified classes of transmitter licences pay tax upfront or in annual instalments. This will include ACMA being able to specify that all licences for a particular use or of a particular duration need to pay upfront, consistent with general practice for spectrum licences, to avoid causing a distortion in the demand for different licence types. These amendments will only apply to licences issued after commencement, and will not make changes to how the amount of tax that licensees pay for their licence will be calculated. The amendments in this bill will support the reforms of spectrum management proposed by the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, to provide for a more flexible framework for a longer-term investment horizon. Debate adjourned. Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 14

Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020

First Reading 14 Second Reading 14 10:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today is the first legislative milestone in our 'technology, not taxes' approach to reducing emissions while we keep the economy strong and support job creation. Today marks the next step in the establishment of the Morrison government's landmark $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund. The fund will help Australian households and businesses to access the affordable, reliable energy we all rely on. It will support private investment in new energy generation and transmission construction projects. This will not only create new job opportunities for local communities but will help keep the lights on across the grid and drive prices down. Of course, my priority as Minister for Energy and Emissions Reductions has been to lower prices as we bring down emissions. Today, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020we are committing $1 billion to delivering this priority. We are already seeing results. Annual wholesale energy prices across eastern Australia are continuing to fall, with 12 months of reductions in wholesale prices. In 2019 we saw for the first time a record four consecutive quarters of CPI price reductions. We understand how important price reductions are for Australian families and businesses, particularly during COVID-19. Wholesale energy prices make up around 30 per cent of residential energy bills and even more for businesses. Cheaper energy bills reduce the financial pressure on families and help businesses create the jobs Australia needs as we rebuild following the pandemic. This bill will amend the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 to establish the Grid Reliability Fund. The fund will encourage private investment in the generation, energy storage and transmission projects needed to balance the grid and deliver affordable power. The new fund will not divert the CEFC's existing $10 billion allocation and will not change the CEFC's ability to make its own individual investment decisions. The fund will benefit energy market participants by providing a trusted counterparty to investments, allowing the CEFC to support private sector involvement. The government has consulted with the CEFC and other relevant agencies on the implementation of these amendments. Once this bill is passed, the operational parameters of the fund will be settled and prescribed in a new investment mandate. While there is no shortage of investment in clean energy, the government has identified a lack of investment in the dispatchable generation needed to balance increasing intermittent generation. The additional funding will enable investment in: Energy storage projects, such as pumped hydro and batteries Electricity generation, transmission and distribution; and Grid stabilising technologies. Gas projects, which the CEFC can already invest in, including new gas-fired generation will be included in the fund when a project supports the achievement of low-emissions energy systems. Battery technologies are intended to be eligible, regardless of how they source electricity. Low-emission technologies under the CEFC Act would not extend to coal-fired generation. The fund will also support eligible projects shortlisted under the Underwriting New Generation Investments program, in line with the CEFC's investment mandate. The UNGI program will deliver new reliable generation into the market, putting downward pressure on prices. The upgrades to the infrastructure and transmission lines will unlock more power and underpin reliability as ageing generators exit the system. This will not only increase energy market competition and supply but also improve reliability by increasing the level of firm capacity in the system. Under this bill, the CEFC will be able to make investments to maximise the benefits for the taxpayer, the reliability of the grid and for emissions reduction as we bring prices down. By boosting grid reliability investments, we will be better able to support our growing renewable capacity. Last year, 2019, was a record year for new renewable capacity installed in Australia. The Clean Energy Regulator reports that 6.3 gigawatts of new renewable capacity, both large and small scale, was installed in 2019. This is 24 per cent above the previous record of 5.1 gigawatts installed in 2018. The CER advise we will see similar levels of investment this calendar year. Australia is a world leader in the uptake of rooftop solar, with almost one in four Australians now having a solar system on their roof. The rooftop solar sector is delivering increased capacity of 33 per cent year on year, with the CER not detecting any slowdown due to the pandemic—indeed, quite the opposite. To ensure we can continue to be a world leader, we must back more grid reliability investments, such as flexible gas generators or significant pumped hydro projects like Snowy 2.0. The fund also supports the objectives of the Technology Investment Roadmap, part of the government's long-term emissions reduction strategy. Through pursuing a technology, not taxes, approach, we will achieve our emissions reduction targets cost effectively while maintaining our energy security and affordability. This bill represents an important next step in the Morrison government's commitment to securing our energy future and supporting long-term emissions reduction. We are proud to be introducing a bill that will create jobs and make a real difference to Australian businesses and families by keeping the lights on and power prices low. I urge members to support the passage of this bill, which will advance the technologies we need to support a low-emissions, affordable energy system in Australia. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 15

Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020

First Reading 15 Second Reading 15 10:31 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Morrison government, I'm incredibly proud to introduce this package of legislation, representing the first time ever a Commonwealth government has shown true commitment to taking on this important environment and economic policy reform. This has been a joint effort with my friend and colleague the member for Brisbane and Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management. This bill implements the agreement by all of Australia's governments to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres. It also incorporates the framework of the existing Product Stewardship Act 2011. It includes improvements to better regulate and encourage our businesses—those that design, manufacture, distribute and use products—to take greater responsibility for their environmental impacts. The ban on the exports of certain waste materials will begin with waste glass on 1 January 2021. This will be followed by: mixed plastics from 1 July 2021 whole used tyres from 1 December 2021 single resin or polymer plastics from 1 July 2022, and mixed and unsorted paper and cardboard from 1 July 2024. This bill will ensure that Australia steps up to take responsibility for our waste. The waste export ban is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our waste management and recycling sector to collect, recycle, reuse and convert waste into a resource. This reform is expected to see the Australian economy turn over an additional $3.6 billion and potentially generate $1.5 billion in economic activity over the next 20 years. The ban follows extensive consultation with industry, state and territory, and local governments. The bill reflects a fundamental change in the way we collectively address waste. From an economic perspective, from an environmental perspective and from a moral perspective it is a resource that we need to manage effectively. Waste is not just an environmental problem to solve; it is an economic opportunity to create. Together, all levels of government—Commonwealth, state and territory, as well as local government—have agreed upon the design and phasing in of the ban. And together we are equally committed to successfully introducing these reforms. This bill establishes an important framework. It enables the legislative instruments needed to bring the waste export ban to life. Rules will be in place for glass by the end of this year, and rules for other waste streams will follow in line with the agreed time frames. In advance of each material being phased in, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment will continue consulting with relevant stakeholders to ensure their views are considered in developing the legislation. The export ban relates only to unprocessed waste. The legislation sets the requirements and conditions to allow waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres to be exported when they have been processed in Australia. That onshore processing will create a raw material for export, that can be used in remanufacturing overseas. Businesses exporting processed waste materials will need to apply for a licence. The government is designing an online licensing and declaration platform to streamline processing times and enhance compliance and intelligence sharing. We are working with Australian Border Force to connect our platform to their Integrated Cargo System. The legislation takes a stepped, targeted and measured approach to compliance and enforcement. Infringement notices will be issued for less serious offences, while serious enforcement measures may include civil penalties and criminal offences. A person may be subject to a criminal offence or liable to a civil penalty if they: export regulated waste material in contravention of the bill or breach the conditions of their licence; or make false or misleading claims about exported regulated waste material. If proven, penalties include imprisonment of up to five years or fines of up to $133,000 for an individual, depending on the breach. A company could be fined up to $666,000. Product stewardship means considering the entire life cycle of a product. To reduce waste and meet the seven ambitious national targets within the National Waste Policy Action Plan, we need manufacturers and industry to lead the product stewardship charge. They must genuinely consider their product through the 'life after use' lens—from design and materials used, through to recycling, remanufacturing and disposal. On 9 July 2020, the government released the Review of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and supported all 26 recommendations to improve product stewardship outcomes. A number of these recommendations will be taken forward with this legislation. We will also strengthen the minister's priority list by adding clear time frames, recommended actions, and by increasing transparency around listed products. This bill provides the incentive for industries to act and to demonstrate leadership but it also sends a clear signal that the time to show that leadership is now. Those industries that do not step up and do not take part can assume that the government will step in for them, and enforce its own regulatory scheme. For voluntary schemes, we are making changes to improve the cost-benefit outcomes of accreditation. We will significantly reduce the costs, and environmental impacts, through streamlined accreditation processes that are industry led. We will create a new logo for accredited voluntary schemes to help foster 'the product stewardship brand' in the Australian conversation, and foster our values and purchasing habits. The product stewardship reforms will encourage companies to accredit voluntary product stewardship, adopt innovative practices, and use the logo to market their credentials to the growing number of consumers who are seeking out sustainable products. In addition, the government will make an annual statement in parliament. This will celebrate our accredited voluntary product stewardship schemes and their member organisations who are delivering great outcomes for their industries and the environment. Equally, this will be an opportunity to call out those who are letting consumers and their own industry down by not participating where an accredited scheme is available. The legislation I am introducing today is only part of the new measures and the unprecedented level of industry investment the government is making to transform our recycling industry and help Australia transition to a truly circular economy. A circular economy is one where we can trust that the products we use today can at the end of their life add value to the products we will buy tomorrow and that when we buy those products in the future that they will not be creating the same drain on our natural resources and they will not be adding to the mountains of waste in landfills, oceans and the natural environments. Call it a circular economy, call it a buyback economy, call it maximising resources—or just call it doing the right thing. The government has made targeted investments to build a stronger Australian recycling industry and create more jobs. We have introduced a number of complementary measures to support the objectives of this bill. They include: $190 million for a new Recycling Modernisation Fund. This fund will leverage $600 million of recycling infrastructure re-investment, create more than 10,000 jobs and divert more than 10 million tonnes of waste from landfill to make useful products when combined with activity from the National Waste Policy Action Plan. $20 million for the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund to grow new and existing schemes. This will contribute to meeting our national target of recovering 80 per cent of our waste resources by 2030. $35 million to implement Commonwealth commitments under Australia's National Waste Policy Action Plan. This sets the direction for waste management policy and recycling in Australia until 2030. $24.6 million for Commonwealth commitments to improve our national waste data so it can measure recycling outcomes and track progress against our national waste targets. $20 million through a special round of the cooperative research centres projects to find new and innovative solutions to plastic recycling and waste, including new ways of incorporating recycled plastics in manufacturing and construction. We are also strengthening the Commonwealth procurement guidelines to enable any procurement undertaken by a Commonwealth agency to consider environmental sustainability and the use of recycled content when determining value for money. By using our purchasing power, we can generate demand and encourage innovation. And we are working with the states and territories to develop national standards and specifications for the use of recycled content in a broad range of capital works projects. Australians care deeply about recycling, and they want to be confident that when they put things in their recycling bin, or deliver them to a collection centre, they will be repurposed effectively, and not dumped in landfill or simply sent overseas. With the export bans in place the items placed in our kerbside recycling bins will be re-used in roads, carpets, building materials and a range of other essential uses. At the same time, we need to stop throwing away tonnes of electronic waste and batteries each year and develop new product stewardship schemes to recycle valuable resources from the waste generated from these products. We are setting clear expectations about the need to take responsibility for our waste, we are regulating, we are expanding the capacity of industry, we are investing in new ideas and new technologies and we are expanding markets for recycled products. The reforms will grow our economy and our future prosperity and will ensure the sustainable use of our resources for future generations. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 18

Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

First Reading 18 Second Reading 18 10:43 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 is a companion bill to the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. It will facilitate the smooth transition of the existing provisions of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 into the new legislative framework. This bill provides for the repeal of the Product Stewardship Act 2011to make way for the improved regulation of product stewardship within the framework of theRecycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. This consequential and transitional provisions bill will do this by ensuring that arrangements to manage waste are transitioned appropriately, without disruption to industry or to the public. Schedule 1 of this bill repeals the whole of the Product Stewardship Act, which will be replicated by chapter 3 of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill, with a number of improvements following the outcomes of the Product Stewardship Act review. Chapter 3 of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill will establish a new framework for voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship to enable Australia to more effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products and a broader range of materials. Schedules 2 and 3 of this bill will provide for the continuation of existing accredited voluntary and co-regulatory arrangements, for example, the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. It will ensure that administrators of approved arrangements may continue their operations and do not have to re-apply for approval when the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill commences. Additionally, this bill will provide that the existing product stewardship regulations for the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme, as in force immediately before the repeal of the Product Stewardship Act, will continue to have effect for the current financial year. National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme administrators are already in the process of setting their outcomes, recycling targets and other obligations in respect of the 2020-21 financial year. This bill will ensure no disruption is caused due to the repeal of the Product Stewardship Act and commencement of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 18

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

First Reading 18 Second Reading 18 10:46 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The waste export ban will commence with the regulation of waste glass exports from 1 January 2021. This will be followed by mixed plastics from 1 July 2021, whole used tyres from 1 December 2021, single polymer plastics from 1 July 2022, and mixed and unsorted paper and cardboard from 1 July 2024. Establishing and maintaining a robust system for implementing the waste export ban will come at a cost. The government therefore proposes to charge regulated businesses for the effective administration of this scheme. Appropriate cost recovery encourages the efficient use of government services. It also allows public scrutiny of the costs of government activities. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 is the first of three bills that provide an appropriate cost recovery mechanism for activities associated with regulating the export of certain waste materials. Specifically, the bill will enable the recovery of costs associated with program management and administration, verification, and risk and compliance activities for the waste export ban. This bill will sit alongside the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 that allows the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to apply fees that recover the department's costs of those activities provided directly to relevant businesses—activities such as processing export licence applications. The bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in regulations. The Australian government will undertake a comprehensive consultation process with affected businesses, in developing a cost recovery implementation statement, before imposing any fees and charges. In accordance with the Australian Government Charging Framework, this bill ensures the Minister for the Environment is satisfied that the amount charged will not be more than the likely cost of delivering this activity. This will provide affected businesses with confidence that the government will not charge more than is necessary to recover the costs of operating this scheme. Two companion bills are being introduced alongside this bill: the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, and the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020. This package of bills will ensure that transparent and fair cost recovery mechanisms are in place for administering the waste export ban. Debate adjourned. Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 19

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

First Reading 19 Second Reading 19 10:49 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 is the second of three bills being introduced to form the waste export ban charging legislative package. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of customs. The key provisions of the bill mirror those in the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 and have the same operative function and effect. The bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts. The amounts recovered by the charges, and the persons liable or exempt from paying them, will be set in regulations made under this bill. Debate adjourned. Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 19

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Bill presented by Ms Ley.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading 19 10:51 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 is the final bill being introduced to form the waste export ban charging legislative package. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of excise. The key provisions of the bill mirror those in the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 and have the same operative function and effect. The bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts. The amounts recovered by charges, and the persons liable or exempt from paying them, will be set in regulations made under this bill. Debate adjourned. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 20

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020

First Reading 20 Second Reading 20 10:53 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is Australia's central piece of environmental law governing environmental approvals, threatened species conservation, the wildlife trade and world and national heritage protection. The Morrison government is committed to modernising Australia's environmental law so that it is fit to address future incremental and economic challenges. The EPBC Act is now 20 years old, and it has never been more important to ensure it provides the right protection for our environment while also supporting our economy and the livelihoods of everyday Australians. This bill is the first tranche of EPBC Act reforms linked to the independent statutory review of the act, which is only the second 10-yearly review since the act commenced in 1999. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 demonstrates the government's commitment to lead in terms of jobs, investment growth and certainty and transparency when it comes to environmental assessments and approvals. The bill streamlines environmental approvals under the EPBC Act 1999by removing duplication with state and territory processes. It does this by ensuring the legally robust devolution of environmental approvals to the states and territories. These reforms are the first step towards implementing the national cabinet decision of 24 July 2020 where all states and territories agreed in principle to adopt reforms to move towards a single-touch approach to environmental approvals. Bilateral agreements will be underpinned by strong Commonwealth-led national environmental standards. The interaction between Commonwealth and state and territory environmental laws leads to duplication in approval processes. It adds unnecessary regulatory burden which delays job-creating projects and impedes economic activity and creates uncertainty around environmental protections. The original design of the EPBC Act envisaged the use of approval bilateral agreements to foster greater cooperation in environmental approvals between the Commonwealth, states and territories. I have issued notices of intent under the EPBC Act and the government is currently working with all states and territories to enter into approval bilateral agreements to deliver a single-touch approval system. Once in effect, states and territories will be able to make approval decisions that account for both state matters and matters of national environmental significance at the Commonwealth level. The reforms put forward today provide for the efficient and enduring operation of approval bilateral agreements. The amendments set out in the bill will ensure there is no unnecessary duplication, by putting beyond doubt that an action that is covered by an approval bilateral agreement is not required to be referred under the EPBC Act. Approval bilateral agreements will enable the Commonwealth to 'call-in' an action for approval in appropriate circumstances, including where adequate environmental protection is not being achieved. If this occurs, or if a bilateral agreement is suspended or cancelled, the amendments ensure that projects can be picked up from where they left off. This provides a clear pathway for approval processes and means projects do not have to be sent back to the starting line. Other amendments in the bill provide greater flexibility in the type of state and territory environmental approval processes that can be accredited. This recognises states and territories have set up their systems to best reflect their individual circumstances. In addition, the amendments will facilitate the continuous improvement of state and territory processes, ensuring that those processes can be updated to reflect the latest science and best practice approaches to environmental management. Today we are taking a major step forward. This is the first tranche of EPBC reform, but there is more important work to be done. Professor Graeme Samuel is consulting on his interim report and will deliver his final recommendations to government in October on how we can improve the effectiveness of the act across the wide range of areas that it regulates. The result for the community from this bill will be a more streamlined and clear process than what currently exists, providing greater certainty around environmental protections. People want to know we have clear safeguards for protecting the environment. Business wants to know the parameters in which it can responsibly operate and government needs to be reassured it is managing an efficient process of environmental checks and balances for future generations. These reforms will unlock job-creating projects that will strengthen the economy and aid our COVID-19 economic recovery without compromising Australia's unique environment. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. TARIFF PROPOSALS 21 TARIFF PROPOSALS Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2020 21 10:58 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2020. In May, I tabled the customs tariff proposal that established concessional tariff treatment and simplified the import process for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of critical medical and hygiene products needed to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The concessional treatment ended on 31 July 2020. The Morrison government is committed to ensuring that our communities continue to have access to the essential medical and hygiene equipment needed to treat, diagnose and prevent the spread of coronavirus. As such, the customs tariff proposal that I've just tabled, effective from 1 August 2020, extends this concessional treatment until 31 December 2020, in recognition of the ongoing need for these vital goods. This is achieved by inserting a new concession item, item 57A, into the Customs Tariff Act 1995. This new concessional item operates in the same way as the previous concession. It applies to the same range of goods, including masks, gloves, face shields, gowns, goggles, test kits, certain disinfectants and soap. It applies regardless of where the goods are made. This customs tariff proposal is a targeted and proportionate measure to support Australia's ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. By extending this concession until 31 December 2020, the government is helping to ensure that Australians can continue to secure supplies of these essential goods. Can I give a huge thankyou, on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian people, to our medical professionals. In my electorate of La Trobe, I have the Casey Hospital and the St John of God hospital. This message is to all those in the hospital and medical response areas, especially those dealing with suspected and actual COVID-19 cases. You are putting yourself on the front line. We cannot thank you enough. To all our early education and childcare workers: again, thank you so much. And to our law enforcement: you are doing an incredible job on the front line. Again, on behalf of all members of parliament, I thank those health workers. We're very passionate about ensuring that we continue to provide the most support we can through tariffs assistance when it comes to protective equipment for you. Again, on behalf of the public, we thank you so much. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 21 Membership 21 11:02 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Dr Leigh to be a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in place of Ms Payne. 11:02 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer by leave—I move: That Ms Payne be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in her place, Dr Leigh be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. Human Rights Committee 21 Report 21 11:03 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report: report 8 of 2020; Human rights scrutiny report: report 9 of 2020, incorporating a dissenting report; Human rights scrutiny report: report 10 of 2020; and the annual report 2019. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—I'm pleased to table the eighth, ninth and 10th human rights scrutiny reports of 2020 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as the committee's 2019 annual report. The committee's reports contain a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In these three scrutiny reports, the committee has considered 18 new bills and 272 instruments and commented on 16 bills and instruments, including legislation previously commented on. During this COVID-19 pandemic, the committee has continued to meet regularly via teleconference so that it can fulfil its important role in scrutinising legislation. These reports include the committee's consideration of several COVID-19 related bills and instruments. For example, the committee corresponded with the Minister for Health in relation to the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. In Report 8 of 2020 the committee concluded that the bill, which established privacy protection for users of the COVIDSafe app, constituted a proportionate limit on the right to privacy, noting, in particular, the number of useful safeguards to protect data associated with app users. The committee also recommended a small number of targeted amendments to further improve these privacy protections. These reports also continue the committee's important scrutiny function in relation to non-COVID-19-related legislation. For example, the committee's Report 9 of 2020 sets out the committee's extensive consideration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020. This bill seeks to amend ASIO's compulsory questioning powers. This raises some complex human rights law issues. The committee sought a considerable amount of information from the minister in order to inform its consideration and thanks the minister for the detailed response which he provided. The committee considered that these powers seek to achieve the vitally legitimate objective of ensuring ASIO can gather information in relation to national security to keep Australia safe. The committee notes the minister's extensive advice as to the safeguards present in relation to a number of these measures which help protect human rights. However, in some instances, the committee considers, as drafted, there are questions as to whether such safeguards are sufficient such that the measures would in all instances constitute a proportionate limit on rights. The committee's report includes a number of recommendations and potential amendments to the bill which would assist the proportionality of specific measures with respect to human rights. In addition, Report 9 of 2020 sets out the committee's consideration of the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020. This bill will amend the Migration Act to allow the minister to determine that a thing is a prohibited thing in immigration detention, and amend search and seizure powers in those facilities. As the report sets out, these proposed amendments are designed to ensure that the Department of Home Affairs can provide a safe and secure environment for staff, detainees and visitors in immigration detention centres, which likely promotes the right to security of the person. The proposed measures also appear to engage other human rights, but the limitation on rights may be permissible if demonstrated to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. In this respect, the committee noted that the bill is intended to address the concerning issue of mobile phones and other internet-capable devices being used to coordinate and facilitate escape efforts, organise criminal activities and facilitate the movement of drugs and other contraband within detention facilities. The committee found that the measures in the bill which remedy this current position are vital to the safety and lawful operation of detention centres. The committee thanks the minister for his detailed response, which greatly assisted the committee's consideration of these measures. The committee has suggested some targeted recommendations to assist in the proportionality of the search and seizure measures with respect to human rights. Lastly, the committee's annual report 2019 covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019 and details the significant volume of work the committee undertook during this time. During 2019 the committee tabled six scrutiny reports examining a total of 213 bills and 1,385 legislative instruments. The committee commented on 86 of these bills and instruments, including requesting additional information in relation to 26 bills and nine legislative instruments. The annual report also sets out the major themes identified in 2019 and outlines the committee's continued impact. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis in these three reports and the overarching work of the committee as set out in the annual report. With these comments, I commend the reports to the chamber. 11:09 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—As Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I wish to speak to the committee's Human rights scrutiny report: report 9 of 2020. In this report, half of this previously well-functioning committee has issued dissenting remarks with respect to the committee's conclusions on two significant pieces of legislation: the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 and the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020. I wish to remind members that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has a specific legislative scrutiny function—that is, to inform both houses of parliament as to the compatibility of proposed and existing Australian legislation with international human rights law and precedent. It has been established to contribute meaningfully to the consideration of human rights by the parliament. To achieve this, committee members consider expert legal advice as to the application of international human rights law. The committee does not rubberstamp this advice. Rather, committee members seek to scrutinise and consider that advice and then form their own opinions as to the weight of those conclusions and recommendations. Indeed, there is typically scope for differences of opinion regarding complex legal matters. However, the dissenting members consider that, just as the legal advice to the committee must be evidence based and well reasoned, any substantial deviation from or rejection of the legal advice as to the compatibility of a measure with international human rights law likewise requires a persuasive foundation and must be based on convincing evidence. With respect to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020, the majority committee report failed in a number of instances to explain how measures are compatible with human rights and ignored the expert international human rights law advice provided to the committee. In our dissenting comments, Labor and Greens members make a number of recommendations to amend the bill in order to improve its human rights compatibility, including with respect to the rights of children and persons with disability. For example, dissenting members consider that the minister has not established that there is evidence of a pressing and substantial need to expand the compulsory questioning regime to children as young as 14 and has not demonstrated that the measure would ensure the best interests of the child are considered as a primary consideration. Dissenting members have made a number of recommendations to bolster protection for any child being questioned under this scheme, along with numerous other recommendations to better protect human rights. In addition, the dissenting members disagree with the majority report relating to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020. That gives the minister the power to prohibit any thing in an immigration detention facility, such as mobile phones. The majority report considers that this is a proportionate limit on human rights. There is no limit in the proposed legislation that would ensure that only detainees who pose a risk to security would be prohibited from possessing such things. The dissenting members consider there is a significant risk that this power could be exercised in a manner which is not compatible with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression and the right of detainees not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their families. Accordingly, dissenting members recommend, among other things, that the proposed measures be constrained to provide that items can be prohibited only when possessed by a detainee who, it can reasonably be demonstrated, would pose a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility or to the order of the facility if they possess such a thing. In closing, I note that in the first seven years of this committee's life, between 2012 and mid-2019, just four dissenting reports were ever issued, and those dissenting reports were made by a small number of individual members who disagreed with the committee's approach of listening to the expert international human rights law advice. By contrast, in just the past nine months, four dissenting reports have now been issued by half of the committee where the committee majority has rejected or deviated from the legal advice to the committee without a persuasive foundation. This is a concerning trend. I strongly encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the dissenting report that's accompanying the committee's Human rights scrutiny report: report 9 of 2020. BILLS 23 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 23

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020

Second Reading 23 11:15 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 11:15 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. Superannuation is one of the reforms that have made our country's social security system the envy of the entire world. Universal superannuation, created by Labor, is a national achievement which sits alongside Medicare and the NDIS. It's made our nation stronger and our society fairer, and super is critical to creating jobs and growth in the recovery. The $3 trillion pool of super savings not only creates a retirement nest egg for Australians; it is being invested in infrastructure and businesses which are generating wealth and creating jobs. Labor are proud of our superannuation system and we will fight to defend it. Our superannuation system needs to be strengthened and protected at this time, not undermined. Now, more than ever, Australians are relying on the government to do the right thing and keep their promise to raise Australian super payments, not cut them. But, if Australians listened to the histrionics in this very chamber from government members this week, they could be forgiven for thinking that super is an ideological weapon serving the nefarious ends of 'reds under the bed', trying to destroy Australian values and society from within. I'm not specifically referring to the member for Goldstein's spirited denunciation of socialism whilst he was speaking on this bill, though it was another excellent demonstration of the lather into which the government typically whips itself over superannuation. But for the record—and I've always said this—I do believe that he is still the undisputed greatest thespian in this House of Representatives! Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I digress a little bit, but I think it's worth pointing out that he is the greatest thespian. The government are big on theatre, but I think, instead of giving us drooling ideological meltdowns to cover up backflipping on a promise to the Australian people, they should honour their promise to grow the super on which Australians rely in retirement. The government's instinctive reaction to attack super is just as irrational as their ideological fixation on cutting the ABC or privatising the Public Service. It has become an article of faith, and a bad one, rather than a considered policy in the national interest. Surely, I would have thought, we could all agree in this place on the general principle that no-one deserves to be left behind in retirement. But too many Australians will retire without enough. No-one should be forced to work into their 70s. Is that such a threatening proposition for the members opposite? Is that idea really worth the government's coordinated attacks to undermine super—to force 2.5 million Australians to raid their retirement savings just to get through this COVID crisis? Those opposite are using COVID-19 as an excuse to cut Australian super. If they do that, there will be fewer funds to make the investments needed to create jobs and drive growth to boost the economic recovery. As the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, has rightly pointed out: So much of the noise going on about superannuation at the moment comes from politicians who get 15% super themselves, but don't support superannuation for others and want to knock it off. What we've seen in the crisis is the government use super to subsidise its own package—making Australians pay with their own savings for the stimulus measures the government announced to the sound of trumpets and relentless press releases—without even blushing. I don't pretend to know or even understand why the government and the members opposite make super such an ideological obsession. I don't think I'll ever grasp the world view that sees security and comfort in retirement for all Australians as a threat to the Liberal Party. But what I do know is how successful super has been and how at risk it is from a government which, having robbed the proverbial Peter to pay Paul, now comes back not with thanks and praise but with inexplicable vengeance in mind. This is after super has basically underwritten the government's privatised stimulus package, after we've seen an aggregate loss of savings for Australians under the age of 35 of more than $44 billion and after a loss of savings in all age groups of over $100 billion. You'd think the government would celebrate super at a time like this, rather than demonising and cutting it. And now the PM and Senator Jane Hume close in with scalpel in hand to cut super. Just like Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, they're promising this will improve wages for workers. It wasn't true last time and it won't be true this time. Cutting super is a pay cut, pure and simple. I'd like to introduce some basic figures about the national and local scale of the challenge we're facing. This is important because, without a factual basis to our debate, this august House would risk becoming nothing but an echo chamber of contending ideological trims and narrow political self-interest. The size and scale of super is easily seen in these 10 key facts. One: there are over 15 million members of Australia's super system. Two: over 80 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 54 hold a super account. Three: the superannuation system collectively manages over $2.8 trillion in assets. Four: this is more than 140 per cent of our GDP. Five: this will grow to around $10 trillion in assets by 2040. Six: 60 per cent of all Australians have a super account, compared to 25 per cent who watch the grand final, 44 per cent who read a book each year and 49 per cent who are in the labour force; 60 per cent of all Australians have a superannuation account. Seven: super has helped Australia to invest in its own infrastructure, agriculture, resources and companies, without which foreign investment would have shipped even more profits overseas. Eight: the current average balance at retirement is $157,000 for women—and we must do better—and $270,000 for men. Nine: the median balance at retirement will be more than $300,000 for women and $600,000 for men. Ten: cutting super will make things worse for women in our nation. Twenty-three per cent of women in the 60 to 64 age group have no superannuation. Forty per cent of older, single, retired women live in poverty and experience economic insecurity in retirement, and this is a national shame. This is what we risk losing. We need to take action. This is a super system we have built up over decades, ransacked by an ungrateful government to pay for its own stimulus with Australians' savings. Then there's another cut, breaking an election promise. Where I am from, in the Northern Territory, the role of super is shoring up the government's stimulus, once again relying on people's saving. And it's very large and likely to be long lasting. As of 2 August, 48,000 Territorians, or one in every four NT workers, had taken a combined $347 million out of their super funds as part of the government's early access scheme. Official government data found the NT had one of the highest rates of early super access in the country. According to the NT News, an estimated 6,773 Territorians completely emptied their accounts, while 48,284 people applied to draw up to $20,000 across two rounds. APRA figures released this week show that for the first time since compulsory superannuation was introduced three decades ago quarterly net contributions to super accounts were negative. This new record makes the long-promised, legislated and overdue superannuation guarantee increase more important, not less. Instead, the government wants to renege on a promise and revert to standard Liberal form of cut, cut, cut, even though it was the Morrison government's own lack of a plan for jobs in the recovery that forced millions of anxious Australians to raid billions of dollars in their retirement savings, even though it was the same irresponsible government that used the cover of the COVID-19 crisis to try to achieve a longstanding Liberal ideological fixation on gutting our superannuation and even though superannuation injected more money into the economy than any single one of the government's stimulus responses. Still, they now want to cut super, which, when they're not cutting the ABC or the Public Service, is red meat for the base. This is just business as usual for the Liberals, who have opposed every single dollar that has been put into a super account since 1993. Superannuation is going to be critical to the economic recovery, with its $3 trillion pool of funds key to investing in infrastructure and business, providing much-needed stimulus and jobs for the Australian economy. It's going to be essential. So now more than ever Australians need the legislated increase in the super guarantee to help build their retirement balances. In its own words, the government has described itself as ambivalent on superannuation and retirement outcomes, but ambivalence isn't leadership. Labor is not ambivalent on super. We are committed to helping every Australian enjoy a dignified retirement, by sticking to the legislated super increase. Labor created our world-class super system and will always fight to protect it. I have been speaking with many people in my electorate. As they made the decision to raid their super they were fairly anxious about it, but they saw it as their only hope. They like many other Territorians fell outside the federal government stimulus measures. They were left behind, to a great extent. The fact that people like international students and foreign temporary workers weren't included initially was a disgrace. We tax them heavily as they go to leave the country, letting them use those funds to support themselves was absolutely the right thing to do. It is unfortunate that so many Australians have felt the need to raid their retirement incomes. I feel for them, and we on this side will always fight for them to help them rebuild their superannuation accounts so that they can have those funds in their retirement, as they should have. 11:28 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It's the first time I've spoken in the parliament from here in my office in Clayton. It's quite serendipitous, I think, that part of the title of the bill that I'm contributing to is the word 'flexible'. I will use this opportunity, through you, Deputy Speaker Bird, to thank the Speaker's office for the role that was played by that office in making sure that we've got this opportunity to contribute to the remote parliament. The rules that the ACT government put in place for us to be able to attend Canberra really counted out a lot of people who represent communities and also have significant caring responsibilities, but it is so important to me that I be able to continue to speak for the people I represent in Hotham, so it's great to have this opportunity to make a contribution remotely. I am also really glad to have the chance to speak a little bit about superannuation in the debate today. The bill that is before the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020, is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. It essentially aligns the super system with the increase to the pension age that was made several years ago. So it is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, and Labor is going to support its passage through the parliament. There is not a lot to debate in the bill before the House, but I do want to spend a little bit of time speaking to the second reading amendment that was moved by the member for Whitlam. We are here today passing a bill that will make it more possible for people who are nearing their retirement age to make concessional contributions into their superannuation. What we should be doing is having a much bigger and much broader debate about the dangerous attacks that are underway at the moment on our superannuation—in particular, by a group of Liberals who are sitting on the back bench at the moment. It is not just a debate here about superannuation, because when we look at all of the things that are critical to Australians as they come into those later years of their lives, whether it is our aged-care system, our pension system or our superannuation system, we see that these three pillars of our retirement system are under significant attack at the moment by the Liberals, and that really needs to be called out by the parliament today. Superannuation is one of the most practical, innovative, beneficial policies that I believe has ever been passed by this parliament. It's certainly up there with Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme in terms of Australian policies that are looked at with great envy, I have to say, by public policymakers around the world. I think all Australians who are listening today would be well aware that we face a very quickly ageing population. Between 2013, when I joined the parliament, and 2040, the number of Australians over the age of 65 is going to double and the number of Australians over the age of 85 is going to treble. It is very clear that, if all of these people end up on the age pension, it is going to be a responsibility that can't be effectively paid for by the share of people who are in work, which gets smaller as the share of people who are in retirement gets larger. We in the parliament get criticised a lot for many things, and I am, of course, very supportive of the democratic system that facilitates that. But one of the things we get criticised a lot for is that the parliament doesn't make enough decisions that are for the really long term in thinking about the problems that are in the decades ahead. We also get criticised a lot because there is not enough collaboration on public policy. Superannuation is probably the best recent example we have of a government doing exactly those things. It saw a problem many decades ahead and it brought together unions, employees and employers, and the government as the representative of all of these groups, and it actually solved the problem. It said that we want to make sure that Australians have dignity in retirement, that they are able to live a good-quality life in their later years, and we are going to create a new system that enables them to do that. This is something we should be really proud of. It is one of those special exceptions. What have been the impacts of this policy so far? I think they have been pretty outstanding. One of the first things to say is that literally millions of Australians have retired in greater comfort than they otherwise would have, because of the superannuation system, and millions more will follow. We are here, literally, to improve the quality of life of the people that we represent, and superannuation is one of the main ways that we are doing that today as a parliament. I don't want the important economic benefits that superannuation has brought to our country to get lost in this debate. We are now the 14th largest economy in the world. We have the 55th largest population of all the countries in the world. But because of superannuation we have the fourth largest reserve of capital in retirement savings that can be used to promote growth in our economy. An enormous amount of money has been amassed—$3 trillion so far. I think it is set to be $10 trillion by the end of this decade. This is an extraordinary amount of money, which is being used to do good across all of our country. One of the best things about our superannuation system is that, in other countries in the world, it is rich people who own shares and it is rich people who get to participate in investing in things like ports, railways and important pieces of infrastructure—but not in Australia. Because of superannuation, we have created a situation where almost every Australian who is an adult actually owns shares. This is something that is very much the domain of the privileged in other parts of the world. So this is a policy that's delivered enormous benefits already to our system. That's pretty obvious, I think, to most of the people that I represent, who are genuinely non-partisan watchers of public policy, except if you are an ideology filled Liberal who, instead of all of the benefits that I've talked about, sees some weird communist threat. I genuinely do not understand where this kind of weird suspicion and paranoia has come from. I'm sure there's a Reddit thread out there with a list of all the ways that superannuation is apparently doing damage to our country, but I genuinely don't understand it when there are so many benefits that are pretty clear. For ideological reasons, the Liberals have opposed superannuation as a concept from its very beginning. They have opposed every single increase that has gone into superannuation, and this attempt that we believe will come to delay the superannuation increases that are due to Australians starting next year is quite consistent with the history of how the Liberals have approached this subject. For the rest of Australia, COVID is an opportunity for us to bring the country together and to really deliver on some core national goals, but not so for this group of Liberal backbenchers, who instead see essentially a political opportunity to trash a system that they have long had under the gun. So let's just have a look at some of the things that have happened so far. First, there was the early-drawdown scheme. There is no question in the minds of any Labor politician that superannuation belongs to the account holder—no question about that. We have existing hardship provisions that are built into the system to enable people who are in severe financial distress to draw down on their superannuation, as they should be allowed to do. Everyone supports that system. But what the government did instead was to throw out the rulebook when it comes to who can draw down on super. This was basically a scheme that faced no probity whatsoever, and they created a situation where for many Australians that was their only choice. They created a set of policies—JobKeeper and JobSeeker. We were supportive of the big pieces of those policies, but they left a lot of people behind. Think about casual workers, who are probably the biggest example here. We have a higher share of casuals in our workforce than we've ever had in Australian history, yet many, many casuals were left out of having any financial support. So what were these people meant to do? Basically, a situation was created where we had a completely unforeseeable crisis, there was a set of policies in which they didn't have any way to get financial help when they needed it, and then the government created an easy pathway for them to access savings that have been put there and stored away for their retirement. So of course what we've seen is a situation where low-income Australians have had to ransack their retirement savings in order to stay afloat during this difficult period. I was elected to this parliament with an obligation to try to improve the quality of life for the people that I represent. If I were a Liberal, today I would be hanging my head in shame, because what they have facilitated is a reduced standard of living for many, many Australians in the decades to come. We know that, if a young person drew down the full $20,000 from their retirement savings, they might be $100,000 worse off in their retirement than they would otherwise be. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the government created a situation where that was the only opportunity that people had to keep their heads above water. But we know why they did it. They did it because they don't believe in superannuation. They don't believe that we should create a system that assists people to have a good quality of life in their retirement. So that is the early-drawdown scheme. Now we're hearing this steady drumbeat from the other side of the House about how we should forgo a scheduled superannuation increase. I want to talk about some of the arguments for this. Just to back up a little bit, 9.5 per cent of people's earnings is put aside as superannuation for them to keep for their savings. We've always had an aspiration to get to 12 per cent, which is just going to make sure that more people have enough superannuation to live off or that, if they don't have enough superannuation to live off and are going to use part of the pension, they have a better standard of living in retirement, because that is what we're here for: to improve the wellbeing of the people that we represent. What the Liberals are going to argue is that there's a trade-off, essentially, between the increase that you might be able to negotiate at work for wages and the increase that you'll get through superannuation. I just want to address this argument today, because if we were to believe that then we should be able to look back and see that the superannuation increase was deferred by Tony Abbott, so we should have seen a period of great wages growth, therefore, because essentially the Liberals would argue that you've forgone a pay increase in your super and you should see it in your salary packet. What we have just been through is a period of horrifically stagnant wages growth in our country. That is to say: just because people didn't get an increase in their superannuation, it did not lead to any benefit in their pay packet. So, when Liberal politicians come to Australians over the next coming months and say, 'Don't worry, we're going to defer the pay increase you'd get through super, but you'll make up for it in your wages,' I really want people to call them out on this argument, because on what planet would you have to live to think that Australian wage-earners are going to be in a great position to argue for a wage rise over the coming years? We're going to have unemployment in Australia higher than it has probably ever been in our whole history as a country. We are going to have a situation where underemployment is going to be profoundly difficult for many, many Australians. And, yet, the Liberals are going to say to people, 'Don't worry—you're going to be in a great position to argue for a wage rise.' Come on! They are just dreaming if they think that argument makes any sense at all. The truth is that, for many Australians, the legislated super increase is the best chance they are going to have to get a significant pay rise over the coming years, and Labor will fight every day to make sure that that increase goes to Australians. The other argument I want to briefly address will be the one that comes from the other side of the chamber that says, 'Don't worry—you're going to not get your pay rise through superannuation, but that's going to lead to fantastic jobs growth, because businesses will suddenly be able to afford to take on more employees.' That has got to be absolute hogwash, and I tell you why I know that: we have just had a dry run of this argument through the discussion that's happened about penalty rates. Australians who are listening in will remember that, a few years ago, the Australian government—under Tony Abbott, under Malcolm Turnbull, under Scott Morrison—stepped back while penalty rates were cut for literally hundreds of thousands of Australians. So, one week, a bunch of Australians went to work on a Saturday or a Sunday, and then they went back the next week, did exactly the same work and got paid less for it. The government allowed that to happen. The reason they allowed that to happen, so they argued, was that jobs growth would result from it. We've had the opportunity now to see penalty rates cut through, for a few cycles, and I'd encourage Australians that are interested in this to go and look at the labour force data and see that not a single job was created from that. So the federal government stood back and watched hundreds of thousands of Australians get a pay cut, for not a single job to be created from it. All that happened there was a bunch of people got less money in their pockets than they otherwise would have. And that is exactly what we are going to see if we allow this superannuation increase be delayed further for Australians. There are many other fanciful arguments being put forward. One of the particularly silly ones is that, for some reason, housing affordability will be improved by cutting the superannuation increase going forward—complete hogwash. I'll address that at another time because I am running out of time here, but I just want to leave the parliament with one thought. I come here to the parliament representing 130,000 people who have put their trust in me to make sure that I protect their living standards and, where possible, I improve their living standards into the future. The superannuation increase will do just that, and that is why Labor will consistently argue over the coming months that we need to protect Australians' quality of life in retirement and protect them against a weird ideological crusade from the Liberals that has no foundation in reality. 11:43 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I speak to you from the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nations, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I congratulate the member for Hotham on a very fine summary of the situation that working Australians are facing right now and particularly with respect to the Liberal government's handling of superannuation. As has been indicated, Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. It makes changes to the bring-forward rule for non-concessional superannuation contributions, to allow those at ages 65 and 66 to make up three years of concessional superannuation contributions. This is actually a sensible move by the government, which, to be honest, I struggled to say in all sincerity. It's a rare occasion that we can say this government is doing anything positive with respect to superannuation and, in particular, industry superannuation. This government has spent hours and hours of this House's valuable time chasing rabbits down holes, trying to attack industry superannuation. I actually half expect the member for Goldstein to rush in here at any minute and say, 'Wait, no! It's all a bad mistake.' He'll say, 'Superannuation has connections to workers' wellbeing, to workers' savings.' My God, we're giving workers the chance to save and manage capital! That can't be good. Industry super, of course, has connections to—horror of horrors—workers' representatives, trade unions. I'm going to take the opportunity here to say that trade unions represent around two million workers in this country. They are larger than any membership based organisation in Australia. Their hard-won enterprise bargain agreements, along with the awards system, cover over 60 per cent of workers in this country, protecting wages and conditions. That's a far bigger reach than the member for Goldstein's precious little IPA can claim. It's a piddling little dark evil corner of the country that produces mean-spirited men in suits trying to drag workers' conditions back to pre-industrial days of serfdom and slavery. But, in all seriousness, my point is that superannuation is a Labor legacy. It has done a power of good for this nation. It is the envy of the world with respect to retirement savings schemes—and those opposite hate it—particularly industry superannuation funds, the most trusted and highly performing financial institutions in Australia. As long as I can remember those in the Liberal Party have tried to destroy this institution. Just last week, I was watching a YouTube video of Paul Keating in this very House stand at that despatch box and speak to the legislation that set up nine per cent superannuation guarantee contributions. If you can, you should Google it. It's a fine example of Keating mastery. He had a vision for this country, one that we share—a vision for working people: one where workers could retire with twice the pension value. He spoke of how proud he was of our superannuation scheme and how it was way in advance of other countries. He spoke of it as the great reform it really was and he compared that with the coalition's mean-spirited need to—and I quote Paul Keating—'Kick working and poorer people in the teeth whenever they get the chance.' Back then, when it became apparent that the Libs couldn't stop the superannuation guarantee being legislated, they tried to tax it out of existence, trying to whack an effective tax rate of 40 per cent on super savings, making it so unattractive as to turn people away from it. How stupid do they look now. Keating described how it was one of the most important large-scale mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth between generations. In fact, can you believe it, he quoted Michael Stutchbury, when Michael was a more progressive type, who said it would remove the 'demographic tug-of-war by setting up a funded scheme'. Mr Stutchbury seems to have been seduced by the dark side of economics since then but, nevertheless, Keating went on to say that it smoothed the onus of caring for our elderly across the generations, rather than leaving it to the younger generations coming behind, especially with respect to the baby boomer generation which has resulted in a growing ageing population who will rely on a smaller, younger income-earning cohort of taxpayers. This government talk about intergenerational debt a lot and yet they want to dismantle the one institution that ensures the fairness of funding retirement costs by constantly attacking industry super. Time and time again, they come after the super funds, despite industry super being shown year after year to be the best place for workers' money to grow for retirement. Returns are the best. Just look up the top quartile funds and you'll see that most retail funds don't even put in a show. Yet, that is where this government wants workers' moneys to go, to their mates in the big banks who no-one trusts, whose practices were so bad that we needed a royal commission into their behaviour and who have hurt so many hard-working Australians living, and sadly dead, and, as we know, going after deceased person's money is not beyond them. No such behaviour was found to come from the industry funds, who sailed through the royal commission with flying colours. So why do the government want to squander workers' money and condemn them to underfunded retirements? Well, other than helping their mates at the banks, it's because unions are involved in industry funds' governance structures. I reckon that's it, really—quite pathetic. Let's look at the facts. The boards of industry super funds do have union representatives on them. I myself had the honour of being a board member of HESTA and then Cbus. It's a great honour and responsibility to be one of the custodians of members' money, because I saw every member of those funds as my members. I was head of the nurses union when I was at HESTA. A huge proportion of nurses are members of HESTA. I still am. I took every decision that I had to make knowing that I had to answer to and was accountable to my members. When I was at Cbus, I was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, so every union member was my member. That weighs heavily on one's shoulders—knowing that people have put their retirement savings in your hands. It's an extra level of accountability that for-profit directors don't have. The retail funds have to worry about shareholders first and retirees second. But what those on the other side never mention to anyone is that employers also sit at those board tables. There is equal representation of workers and employers. You never hear that, do you? They on that side want to make it sound like it's all about unions. As a union rep, I'd have loved to have actually taken the credit for what is one of the most successful superannuation sectors in the world, but I can't take all of it, because employers—like MBA, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, aged-care providers, private hospital associations, private building contractors and others—sit on the HESTA and Cbus boards. They are also making decisions about investments and governance of the funds. If the industry funds are as heinous as the Libs would have us believe, then so are their buddies on all those employer bodies. Deputy Speaker, did you know that APRA monitor compliance of industry super with a fine-tooth comb, checking everything twice, like Santa? Nothing gets away from them. The level of scrutiny is beyond compare. It seems the compliance bodies could have done a better job with the banks' superannuation businesses, I might say, as we saw from the royal commission into the banks. The industry funds do well—far better than the retail for-profit funds. Trillions of dollars are now invested into industry super—workers' capital that is used for workers' and the community's benefit. And still the government come after the sector, trying to force them out of business, trying to break down governance arrangements or trying to stop the all-important insurance arrangements. Do you know that an average worker in the construction sector would not be able to afford insurance if it weren't for the buying power provided by the collective of Cbus? That means thousands of workers in an industry where they are more likely to be injured at work would be at risk of having no insurance at all if it weren't for their industry super fund. Those opposite might hate that. I'm proud of it, proud to say their livelihoods are protected by their fund. Like Paul Keating, I am proud of what we have created, what Labor and the trade union movement have created. The coalition have delayed the SG increases needed to get the contribution up to 12 per cent, the amount of superannuation guarantee that is generally agreed will be needed for decent retirements. They don't support women accruing super when on paid maternity leave, a vital component of closing the gender pay gap. They're trying to stop workers bargaining for their own default fund. They tried to dismantle the default system, aiding and abetting the for-profit retail super funds in securing workers' retirement savings—to the workers' detriment, I might add—all while maintaining the very generous superannuation tax breaks for the wealthy. This means that the wealthiest one per cent of Australians, who already receive twice as much taxpayer support for their retirement income as the poorest 10 per cent, will continue to do so. Meanwhile the taxes paid by waiters, childcare workers, truck drivers and shop assistants will be subsidising the superannuation of the wealthy. Labor has a very proud track record when it comes to superannuation. It came from those visionaries Keating, Hawke and Kelty. We will continue to fight for a fairer superannuation system and a stronger one. We on this side understand its value. To quote the shadow minister, the member for Whitlam, our universal superannuation, which is like a sovereign wealth fund but owned by the people, not the government, 'has $3 trillion in funds invested, and Australian workers have amassed the fourth-largest pool of pension savings in the world, equal to 140 per cent of GDP'. Superannuation has helped transform Australia from a country that borrowed from the rest of the world to one with substantial savings of its own. Make no mistake, if the opponents of universal super win, the consequence will be the destruction of jobs, the crippling of economic growth, and increasing taxes and a less secure future. The Prime Minister's inability to subdue the wreckers in his own ranks puts us all at risk. The economic woes and challenges we faced before the pandemic crisis have not gone away; they've simply become worse and we've had to face a whole lot more. The challenge of funding pensions for an ageing population with a structurally weak budget is still alive; in fact, it's become greater. In a post-COVID environment, now more than ever, we will need to have a huge pool of money available to invest in jobs and growing the economy; to invest in innovation and development for industries like manufacturing, construction, infrastructure and biosciences; and to invest in innovation in health care, aged care and disability services. If the government had a real plan for superannuation, they would not be tinkering around the edges. They would make it easier for trustees to invest members' contributions for the benefit of the country. We need a strong superannuation system, buttressed by stable and certain policy, with a mandate to invest for the long term in the national interest. 11:56 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I am speaking on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Whitlam—and I am doing so virtually, from my electorate office in Sunnybank. Labor supports this bill, which brings forward the rule for non-concessional superannuation contributions to those aged 65 years and 66 years. It is currently allowed only until the age of 64. As a rule, Labor will always support legislation that improves this nation's universal superannuation scheme. What Labor will never support is the slow disintegration of Australia's superannuation system by stealth, neglect and a thousand sly cuts. Australia's current superannuation arrangements bespeak significant social and financial infrastructure. The Keating government's brave reforms of 1992 introducing the compulsory employer contribution scheme will continue to have life-changing impacts on Australians as they age and enter retirement. There is no doubt that we're an ageing population. In 2019, Australians aged over 65 accounted for almost 16 per cent of the population. However, it's estimated that by 2057 there will be nearly nine million Australians aged over 65, accounting for 22 per cent of the Australian population. That will have an enormous impact on our economy. The foresight of the Hawke-Keating Labor governments will see many more Australians retiring comfortably, funded through their own superannuation, funded by their sweat, with employer co-contributions. All older Australians deserve a dignified and comfortable retirement. In the coming decades, it will be more important than ever that Australians can, for the most part, fund their own retirement. If they can't do this it will be left to governments to pay unfunded pension liabilities, and, with an ageing population, this burden will continue to grow. It is a challenge that no sensible government can ignore. It is a burden that, in large part, will be borne by our children and grandchildren—and, since Treasurer Frydenberg took the reins, perhaps even by our great-grandchildren. In two weeks the coalition government will commence their eighth year in office. Australia's gross debt was $280.3 billion when they took office after the election on 7 December 2013. That debt was largely due to stimulus measures put in place by Labor during the global financial crisis—measures that were largely supported by the Liberals. Those measures were integral in cushioning the financial blow for households during that very challenging time. But by January this year, well before Australia had confirmed its first case of coronavirus, gross debt had doubled to $568.1 billion. Much worse is expected to come in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office this week provided an update to its medium-term fiscal scenario showing that, even under the most optimistic scenario, a decade of deficits and higher debt is expected. The PBO expects net debt to be $800 billion higher, and receipts to be $400 billion lower, over the coming decade. Serious budget repair can only begin once the economy starts to recover. The Morrison government can't afford to get this recovery wrong. We know that if Australians don't have enough in their own superannuation funds they will only be living off the age pension in retirement—and that is not something that all people should aspire to. It is incredibly hard to make ends meet living on the age pension; all politicians know this from the phone calls that they receive. I know, from calls to my office, that pensioners are already panicking that there will be no pension increase this year. They're already finding it tough and are worried there will be no increase in the pension for them this year or perhaps for a long time. The pension indexation rules are clear—the pension can't fall, but because CPI did not rise this year there will be no corresponding rise in the pension. CPI has gone backwards under the Morrison government, so the age pension won't increase this year as would normally be the case. We all know that pensioners are frugal and that they budget around the indexation increase. Pensioners understand this, and they're very worried at the moment. The Morrison government could do something now to alleviate this added burden for pensioners, but so far Prime Minister Morrison hasn't announced anything. He hasn't eased the worry of pensioners in this time of pandemic and he hasn't committed to easing the financial burden for pensioners either. If the government is finding it difficult to properly fund age pensions today, it will find it much more difficult with the debt burden that will be a fixture of federal budgets for decades ahead. Universal superannuation is more important now than it has ever been. Over 80 per cent of Australians aged between 25 and 54 hold a superannuation account. That's a great thing—a great Labor legacy. The superannuation system collectively manages nearly $3 trillion in assets; that's worth more than 140 per cent of Australian GDP. That $3 trillion, owned collectively by working Australians, grows our economy and ensures that Australian workers own more of the wealth our country produces. By 2040 it is estimated that the superannuation system will collectively manage $10 trillion in assets. Superannuation contributes twice as much to retirement income as the age pension. It is a system that we need to foster and protect. So why is the Morrison government—and some of the backbenchers, in particular—hell-bent on destroying it? So far, the financial heavy lifting in COVID-19 stimulus recovery has been borne by young Australians, not the federal government. The government hasn't turned to the Treasury coffers during the pandemic. Instead the Morrison government's early access super scheme will leave young Australians more than $44 billion worse off when they retire. Worse, it has exposed their retirement savings to frauds and scams and shonky operators. The amount withdrawn from super funds through the early access scheme has already outstripped the stimulus measures provided by the Morrison government. Income support in response to the COVID-19 economic crisis is being propped up in large part by the most vulnerable and lowest paid workers in the country. That is short-sighted and unfair. So far, more than 606,000 Australians and counting have emptied their superannuation accounts. Of those people, 494,000 are under 35 years of age. That means those funds will miss out on 35 years of compound interest—that is, until they retire at 70. Collectively, people under 35 will be at least $51 billion worse off by the time of their retirement. Instead of receiving timely government support, young Australians have borne the brunt of this crisis and will be forced to continue to pay the costs for many years to come. The funds in a person's superannuation account, although held by their trustees, are their money; we understand it's their money. The very design of the universal superannuation scheme is that every working Australian will have their own nest egg put away for their own retirement. Mr Morrison and others in the Liberal Party keep bleating on about 'their money', as if somebody is trying to take it. Beware the wolf in thief's clothing. Stealing from yourself can still leave you much worse off in the long run, if you miss out on compound interest. Superannuation contributions are invested by funds into a range of assets. Some funds allow you to choose the types of assets you invest in so that you have more control over the risk and how your superannuation is building the economy—going to infrastructure, for example. The most advantageous part of the superannuation scheme is that contributions by young people today will enjoy compound interest for the life of their investment in the fund. Money invested in superannuation funds is, obviously, taxed lightly. I know how tempted I would have been if, at 25 years of age, I was told I could take 20 grand out of a fund that I wasn't normally able to access. I would have grabbed it with both hands and probably bought a Monaro or something sensible like that! What I wouldn't have realised when I was 25, if I had bought a Monaro with that $20,000, is that it would be the most expensive Monaro I would ever purchase in my lifetime. That $20,000 car would ultimately have cost me about $120,000. To make matters worse, from the time the early access scheme was introduced in March, the scheme was under attack from fraudsters, drawn to the honey pot of Australian money. The AFP uncovered evidence that sophisticated criminals were using the scheme to steal superannuation balances from unsuspecting Australians. It's unclear how many Australians have been the victims of this fraudulent behaviour, and it wasn't the ATO that detected the fraud but an employee of a super fund. The government has not yet revealed how many fraudulent claims have been made or if victims will be compensated. All this occurred on their watch. Young people today deserve to have the opportunity of a dignified retirement. Their hard-earned super funds should not have been put at risk by Morrison government decisions. It's not only young people forced to make very difficult choices; in particular, women fleeing family violence have also been granted early access to their superannuation funds. Obviously, it's very important to support women fleeing from family violence, but it should never be a choice between personal safety now and poverty in retirement later, or staying in a dangerous situation and retiring with dignity. Women are already well behind when it comes to superannuation. We know the average superannuation balance is 72 per cent higher for men upon retirement than for women. We know that 23 per cent of women in the 60 to 64 age group have no superannuation at all—that's nearly one in four. We know four in 10 older, single retired women live in poverty and experience economic insecurity in retirement. We need to provide women fleeing family violence with the support they need, not force them to raid their meagre retirement savings. Although our superannuation system is working for many, it is sadly also leaving some behind. The superannuation guarantee is currently legislated to increase to 12 per cent by 2025. For median workers the balance on retirement will rise by 20 per cent for men and 19 per cent for women. The poorest workers, those in the bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution, will retire with an additional 30 per cent in accumulated superannuation. For those workers, that will make a substantial difference to their comfort and health upon retirement. The Liberals created the Retirement Income Review to create further delays to the legislative increase in the superannuation guarantee up to 12 per cent. The government received that review over a month ago and should release it right now. A long-promised, already legislated and overdue superannuation guarantee increase is now even more important. Unfortunately, whether it's young people or women, the Liberals' and the Nationals' plan for superannuation is basically to leave most people behind. They're using the COVID-19 crisis as cover to destroy that universal superannuation scheme. They've opposed every single cent that's gone into super. They want to make Australians work until they're beyond 70 years old. They've frozen the pension and now they want to cut super and wages. We learnt yesterday that, for the first time since compulsory superannuation was introduced three decades ago, quarterly net contributions to super accounts were actually negative. The Morrison government's lack of a plan for jobs and recovery has already forced millions of anxious Australians to raid their hard-earned retirement savings. It's now more important than ever for Australians to rebuild their superannuation balances. Whether their superannuation funds are held in a not-for-profit fund, like an industry super fund, or in a for-profit fund or in a self-managed fund—whatever—the money Australians put in now will determine whether they retire into poverty or with dignity. It will also help the economic recovery after COVID-19. Industry super funds account for 27 per cent of superannuation funds. Those funds alone will invest tens of billions into Australia's economic recovery after COVID-19, and they aim to create or support many thousands of sustainable jobs in the coming years. Industry super funds already collectively own $80 billion in Australian infrastructure, property and other assets, and that number's increasing—Australian assets, owned by Australian workers. Australia's universal superannuation scheme is something that Australians should be proud of. It's a scheme we should all be supporting, not trying to undermine. 12:09 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I compliment the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, on his fine contribution on the bill and also on his outstanding use of Hansards in the video background—a fine choice indeed! Today we're here to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020, and, like so many bills that are presented in this place by this government, it is a fairly innocuous bill—one that doesn't get to the heart of the issue that we should be getting to. Obviously Labor have already said that we support this bill, but today my remarks are going to focus on some of the issues that are raised within the member for Whitlam's second reading amendment, which I will come to throughout my contribution. But, like so many bills that are presented in this parliament, the issues that the bill seeks to address don't go to the substance of the things that actually need to be fixed in this country. There are serious issues in superannuation in this nation. There are serious issues of inequities in superannuation in this country. It is a real waste that the government doesn't seek to address some of the issues of superannuation that we need to address as a society. Superannuation inequities in this country affect young Australians; they affect older Australians; they especially affect women and women over 55. So today I am going to go through some of those inequities, some of the issues that we need to address in superannuation, as well as some of the history that has led us to this place, and of course some of the ideologues in the coalition and government backbenchers that are driving the superannuation agenda, or the lack of superannuation agenda, in this country. Superannuation is a great Labor reform. It is a reform that the Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating introduced in this country, and it has helped bring security and financial security to literally millions of Australians. It is through this scheme, where Australians have been able to acquire capital and savings, that many Australians have been able to achieve financial security and prosperity in this country. Yet this government and the coalition parties have consistently sought to undermine the superannuation scheme that we are so proud of in this country. But if you really want to see how the Prime Minister cares about older Australians you only have to look at the last months, where the Prime Minister was caught out on the pension. The pension was going to be frozen, for the first time in a quarter of a century. In this pandemic, the pension for older Australians was going to be frozen. And it's only after being caught out that they have been shamed into actually looking at that issue. Young people in this country are raiding their superannuation, when they can least afford it, in this pandemic. I think one of the things that we need to look at, as to why the government is making young people raid their superannuation, is that it followed the largest economic miscalculation in the Treasury department's history in this country. Seventy billion dollars was overestimated in the JobKeeper scheme. Originally we were told that the JobKeeper program was going to cost around $120 billion, and, instead of it costing that, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced that they had miscalculated by about $60 billion to $70 billion. And, instead of actually making sure that the JobKeeper scheme supported people throughout this pandemic, the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer's response was to make young people raid the superannuation accounts that they should not be touching in this time. What does that actually mean? In the middle of a blunder by this government worth $60 billion or $70 billion, young people are taking out $10,000 and $20,000. The Prime Minister said, 'Well, it's just a small amount of the total superannuation funds that are available'—spin, spin, spin—but for a young person in this country, who isn't on the Prime Minister's 15 per cent superannuation and isn't on the Treasurer's 15 per cent superannuation, taking out $10,000 or $20,000 will cost them potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in their retirement. Hundreds of thousands of dollars taken out of a young Australian's retirement—that's typical of this government. They're happy to push through the media story of the day, happy to spin around and spin all of the policies that they present to our country, but the reality is that they don't have a vision for our country and they don't want to support young Australians setting up their own financial security. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer don't want to make sure young Australians can retire with enough. Instead, they're saying: 'Just do a little bit. Just take a little bit out of your superannuation. It's not a big deal. It's only a small fraction of the total pool of superannuation in this country.' But the reality is that it's going to make a big difference to the retirement of young Australians. It's also going to make a big difference to debt and the amount of government commitment that is going to be required to support pensioners who don't have enough in retirement. So on one hand the government are happy for young Australians to rob their future of serious financial security, and on the other hand, instead of actually addressing our society's serious and structural inequities on superannuation, their response is to break their own election commitment. Yes, of course Labor supports a rise in superannuation, but it was the government's own election commitment—Scott Morrison's own election commitment—to make the superannuation guarantee rise up until 2025. They're breaking their own election commitment, but, worse, the structural inequalities within superannuation that exist now adversely affect women. Women in this country are retiring with much less superannuation than men. One in three women in Australia are retiring without any superannuation at all. At the last election, I can admit, Labor didn't get everything right. We didn't, and that's pretty soul searching and pretty devastating. But one of the things that we did take to the last election was a policy to help support women to access and receive superannuation in the times in which they are out of the workforce. Women in this country do more than their fair share of work at home. They do more than their fair share of work without pay. They shouldn't be penalised as a result of it. We need population growth in this country. We need Australians to be having more Australians, but at the time in which women in this country are taking the responsibility home they are being penalised and they are retiring with less. What's that resulting in? It's resulting in women over 55 being the fastest growing cohort of people facing homelessness in this country. To think about me, as a young man, and about my family members and my friends and women who are in that age bracket potentially facing homelessness is gut wrenching. It's un-Australian for people to be without a home. This pandemic has shown how important our homes are for keeping us safe. It has shown us how important it is that we all need to stay in our homes in order to keep others safe. Yet in Australia the systemic structures within our economy are leading to women over the age of 55 being the fastest cohort of homeless Australians. That is what we should be addressing in a superannuation bill. That is what we should be addressing as part of our country's vision to make Australians more financially secure, to make Australians more prosperous. Instead we have a government that is looking to break its own election commitment, not so that it can increase superannuation for Australians but so that it can reduce superannuation for Australians. The architect of the Australian superannuation system, the great PJ Keating, legislated in 1992 to increase super gradually from three per cent to 12 per cent. It was going to get to 12 per cent in 2001 but, of course, the Howard government froze it. The Gillard government relegislated an increase in 2011, back up to the 12 per cent that was originally planned by Paul Keating. But it only got to 9½ per cent in 2014 before the Abbott government froze it again. We thought, 'Maybe there's going to be a change in the superannuation commitment,' when Scott Morrison and the government committed to a staggered increase of 12 per cent by 2025, prior to the last election. In recent weeks and months the Treasurer was asked 'Are you going to scrap your commitment?' It's not Labor's commitment and it's not Centre Alliance's—or what's left of the party—commitment. It's the government's commitment. He was asked: 'Are you going to scrap your commitment to increase superannuation to 12 per cent?' The Treasurer replied: 'We have no plans to change that legislated increase. It goes to 12 per cent'. The Prime Minister said, 'There's no change to the government's policy' on July 22. Senator Cormann, in the other place that we don't talk about, was asked, 'Can you rule out any changes to the timetable for the legislated increase to the superannuation guarantee?' and Senator Cormann, who I wish well in his retirement, said yes. But, of course, there is a growing movement of disgruntled young IPA operatives in the coalition backbench, born into a suit, who are furious about that commitment. They have been badgering and prodding and making sure their voices are heard to scrap the government's own commitment to superannuation. It's hardly surprising that these young IPA backbenchers in the government, who are becoming more bolshie by the day, are allowed to run their agenda of scrapping superannuation when this minister for superannuation said she's 'ambivalent to the issue, to tell you the truth'. She's ambivalent to Australians retiring with a fair share of retirement savings. She's ambivalent to women having their fair share of superannuation. The assistant minister for superannuation is ambivalent to equity in retirement in this country. That says a lot about the agenda and the sense of fairness that governs this country, and it's hardly surprising. One of my electorate neighbours, the member for Goldstein—busy doing Instagram videos in his lockdown—has been prodding and pushing for the super guarantee to be removed. I barely hear Senator Andrew Bragg, in the other place, speak without calling for a reduction of superannuation in this country. He is infatuated with it. This is an agenda that many in the government are seeking to pursue, to break their own commitment around superannuation—that is, to break their own commitment to help Australians retire with more. This is an agenda that is being pursued by people who are going to receive 15 per cent superannuation, who are getting paid their fair share. They're happy for Australians, especially women in this country, to retire with less. People in this parliament, who are receiving 15 per cent superannuation, are happy for young people in this country to withdraw thousands of dollars, potentially costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement. It says a lot about the priorities; it says a lot about the ability for members in this place to put themselves in the shoes of the people that they seek to represent. We can do better. We can address the issues that are systemic in the superannuation industry. We need to make superannuation fairer for Australians. We need to make superannuation fairer for women in this country. We need to make sure women aren't retiring with less than men in this country. We need to make sure that young people have a prospect of financial security in this country. We need to make sure that people can save and can achieve capital savings in their lifetime so that they can rely less on the government and more on their own hard work. Yes, it should be hard, but it should be fair. At the moment the government's plan to roll back the superannuation guarantee isn't fair. It is going to hurt young people and it is going to hurt Australian women as well. 12:25 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Every time the government put up a bill to do with superannuation, such as the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020, they'd better understand that Labor members will get up and speak out against their plan to cut superannuation, to cut wages and to cut pay. Australians should be under no illusions. They should make no mistake about what the government is up to. The member for McNamara called it out well. There's a double game going on here. We have the Prime Minister and the Treasurer crab-walking away from their election promise that they're not going to cut superannuation or wages. We have this whole crop of backbenchers—the disaffected, the nutty, the deranged and the whole spectrum of them; most of those who are pushing this line hail from the IPA, I think—who are egging the government on to break their election promise and cut superannuation. They're laying the groundwork, in effect, to trash Australia's decades-old system of compulsory superannuation. In effect, this is another little false dichotomy they're trying here—that somehow if we cut super you're going to get a wage rise. It's nonsense. Superannuation in this country is part of your pay. Your pay packet consists of the cash you take home in your superannuation, so, if you cut superannuation, in effect you're cutting the take-home pay, including the retirement savings, of Australians and you're condemning people to a poorer retirement. A cut to super is a cut to pay. Super is part of your pay in this country. It is no longer something that just the elite have. Decades ago, it was really only the Public Service, perhaps the military and the higher end of corporate Australia that were lucky enough to have superannuation for a dignified retirement. Everyone else was condemned, from the time they retired until they died, to the age pension and the few bucks they'd managed to squirrel away, and they didn't live that long; that's the truth of it. But it was a visionary reform by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments in the mid-1980s for a range of reasons. First and foremost, it was to give working Australians a more dignified retirement, but it was also for really important fiscal reasons that should be recognised by those opposite, the people who tell us that they're the economically responsible brigade—the party of debt and deficit and all that stuff. For very sensible reasons, the superannuation system was introduced. Back then, in the mid-1980s, there were about six or seven workers for every retiree. In the intervening decades, we've now come down to about four workers in Australia for every retiree. Within 15 years, the projections are that we'll be down to three workers for every retiree, as we've smoothed that curve with migration. But the projections, I think, are wrong when you look at the cuts to migration which we're now seeing. What's going to happen is that we're going to bring forward that date when we'll have only three workers for every retiree in the country. What that means, of course, is more pressure on the pension system if we don't make people provide for their retirement. It's just a fact. It is a privilege, not a right, and it's also built up an incredible national savings pool of $2.8 trillion under management in this country, projected to rise to $10 trillion by 2040—an incredible national asset which I'll touch on in a moment. For individuals, it means that they will have a better retirement and that they own more of the national wealth and what Australia produces. In a political sense, the battlelines on behalf of Australia are drawn. They're very clear. Labor created superannuation. Labor defends the superannuation system as being both good for workers and for everyday Australians in their retirement and good for the nation, with that incredible savings pool that we can invest in productive businesses and infrastructure and also overseas. We champion an increase in workers' pay through the legislated increase in superannuation. Contrast that with the Liberal Party and the government. The political history of superannuation in this country is that at every stage since 1974, when Gough Whitlam first launched the inquiry into a universal superannuation system, those opposite and their predecessors have opposed superannuation. They've opposed workers providing for their own retirement and building this national savings pool. The same dance continued. Hawke and Keating introduced it. John Howard refused to continue the system and froze the superannuation guarantee. Rudd and Gillard legislated for the increase which we've now been progressing with. This Prime Minister—to his credit, you'd think for a moment—was the first Liberal Prime Minister to actually say: 'Yeah, okay, we'll keep the system. We promise we will not cut your superannuation. We won't cut your wages'. He said that before the election, but now he's under growing pressure from his backbench, and it looks like he's going to cave to it in the budget, and the budget's going to have a cut to wages and a cut to superannuation. They're using the cover of COVID, of course, as an excuse for this. It's one of the big, fat lies which are being promulgated by those outside the parliament and many in it, I'm sorry to say: that somehow, if you cut superannuation, people are going to get higher wages. The fact is that, for most Australians in this recession, the superannuation rise of 0.5 per cent next year may be the only wage rise they get, and the government's lining up to cut it. It's a cut to pay. There's no guarantee, even if you say to an employer, 'You don't have to pay that 0.5 per cent into superannuation'—just a few dollars more into your superannuation fund—that that's going to go into wage rises. There's no guarantee for that at all. In fact, it's very likely that it won't happen if you look at the current labour market and economic settings. The other big lie, of course, that's promulgated by those opposite—they pop up on Sky TV, they pop up in the House and they keep repeating it—is that somehow it's a choice between, on one hand, superannuation and having a dignified retirement and, on the other, pushing the money into housing now. That's just nonsense. It's trashing the retirement income savings of the income system if that's the way you go. Also, pouring those buckets of cash into the housing market, as anyone knows, is just going to push up house prices. It's economic nonsense to say it's going to make houses more affordable and people will be better off if you take people's retirement savings and push up house prices now. They'll end up with a house, sure, but they'll have no retirement savings. Superannuation, as I said, is good for our economy. It boosts our national savings by $2.8 trillion. That means we do own more of our national wealth, and it reduces Australia's reliance on foreign sources of finance. As of 2013, we've achieved an amazing milestone in this country where, for the first time in our history, Australians, mainly through superannuation funds, actually own more equity overseas—we own more stuff in other countries around the world—than other countries and foreigners own in us. For the first time in our history, as a capital-intensive country that's always needed and welcomed foreign investment and capital, we own more stuff elsewhere than they own in us, and that's because of our superannuation system. That gives us enormous ability to diversify our investments, bring profits home from around the world, enrich Australians and grow our national wealth and also hedge against economic shocks. It reduces Australia's reliance on foreign sources of finance because we've got this incredible national savings pool that we can apply to productive assets. As I said earlier, it also offsets the impact of an ageing population. There's another argument that I haven't heard from those opposite, the party who love to talk about debt and deficit. I remember my first 3½ years in this place. The member for Bendigo has been here an extra few years; she would have heard this. Every question time you'd get up and you'd get a lecture about debt and deficit. I haven't heard that since March. I haven't heard anything about debt and deficit from the party of debt and deficit over there, presiding over the biggest debt and deficits in Australia's history. But superannuation actually has a positive long-term fiscal effect on the federal budget. This is well documented. It's an important point—although it's boring and nerdy—in terms of our international fiscal credibility. When international rating agencies, the bond market and our international partners size up countries—these are facts; I know those opposite don't like hearing facts—one of the big things they take into account when deciding what your credit rating is and how much they're going to charge you to lend money is whether you've provided for your ageing population in your pension system. That's one of the reasons that European countries have got themselves into all sorts of trouble in a fiscal sense: because they haven't put away superannuation. They've got pension entitlement systems, many of which are unfunded. The reason they do that is that they rightly conclude that countries, particularly democratic countries, with an ageing population and without the kind of super system that Australia's built are a worse risk to lend money to. That's because democratic governments ultimately, with an ageing population, will never be able to resist the political pressure to jack up pensions, health care and so on. So, with an ageing population and fewer taxpayers to support every retiree, it's a fiscally toxic combination brewing of higher debt and bigger deficits. Ratings agencies look at these things. Quite simply, without Australia's superannuation pool, we would be far less likely to have and hold a AAA credit rating, and we'd be paying more for our debt. The debt outlook's already looking shaky under this government. They try and blame us for it, but the fact is the vast majority of the debt's been accrued by them since they took office. They don't like being reminded of that. But, thanks to Labor governments and the reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, that ability to hold a AAA credit rating and to pay much less for our debt than other countries goes right back to the fact that we've had the foresight to provide for retirement incomes and provide for our superannuation. It's not a point which we should give away lightly. It's a fundamental structural part of our retirement income system. Despite all of these benefits—the benefits to the individual and the fact that people can retire and have a longer and more dignified retirement—the superannuation system at the moment still means that most Australians won't be able to retire fully on their super. However, they will have a better retirement with a part pension or a full pension plus their superannuation because of the national savings pool, the decreased reliance on foreign investment, the ability to invest in other countries and the positive fiscal debt and deficit impacts. All of these things are good things. Despite all of these benefits, the Liberals hate superannuation. For four decades, they've opposed every single cent that's gone into super. They've opposed the system from the start. They've opposed every piece of legislation that has ever come before this parliament for workers to provide for their retirement. I think, because I've thought about this, that the more you look at it, if you actually read the economic policy stuff—and there are numerous studies on this—the more it seems a no-brainer for a country to provide for an ageing population and a retirement income system in this way. So why have the government, the Liberal Party, got it in their DNA that they cannot bring themselves to ever vote for a piece of legislation that supports superannuation? I think they don't actually care about the retirement incomes of ordinary Australians—that's one of the key aspects. I really don't think they do. It runs counter to what I've always seen as the core purpose for the Liberal Party, which boils down to two things. One is to protect the people in our society who already have wealth. They can dress it up with all the language they like about aspiration, but when it boils down to it the thing that they screech most about and that you see the most outrage about from the government benches and those opposite is when the people who have the most wealth and privilege in this country may have that threatened. The core purpose of the Liberal Party is to protect those people who already have the most wealth and capital, and the other core purpose is to fight tooth and nail to stop any changes that ever require businesses to share more of their profits with workers through wages and superannuation. There's a secret report the Treasurer is sitting on at the moment, his handpicked little Retirement Income Review, and the parliament looks forward to no doubt hearing what's in that review. He should release it for public debate. I don't know why he doesn't or what's in that is so secret, but we'll find out. There's also a mad ideological crusade going on, as the member for Macnamara said, by the little IPA Daleks that seem to populate the other side. You can see this by examining their rhetoric regarding the different types of super funds and the levels of screechy outrage that you get. Of course there are three types of super funds. There are the for-profit ones, largely owned by big banks. They take management fees and dividends, and make profits. The government doesn't mind those funds, it seems. They like the big banks' funds and they're always there to defend the funds run by big banks for profit. Funnily enough, those funds tend to make less money for their members and provide for a poorer standard of retirement, but the government's happy to defend them because their big bank mates make profits. Then there are the SMSFs, the self-managed funds, where the trustees are the fund members. They're always very, very happy to defend tax breaks, whatever the arguments are for them. But then you get the not-for-profit funds, the industry super funds, the public sector and corporate funds. They're the funds that don't take profits. They don't have shareholders that take profits. They have members and they distribute the surplus to their members. Funnily enough, it's those funds in this country that have the best returns for their members. They're actually a better bet. If you want to provide for your own retirement, you'd do better to put your money into an industry super fund than into a big retail fund where the bank makes profits. But the nuttiest and most sustained government attacks, including in question time when this topic comes up, are when the Prime Minister screeches about union industry funds--'It's terrible.' The nuttiest attacks are on the not-for-profit funds that give their profits or surplus to members. There's absolute silence when bank funds are caught ripping off members and providing lower returns. It gives an insight into what they're really on about. From listening to the debate of those opposite whenever this topic comes up, they just don't get the economics of super. Whichever muppet gets sent in from time to time reads out their talking points and tells us that it's Australians' money and they know best. Of course it's our money; it's in our super fund. That's the whole point of the super system. It's put there for retirement. It's not put there so that we can spend it in the short term and spend it now. It's put there for our retirement so that we can have a dignified retirement as we're living longer with an ageing population, but also so that we have a more sustainable economy and fiscal settings. They just don't get the economics of super. If it weren't for super, more of Australia's infrastructure, agriculture, resources and companies would be owned by foreigners, with the profits flowing overseas. That's a fact. But, because of super, Australian funds now invest abroad to bring income back to Australia and boost our wealth. It's good for Australians, good for the economy and good for our fiscal outlook. I urge the government to reconsider their unconscionable plan to cut superannuation and cut wages for workers in this coming budget. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 I thank the member for Bruce. I think he managed to speak for 15 minutes without addressing a provision in the bill. 12:40 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons It gives me great pleasure to stand here in defence of superannuation, a great Labor legacy and Labor initiative. I too wish to address both the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 and the second reading amendment: That … the House calls on the Government to ensure that all Australians can enjoy a dignified retirement, including by committing to: (1) the scheduled and legislated increases to the superannuation guarantee; and (2) adequate funding for the aged pension". It beggars belief that those opposite, the paragons of the private market and private industry, are against superannuation. Superannuation gives workers a decent retirement, from the share market. You'd think the loudest champions should be on that side of the House. This is not some sort of socialist utopia. This is the private market providing a dignified retirement for millions of Australian workers. The proof is in the pudding. We've had 30 years of proof—seven per cent average returns. You go to a bank, or go anywhere in this country at the moment, and try and get a seven per cent return. But that's what superannuation has been yielding for workers, and those opposite are intent on tearing it down, driven by the nutter faction in the Liberals. We're told all the time that the Liberals don't have factions. Well, we saw the truth of that on 60 Minutes on the weekend. The nutter faction over there is driving this push to drive down and dismantle Australia's world-renowned superannuation system. Those opposite were almost rabid in their enthusiasm for encouraging Australians to dip into their superannuation as a response to the economic crisis accelerated by COVID-19. The Prime Minister's response to soaring unemployment and economic uncertainty was to tell Australians who are doing it tough that they're on their own, that their only option is to raid their own retirement savings. Essentially the government have privatised the pandemic. They've outsourced the pandemic. This, after all, is a shared, global pandemic. It's a shared disaster. You would think that we were all in this together. But the government has told workers, particularly young workers and women workers: 'If you need support during this time of crisis, you can raid your own superannuation accounts. We'll let you do that.' And three million Australians have said, 'If that's the only choice available to us, that's what we'll do.' As a result, 600,000 Australians have completely emptied their superannuation accounts. They've gone from a $10,000 or $20,000 balance to zero dollars. They've got to start again. We all know in this place that superannuation works by the magic of compound interest. The more you put in early in life, the more it accumulates, like a snowball gathering snow. It accumulates more and more and more over your working life. But, if you don't have it early, if you wait till your 30s and your 40s, you're not going to accumulate the compounded interest to have a decent retirement at the end of your working life. Those opposite have told Australians: 'You're on your own. Access your own retirement savings to get through this pandemic.' It is an absolute disgrace. They've privatised the pandemic. They've outsourced it. They've put the economic burden of this pandemic onto the shoulders of working Australians and their families. In my electorate of Lyons, more than $1 million of retirement savings has been withdrawn from some 14,000 super accounts, with more than 1,500 emptied entirely. The vast majority accessing their super are under the age of 35. It's a cohort that has been significantly affected by the pandemic and the recession, and they're now going to be even further impacted in the future because they will miss out on the benefits of compound interest on their super savings. Industry analysis has estimated that a 20-year-old who withdraws $20,000 under the government's scheme could lose more than $120,000 from their retirement balance, a 30-year-old who accesses $20,000 could lose about $100,000 in their retirement and a 40-year-old could lose more than $63,000. It's devastating for retirement incomes. What's more, it's the most expensive $20,000 that these workers will ever spend. If a young worker takes out a loan of $20,000 at four per cent for 30 years, she would pay back less than $15,000 in interest and it would cost her $22 a week in repayments. But, if she empties out her superannuation account by withdrawing $20,000, she is robbing herself of the ability of that $20,000 to attract compound interest over her working life, which, at the present rate of return, would see it go to $100,000. So, instead of paying four per cent interest to get that $20,000 and paying just $15,000 in interest repayments, she is effectively paying 16 per cent interest for 30 years; she is paying out $80,000 in order to access $20,000. That's the legacy of this government: robbing Australian workers and their families. I understand that people have been doing it tough. Wage growth has stalled, jobs have been lost and families are struggling to make ends meet. So it's no wonder that so many felt that they had no option but to access their accounts when the government made them available. But there is inherent unfairness in a situation where a government encourages its own citizens to raid their own retirement savings in order to ease the financial pressures brought on by a global recession and, in the process, disadvantages those same citizens in the long term. They have effectively asked their own citizens to rob themselves of a decent retirement. This will have an enormous cost to so many Australians. In particular, young people will bear the burden of it. They've had to fund their own pandemic response after being so seriously neglected by the government in other areas. This is a cohort of Australians who have suffered two financial crises already in their young lives—the 2008 GFC and now the pandemic. Due to good governance and good management Australia avoided a recession, unlike the rest of the world, during the GFC. Thank you, Wayne Swan. Young people are having to deal with high HECS and HELP debts; a horrific job market, which is only going to get worse; poor wages growth; expensive housing; and fractured health care. They are being governed by a government that simply does not care about their future beyond slogans and employing Scott Cam to do a few TV ads. Superannuation is what guarantees older Australians a retirement of comfort and dignity. It is an innovative initiative that has benefited countless Australians for many decades, allowing them to enjoy their retirement after year upon year of hard work and economic contribution. It's incredibly disappointing, and shameful, that the Morrison government is chipping away at a program that has the runs on the board. After 30 years, the evidence is there that it works. For purely ideological reasons, members of this government are campaigning against universal superannuation for workers. It beggars belief. I remember a cartoon that was in the British press some years ago in which a Tory government minister is visiting a hospital. He says to a nurse, 'What do you do here?' The nurse says, 'We help sick people.' The minister says, 'Who makes the money?' The nurse says: 'Nobody makes money. We help sick people.' The minister says: 'I think we're speaking a different language. I don't quite understand. Who gets the dough?' The nurse says, 'No, we help sick people.' The minister says: 'Listen to me. Who makes the money?' I can't help but think that's what's going on here, because, as the member for Bruce pointed out, industry superannuation funds are the ones that make the most money for their members. If you belong to an industry super fund you will have a better retirement than if you belong to a retail super fund, which tend to take out more management fees. The retail super funds, the big banks—they make the money. And the government has no problem with them, even though retirees have a worse retirement belonging to those funds. The funds that this government has a problem with are the industry funds, which generate a better return for members but which, of course, don't make money for the friends of the government. I do go back to that cartoon, and I can't help but think it's the same thing that applies here. The friends of the government are not making the money from superannuation, from universal superannuation, and that's why they are so ideologically opposed to it. It really does say something when a national government is ruled by its 'nutters faction'. In the chamber the other day, I followed the member for Goldstein during one of his more dramatic appearances railing against super—I think he called it 'money laundering'. That's how he referred to superannuation: 'money laundering'. Even though the returns to members are seven per cent, they retire with dignity and they retire in comfort, he refers to it as 'money laundering' because the unions are involved. That's where we're at. The government is just ideologically opposed to superannuation because unions are involved. Even though workers are getting good retirements out of superannuation, they're retiring with dignity and retiring in comfort, those opposite want to cut back on it because of their ideological opposition to union involvement. It really does beggar belief. Australia's superannuation system was endorsed by the World Bank in the early 1990s. They recognised the benefit of our three-pillar system, where we benefit from a system of compulsory superannuation and the age pension, and both are enhanced by voluntary retirement savings. The endorsement we received was to say that our system was the world's best for retirement income—the world's best. That's what those opposite are so keen to dismantle. That declaration was made less than 30 years ago, and yet here we are in this chamber looking at a government that is trying to wind back and destroy this system—not weaken it, destroy it. Women have long been left out of our superannuation system, and we need to strengthen their involvement, not weaken it. There is a substantial gender gap, with the balance of superannuation accounts being, on average, around $15,000 less than for men. There are a range of reasons for it. Another issue is the increasing rate of workforce casualisation, which will see hundreds of thousands of Australians miss out on superannuation payments as a result of the nature of their work. We should be addressing these issues as a matter of urgency. We should be creating a better, more even superannuation playing field, not making changes that disrupt, dismantle and eventually destroy the foundations of a superannuation system that has been inarguably good for the country. I remind the House that, in 2015, Australia's superannuation pool was $2 trillion. By 2025, it will be $4 trillion. By 2035—$10 trillion. That's a massive savings pool, a massive investment pool for the nation, for long-term investments. Superannuation accounts are not just like banks accounts; they're not short-term bank accounts. It's a long-term investment strategy. It's a nation-building program. It's good for workers in their retirement, but it's fantastic for the country. If those opposite continue on their path to dismantle Australia's superannuation system, it will be bad for the country. It will be bad for the economics of the country and bad for the workers involved. I just don't see who wins. Other speakers have mentioned that, when superannuation was first proposed, there were six to seven workers for every single retiree. Those workers were contributing to taxes and the pension. Now we're down to four workers for every retiree, and by 2030 that will drop to three to one. So we have an ageing population and we have fewer workers able to contribute to the tax pool which will fund pensions. We need a self-reliant retirement plan. I come back to the comment I started with: you would think those opposite would be all for the Australian superannuation system. It's about self-reliance, built on workers owning shares in private companies. You would think it would be nirvana for those opposite, yet here they are trying to dismantle it. It's a great shame. I stand here with great pride in supporting Australia's world-best universal superannuation system. 12:55 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. The history of superannuation in Australia is pretty simple: it is introduced by Labor; the Liberals oppose it; people like Bronwyn Bishop speak out against it; John Howard then goes to the 1996 election promising to continue with the scheduled rate of superannuation increase, but he doesn't tell the truth and freezes the superannuation guarantee; Tony Abbott goes to the 2013 election promising to increase the superannuation contribution, but he breaks his promise and doesn't continue with the scheduled increases; and Prime Minister Scott Morrison goes to the 2019 election saying that he has pledged to continue with the legislated pattern of superannuation increases—a promise he now appears to be set to break. His own superannuation minister appears not to mind much either way, whether the government sticks with its promise, sticks with the legislation or does the wrong thing by the Australian working people. It's a bit like Medicare. It's a bit like climate change. These are issues which matter deeply in the hearts of those of us on this side of politics. Those on the other side know that they matter to the Australian people, and so they mouth the platitudes at election time, but when it comes to action, when it comes to doing the right thing, they don't stand up for working people. The principle behind superannuation is straightforward—it is tax-preferred investments to reduce reliance on the age pension. It means Australia's age pension is among the most sustainable in the world. International analyses of retirement savings systems show Australia's to be among the very best. European nations now struggling with the question of how they will pay retirement benefits can only look to Australia's wisdom in the early 1990s in putting in place universal superannuation. Those of us in this place elected in recent years are fortunate to have a superannuation contribution of 15.4 per cent. Yet those on the other side say, effectively, that 15.4 per cent is good enough for them and 9.5 per cent is good enough for their constituents. They want to deny low- and middle-income Australians the superannuation contribution that they receive themselves. Let's be clear: the legislated path is not a rapid one. It is a fairly steady ramp-up, going to 10 per cent and steadily making its way up. This is the way in which superannuation has been increased in the past. We haven't jacked it up all of a sudden; we've steadily increased it. As previous Labor speakers have noted, and as the member for Whitlam, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, has pointed out, it is absolutely clear that any wage rises that come over the course of the next year are only going to be through award increases. We don't have a whole lot of bargaining going on at the moment. Workers are not in the strong position they might be in a tight labour market. It's very clear that, if the superannuation promise is broken, it is not going to be delivered to workers in the form of higher wages over the course of the next year. It's clear, too, that when Tony Abbott broke his promise to increase universal superannuation it didn't lead to some wonderful wages take-off. In fact, Mr Abbott presided over a government which saw the labour share of national income fall to historic lows. We've seen appalling wage growth over recent years—a period in which, if you believed the coalition, the pause in increases in universal superannuation should have led to rivers of gold in Australian workers' pay packets. It simply hasn't happened. I sit as deputy chair on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, and there I have the opportunity to hear frequently from members like the member for Goldstein and the member for Mackellar. Modest members they are not. Not only are they not in the least humble; they don't have the characteristic of Bert Kelly of standing up against their own party. They are doing the bidding of the Treasurer and of the assistant minister for superannuation, Senator Hume. It is very clear that they are running a surrogate campaign against superannuation, and that it has moved on now from just the old coalition attacks on industry superannuation to a full-blown war on superannuation as a whole. We've had the chair of the committee, the member for Goldstein, snowing the industry funds with questions about matters which are utterly irrelevant to the committee's mandate. The committee has a mandate to inquire into superannuation insofar as it relates to the royal commission, not insofar as it allows the member for Goldstein to pursue personal frolics against industry superannuation. But that's what we've seen in the huge amount of questions on notice that the committee chair has put to industry funds, the answers to which are taking up, in some cases, months of staff time, with the consequence that, at a time of market volatility and at a time when those funds are dealing with the government's early release scheme, they are being forced to instead deal with the ideological frolics of the coalition—all towards one aim: discrediting the system of superannuation which is world's best practice. Countries around the world look to Australia as an example. It is not the only way in which the government's looking to undermine superannuation. We have had universal superannuation in Australia for around three decades now. Just recently we have seen, for the first time, a fall in overall superannuation balances. In June 2019 there was $2,881 billion in superannuation. In June 2020 there was $2,864 billion in superannuation, according to the APRA superannuation statistics released on 25 August. Why the 0.6 per cent fall? It's because the government decided that, at the time of a global pandemic, at a time in which markets were down, it was overwhelmingly in the interests of Australians to rip money out of superannuation! So the government put in place a superannuation early release scheme which is almost as bad as their HomeBuilder scheme—a scheme that effectively pays affluent homeowners to do renovations they would have done anyway. Superannuation early release has seen half a million Australians zero out their superannuation. It means that people are taking money out now and losing the returns that they would have received later. Superannuation isn't there as a fund to be dipped into at times of temporary crisis; it is there to protect dignity in retirement. Once upon a time, the coalition even believed this. They talked about a legislated purpose of superannuation, which had to do with removing pressure on the age pension. But, very clearly, they no longer believe in that purpose. They see superannuation as a nest egg. They see in the pandemic an opportunity to undermine superannuation. As AlphaBeta director Andrew Charlton has pointed out: If someone used super money to buy a $20 pizza, that pizza might end up costing them $150 at the time of their retirement. It will be the most expensive pizza they've ever bought. He's not just talking hypothetically. AlphaBeta analysis showed that those that took advantage of the superannuation early release scheme spent an additional $2,855 in the first fortnight. What did they spend it on? No. 1 was debt repayments, $393 on average. No. 2 was gambling. Just behind debt repayments, there was $327 on average spent on gambling. Also, an average of $207 was spent on restaurants and cafes, $157 was spent on alcohol and tobacco and $75 was spent on apps, games and music. So it's very clear that this is money being spent on discretionary items. AlphaBeta also showed that 40 per cent of the recipients didn't in fact suffer a drop in their income. One of the impacts of the superannuation early release scheme is that Australians are going to have to spend more on the pension because there will be more pension-reliant retirees. What's ironic about this scheme is that it stands in direct contrast to the way in which the government has handled the issue of mandatory draw-down for those in the retirement phase. They've halved the required rate of mandatory draw-down. And, as the Prime Minister has said, the reason for that is so you are not 'forced to pull money out in the middle of a bad market'. That principle should hold true for young Australians. If this government cared about young Australians, it wouldn't be encouraging them to take money out of superannuation—forcing some, by excluding a million casuals from the JobKeeper program. Another impact of the superannuation early release scheme is investment drag. We know that even those who don't take money out will suffer a hit to their retirement savings because superannuation funds are having to move money out of growth assets into cash in order to be prepared for the possibility of superannuation early release. The funds have acted extraordinarily quickly. They didn't receive any advance notice of this from the government but they've moved swiftly, and indeed industry funds have outperformed retail funds in getting money out to members within the five-day window. But make no mistake: one of the impacts of the superannuation early release scheme is that funds have to keep more money in cash and therefore they're getting lower returns than if they had that money in productive assets. The brunt of the superannuation early release scheme is on young people. One analysis by the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees found that one in five people aged 25 to 34 dipped into super, 15 per cent drained their accounts and 30 per cent had less than $1,000 remaining after their withdrawal. Eva Scheerlinck of the institute said: 'The early release scheme unfortunately forced many people to choose between poverty now or poverty in retirement.' It has led to fraud. More than 400 account holders withdrawing retirement savings through the early release scheme are now being investigated by the Australian Taxation Office. Why is that? Because the government did no checks. Exactly as we saw during the robodebt scheme, this was just a scheme that was put in place and left on autopilot. There have been no checks to see if people have a need for the money, as would normally be the case for somebody seeking early release of superannuation. So, in that context, no wonder we've seen people spending money on gambling. No wonder we've seen half a million people zeroing out their accounts. No wonder we have a spate of fraud being investigated by the Australian Taxation Office. You'd think that these would be critical issues for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to explore. But, when we sit down on 10 September for a hearing, we won't be following up on the mandate of the Hayne royal commission to look at wrongdoing by superannuation funds. As members will be aware, Commissioner Ken Hayne devoted considerable attention to the wrongdoing of a handful of superannuation funds, including Suncorp, BT, Colonial First State, OnePath and Mercer. Yet none of those funds has been called before the House of Representatives economics committee, and none will be called before the House of Representatives economics committee on 10 September. Instead, the Liberals have chosen to fight their tired old fights against industry superannuation. Instead, they're calling ethical superannuation funds, rather than quizzing the ethics of those who've been found wanting. The fact is the House of Representatives economics committee is being used by the chair and the Liberal members of the committee in order to pursue this government's agenda of attacking superannuation. We're not looking into impropriety uncovered by the Hayne royal commission, as is the mandate of the committee. Instead, the Liberals on this committee are doing the bidding of the Treasurer, who has said 'Let's undermine super.' The Treasurer knows that there is a budgetary cost to increasing universal superannuation—something in the order of $1 billion of forgone revenue per year for every percentage point that universal superannuation is increased. The Treasurer doesn't want to spend that money. The Liberals have always been ideologically against superannuation. If they had their way, we wouldn't have universal superannuation in this country. If coalition governments had been in office since the early 1990s, there would be no universal superannuation and our pension costs would be massive. We would be facing the same issue most advanced countries have today. Superannuation is a Labor invention. We have fought for universal superannuation and we will continue to fight to defend it here and in the Australian community. 13:10 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020, and particularly in support of the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Whitlam that calls on the government to ensure that all Australians can enjoy a dignified retirement. After all, that is what superannuation is all about—a good retirement, a retirement that enables a person to enjoy themselves after a lifetime of work. This is ultimately why Paul Keating created superannuation. Keating knew that, despite working all their lives, Australians weren't retiring comfortably. Keating knew that Australians were living longer after retirement and that the cost of pensions to the government would only increase. Keating knew that with an ageing population fewer taxpayers would be available to support the cost of that pension. This is the type of long-term responsible policymaking that we could only dream of—compared to the government of Scott Morrison, a Prime Minister who refuses to take responsibility for the challenges of today, let alone the challenges of our nation next year, in a decade or in a generation. A dignified retirement: is that too much to ask? Clearly, many of those opposite, many of those who form part of Australia's elected government, think that it is. From comments made over the last few weeks, clearly a dignified retirement should only be available for the few. I've seen Senator Bragg, from the other place, pushing some absurd lines as to why we shouldn't pursue already legislated increases to superannuation. 'It's their money, not the government's,' says Senator Bragg. Of course it is, Senator Bragg. It was also their money before the pandemic; nonetheless, it was not available to them until retirement. This is the fundamental basis of superannuation, and people know it when they earn it. 'Young people could buy a house with their super,' says Senator Bragg. I don't know if the senator owns his own house or not, but the average super balance of a first home buyer isn't going to get anywhere close to providing the 20 per cent deposit that is needed for a house in any of our capital cities. One thing that I agree with Senator Bragg on is that the superannuation system is not working as well as it could and isn't delivering the retirement balances needed to deliver the dignified retirement we on this side of the House are committed to pursuing for all workers of this country. Senator Bragg's diagnosis is to get rid of the super system. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water! To me, a much better way would be to improve the system we have, such as by increasing the rate of super to ensure Australians can save a greater amount of money. Lo and behold, this parliament has already legislated exactly that. Each year for the next five years, let's increase the rate by a very conservative 0.5 per cent, until we get to 12 per cent. This is the very least that we should be doing. It was greatly concerning to see the Liberal Party starting to lay the groundwork last week to peel back plans for increases to the rate of superannuation payable by employers in this country. It all began with the assistant minister for super, Senator Hume, saying she was ambivalent about sticking to the government's promise to increase super to 12 per cent by 1 July 2025. The assistant minister said that we need to reconsider the increase in light of the pandemic and because it will likely suppress wage growth. But we know that this is not the case. The last time we forwent a super increase in favour of wage growth, guess what happened? According to research by Per Capita, when this government took the decision to freeze the rate of super, on the promise that doing so would increase wages, workers lost net income. The research from Per Capita also found that workers should anticipate this to happen again if the government decides to leave super at 9.5 per cent. Per Capita has found that, as a result of the freeze on the superannuation guarantee in 2014 by this government, the average worker has lost over $4,300 in super over the intervening five years. However, at the same time their take home pay has declined by over $1,000 in real terms, giving them a net loss of around $5,425. In short, increasing super does not suppress wages. I think my colleague the member for Lyons hit the nail on the head when he said perhaps what really bothers the Liberals about superannuation is that everyone gets it. It means that even people in low-paid work can look forward to a comfortable and dignified retirement. In terms of reforming the system, this bill is an example of a way that the parliament can enable Australians to increase their super balances. By extending the bring-forward rule for non-concessional super contributions, the government will assist people about to retire to get as much into their account as possible. However, I would say to the government: we need you to be more ambitious. This bill does nothing to embrace the wealth-creating power of compound interest, which is fundamental to the superannuation system. Increasing super to 12 per cent must continue. It is a slow and incremental policy change that enables businesses to plan for the increase. Despite the pandemic and the economic impact, this slow and incremental change allows businesses to recover while also doing the right thing for their workers. For too long we have known that current levels of super will not provide sufficiently for Australians in retirement. Almost 50 per cent of Australians expect to retire with less than $200,000 in super and just 19 per cent expect to be able to retire with enough to live comfortably. To make matters more challenging, both for the individual and the country, the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners is decreasing as our population ages. Right now we have about 3.6 workers to every pensioner. By 2040 this will drop to about 2.6 workers to every pensioner. As I said, this is in part why Labor designed super, to ensure that this challenge was mitigated—good long-term economic planning to set the country and its citizens up for the future. But this government wants to undo this planning. Despite taking home a 15.4 per cent taxpayer funded super himself, the Prime Minister has indicated he is considering the delay of the already legislated increase to superannuation. The Prime Minister claims that any decision on this front will be made in the best interests of Australians. If that is the metric, clearly, keeping the legislated increases is in the best interests of all Australians. Instead of going backwards on super, we actually need to go further. We need to think carefully about how we improver the super balances of Australian women, in particular. We need to think about how we can mitigate the effect on super balances when women go on maternity leave, when women take time off to care for children and other relatives and when women work part time in order to balance these caring responsibilities. We need to figure out how to change the fact that the median superannuation balances for women at retirement are 20.5 per cent lower than they are for men. No-one deserves to be left behind in their retirement, but too many Australians are continuing to retire without enough. The government's attacks on the superannuation system as part of this pandemic—allowing young people to raid their super, to raid their own retirement savings—are an example of what the member for Fenner, speaking before me, was talking about: the ideological lack of support for superannuation from this government. Without Labor, we would not have this superannuation system, enabling all Australians to look forward to a comfortable and dignified retirement. Now, more than ever, Australians are relying on the government to do the right thing and keep their promise to raise your super payments, not cut them. Labor are proud of our superannuation system and we will fight to defend it. Universal superannuation created by Labor is a national achievement which sits alongside Medicare. It has made our nation stronger and our society fairer. That's why our superannuation system needs to be strengthened and protected, not undermined. It is critical to creating jobs and growth in the economic recovery. The $3 trillion pool of super savings not only creates a retirement nest egg for Australians; it is being invested in infrastructure and businesses which are generating wealth and creating jobs. If the Liberals cut super, there will be fewer funds to make the investment needed to create jobs and drive growth to boost the economic recovery. 13:19 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. It gives effect to the 2019-20 budget measures designed to give greater flexibility to Australians over 65 with their superannuation. Concurrently, if you're over 65 years of age, there are caps on the maximum concessional before-income-tax and non-concessional after-income-tax contributions you can make into your super each year. To give effect to more flexibility in the super system, this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to enable individuals aged 65 and 66 to make up to three non-concessional superannuation contributions under the bring forward rule. The current non-concessional superannuation contributions cap is $100,000. The associated regulations will increase the cut-off age for spouse contributions from 70 to 75 and they will also increase the age, from 65 to 67, at which the work test starts to apply for voluntary concessional and non-concessional superannuation contributions. The Treasury has done a good job on consultation with the bill and the explanatory memorandum provided to stakeholders. It has been open to the public for comment for some time. I support these measures. Making additional super contributions is a sensible idea and can lead to a more comfortable retirement. By lifting the age for super contributions for non-concessional and spousal contributions as well as a work test, individuals will have more opportunities to do this. Whilst this bill assists those wanting to put money into their super, there are further considerations for the direction of super, especially in the current economic context, that I would urge the government to consider. It's been 30 years since the introduction of super. Australians now have some $2.7 trillion tucked away for their retirement. Super is one of the three pillars of retirement income. It works in concert with voluntary savings and property holdings, and it's integral to taking the pressure off the aged pension and the public purse. I've had constituents writing in frequently about the recent, and maybe not always so recent, assaults on the system by coalition members of this parliament, and aligned think tanks, that want to make super voluntary. To quote former Liberal leader John Hewson: How can it be justified that a decision on compulsory super which is a fundamental element of a long-term national retirement incomes strategy should be made on "current circumstances"? I would urge caution and restraint. We only need to look at other OECD countries to see that many people have little saved for retirement and the uncertainty and anxiety that that results in is not a good outcome. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 2017, 15 per cent of Australians, or some 3.8 million, were aged 65 and over. We know that this proportion is growing steadily as life expectancy rises. Over the coming years, young people will shoulder even more of the tax burden to support this ageing population. The Grattan Institute projects that the number of 15 to 64 year olds, for every person aged 65 and over, will be 3.2 by the year 2054-55, falling from 7.4 in the mid-1970s. Without compulsory super, this trend would lead to poor quality of life for a whole generation of young Australians that will be called on to shoulder even more of the aged-pension costs as our population ages. This is already happening with private health. We must do more to support our youth, which means rejecting calls to interfere with the integrity of the system. We can't talk about superannuation in Australia without talking about where it is not good enough. In relation to women, it is not a good enough policy. It needs to be improved. It's well overdue for this to be the focus of the government. The statistics are dire. Women currently retire with 47 per cent less superannuation, on average, than men. Once women reach retirement age, approximately 70 per cent of them have less than $150,000 in super. It's not good enough for a country like Australia. Forty per cent of older single retired women live in poverty and experience economic insecurity in retirement. Women over 55 are the fastest-growing demographic of the population for homelessness. The issue starts early in women's working lives. Women take, on average, five years out of the workforce to care for children or family members. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, it's during these years, when many women are balancing paid work with unpaid caring responsibilities at home, that the gender pay and super gap begins to widen considerably. There are solutions. This problem is persistent and baked into many of our social and economic policies, and it is time in 2020 that the government address these issues. Just like the long-lasting problems, the solutions have been discussed at length and they are there for an ambitious government to take on. By amending the Paid Parental Leave scheme, we can increase female workforce participation and decrease the wage and super gap. Australians are currently able to access up to 20 weeks of parental leave. This is well below the recommended amount, as suggested by the World Health Organization, of 26 weeks and it's well below the OECD average of 55 weeks. We should move to parity with our international peers. Parental leave itself must be more equitable. One of the big problems is, of course, that 99.74 per cent of parental leave is taken by women. I would be curious to do an analysis of all the male members of this parliament to see how many took parental leave. We need policies that support men who want to take time out to take care of their children. We have other levers at our disposal. The childcare subsidy works directly to increase female participation in the workforce, reducing the gap, and it is the main way the government can assist families with childcare costs. Many women are finding that the loss of benefits, like family benefit and the Medicare levy, as more hours are worked is a disincentive to further work. Increasing the childcare subsidy would overcome these disincentives and increase workforce participation. The benefit to the wider economy would be substantial. The Grattan Institute projected that it would boost GDP by $11 billion annually and result in $150,000 in higher lifetime earnings for the typical Australian mother. This should be the priority of the coalition government. According to the Australia Institute, if we took it one step further and emulated the Icelandic free child care and world-leading parental leave scheme of three months for either parent, shared equally and equitably, then Australia's GDP would be $140 billion more, or some 7.5 per cent higher. I get a lot of feedback on this issue from my constituents in Warringah, and we're coming up with solutions. A local business called Super-Rewards is fusing ecommerce and tech to try and solve the women's super gap. Founded by two women, both mums who are tired of policy inaction, it will allow retailers to top up your super when women shop online. Participants are effectively making voluntary micro-contributions that are a substitute for all the unpaid and part-time work that does not qualify. It's compatible with any super fund, including self-managed super funds, and they already have over 120 retailers on the platform. By combining government policy and private sector ingenuity, we can make sure that women all over Australia have a safe and comfortable retirement. There is one more issue that I need to raise today in relation to the super system—specifically, compliance. The government earlier this year raised and extended an amnesty to businesses who had not paid, or incorrectly paid, super to their employees. Employers have had a six-month window until 7 September 2020 to disclose, lodge and pay any unpaid super guarantee amount for their employees. Employers can claim deductions and not incur administration charges or penalties during this amnesty. But there's a catch. Paradoxically, the amnesty may lead to many businesses being forced— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 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 45 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Assistant Treasurer, Prime Minister 45 13:30 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio On Sunday, 60 Minutes revealed allegations of branch stacking in Liberal Party branches in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and the star of the show was the member for Deakin, the Assistant Treasurer. It seems the member for Deakin is pretty used to being in the centre of events, but he has cut a very lonely and quiet figure around Parliament House this week. As the tumbleweeds start to blow through his political fortunes, very suddenly his career has become highly radioactive, but the silence has been most profound on the part of the Prime Minister. Two months ago another political story aired on 60 Minutes. On that occasion the Prime Minister could not have been faster in getting out the door and talking about disarray and chaos and 'this being a test for Anthony Albanese'. Within 48 hours the member for Grayndler had met that test by instituting the biggest intervention into a Labor Party branch in 120 years. Well, what has the Prime Minister, himself, done this week? He's issued one line: 'This is an organisational matter for the Victorian division of the party.' That's it. The brazenness of this Prime Minister's inconsistency is astounding and, in the process, it treats the Australian people like mugs. But if he thinks they won't see through that he's got another think coming, because they have a pretty knack, given the chance on election day, of calling out absolute garbage— (Time expired) Lingard, Ms Margie, Lingard, Mr Doug 45 13:31 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I rise to acknowledge two inspirational members of our northern beaches community who have dedicated their lives in hope of finding a cure for mitochondrial disease. Margie and Doug Lingard have, admirably, established the Mito Foundation, which is a not-for-profit organisation that conducts research aiming to find a cure for mitochondrial. The inspiring couple have personally fought with this complex disease. Tragically, they lost their son Alex and daughter Rose in 2017. This disease leaves those affected unable to produce the energy needed for their cells to function. To put this into perspective, about one in 200 people will carry this disease, which equates to nearly 120,000 Australians. Doug and Margie continue to organise a yearly walkathon, named The Bloody Long Walk, to raise funds in order to support the Mito Foundation's invaluable research. I am tremendously proud of both Margie and Doug for transforming their devastating loss into a symbol of hope and resilience. I thank them, as the creation of this foundation is not only beneficial to the northern beaches community but also influential right across Australia. Morrison Government: China 45 13:33 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Managing our relationships with other countries has always been the federal government's job, and of course the federal government should always be determining what is in our national interest. But in some kind of Trumpian act the Prime Minister now wants the entire nation to be overcome with amnesia about his own record. He wants us to forget that it was his government that ticked off the sale of the Port of Darwin, a strategic asset, to a Chinese company. He wants us to forget that when Victoria signed a memorandum of understanding with China in 2018 his trade minister, Senator Birmingham, declared, 'That's something we welcome.' Most of all, he wants us to forget that in September 2017 his government signed its own BRI memorandum of understanding with China. What is in this BRI deal? We don't know. The Prime Minister refuses to tell us. Why? Because, as Fairfax newspapers reported in 2018, China has not agreed to do so. Unlike the Morrison government, federal Labor has made it clear that we would not sign up to the BRI. It's time the Morrison government started properly managing our international relations instead of chasing headlines. COVID-19 45 13:34 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins To protect the public against the COVID crisis, governments all around the world have enacted special powers. On 16 March the Australian government declared an emergency under the Biosecurity Act 2015. On 15 March the Victorian government declared a state of emergency. On 3 August, the Victorian government went further and declared a state of disaster to enable police to enforce Victoria's first-ever curfew. Australians have tolerated a remarkable suspension in our everyday lives because we know these restrictions have been imposed for the safety of us all—our loved ones and indeed all Australians. But the Victorian government's recent announcement that it wants to extend its emergency powers from six months to 18 months has seen an unprecedented number of angry calls and emails to my office. Constituents in Higgins are concerned the Victorian government has failed to understand the need to strike a balance between responding swiftly in a crisis, which is what emergency powers provide, and ensuring accountability, which is what our democracy demands. With a patient in an emergency, doctors must often step in and work swiftly—frequently without clear consent. But, when the disease becomes chronic, informed consent cannot be a casualty in decision-making between a doctor and a patient. It is likewise for our democracy. When time is of the essence, our democracy can and should take a momentary back seat. When time is no longer of the essence, our democracy must always be in the driver's seat. We forget this principle at our peril. Morrison Government: China 46 13:36 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Everyone in this chamber and around the country agrees that our national interest must always come first. But this government's approach to our relationship with China must be scrutinised. Today we are told that the government will legislate to tear up the Victorian government's MOU with China, and those signed by other states, and also scrutinise the actions of universities and local governments. If this government has concerns with agreements entered into by these bodies, they should be making those concerns clear instead of launching public attacks. And the hypocrisy of this government! They are having a crack at Victoria, when former Liberal trade minister Steve Ciobo signed the government's own very, very secret memorandum of understanding on the Belt and Road Initiative. When was that? It was only in 2017, a mere three years ago—and here we are having a crack at everyone else's job! Let's not forget that this is also the Liberal government which sold away the lease on the port of Darwin—a 99-year lease. It is hard to imagine there being a more strategic asset in the north of this country. So the facts and the actions of the Liberal government in this place speak for themselves. Liberal governments are making one poor decision after another in relation to our relationship with China. As the shadow minister for trade, I'm well aware of the importance of our relationship with China. We have enjoyed a mutually beneficial trade arrangement for many years. They've created thousands of jobs for Australia. Disengagement with China is not an option, and this government needs to do its job. Lyne Electorate: Local Schools Community Fund 46 13:37 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I wish to update the House on the results that the government's Local Schools Community Fund are delivering in my electorate. This fund builds on our investment in schools by allowing individual schools to nominate their own projects that will make the biggest difference in their school community. Nillo Infants School, in Lorn, has purchased a retired bus to be repurposed as 'Clem the STEM Bus'. Principal Vicki Sellens and the children at Nillo have been supported by the local Men's Shed to complete a fit-out designed to make the interior look like a science laboratory. I visited Largs Public School, where student leaders Josh, Hannah, Logan and Emily were thrilled to show off their three outdoor picnic tables for the playground, and Vacy Public School up the road also gave me a tour to show me the furniture that has been installed across its classrooms through the same fund, transforming traditional classrooms into flexible and innovative learning environments. And up the road further, at Paterson Public School, Principal Sarah-Jane Hazell explained that they have used their grant to enhance a future-focused learning program through the purchase of classroom technology devices. I sat down with Ivy, Liam, Ethan, Chloe, Max and Jacob, who showed me what they have been using this wonderful new technology for. These sorts of funds are granular and on the ground. They have a huge impact for Australia's future scientists. The technology advantages in early learning are being put into real action. (Time expired) Morrison Government: China 46 13:39 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland The Liberal Party always put their own political interest ahead of the national interest. They took Australia into two wars based on lies for political advantage—Vietnam and Iraq. And their announcement today is all about distraction from the aged-care disaster, distraction from the years of neglect, distraction from the $1.7 billion worth of cuts to aged care under Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Their announcement today is all about the Victorian BRI deal. Guess who welcomed it when it was signed? Trade minister Simon Birmingham. Guess what Steve Ciobo said? He said: Australia supports the aims of initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative … Prime Minister Turnbull said: We look forward to working with China on the Belt and Road Initiative … And Prime Minister Morrison said: Australia welcomes the contribution that the Belt and Road Initiative can make … They support the BRI so much that they've done their own secret MOU with China on it that they won't release because they have something to hide. The truth is this is just a distraction from the aged-care disaster. Look at the lease of the Port of Darwin, a hugely important strategic asset that they presided over the lease of. Again, it's more about putting their political interests ahead of the national interests. Look at the actions of signing the extradition treaty with China under Philip Ruddock, hugely compromising Australian independence. It took a revolt from Labor to reverse it. The truth is the Liberal Party can't be trusted on foreign policy, because they'll put their political interests ahead of the national interests. Moore Electorate: Infrastructure 47 13:40 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I'm pleased to announce that the City of Joondalup has been allocated a financial assistance grant for the 2021 financial year of $5.63 million. This includes $2.26 million in local road funding for upgrading and maintaining suburban roads, including road resurfacing works and major intersection upgrades. These improvements will be completed along busy roads, including Marmion Avenue, Whitfords Avenue, Joondalup Drive, Ocean Reef Road and Hepburn Avenue, improving road safety for our community. I thank the residents who returned my recent community survey, nominating roads in poor repair. I'm working with the City of Joondalup to include these locations in the capital works plan with the subsidy of the road funding made available. A further $3.7 million has been delivered in the form of general-purpose funding for the city to allocate at its discretion for the maintenance and improvement of community facilities. This latest round of federal funding reduces the pressure on council rates and the financial burden on ratepayers. As the federal budget is due to be delivered during the upcoming October sitting of parliament, I will continue to advocate strongly, on behalf of a number of community organisations within my electorate, for priority local facilities submitted for consideration as part of the budgetary process. Grace, Mr Edward Laurence (Ted) 47 13:42 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler This week, sadly, I learnt of the passing of Ted Grace, the former federal member for Fowler and longstanding alderman on Fairfield City Council. Ted was a highly regarded parliamentarian who was very passionate about his local community. He was a firm believer in the core values of Labor and in doing what was right for those who lived in his community. Ted was particularly well remembered for his support of multiculturalism and he often spoke avidly about the successes and contributions that migrants made to this great country of ours and in particular of his experience of refugees in Fowler. He regularly praised the multicultural community for their role in developing south-west Sydney, an area that continues to be one of the fastest-growing regions in this country. Ted will also be remembered as being a very devoted family member. On behalf of the federal electorate of Fowler, I'd like to extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Connie, and to their family at this very difficult time. Ted Grace made a difference for the better in our community, and we are indebted to the legacy he has left. Curtin Electorate: Dogs' Refuge Home 47 13:43 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I don't know if you're aware but yesterday was International Dog Day. Today I rise to recognise the Dogs' Refuge Home Western Australia, which is based in my electorate in the suburb of Shenton Park. For 85 years, the refuge has been rescuing, caring for and finding loving homes for countless dogs across Western Australia. Every year they save more than 1,000 dogs, some of which have been sadly abused, neglected and abandoned by their owners. Led by Karen Rhodes, with a small staff and a team of about 360 dedicated volunteers, the refuge ensures that any dog that comes into its care is given the veterinary treatment, care and attention they require until it can find a loving home for them. Anybody who shares their life with a dog knows the joy and unconditional love that a dog can bring. My family have been so lucky to share our lives with Charlie and Jack, who both came from this very same refuge over a decade ago. Whether a dog is in the twilight of its life and looking for a caring and understanding family or is a little puppy filled with energy and enthusiasm and possibly looking for its first home, it deserves our love. So, if you are looking for a 'pawsome' new friend in your family, I would encourage you to visit your local dog refuge. Thank you to Karen and all the team at the Shenton Park dog refuge for all that you do. Abbott, Hon. Anthony John (Tony), AC 47 13:44 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne There are reports today that Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister, is now on the payroll of the British government, promoting British interests ahead of Australian farmers, producers and exporters. If this is true, then the Prime Minister must strip him of his prime ministerial pension. Tony Abbott's job is now to say, 'Buy British,' not 'Buy Australian,' and the Australian public shouldn't be giving him a six-figure prime ministerial pension while he does it. If Tony Abbott wants to switch teams and go and bat for someone else, that's a matter for him, but the Australian public should not be bankrolling it. Tony Abbott's job is now to advance the interests of another country's farmers, producers and exporters over Australia's, and he should not be on the Australian government payroll while it happens. Our current Prime Minister says that he is very concerned about foreign interference in Australia. If he is so concerned about foreign interference, he should start by looking at the former Prime Minister, who is on the government's own payroll and who is now apparently working for a foreign power. The Prime Minister seems very prepared to muscle up to state premiers and tell them what to do, but he turns a blind eye to a former prime minister who, according to reports, is now taking money to promote another country's interests. If Tony Abbott wants to switch teams, the Australian public shouldn't be bankrolling him to do it. New England Electorate: Infrastructure 48 13:46 Mr JOYCE E5D New England How predictable—the member for Melbourne doesn't like Tony Abbott, and the member for Shortland doesn't support coal workers. Well, there you go. What I'm here to talk about is something that's going to be crucial to rebuilding our nation—the infrastructure that will be required to start paying back the debt that inevitably is there by reason of expenditure surrounding the COVID virus. To the Labor members, I might just suggest that you suggested that we borrow even more. We're going to need rail, road and water infrastructure. One of the crucial pieces of infrastructure in the seat of New England is the Kempsey to Wollomombi road, otherwise known as the Kempsey to Armidale road. By reason of the drought, we had the issue of vegetation being denuded. Then we had the fires that went through, and then we had a massive flood. This road will cost tens of millions of dollars to rebuild, and finance will be needed to do it. As it is a council road, it needs to be shifted back to the state realm so it will get state funding. I note that the member for Cowper is here. This road is a linkage between our two great seats. It has to be rebuilt so that we can get the economies that reside along it—in the cattle industry, in the tourism industry—up and running again. I want to note to this parliament, for those people, that I will be putting my shoulder to this task. Beirut: Explosion 48 13:48 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith, I offer my deepest sympathies to those affected by the horrific explosion in Beirut on 4 August. We offer condolences to the people of Lebanon who lost loved ones. In particular, we send our condolences to the parents and family of Isaac Oehlers, the young Australian tragically killed during the blast, and to our nation's Lebanese community. We stand with you. Over 230,000 Australians share Lebanese heritage, but so many more now share the heartache from this disaster. With more than 180 people killed and thousands wounded, and many of Beirut's hospitals badly damaged, the challenge is enormous. For this city, already battling with an economic crisis and a surge in coronavirus infections, it's made even worse. For the people of Lebanon, a difficult year has become so much harder. Our thoughts are with the Australian embassy staff, including those who suffered minor injuries. The Lebanese people are a generous people and a humanitarian people, with 1½ million refugees and the largest number of refugees per capita. Lebanon supports those in need. It's now time for us to support Lebanon. I acknowledge the government's contribution to the humanitarian effort, but we can do more to help the establishment of stable government and a focus on welfare for the people of Lebanon. Australia should work with the authorities in Lebanon to offer whatever support we can. Once again, commiserations to the people of Lebanon. COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine 48 13:49 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Earlier today, by way of interjection, I was asked, 'What medical journals do you read?' This slur was because I have simply argued that we should take a second opinion on the dictate of state health bureaucrats that have taken away the freedom for COVID-infected Australians to have their doctors prescribe them hydroxychloroquine if their doctor thinks it might save their life. Yesterday, I actually read the medical journal European Journal of Internal Medicine. It may interest the House to know that the lead author of this study, a Dr Augusto Di Castelnuovo, looked at 3,451 COVID infected patients in 33 clinics in Italy. What was his conclusion? Hydroxychloroquine was associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of death in COVID hospitalised patients—a 30 per cent lower risk of death. Yet this morning, we had the shadow health minister of this country use parliamentary privilege to attack learned medical professors and doctors with his ignorance. Are they implying that Dr Castelnuovo and the European Journal of Internal Medicine are spreading conspiracy theories? Is that what you're implying? Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Members on my left will stop interjecting. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 On the performance that we saw from the member for McMahon, the architect of GroceryWatch, every Australian should have a shiver up their spine— (Time expired) Parkes, Ms Marguerite, Aged Care 49 13:51 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I'm honoured to make my first contribution as shadow assistant minister for defence from this magnificent rosewood box that was gifted to us in 1927 by King George. It's made me reflect on the contribution made here in this place and by everyone in our country, including that of Marguerite Parkes, who turned 99 just one month ago. Marguerite served over 600 days in the Women's Land Army. She has made some wonderful friendships, some wonderful memories; most importantly, she served our nation in World War II. I was honoured to present her with the Civilian Service Medal. It got me thinking about people like Marguerite who live in terrific aged-care facilities in Australia, like the one in my town, but what happens when COVID breaks out and the staff have to be dissolved? What happens when the service isn't there and these people like Marguerite aren't receiving the care that they richly deserve? Why hasn't this government been more prepared? We knew that the aged of Australia were our most vulnerable group. Why wasn't this government more prepared? Why was this Prime Minister asleep at the wheel? He wasn't 'holding a hose'—he wasn't holding a candle to the needs of the aged in Australia. This government needs to do more, because these people have served and they deserve a good life. (Time expired) Anderson, Mr Harry 49 13:52 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I wish to pay tribute to Harry Anderson, who passed away on 17 June. With a brilliant Scottish brogue and a very warm personality, Harry served on the Hornsby RSL Club board for 15 years and was president from 2018 until his death. Harry was instrumental in guiding many of the club's recent developments, including the Level One lounge, the Courtyard bistro, The Brew Bar and The Attic, which I opened earlier this year. Harry was a thorough gentleman, a real community person and a great exemplar of the spirit of the club. Harry joined the Navy at 16 in 1953 and went on to become lieutenant commander. He later enlisted in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, in 1983, and served as an engineer. His postings including the Commonwealth of Australia naval support staff, HMAS Kuttabul and general manager of the Garden Island dockyard. Harry was discharged in 1987 and awarded the Australian Defence Medal for his 35 years in the Navy. Harry then went on to take his first civilian job with the Australian Submarine Corporation. Harry's work ethic and leadership were second to none. He was also a wonderful family man, devoted to his late wife, Annette, his three children and their spouses, Yvonne and Mark, Greg and Fiona, and Annette and Julian. Harry was very proud of his five grandchildren, Natasha, James, Courtney, Ross and Lorna. In July, Harry Anderson was posthumously awarded life membership of the Hornsby RSL Club. I extend my condolences to Harry's family, friends and colleagues. Harry Anderson will be remembered as a great man, dedicated to the Hornsby RSL Club and to our community. Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians 49 13:54 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley When more than 350 aged-care residents have, tragically, lost their lives to COVID-19, today Australians saw the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians literally demonstrate the Morrison government's attitude to accepting accountability and responsibility when h e stood up, turned his back and walked out on the Senate response to his statement on aged care. There are m ore than 350 people dead as of today and more than 1,100 active cases. These numbers are people. They are their families. They are their loved ones. They are their communities. These numbers are the heartache, the grief and the trauma of loss. And behind these numbers are the horrendous experiences of too many Australians in the last day s of their lives—like Brendan's mother , who hadn't been showered for four days; a nd Elizabeth's mother , who was left in soiled nappies for hours; and the up to five out of every 10 residents in aged - care facilities in today's Australia who are malnourished. Under this government, Australian elders are spending their final time on earth starving . No wonder the interim report of the royal commission into the aged - care sector, a sector that is funded by and regulated by the Morrison government, was entitled Interim report: neglect . No wonder the system is understaffed and broken, when the Prime Minister, as Treasurer, cut almost $2 billion from the budget. The government's neglect of the aged - care system didn't start with this pandemic , but we are seeing its consequences. Not one government senator stood up for Colbeck. Can you blame them? Special Air Service Regiment 50 13:55 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling Conceived during World War II in the deserts of North Africa, the SAS was established to operate and strike deep behind enemy lines. The Australian SAS was established in 1957 and remains at the leading edge of Australia's military capabilities. Our SAS have also led the way in leveraging the talents of women. My own wife's first posting as an intelligence officer was to the SAS. I also served at the regiment as a reservist until I began my service in this place. The inquiry by the Inspector-General of the ADF into potential breaches of the laws of armed conflict in Afghanistan is an appropriate response to the related allegations. We can be thankful that current and former SAS members are being treated with the utmost fairness and care throughout the se processes. A range of support services are available to serving and former ADF members, and their families, and I encourage anyone who requires them to take up those services. A cultural review independent of the ADF inspector -general's review is also under way at the unit. At the same time , I implore all parliamentarians and all Australians to remain in solidarity with the purpose and the people of this incredible unit. At this time of complex geostrategic competition, it is critical that we can continue to draw upon the unique capabilities and effects of the SAS regiment who have kept us safe , have protected our national interest and must do so into our uncertain future. Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians 50 13:57 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Tragically, 22 of the 23 recorded COVID-19 deaths in Victoria in the past 24 hours are related to aged care. Yet , earlier today in the Senate, this government's aged - care minister turned his back on his responsibility and walked out — walked out when the Senate was trying to ascertain what was going on. You don't see aged - care workers turning their back s on their responsibilities . They're turning up to work, working double shifts, working seven -day rosters back to back and putting themselves at risk . You don't see healthcare workers turning their back s on their responsibilities. They're turning up to work. Our nurses are turning up to work, making sure that people are safe and making sure that people get the health care that they need. You don't see retail workers turning their back s on their responsibilities. T hey're turning up to work , despite the high risk in our shopping centres —because we know that infection can spread there. You don't see cleaners not turning up to work , turning their back s on their responsibilities; t hey're doing their bit to help keep us safe. Yet we have an aged - care minister in this country who turns his back not just on the sector but on his job , a nd we have a Prime Minister who won't stand up and take responsibility for either the minister's action or what's happening in aged care. It's a disgrace. COVID-19: Year 12 Students 50 13:59 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay In an ordinary year, being a y ear 12 student is a big deal , layered with many pressures . But this is no ordinary year , and a on ce- in - 100-year s pandemic is an extra layer no student would be prepared for. This is why it's so important that we as governments, schools and communities do everything we can to support our year 12s and give them hope for the wonderful future that lies ahead for each and every one of them. This includes ensuring they can still have their graduations and formals , even if they're a little bit different , because these are what mark the end of 13 years of school ing so students can then move on to the next phase in their lives . Unfortunately, restrictions that have been put in place due to coronavirus means schools have had to cancel or postpone the se celebrations. That's why earlier today I convened a teleconference meeting with high - school principals in my community. It's absolutely essential that we understand what students are going through and that we provide the support they need. Some spoke about the uncertaint y students are feeling on top of the additional stresses of the HSC. They also spoke about how they could confidently hold graduations in a COVID-safe way. I encourage the New South Wales government to help provide solutions to our schools, t o help them navigate these challenges a nd to offer the best outcomes for students in this very important year. Thank you to the principals who took part in our discussion today . To all our year 12 students : w e are here to support you. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 50 CONDOLENCES Grace, Mr Edward Laurence (Ted) 50 14:00 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death on 22 August of Edward Laurence 'Ted' Grace, a member of this House for the division of Fowler from 1984 until 1998. As a mark of respect to the memory of Ted Grace, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 51 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Christchurch: Attacks 51 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Justice today was delivered in New Zealand to the terrorist and murderer for his cowardly and horrific crimes and attacks on a Christchurch mosque. The world must never see him or hear from him ever again. All Australians were and remain horrified and devastated by his despicable terrorist act. New Zealand is family to us in Australia. Today we send our love across the ditch, and I had the opportunity to pass on those wishes directly to the New Zealand Prime Minister earlier today. But, out of the horror of this event, I simply want to refer to what emerged as an incredible grace and beauty in the form of Farid Ahmed, who I met, with Jenny, at the memorial service in Christchurch at the time, and again when he came to visit me in Sydney in March of this year. Farid lost his wife that day, and his message in response was not one of hate but one of hope and of love. He is truly one of the most inspirational people I have ever met—incredibly humbling just to be in his presence. I pay tribute to the Muslim community of New Zealand and also of Australia, who have supported each other in these very difficult times—and today will be a time when it all comes back and it hurts again, in a way just that bit more than it ordinarily does—but the way they have done that reflects the goodness of their faith. You have been a light answering a terrible darkness. God bless you, New Zealand, our whanau, this day. May it be another day of healing for everyone affected by this terrible terrorist atrocity. 14:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Today in New Zealand we have seen justice, a civilised response to an act that was anything but. It was an act of terrorist violence, coldly and cynically calculated to push people apart, to sow division and tear a society apart, on innocent people, defenceless, in their most sacred place, in peaceful prayer, in solemn respect of their faith. Prayer is a time which should be sacrosanct. Instead, we got the ultimate atrocity. In the end, it only succeeded in bringing the people of New Zealand closer together. We will not say the killer's name. We will not speak of him, other than to acknowledge that he was one of ours—an Australian, who cast such a terrible shadow over our dear neighbour. We can only hope that, from today, New Zealand can begin the long process of healing. We can only hope that, after an act of such premeditated merciless cruelty, today's sentence can at least bring some small measure of comfort to those left behind. We remember every life that was lost in Christchurch on that most awful of days. For those still grieving and wishing their loved one could one day come home again, maybe even today's decision might just make it a little bit easier. It won't change things, but may their sadness be softened by the knowledge that their loss brought a nation together. To New Zealand: we stand with you. To the Muslim community: we grieve with you. Hate will not divide us. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 51 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the aged-care royal commission released a statement that nine out of 10 aged-care facilities in Australia are failing to achieve the highest quality of care. Why are nine out of every 10 aged-care facilities failing to deliver the appropriate care that older Australians deserve? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The challenges we face in aged care are understood, they are known, and that is why the government continue to act to support our aged-care sector. That is why we continue to provide more than $1 billion in extra funding every year to attend to all of the issues that are necessary. Understanding the system and its great needs—and those needs are increasing—is the reason I initiated the royal commission that the member opposite refers to. That is why, when they do their work and they provide us with their recommendations, we will be in a position to respond further, in addition to the more than $3 billion already provided in additional supports right across the board, across all of these facilities, whether it is the increase in in-home aged-care places, whether it is dealing with chemical restraints or whether it is dealing with the standards that it is necessary to uphold that the member refers to. It is a difficult sector in which to achieve the outcomes we would all desire, and we will continue to double and redouble our efforts each and every day to ensure that we treat older Australians with dignity and respect. COVID-19 52 14:07 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how Australians are meeting the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic, including in my home state of Victoria, and how the Morrison government is supporting us through this difficult time? 14:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Higgins for her question I also thank her for her advice and her support, given her background, which has been referred to in this place before. It is tremendous for us to be able to draw on the many members that we have as part of our team as we work through what is an unprecedented time, and through uncharted territory. When I was with the Leader of the Opposition recently at the War Memorial, to mark the end of World War II, I referred to a statement of the then Prime Minister John Curtin, admired and revered in this place. He said to Australians during that time, 'No-one else can do your share.' What we saw then from Australians, as they went about their daily tasks under great adversity, we are seeing today from Australians, also understanding that they each are doing their share. That share involves reaching out and supporting each other. Their share involves following the instructions that are there to protect their health and wellbeing: to do social distancing; when they are sick, to get tested and stay at home; to wash their hands often; to download the COVIDSafe app; to do all the things that are necessary to support and to protect their own communities; and to reach out to each other to ensure that their mental health and support is being looked after on a daily basis. There has been a national effort and, of course, the government has been joined in that effort and leading that effort with unprecedented economic supports—around $10 billion of additional supports through the health system, and an additional $1 billion in aged-care support. That support will continue to be provided. But what I particularly want to say today to all Australians, particularly those in Melbourne and across Victoria, to those in border communities, that are dealing with the dislocation and the disruption to their lives, which can feel incredibly unfair—and, given the circumstances, is unfair but nevertheless is something that they are enduring and working through, with the great support of the many members here who represent them in this place—is: I thank parents for holding families together at this time. I thank doctors, nurses and aged-care staff doing difficult and dangerous work. I thank our retail staff; I had the opportunity to send a message to 120,000 at Coles, and I send the same message out to those at Woolies, Aldi and all the other retail stores across the country. I thank our cleaners, hospitals, shopping centres and offices, keeping us safe. I thank truck drivers, bus drivers and Uber drivers keeping our supply chains and people moving. I thank our farmers keeping food on the table, our shearers and our other agricultural workers, who are doing the same thing for food and fibre. I thank the tremendous public servants, who, across the country, have done an exemplary job. There are so many people to thank, but I just want to thank Australians themselves for their tenacity in the way they are dealing with this pandemic. Aged Care 52 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Today the aged-care royal commission has released a statement that 96 per cent of private, for-profit aged-care facilities are failing to deliver the highest quality of care. Why is this seven-year-old government failing to ensure that frail and vulnerable older Australians get the care they deserve? 14:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will ask the Minister for Health to add further to my answer. Whether it is private operators, to which the member has referred, or whether it is non-profit operators, like St Basil's, or whether it is public operators, like Oakden that actually sparked the royal commission, wherever the care needs to be provided then the system needs to support that care in the funding and support delivered by the federal government and the regulation that sits over that, which is our responsibility. That is why we will continue to increase our funding and support, and to learn the lessons that need to be learned and apply them—particularly those that will come from the royal commission. 14:12 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Adding to the Prime Minister's answer, there are four principal things which this government has done to assist. Firstly, in relation to funding, we have increased funding from just over $13 billion to tracking towards $25.444 billion over the course of the forward estimates. That has allowed for additional home care places, additional support for residential care places and additional investment in aged care overall. Secondly, this Prime Minister became the first prime minister in Australian history, to the best of my knowledge, to call a royal commission. I was standing next to him on the day he announced that royal commission. He warned of the challenges. He warned of the confronting elements. He was first person to have taken those steps, precisely because he wished to shine a light on the challenges which flowed from the Oakden royal commission into public aged care in South Australia, which had lessons for all elements of aged care—public, not-for-profit and private. In addition to that, we have created the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. That commission has now seen over 620 spot inspections during the course of the pandemic, with 100 in Victoria in the recent two-month period. In particular, as part of that, what we have also seen is the establishment last year, on 1 July, of the National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator Program. That quality indicator program, the likes of which had not existed under any previous government, became compulsory from 1 July last year. It requires that all Commonwealth subsidised residential aged-care services report on quality indicators across three critical areas: pressure injuries; use of physical restraint; and unplanned weight loss—something which is absolutely fundamental. All of those things have come together—the funding, the royal commission, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator Program—in the fight to protect, preserve and improve standards in quality in aged care. COVID-19: Regional Australia 53 14:14 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how regional Australia is demonstrating its resilience through the COVID-19 pandemic and leading by example in compliance with health regulations? 14:15 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I want to thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge that in the electorate of Cowper there has been no community transmission nor a case for 123 days. His electorate on the Mid North Coast, like many regional electorates across the country, has been very, very good at keeping the case rates to a minimum, in complying with what the Chief Medical Officer has asked them to do as far as social distancing, self-isolation if required, and helping each other out, because that's what country communities do. I always say that our country communities are big enough in which to get a good cup of coffee and small enough to care, and that is regional Australia. I thank all those regional Australians for what they've done to make sure that the COVID-19 case rates have been kept to an absolute minimum. I want to also acknowledge a business in Port Macquarie, Coast 2 Coast Sports, which has transformed its business and pivoted from making sports apparel to making hand sanitiser which is then made available for community sports teams. Community sports, where it's been possible to for them to be played, in our regional areas have given an uplift and certainly ensured that those perhaps flagging spirits have been given a boost. I know how important sport is and I acknowledge our sporting clubs for what they do to help spread the word in such things as ensuring that anti-domestic-violence measures are put in place, as far as mental health is concerned. I thank those sports communities and those sports teams, particularly in the member for Cowper's electorate. An Aboriginal woman— Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Are you quite finished? The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Deputy Prime Minister will come back to his answer. Mr McCORMACK 219646 An Aboriginal woman in my electorate, Aunty Gail Clark, who died on 8 January this year, often used to say, at welcomes to country: 'You might need a preacher now and again in your life. You might need a doctor. You might need a lawyer. But, you know, you need a farmer three times a day, every day.' Her message was so good and so important. I want to thank our farmers, right across regional Australia, for keeping our supermarket shelves stocked. I want to thank our truckies for getting that freight stocked and for getting that stock around the nation. I want to thank our doctors, our frontline medical personnel, particularly in regional Australia, for the job that they've done through COVID-19. They are true heroes—all those people in regional Australia—who have been unfairly impacted by the restrictions that have been placed on them, and that is so unfortunate. But they have done what they needed to do. They've kept the case rates low— (Time expired) Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce will cease interjecting and having his never-ending conversation with I don't know who—but you'll just stop. COVID-19: Aged Care 53 14:18 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the Prime Minister's own emergency response document for COVID-19, his government is responsible for aged-care infection control guidelines. Victoria's Chief Medical Officer has revealed poor infection practice has been the main driver of infection in aged care. Today, more than 360 families are grieving as a result. Does the Prime Minister accept that his failure to act has led to the deaths of vulnerable aged-care residents? 14:19 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I think it is important to address the documents in question. There are two principal documents which refer to the national and state responsibilities with regard to the national pandemic health plan and the national COVID-19 aged-care plan. In relation to the pandemic health plan, which was released on 18 February and activated by the Prime Minister on 27 February, I turn to section 4.1.4, Implementation of public health measures. Very specifically: The Australian Government will also be responsible for residential aged care facilities; working with other healthcare providers to set standards to promote the safety and security of people in aged care … This was a document worked on and agreed with the states and passed through the AHPPC, the medical expert panel. It says: State and territory governments are responsible for the operational aspects of public health responses … implement infection control guidelines and healthcare safety and quality standards. They will establish systems to promote the safety and security of people in aged care and other institutional settings and support outbreak investigation and management in residential aged care facilities … I'm simply setting out that a large part of that element was missed. On 13 March, when the national aged-care plan was released, that included, again, a joint document of the Commonwealth and the states, which said: State/territory public health section in the Departments of Health will act in an advisory role to assist RCF— residential aged-care facilities— to detect, characterise and manage COVID-19 outbreaks. This includes: assisting facilities to confirm outbreaks providing advice on obtaining testing samples … … … monitoring for severity of illness … informing relevant stakeholders of outbreaks informing clinical care providers in the local health district. I say this to draw the opposition's attention to the fact that there are shared responsibilities. We take full responsibilities for carrying out the regulatory functions of aged care. That's why we established four critical elements to protect with regard to aged care: firstly, on 11 March, $101 million for surge workforce; secondly, on 13 March, a national agreement with public hospitals to provide surge workforce; thirdly, on 31 March, the establishment of the private hospitals agreement—and 450 patients have been transferred to those private hospitals. Finally, we've established a national testing contract for every facility, for every resident and every staff member, wherever there is a positive case. Each life lost is a source of immense regret and agony not just for those involved but for all Australians and all governments. That's why we've done these things to help fight and protect Australians, and that's why the loss of life in Australian aged-care facilities is among the lowest in the world. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 54 14:22 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Investments in clean technologies deliver more than twice the number of jobs as the same investment in coal or gas. With unemployment hitting record highs, if the government is serious about delivering jobs and futureproofing the economy then it will commit to a clean recovery, as the EU, the UK, Germany and South Korea, to name but a few, have done. Will your government implement a transparent and economic merit based assessment of projects and prioritise jobs and Australia's future over support for gas and coal projects? 14:22 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. I'll ask the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to add further to my answer, but let me simply say this: the investment in renewable energy technology in Australia has been at record levels and will continue to be at record levels. Such has been the significant investment in renewable energy technologies in Australia, particularly those in the intermittent form with solar and wind. The great advantage of projects that are using gas, as well as pumped hydro, which the government is making record investments in through Snowy Hydro 2.0, is that they firm and reinforce the efficacy of the renewable energies that are being supported into the system. So, far from being something that takes away from a renewable future in our energy sector, the investments in gas and gas technology, as well as the pumped hydro technologies that the government is so supportive of, are actually accelerating, reinforcing and supporting those very renewable energy technologies, and that's reflected in our technology road map. I'll ask the energy minister to add further to my answer. 14:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I am thankful for and graciously appreciative of the opportunity to answer this question, because it is a very important one. The truth of the matter is that, if you want jobs in manufacturing in this country, you need reliable, affordable gas and electricity. That is the key. We know that there's enormous opportunity for creating jobs in manufacturing in this country, but gas is one of the crucial feedstocks to do that. We need balance in our energy system, and we know, as the Prime Minister said, we are seeing record levels of investment in renewables—6.3 gigawatts of renewable investment last year. That's $9 billion. The Clean Energy Regulator says that we expect to see a similar amount this year. But it needs to be backed up, and it needs to be backed up with dispatchable generation and storage. Snowy 2.0 is a good example of that—two gigawatts of pumped hydro—but we also need, in that mix, gas. Indeed, the Chief Scientist has made this point. I'll read from his comments: 'Gas is effectively the perfect complement to solar and wind.' If we want job creation coming out of COVID-19, we need affordable, reliable energy. We need affordable, reliable gas. COVID-19: Small Business 55 14:25 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the incredible efforts of Australian businesses, and particularly small businesses, are ensuring our economy remains resilient during this global pandemic, and how have these efforts been helped by the Morrison government's JobKeeper plans? 14:26 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Curtin for her question and acknowledge her experience as a professor of law and as a vice-chancellor of Notre Dame university before coming to this place. COVID-19 has hit the global economy like an earthquake. The World Bank is suggesting that more economies will contract this calendar year than at any time since 1870. And Australia has not been immune. Initially, since the start of this crisis, 1.3 million Australians either lost their job or saw their hours reduced to zero. These are cafe workers, hotel staff, people who work in retail, tourism operators and tradies of all kinds. These people are often working for small business. There are more than three million small businesses across the economy that are the backbone of our economy. We thank the small businesses of Australia for working to support their staff, who they often treat like extended family. It's the determination of small business owners, working day and night, which will be key to this recovery. Glen owns Deli Chicchi in Mount Claremont, in the member for Curtin's electorate. He has said: 'The government's measures have helped us when our businesses had to close to sit-down diners because of the restrictions. In fact, one of the biggest things that helped us was the cash flow boost. When those payments came through, it prevented us from having to remortgage or to close our doors. Along with the JobKeeper payments, it kept my staff in jobs, allowed business to keep going and helped me to pay my small, independent suppliers. With restrictions easing, we are now getting back to work, where we were pre COVID.' That's the message of hope. You get the virus under control, restrictions start to ease and customers and jobs come back. Nowhere is this message more important than in my home state of Victoria. The message of hope is needed. That's why Victorians were so aghast when the Victorian government said that there was a prospect of the state of emergency continuing for another 12 months. Victorians need to hear more about the road out than a longer road in. That is why the Morrison government stands with Victorians and indeed 25 million Australians to support Australians get to the other side of COVID-19. COVID-19: Aged Care 55 14:29 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The aged-care royal commission heard that it is well known that many aged-care workers are employed on a casual basis and work across multiple facilities, often in three or four jobs. Given that aged-care workers moving between different facilities is a key driver of infection, why did the Prime Minister wait until 19 July when the virus was already widespread to announce the initiative that Victorian aged-care workers could work at a single facility? 14:29 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders In responding to the Victorian outbreak, an issue which we know has seen over 17,000 cases in that state—and those have had an impact in relation to all elements of society, whether it's hospitals, whether it's aged care—we've been particularly focused on aged care. This has been a daily focus. What we have done is follow the medical advice in relation to actions taken. That's been the abiding principle of what we've done as a government. We've followed the medical advice and worked with the AHPPC, the medical expert panel, under the leadership of Professor Brendan Murphy and now under the leadership of Professor Paul Kelly. Those things together are the reasons why, as a country, we're in a position now where there are no aged-care facility outbreaks around the rest of the country, in seven out of eight states and territories. But there are in Victoria. They have followed community transmission. There was reference earlier to a paper which the Victorian government provided on infection control. What that showed is that, overwhelmingly, it was cases of community transmission which led to the passage, through staff who were asymptomatic, into aged-care facilities. As a part of that, we took the decisions that we made based on the medical advice provided by the medical experts. National Security 56 14:31 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is meeting its responsibilities to protect Australia's national interest and keep Australians safe? 14:31 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Braddon for his question and for his service to our country in our defence forces, and I thank all those members of this House who have served in our defence forces and indeed continue to serve as reservists. The first responsibility of a federal government is always to protect and defend Australia, its people and our interests. This government has lived up to that responsibility, most recently again equipping and focusing our defence forces with the Defence Strategic Update, following on from the white paper, and, importantly, ensuring that the resources are there to back in the plans and the focus of those plans, the design to keep Australia safe, working in alignment, shaping our region together with our partners and so many others, to ensure that we can keep Australians safe; to ensure that we can protect Australia against the increasing threat of cyberattacks; to further strengthen our foreign investment rules to ensure that Australia's integrity is maintained throughout our assets and, in particular, the critical infrastructure assets that are so important to Australia's security; to strengthen the disaster preparedness of our nation, our resilience to drought, fire, flood and cyclone; and to ensure that we counter foreign interference in this country, including in our university sector. Today I announced, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 will be brought into this place. That foreign relations bill will protect and promote Australia's national interest and ensure that Australia has a federal government, a national government, that cannot be undermined through the efforts of any nation that would seek to undermine Australia's foreign affairs position by dealing with subnational governments. There is only one sovereignty in Australia, and that is what we share as Australians. At times such as these, as we deal with the many threats that are without—and indeed those that are present within, when it comes to disaster or pandemic or other issues that can undermine our security and add to the challenges that Australians face—it is incredibly important that we don't retreat into provincialism. It's important that we focus, very united together as a country, on what makes us strong, and that is when six states came together to form Australia as a federated nation. Alfred Deakin got it right. Australia, he said, is one and indivisible. That's how we should present to the world when it comes to our foreign relations, and that's how we should conduct ourselves within. COVID-19: Aged Care 56 14:34 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. Are aged-care workers in Victoria still working across multiple facilities? 14:34 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders The guidelines that were put in place were designed to provide incentives and they were designed to provide direction, but they were also designed to provide the flexibility so that no workplace would suffer a shortage. That was designed in conjunction with the sector and in conjunction with consultation right across the country. Whilst there is a very clear direction, under medical expert guidance one of the most important things that must happen is to make sure that there are always workforce members available. We put in place incentives, we put in place additional payments and we put in place a surge workforce. In fact, there are four elements of surge workforce which we put in place: (1) on 11 March we provided surge workforce with $101 million; (2) on 13 March we had the public hospitals agreement to provide for surge workforce; (3) on 31 March we had the private hospitals agreement, which provides for surge workforce; and (4) in April we also had the testing agreement to provide for the testing within facilities. All of those elements come together— The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just ask the minister to resume his seat. I'm calling the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Corio. Mr Marles HWQ A point of order on relevance. It was a very direct question that invites a direct answer, not ducking and weaving about responsibility. The SPEAKER 00APG On the point of order, I do think he addressed the substance of the very direct question at the beginning of his answer. As I've said before, Practice makes clear that I can't compel a yes or a no. But I would say to the minister, now that he's answered that question—unless he's going to add any more information to the question that's been asked—it's not an invitation to talk about other areas of aged-care policy. Mr HUNT 00AMV Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to conclude there with the principle that we've added that surge workforce but we've also followed the medical expert panel advice, and that is absolutely fundamental. Cybersafety 57 14:37 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is working to protect Australian families, businesses and infrastructure from new and evolving cyber threats? 14:37 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. I also thank him very much for the work that he's doing in relation to an online petition that he has at the moment, calling on state governments to support the Australian government's position in relation to a register for child sex offenders. It's great work that he is undertaking in his electorate of Ryan. The reality is, for all Australians now—it doesn't matter whether you're at school, whether you're a worker or whether you're a small-business owner—you are spending more and more time online. Senior Australians are taking up Facebook and sending photos backwards and forwards to kids and grandkids. Internet banking is now, obviously, a big part of people's lives as well. We want to make sure that we can keep people safe online. We want to make sure that we can do everything we can through the cybersecurity strategy that the Prime Minister and I announced earlier this month to keep not only Australians at home safe online but also businesses and infrastructure safe online. It is the reality now, sadly, that state actors and criminal groups are targeting Australians, scamming identifications and trying to help groom young children online to catch up in the real world. There are many different facets of why we need to get the cybersecurity strategy right. We're investing $1.67 billion into this strategy to help keep Australians safe online. The Morrison government have made it absolutely clear that we want to protect and defend Australians online and, in particular, from threats against our critical infrastructure. Whether we're talking about telecommunications or the energy sector, for example, we need to make sure we have adequate protections in place. Working very closely with those sectors is a crucial part of the strategy as well. We want to make sure that that a cyberattack on our banking sector doesn't result in banks unable to settle transactions at the end of the day or people not being able to go into a local cafe or restaurant or small business in their community to pay the bill by way of tap-and-go. It would be crippling. We've seen cyberattacks here at a record level in recent months, and we know that during the period of this pandemic many crime groups are targeting young children online. We know that paedophile groups are targeting and trying to groom young children online, and that is what makes it absolutely necessary that we defeat that scourge through the cybersecurity strategy. I want to say thank you to the Prime Minister and to the heads of our agencies, who have been working day and night on this strategy to make sure that we can keep Australians safe. We will continue to work with industry, with every sector, to make sure that the online environment is as safe as it can be. 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Can I just briefly associate the opposition with the comments of the minister. It is, quite frankly, abhorrent and hard to understand this scourge, this evil. We need to do whatever we can to wipe it out. COVID-19: Aged Care 57 14:40 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Prime Minister. The royal commission heard evidence that aged-care workers could only use two masks or one glove per shift. How can residents and staff be protected from the deadly COVID virus when staff can only use one glove per shift? 14:41 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to address this question and correct some of the claims made. In relation to infection control and in relation to PPE, what we have seen across the country is that, at a time when there was a global shortage of supply and a global spike in demand, Australia has been one of the countries that have been able not only to maintain but to dramatically expand our flow. We have had over 400 million masks enter the National Medical Stockpile. We've been able to secure masks through to the end of the year. We've been able to secure gloves and gowns and to provide them. The advice that I have is that, so far, more than 69 million masks have been dispatched from the National Medical Stockpile. That includes 14 million masks to aged-care facilities around the country. What that also includes, in particular, is 10 million masks dispatched for Victorian aged-care workers. It includes gloves and gowns and other items, such as hand sanitiser. All of these elements have been fundamental to ensuring continuity of care. The National Medical Stockpile, if it receives a request, will process it as a matter of urgency in relation to a facility. On multiple occasions we've issued new rounds of support. Only yesterday I noticed that there were some tens of thousands of masks made available to Victorian providers. So the correct answer is that gloves, gowns and masks and hand sanitiser have all been made available through the National Medical Stockpile. Historically, the National Medical Stockpile was only responsible amongst those things for the masks. We made sure that on our watch, in our time, gloves, gowns and sanitiser were added to the stockpile. That was over and above what had previously been agreed with the states as being the responsibility of the states, as opposed to the responsibility of the Commonwealth, but in this time, on our watch, on our responsibility, under the guidance of the Prime Minister, we took those decisions to act. So all of those elements have been provided, but, as of coming here today, shortly before joining you, the National Incident Centre advised me there are 69 million masks, of which 14 million have been provided to aged care and over 10 million to Victoria. Australian Bushfires 58 14:43 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House what action the Morrison-McCormack government is taking to ensure Australians remain safe, secure and resilient from natural disasters, despite the challenges posed by COVID-19? 14:44 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the honourable member for her question. It's important to understand that, despite the fact that it's a mere matter of months since the last fire was extinguished in this year's 'black summer', we're now already in the midst of a new bushfire season. In fact, in my own electorate, in the last couple of weeks, a bushfire started in a little town called Nanango. There have been fires on the New South Wales-Queensland border. And today I inform the House that there has been a catastrophic fire warning issued for parts of the Northern Territory. The fire commissioners and the emergency services commissioners from around the country have planned meticulously for this, and we are working collaboratively with them for any assistance that the federal government may need to provide not only for this event but also for those throughout this severe weather season. The Prime Minister and I have been briefed not only by Emergency Management Australia, the Defence Force and Services Australia but also by the Bureau of Meteorology. While the bureau are saying we are returning to normal bushfire conditions on most of the east coast of Australia, they still have concerns about Western Australia and, in fact, they are concerned about grassfires on the outskirts of Canberra, here, and Melbourne. But what they are also very concerned about now is the 70 per cent chance of a severe La Nina event forming, and what that brings is more severe and more frequent cyclones, and it will also mean greater flooding. So it's important that we understand that this changing threat is going from bushfires to now cyclones and rain. They are also giving warnings around prolonged heatwaves, rather than spikes in heatwaves, which means that we are working with state officials to make sure that we are pre-empting this natural disaster as well as working with state health agencies to make sure that the most vulnerable are also protected as we get into the warmer months. But it is important to understand that this year there is another layer of complexity: COVID-19. COVID-19 means that the states and the federal government are working together to make sure we have COVID-19 plans so that emergency services personnel are able to get on a swift riverboat and save people in a safe way, and also so we can move emergency services personnel from one state to another. We have a nationally coordinated approach to natural disasters, but we need to do that in a safe way. The federal government has put nearly $26 million into a fleet of 150 aircraft for firefighting, to make sure that they are there, prepared and ready to go. We're also looking to the future. We've invested $88 million in research on preparedness for future disasters to make sure Australians stay safe. While all efforts are being made by state and federal governments, each and every one of us is beholden to our emergency services personnel, and we have a responsibility to them to have a plan and to act on it when we are asked, and to look after one another through whatever the environment throws at us. (Time expired) COVID-19: Aged Care 58 14:47 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley My question is to the Prime Minister. On 12 August, the royal commission heard that some aged-care workers in Victoria still cannot get masks, gloves or gowns. Why? 14:47 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I've largely answered this, but I might add to it— Honourable members interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV In relation to the— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting. Mr Albanese R36 It's a reasonable point! The SPEAKER 00APG No interjection is reasonable! The minister has the call. Mr HUNT 00AMV As I said, more generally across the country, 14 million masks have been provided to aged-care facilities. In relation to gowns, three million have been provided. In relation to sets of gloves, 7.66 million pairs have been provided to aged-care facilities. In relation to, specifically, P2 respirators, there are approximately 1.3 million. And, over yesterday, we had approximately 50,000 masks provided within Victoria. So there is an ongoing and continuous supply made available. I am aware that, in some facilities, they may have had distribution challenges, but what we do, whether it's through AUSMAT, whether it's through the work of the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG It might actually assist the House if the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Home Affairs ceased their very loud conversation. Mr Dutton 00AKI It was cordial. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, it was cordial, but it's still disruptive! Mr Albanese R36 We're united on— The SPEAKER 00APG Are you? Yes. Okay. There's a great anteroom out there; do you want to go? The minister has the call. Mr HUNT 00AMV In addition, through AUSMAT and the ADF, through the work of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner and through the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre, we engage with every facility that has need, and we work with the National Medical Stockpile to ensure that those distributions are made. The other thing that I would add is that there have been 3,167,245 goggles or face shields distributed to aged care in Victoria. Trade 59 14:50 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is opening up new trading opportunities for Australia to create more businesses and jobs? 14:50 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Reid for her question. I know she understands that jobs in her electorate are dependent on trade and dependent on our government delivering trade agreements and making sure that we are providing trade opportunities for our exporters. This year our government has brought into force the Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong free trade agreements, which will provide substantially better market access for 99 per cent of goods. Since we've been in government we have lifted our share of trade covered by trade agreements from 26 per cent to 70 per cent. We are working to grow that even further by pursuing strong export agreements with the EU; the Pacific Alliance—Mexico, Chile, Peru and Colombia; the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; and the United Kingdom. These will take the benefits that we have from free trade agreements to even greater than 70 per cent, creating jobs. Australian businesses that export, on average, hire 23 per cent more staff, have 11 per cent higher wages and have 13 per cent higher labour productivity than non-exporters. Our trade agenda has already resulted in more Australian businesses exporting—more than 53,000, including 46,000 SMEs. That's 46,000 small businesses, goods-exporting businesses— Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Brand will not interject again. Mr TEHAN 210911 And there are more jobs. One in five Australians are in trade related employment. For those in regional Australia, it's one in four. Regional Australia is so important for jobs when it comes to our export sector. Household incomes, on average, are $8½ thousand higher because of trade. At the moment, we have a record 30 consecutive monthly trade surpluses, with the two largest trade surpluses in March and May 2020. We had a record financial year trade surplus of $74.4 billion in financial year 2019-20. We know that COVID-19 is impacting on our exporters, but, when you look at our record, goods and exports are only down 3.7 per cent in 2020. If you look at the OECD average, they are down 15.2 per cent. We understand how important trade is. That is why we're pursuing free trade agreements with the EU, with the Pacific Alliance, with our partners in ASEAN and with the United Kingdom—because we know that that will produce more jobs for our economy. (Time expired) COVID-19: Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment 60 14:53 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister wait until 3 August to announce a paid pandemic leave payment in Victoria, after more than a hundred aged-care residents had died? Does he agree with the South Australian Liberal Treasurer that it makes no sense for the Prime Minister to fund a scheme in Tasmania, with one active case, but not South Australia, with three? And why won't the Prime Minister make sure paid pandemic leave is available for all Australians? A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Whoever that was on my right will cease interjecting. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is asking me to guess. Let's have a week of no interjections next week, Member Sydney. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:54 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I have written to all premiers and chief ministers. They have all been offered the same set of arrangements that have been provided to Victoria. The Tasmanian government has taken up that offer. I have written back to the premiers of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia today. They have sought further information on these arrangements, and we are providing that information. I have not yet seen a request from South Australia. Should they make that request, we will respond to that request as well. We have enabled this disaster payment to be made available for those who need to isolate in relation to the pandemic, and that was done following a very good agreement that I was able to reach with the Victorian Premier, and I'm pleased that we can extend that to the other states and territories. National Security 60 14:55 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney please update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting the national interest and, in particular, how the government is working to counter foreign interference? 14:55 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question and for his excellent work with others from both sides of this House on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That's been a very busy committee because, since coming to government in 2013, we've passed 19 tranches of national security legislation—laws that are keeping Australians safe in a very fast-changing and increasingly unpredictable global environment. We legislated, for instance, to ensure that abhorrent violent material could be removed from online spaces following the shocking events that occurred in Christchurch. We passed counterencryption laws to stop our intelligence and law enforcement agencies from going dark in the fight against terrorism and child sex offenders. Indeed, those laws were used 10 days after coming into effect to prevent a real risk of injury to Australians. So these types of laws are very, very important. The use of other laws has taken a longer lead time. Perhaps the most complicated and significant of all the many advances designed to keep Australians safe was the complete rewrite of antiquated espionage offences, which introduced in Australia, for the first time ever, an offence of foreign interference and established a register to transparently record organisations and individuals engaged in influencing Australian government, parliament and politics on behalf of foreign governments and foreign government related entities. The interference and influence laws are changes that, in tandem, were at the forefront of perhaps the biggest change to national security laws in 40 years. Since 2018-19, we've also invested $126.6 million in countering foreign interference. I can take this time to recognise the ongoing efforts of our agencies to investigate under these laws. They're on the front line. They're protecting Australians. They're engaged in very complicated and sophisticated investigations. Without commenting on operational matters, I would note that it is of some significance that we're now seeing the first investigative actions under the new foreign interference laws in New South Wales. Those laws, of course, work in tandem with the foreign influence register. The ability to investigate and prosecute the new offence of foreign interference works with the influence register. I can update the House that, as at 19 August, there were 66 active registrations on the public register, representing 108 foreign principals associated with 31 different international jurisdictions. Now the focus turns to the organisations that have not registered. I can update the House that the secretary of my department, independently exercising his authority, has recently issued two fresh notices under section 46 of the act which require an entity to provide information where it's reasonable to believe they have information or documents relevant to the operation of the influence scheme. Obviously, those notices have been issued to organisations that have chosen not to register under the FIT Scheme to date. As the Director-General of Security said, we face unprecedented levels of threat, and these laws are designed keep us safe. (Time expired) Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians 61 14:58 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Today in the Senate the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, turned his back and fled the chamber in order to avoid debate on his performance. Not a single member of the government defended the minister. Can it really be the case that there is no-one on the government backbench who could do a better job than Senator Colbeck? 14:58 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm very certain of one thing: there's no-one who sits over there who could do a better job than any of the ministers who sit on this side, and not just on that issue of aged care. Certainly, when it comes to our fine Treasurer, you won't find a better treasurer on that side, Mr Speaker. You won't find a deputy prime minister as good as this one among those pretending to do it on that side, or as good a minister for home affairs, attorney-general or minister for energy. I know the member for Hunter would like to join our policy on energy. When we're asked about things like gas and we give our responses, I know the member for Hunter would like to join us in adding to the answer, because he is so much in agreement. But you won't find a minister for health as good as this one— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Point of order on direct relevance: given the gravity of the issue we're dealing with today and why there is a question over the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, you would think the Prime Minister could spend more than three seconds talking about the current Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. The SPEAKER 00APG I will just rule on the point of order. I just say to the Manager of Opposition Business that if the question wasn't littered with political comment and the sort of language that it had in it he would have a much stronger case. I've made the point before and I'll just make it very clear: when questions have such a strong element of debate, political comment and the language used about the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians in the Senate chamber, my attitude, so there's no confusion, is it really does open it up very much for whoever's answering. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I have outstanding ministers here. The minister for agriculture and the minister for emergency management: you won't find ones like that! And, of course, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, who I know in his great humility works closely with the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, but you won't find a finer minister for Indigenous Australians. The minister for communications, the ministers for education, for industry, for environment, for national disabilities and, of course, the Assistant Treasurer, whose pioneering work on the HomeBuilder scheme, the first-home lenders scheme, is getting Australians into their first home. Those opposite mock, but what my government is doing is keeping Australians safe, it's keeping Australians strong and it's keeping Australians together. This mob on that side can't keep themselves together. Higher Education 61 15:02 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom in our universities? 15:02 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Can I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. It's an incredibly important question. The Morrison government is committed to ensuring that freedom of speech and academic inquiry are bedrocks of our universities. They actually go to the essence of who we are as a nation and we want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect them. That's why we asked Robert French to conduct an independent review on freedom of speech and academic inquiry in Australian higher education providers. He concluded that protection of academic freedom and freedom of speech could be strengthened by the adoption of a model code by our higher education providers. He also proposed amendments to the Higher Education Support Act threshold standards to align the language around concepts of free intellectual inquiry with the model code's identification of free speech and academic inquiry. We've been working cooperatively with the education sector to make sure that they adopt the model code and they understand the importance that the Morrison government is attaching to these two issues. Twenty-two out of 42 universities have already advised me that they have completed implementation of the code. All the other universities have said that they will have completed adopting the code by the end of 2020. To make sure that the code has been adopted properly, we have asked law professor and former vice-chancellor Sally Walker to lead a review to make sure that the implementation of the code by our universities will be done according to the model set out by Justice French, because we think that this is incredibly important. We want to validate alignment of universities' policies with the model code, consider strengths or weaknesses in responses, offer any suggestions to institutions where alignment could be improved, identify exemplars of good practice that could be shared, and provide advice to me on overall alignment of university policies and any suggestions on how alignment could be improved and whether the code needs further refinement or change. We want to make sure, when it comes to these two issues, that our universities are implementing the French model code in the way it was designed. We want to make sure, when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of academic inquiry, that they are absolute bedrocks and pillars of our higher education system. We want the young people who go through our institutions to know that freedom of speech and freedom of academic inquiry is something people fought for in this country and something that we will continue to protect. (Time expired) COVID-19: Aged Care 62 15:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister downplay the human tragedy in aged care by boasting that 97 per cent of aged-care facilities do not have a COVID case among residents when more than 70 aged-care residents have died in the past week and more than 360 residents have died since this pandemic began? 15:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I don't accept the assertion that the Leader of the Opposition has made. On every occasion I've spoken on these matters, whether it's the very specific cases and the individual deaths of Australians that have been impacted or particularly those four facilities in Victoria, when members opposite have asked me about those matters I've addressed each of those issues. In fact, on 75 occasions, 75 questions, we have responded specifically to the issues that have been presented. What I have also done, when questioned about preparedness and when questioned about the plan—I think it's important that Australians also know that the actions that have been taken by the government, working with other governments, have also been able to prevent what has occurred in some places from occurring in many, many other places in Australia. What we have been able to do is reassure Australians, particularly those who have families in residential aged care and those in residential aged care themselves, that while the community outbreak we have seen in Victoria has got into the aged-care system—and we have sought to respond to that, and we've been able to contain that impact as much as we have been able—the impact in Australia, when you look at how COVID has presented in our aged-care system, is that there have been eight per cent of facilities that have had resident infections. When you look overseas, at similar countries, 56 per cent of facilities have had resident and staff infections in the United Kingdom. So Australia's actions have made a difference, I would say. I think it's important to give people hope about these things. On every occasion, we have shown absolute respect and absolute understanding and sympathy for the impacts on those families. For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest otherwise is, I think and I would hope, very unlike him. It is, I think, a very unreasonable thing to have presented in this place, and I would hope that he wouldn't stoop to that level again. Pacific Step-up 62 15:08 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's Pacific Step-up is supporting our Pacific family, particularly in the face of the current global pandemic? 15:08 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I thank the member for Boothby for her question and her advocacy for our Pacific Step-up and security and stability in our Indo-Pacific region. There's never been a more important time for Australia to stand up for our Pacific family. Managing the social, economic and health impacts of this pandemic is the most important thing we can be doing internationally for our region at the moment, and our region has done extraordinarily well. I want to start by commending the governments of the Pacific, the people of the Pacific, for the early actions they have taken to secure their populations and ensure that most countries in our immediate region have remained COVID-free. It's a fantastic job, and they have done a great thing for their populations. Australia, too, has acted quickly to support them in this endeavour and make sure they have got the resources they need to continue. We have been in close contact with the governments since the beginning of the pandemic, with our Pacific partners in Timor-Leste, and we have, importantly, reprioritised our aid budget—a record $1.4 billion, the most spent by an Australian government in our region ever—to make sure that it is available during this time to support those governments in what they have been doing. Vitally, as the Prime Minister said just last week, we're making sure that the Pacific will be able to access life-saving vaccines through the money that we're spending. To ensure this, the Morrison government has increased its contribution to Gavi. We've also made a recent commitment of $80 million, through reprioritised money, to the Gavi Covax Advance Market Commitment, which will ensure that that access reaches Pacific countries and saves lives. In addition, from the beginning, we set up the essential services and humanitarian corridor. This has ensured our supplies of PPE and the vaccine testing kits that we've sent through to countries have been able to keep moving when we've seen airlines close and movement stop. The countless tonnes of PPE and the 19,000 GeneXpert COVID cartridges that have been received for the Pacific has made a big difference. Supporting the economies of the Pacific is also going to be vital for the challenges that we face coming up. That's why I'm pleased to inform the House that this morning Prime Minister Morrison conveyed to Prime Minister Sogavare of the Solomon Islands that Australia has agreed to provide further support through the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific to the Tina River Hydropower project following a request from the Solomon Islands government. This important project is going to drive economic recovery. It's part of our commitment that we're going to make through the region to not just ensure that we are there for the health impacts but ensure that we help our partners recover. Australians can be totally proud of the efforts of all our agencies and our government at this time and what we're doing in the Pacific. We thank our defence forces, our diplomats, our aid partners and our aid workers. We thank everyone involved in the great work we're doing throughout the Pacific and Timor Leste. We know that during this crisis and in the shared recovery we're going to face, we'll get through this as a region and we'll through this together as a family. COVID-19: Aged Care 63 15:11 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did fewer than one in five aged-care workers complete the government's online training module about the use of protection equipment by June? 15:12 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders The advice that I have is, as of 7 am on 24 August 2020, 1.155 million individuals have completed online infection control training procedures. That includes 1.2 million modules in aged care, 165,192 aged-care workers, 84,493 disability care workers, 120,565 hospital workers, 64,531 primary care workers and 720,855 others. Most significantly, there are 11 different infection modules which have been set up in relation to aged care: personal safety, families and visitors in residential care, families and visitors in home care, COVID-19 in aged care, outbreak management procedures, personal protective equipment, laundry, cleaning, suspected identification of COVID-19, supporting older Australians in residential care, and supporting older Australians in home care. Between them, as I say, 1.2 million different modules have been conducted right across the country. That is part of what we set up with our surge workforce preparation announced on 11 March. It's part of what we built on on 13 March with a national public hospitals agreement, where we agreed to provide 50 per cent of the funding incurred by state hospitals in relation to their COVID-19 preparation and their outreach. It's also related to what we did with our work on 31 March, where we announced, in particular, the private hospitals agreement, which has seen 452 patients, on the advice that I have, transferred to those private hospitals and then, in addition to that, supported by the national testing contract, which allows for every resident and every staff member to be tested; as well as 69 million masks, and gloves and gowns and goggles distributed across the country, and 14 million in aged care. All of these things, in context, occur in a world where we have a pandemic where 24 million people have been infected as of today. By the time we come back on Monday, it's likely that that will have increased to 25 million people. It's likely that, as a consequence, 24,000 to 25,000 lives will have been lost. Around the world, we have a global pandemic. In Australia, what we have managed to do, in seven out of eight states and territories, is to keep that pandemic at bay. In Victoria, where there is a mass community outbreak which has seen 95 per cent of the case growth, we've managed to fight so much of that off in the aged-care facilities, but we are going to continue that fight each day and every day to save every life we can. (Time expired) Environment 64 15:15 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting economic reform through major environmental initiatives in waste and recycling? 15:15 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Wentworth and acknowledge the work he's doing in support of recycling in his electorate, including the good work with Randwick council and their kerbside collections, because Australians want to be confident that everything they put in their recycling bin will be collected and recycled, not sent to landfill and not shipped overseas. As the Prime Minister said: 'It's our waste; it's our responsibility.' That's why the government introduced today legislation that will implement the waste export ban agreed by Australian governments in March and also the legislation reforms to the Product Stewardship Act. I want to pay special tribute to the member for Brisbane and assistant minister for waste reduction, who has done fantastic work and put in great effort towards achieving these landmark reforms. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 will phase in the end of the 645,000 tonnes of unprocessed plastic, paper, glass and tyres that Australia ships overseas each year. It complements the Morrison government's billion dollar transformation of Australia's waste and recycling capacity by helping to build onshore demand for recycled content. It will create more than 10,000 jobs, many of them regional, and divert over 10 million tonnes of resources from landfill. Industry and communities have supported this waste export ban, which they view as a positive catalyst for change. They're joining with us: trolleys are being made from recycled milk bottles, toner cartridges are going into asphalt and green steel, and, in my home town of Albury, a company called Plastic Forests is making plastic fence posts, using soft plastic, to help with bushfire recovery. We've backed in the waste export ban with the most significant package of policies and funding commitments on recycling and waste ever brought forward by a federal government. This includes a national waste action plan that will achieve an 80 per cent average recovery rate across all waste streams and stronger Commonwealth procurement guidelines and halve the amount of organic waste sent to landfill. We're leading substantial investment in recycling through a new $190 million Recycling Modernisation Fund, which will leverage $600 million of new investment in recycling infrastructure. Australia's first National Plastics Summit was hosted by the government in March. It mobilised major pledges from leading companies, including the Pact Group, Nestle, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Coles. Its outcomes will help inform our first National Plastics Plan. Our practical approach on tackling waste and recycling is consistent with our strong record of environmental achievement. Waste is not just an environmental problem to solve; it's an economic opportunity to create, and the Morrison government is seizing that opportunity. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS COVID-19: Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment, Aged Care 64 15:18 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook In adding to some answers, I would love to be acknowledging the many other ministers I didn't get to acknowledge earlier. I acknowledge ministers in this place and in the other place. In relation to the question yesterday from the member for Franklin, I can advise that this year there have been 67 unannounced visits to Tasmanian residential facilities. I can add to a further answer I gave in relation to states that have requested further information on the pandemic leave payment. The Northern Territory government have also been in touch with me, and I've written back to them. In relation to the Leader of the Opposition's question to me yesterday regarding the comments by the member for Monash, I simply answer also, in adding to what I said yesterday, by quoting the member for Monash, who said last night, 'I have had long discussions with Scott Morrison over this issue—' Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— Mr MORRISON E3L You don't want to hear this! The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister can only add with material that was available prior to the question being asked. Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, I table the transcript. The SPEAKER 00APG You can do that, that's true. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Presentation 65 15:20 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 65 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 65 15:20 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 65 15:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 1 March 2021 be given to Ms Payne and Ms Wells for parental leave purposes. 15:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to say best wishes to Alicia and Anika. It's fantastic. Alicia, the member for Canberra, has continued to work—she's due in just three weeks—and has continued to be a fantastic contributor to this chamber. We wish her well. The member for Lilley has gone beyond what is reasonable for a member of parliament and is expanding the number of Labor voters by two, and that is a very good thing. We wish the member for Lilley and the member for Canberra all the best. We hope that— Government members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 You might actually try and be a little bit generous in spirit on this. The fact is that we certainly wish them well with the challenge ahead. They will continue to serve their constituencies in Brisbane and here in Canberra respectively, but we will miss them in parliament. We look forward to their return with three little ones between them. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 65 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE National Integrity Commission 65 15:22 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Whitlam, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for a National Integrity Commission in Australia. 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— 15:23 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam This week, the nation has been scandalised by the news of a thuggish operation at the heart of the Victorian Liberal Party, with racist messages denigrating members of the Indian community; sexist insults levelled against colleagues and their wives; rorting of taxpayer funds for political purposes; and thugging fellow MPs and senators, including the member for Menzies. The architect of this project is none other than the Assistant Treasurer. I might be the shadow Assistant Treasurer, but there's nobody in this parliament who is more shady than this guy. The member for Deakin, the Assistant Treasurer, has spent more time skulking in the shadows than assisting the Australian people in this time of economic crisis. He has spent more time undermining the public's trust and faith in democracy than protecting Australian jobs. He has spent more time spending taxpayer dollars on personal political goals than on overseeing the Australian tax office. I've argued for many years in this place for a federal independent commission against corruption, but there is not a man or woman in this House who makes a better argument for a federal ICAC than the member for Deakin. He has abused public office for his own private purpose. When the aged care royal commission— Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Yes, I ask the member for Whitlam to withdraw. There will be no allegations of improper motive. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B While the aged care royal commission has told us that up to 50 per cent of residents in aged-care homes are malnourished—starving—and they don't have the staff to look after the residents, the member for Deakin is using his staff to go out and stack branches against his opponents. Not satisfied with misusing— Mr Tudge M2Y On a point of order— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Oh, come on! Mr Tudge M2Y these are serious allegations which the member is pushing here, which, if they were repeated outside— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Members on my left! Mr Tudge M2Y would be defamatory. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Members on my left will be warned—if I can't hear what the point of order is, there's an obvious problem. I'm listening closely. There wasn't a point of order. Mr Tudge M2Y I'm asking him to withdraw comments which he made which, if he repeated them outside, would be defamatory. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I'm listening closely. The member for Whitlam will continue. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Very sensitive on these issues! I can understand why other members of the Victorian Liberal Party are as sensitive as the minister at the table. But, not satisfied with the behaviour in his own office, he's been caught red-handed trying to interfere in the administration of the office of the member for Menzies. How can we believe anything that this member has to say? If it's not bad enough that he produces flyers, and distributes them amongst his electorate, that he knows to be full of lies—he knows that they are untrue—he uses taxpayers' money to do it! This is the minister responsible for the tax office! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I'll just get the member to pause. I'm going to request that the member seriously considers reflections on members and imputations of improper motive and continues on. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I thank the Deputy Speaker for this guidance. But serious allegations have been made against this minister, and we know that the Liberal Party treats them seriously as well because none other than the Treasurer has ordered an investigation into the Victorian branch of his own party; none other than the Treasurer is consulting with colleagues to see whether an investigation and then a takeover of the Victorian branch is warranted because of the behaviour of the member for Deakin. I can understand why members opposite find this very hard to hear. They find it very hard to hear—and so do the people of Australia. If you are looking for a standard to judge this behaviour by, look to the standard set by the Prime Minister, because, in July this year, he called it 'corruption'—corruption on an industrial scale. It might be hard to hear, but, if this is the test of leadership, if this is the test that the Prime Minister has set for this parliament, then he must apply it to the member for Deakin. When similar events occurred in Victoria, the Premier sacked the responsible minister before lunchtime. I don't think decency and swift action should be the exclusive domain of the Australian Labor Party. John Howard would have wasted no time sacking this bloke and the aged care minister at the same time. They'd have been out the door before lunchtime. He is the minister responsible for tax law in this country, but he has shown contempt for taxpayers and contempt for the law. He has to go. There is no shortage of government backbenchers who would happily take his job. None of them could do a good job, but few of them could do a worse job than the member for Deakin. I've had my disagreements with the member for Goldstein, but there's no doubt he's been spending the last two years polishing his CV as well. No wonder the member for Goldstein is a little bit nervous; the member for Deakin has been spending more than a little bit of energy trying to shoehorn him out of the seat he's in. There should be no place for the member for Deakin on the front bench in this House. He's been responsible for the Australian tax office, but he's led Australians to believe they can have no trust in the way he administers taxpayer funds in his own office. A corruption-busting QC had this to say on national television this week: 'He should be sacked. There is a prima facie case of crime. He should be sacked.' What is the Prime Minister waiting for? It's not as if he's protecting a minister who's had a sterling career in this place and has contributed to a body of public policy. It's not as if he's an invaluable colleague who's contributed to the front bench. This guy has the Midas touch in reverse: everything he's touched—well, it hasn't turned to gold, that's for sure! He's responsible for the administration of the superannuation early access scheme. On his own watch, that scheme has seen millions of dollars stolen, fraudulently, from some of the lowest-paid people in this country. He froze the operation of the scheme for a few days, but not one single cent has been paid in compensation from the Commonwealth to those members who have had their money stolen from them because of the operation of this scheme and the hopeless administration of this hapless minister. As the member for Blaxland reminds us, the member for Deakin is responsible for the HomeBuilder scheme. If jobs were created by press releases then every builder in this country would be in full employment. But not one single dollar has been paid out under this scheme. So if the Prime Minister is going to expect this House to play a Team Australia moment he should do the right thing and sack this minister who has done everything within his power to bring disgrace upon this House and every single one of us. (Time expired) 15:33 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston That was one of the greatest abuses of parliamentary privilege that I have witnessed in my time in this parliament. For five or 10 minutes the member for Whitlam said claim after claim after claim against the member for Deakin which he does not have the courage to say outside of this place. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Members on my left! Mr TUDGE M2Y If this member has the courage of his convictions, if he actually believes the things that he said in that statement, he should step outside of the chamber— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The minister will pause for a minute. Members on my left, the interjection is far, far too loud. Members will be warned if it continues. I'm not going to put up with it anymore. Continue, Minister. Mr TUDGE M2Y It's an absolute disgrace, the conduct of the member for Whitlam right now. Mr Conroy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Shortland is warned! Mr TUDGE M2Y I have never seen an abuse of parliamentary privilege like this in my entire 10 years in the federal parliament. If the member for Whitlam has a centimetre of courage and decency, and conviction in relation to the things that he claimed, he should step outside of this chamber and make exactly the same claims outside of this chamber. He should say the same, directly outside of this chamber, about rorting, about abuse, about directly using taxpayers funds for inappropriate purposes. But he won't. He's deliberately using this process to smear a very good minister of the Morrison government, a minister who designed the HomeBuilder program, which the member for Whitlam claims has been an absolute farce— Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Brand! Mr TUDGE M2Y Yet the Master Builders Association said it was the single best stimulus measure that they have ever seen. And we know that the housing and construction industry, more generally, has been saying that this has been keeping up the demand for construction and keeping tradies employed, which is just so important at this particular time. Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Bruce is warned! Mr TUDGE M2Y He has designed other home incentive packages as well. And, yes, he had a contribution to make towards the early access to superannuation scheme and we all should be very proud of that contribution—as did the assistant financial services minister also. It was a scheme where people could access their own money in these very desperate times, whereas the Labor Party, of course, thinks that that money belongs to something else. I'm disgusted in the member for Whitlam—I'm disgusted in him! I expected more from this member. I thought he was a more decent individual than he has shown himself to be today. These were serious allegations. I again ask him to step outside of this chamber and say exactly the same thing. But he will not, and that says everything about this individual and everything about the claims he has been making. But if you want to talk about the difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, you don't need to go very far. He said that these instances were exactly the same. Well, go back and have a look at the TV footage on what occurred in the member for Holt's electorate office, under camera, on footage, about people admitting what they had done. That's what occurred and, quite rightly, those ministers, those state ministers, were sacked immediately, and quite rightly. The federal intervention of the Labor Party over the Victorian branch of the Labor Party was put into place to deal with that sort of behaviour, which was rotten to the core. We know this party, the Labor Party, is the party of Eddie Obeid. It is the party of Craig Thomson. It's the party of Sam Dastyari. It's the party of Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly. That's what this party is standing up for. Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Whitlam! Mr TUDGE M2Y They use this place to smear good ministers, and it is disgraceful. Their normal tactic—and I see the member for Isaacs on the screen back there—when they want to smear good, hardworking ministers, is to refer them to the Australian Federal Police. The member Isaacs, sitting up there on the screen in the back corner, has done that 10 times now. He refers to the Federal Police, quickly puts the press release out there that this person has been referred for criminal activity and therefore warrants an investigation. Of course, when the shadow Attorney-General issues such a referral, the Federal Police, quite rightly, take account of that referral and look into it. But do you know what the results have been from each of those 10 referrals to the Federal Police? How many do you think have actually been followed up and the Australian Federal Police have said, 'Yes, there's a matter to deal with here'? Was it nine out of 10 or 10 out of 10? Not a single one of the member for Isaacs' referrals to the Australian Federal Police has even been followed up and decided that there should be charges laid by the Australian Federal Police. Not a single one! That's the type of thing the Labor Party does to our hardworking ministers who are in the government right now, working around the clock, creating jobs, as the member for Deakin, the Assistant Treasurer, has been doing. And now today they come in and say the worst of all smears that I've heard in my 10 years here. The actual MPI today is about a crime and misconduct commission, a Commonwealth integrity commission, something which this government has committed to, something which this government has taken its time to establish, to ensure accountability across the public sector. I can inform the House that the draft legislation establishing the Commonwealth Integrity Commission— Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Bruce has been warned! The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a). The member for Bruce then left the chamber. Mr TUDGE M2Y I am one of the happiest men, certainly in this chamber, that one of those state ministers has been dismissed. I can inform the House that there is draft legislation established for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. It's ready and will be released at an appropriate time, after more immediate priorities concerning the management of the COVID recovery have been dealt with. There is $106.6 million which has been allocated towards this commission. There has been tremendous consultation work undertaken by the Attorney-General. This is a difficult piece of legal work to put into place, but I believe that the Attorney-General has managed to draft good legislation which will have very significant powers. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have investigatory powers that are greater than a royal commission, including the ability to hold hearings and compel witnesses to testify. The Labor Party, on the other hand, have been calling for a Commonwealth integrity commission for many, many years, but do you know how far they've got in designing theirs? They've got seven principles, I believe. That's it. That's all they've got. The Greens have developed a bill. Ms Murphy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Dunkley is warned! Mr TUDGE M2Y Guess where the Labor Party are now leaning? They've decided, 'We can't develop our own and put it into the parliament, so we'll just grab the Greens one and back theirs in.' I know what Joel Fitzgibbon would say in relation to that. It's another perfect example of letting the Greens do the work and jumping onto the Greens bandwagon, despite all of the flaws in theirs. We won't be supporting the Greens bill. There are serious flaws in that bill. But we will be introducing a Commonwealth integrity commission at the appropriate time, after full consultation, as has been occurring, and it will have full powers to be able to investigate. It will be a very important agency. In bringing this MPI, the member for Whitlam was never serious about the crime and misconduct commission. This MPI wasn't actually about that. If it were, he would have spoken about it. He would have laid out Labor's principles, rather than just adopting the Greens one. Rather, it was a desperate ploy, a disgraceful ploy, to smear a good minister of this government. 15:43 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The ever-growing list of scandals involving the Morrison government shows why Australia urgently needs a powerful and independent national integrity commission. Unfortunately that list of scandals also shows Australians why the Prime Minister and his colleagues continue to do all they can to delay establishing such a body. While the government did eventually announce, begrudgingly and belatedly, a proposed model for an integrity body, it was rightly and universally derided by integrity experts, lawyers and academics across Australia. That was about three years ago. Where is that legislation? Where is even draft legislation? The Morrison government's proposed corruption body is worse than worthless; it is a sham, a political ploy, another marketing announcement and smokescreen from this government, behind which corruption in politics would be allowed to continue unchecked: scandals such as the industrial-scale and blatantly unlawful diversion of taxpayers' money into the Liberal Party's re-election campaign, in the sports rorts affair; the use of a forged document by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction; the dubious dealings of the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the au pairs; the refusal of Senator Cash to cooperate with an AFP investigation into an unlawful tip-off from within her own office; the member for Fadden's innumerable conflicts of interest and run-ins with basic standards of integrity—and that's not close to a full list. The sheer number of corruption matters arising from within this government is disturbing enough, but even more disturbing has been this government's pathetic response, because in every case the Prime Minister has reacted by doing everything within his power, and some things outside his power, to cover that corruption up. Now we have a new corruption scandal that extends all the way to the Assistant Treasurer and to the member for Menzies. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Isaacs will pause. Mr Hawke HWO Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The MPI is not an excuse to flout the standing orders. I ask the member to withdraw the allegation that the Prime Minister is covering up corruption. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I did hear what the member for Isaacs said, and I would ask that he does withdraw the term 'corruption' in the way that he said it. Mr DREYFUS HWG I referred to a new corruption scandal. I withdraw that. As stated by the government's Special Minister of State, this is what the law requires: Electorate Officers … are employed to assist the Senator or Member to carry out duties as a Member of Parliament, and not for party political purposes. But, as 60 Minutes and the Nine newspapers have revealed with evidence from multiple sources, taxpayer funded electorate officers were employed within the offices of both the Assistant Treasurer and the member for Menzies exclusively for party political purposes. Even worse than that, these factional players were hired at taxpayer expense for the reprehensible activity of branch stacking, and it's clear from the evidence we've seen to date that the Assistant Treasurer was aware of and endorsed this clear abuse of taxpayer resources. How is it that this Prime Minister, who sends debt collectors after vulnerable and innocent Australians under his illegal robodebt scheme, can continue to support as the Assistant Treasurer a person who has, according to news reports, been caught red-handed misusing public money? As former counsel to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption Geoffrey Watson SC declared: I very much doubt that Sukkar can or should remain a minister of the Crown. A minister is a position of real power and thus real trust and you cannot have it in the hands of people who abuse it This latest scandal has set another clear test for the Prime Minister. Will he follow the standard set by the Leader of the Opposition and act decisively against senior figures in his own party, or will he try to sweep this scandal under the carpet too? Will he clean it up or cover it up? Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister once again has failed this basic test of integrity and responsibility. It's unsurprising because responsibility is something this Prime Minister runs from at every turn. We saw it when the Prime Minister jetted off to Hawaii on a secret holiday while Australia burned. We saw it this week again as he has tried to pretend that aged care wasn't really— (Time expired) 15:48 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I came into this chamber today in good faith—but that's been shattered—that we were going to debate in this MPI the characteristics of an integrity commission, maybe what should and shouldn't be in it, how it can be improved and the types of things that should happen in a consultation process when you're putting something like that together, which we are. But, of course, that's not what it's about at all. It was never the intention of those opposite to come in here and debate the characteristics of a good integrity commission or how you could improve an integrity commission. That was not their intention at all. Their intention—and we've seen it from the member for Whitlam and now from the member for Isaacs—was to come in here and give some very tawdry performances. It is very easy to come in here behind parliamentary privilege and start shouting out allegations about politicians on the other side of this place. If we wanted to do that, we could. There's plenty of ammunition with which we could come in here behind parliamentary privilege too. If you're going to quote TV shows, there was a TV show not that long ago that had some pretty interesting allegations about members of the Labor Party. We could come in and do the same thing. Wouldn't that be edifying? Wouldn't that be edifying right now for the people of Australia? Wouldn't that be edifying right now if we were both doing that as Australians were worried about their jobs, their businesses and their health? The best the Labor Party can do, while that's going on, is come in and give an exceptionally tawdry affair, behind an MPI in which they say want to talk about an integrity commission, and just make baseless allegations against members opposite them. It's a very, very disappointing day today for the parliamentary performance of the Labor Party. Let's go to the issue of an integrity commission. As the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure said earlier, yes, we are well advanced, and if it weren't for COVID and other disruptions to parliament we'd be even more progressed in the establishment of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. A detailed consultation paper has been put out. The model is in two parts. I know those opposite don't want to listen to this; they have no interest in it. They just want to get up. I'm sure the next member, whoever it is, has got their piece of paper out, ready to go and insult people on this side. I'm sure they don't want to listen to this, but I'll go through where we are in the establishment of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. There are going to be two parts. There is going to be a law enforcement integrity division. It's going to have the same functions and powers as the current Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity but with even broader jurisdiction. The second is an entirely new part, which is going to be the public sector integrity division. This will investigate alleged criminal corruption involving the remainder of the public sector departments, their staff, parliamentarians' staff and judicial officers. It will have very broad jurisdiction. While I'm talking about this I want to make the point that, despite some very well documented exceptions, like Eddie Obeid, Australia is by international comparison a very non-corrupt country. I think it's important that the other side acknowledge that. I hope they would, even though they're just doing their performances today. There are obviously examples of corruption, but, generally speaking, the majority of people in this place and many other public officials around this country do their job very well and with no effect of corruption. Returning to what we're looking to do, the model we're proposing would have standing powers greater than those of a royal commission. Both the law enforcement integrity side and the public sector integrity side would have powers beyond those of a royal commission. On the agencies, one of the reasons Australia does have a good record in not being a corrupt country is that we have a multiagency approach to anticorruption activities. Already we have the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, the Australian Electoral Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the AFP-hosted Fraud and Anti-Corruption centre, the Australian National Audit Office, the Australian Public Service Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, the inspectors-general of intelligence, security, taxation and the Australian Defence Force. We have a lot of agencies already in a multiagency approach that look at this. I throw the challenge to the next Labor member to get up. Don't give a tawdry performance and throw baseless allegations around. Talk about the merits of a good integrity commission. 15:53 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Anybody who thinks corruption doesn't exist here, who thinks that corruption doesn't exist at a federal level is just naive. Of course it exists. We need the right sort of body with the right sort of powers to find it and weed it out. A government member interjecting— Mr CLARE HWL We have a member here saying it's the police. It's not just the police. You need corruption watchdogs to make sure that people in every government agency and, for that matter, here in parliament are not acting corruptly. Let me give you just one example. When I was Minister for Home Affairs, one of the first things I was briefed on was a corruption investigation at Sydney airport. Customs officials were using their powers to get drugs into the country. It was an investigation headed by ACLEI, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. Some members here know who ACLEI is; most members of the Australian public won't. It is a little-known corruption watchdog that looks over the Federal Police and looks over Customs and other organisations. It did a good job—a damn good job there—that led to the arrest of two people and the establishment of the Customs Reform Board. I set that up at the time. It was headed by Justice James Wood, the man whom many people here would know was the royal commissioner into the New South Wales Police Force. It also involved the doubling of the number of the organisations that ACLEI oversees. But even that's not enough. I think everybody in this House now knows that we need a national integrity commission—the sort of organisation that looks across the board, oversights every government agency and every government department, and looks over us. One that covers the board—and we don't have one at the moment. We've been calling for that for 2½ years. We've called on the government to do that countless times. The government finally agreed to do it in December 2018. That was a year and a half ago, and we're still waiting. We still don't have a bill. We still don't even have a draft bill. If there is a year that shows why we need a national integrity commission, it's this year. Let me give you just two examples. The first one is the sports rorts scandal—do you remember that? Mums and dads, on behalf of sporting clubs, put together applications for funds for their local club. They were all independently assessed. And then the government just ripped them up. We had an Auditor-General report that showed that 73 per cent of the projects approved by the minister weren't recommended by the independent assessor. We got a colour-coded spreadsheet leaked to the media that showed the money was allocated based on marginal seats. We had more smoking guns than a Clint Eastwood movie, and still the minister wasn't sacked. The only reason the minister eventually resigned was that, apparently, she was a member of a club that she gave money to and she hadn't declared that. Still not one member on the other side has had the decency to admit that they did anything wrong there. If that's not an example of why we need a national integrity commission, then I don't know what is. The second example is the scandal that was revealed on 60 Minutes last Sunday night. It's very, very rare that you get written evidence of a minister approving the misuse of taxpayers' money. But that's what we got on Sunday night. We saw evidence of a document setting out the whole plan about stacking branches and using electorate staff to do it, and then an email from the minister saying, 'Good summary.' Today there was another document, where the minister signed off by saying: 'Good stuff. Well done.' It shows that the minister knew what was happening and endorsed it. If that's not the sort of thing— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I will just get the member to pause for a moment. These matters have not been tested. The statement that you just made then—that it shows that the minister knows— needs to be withdrawn. Mr CLARE HWL To assist the House, I withdraw. But I make this point: this shows we need a national integrity commission. But it doesn't take a national integrity commission for the Prime Minister to act. All he needs to do is apply the same standards he set for the Labor Party back in June. All he needs to do is apply the same standards that John Howard applied to himself when he was Prime Minister back in 1996, when he sacked three ministers for the same thing—misusing taxpayers' money. All he needs to do is apply those standards today; he only needs to apply his own ministerial code. If he doesn't, and if he doesn't sack Minister Sukkar, then he is just treating the Australian public like suckers. 15:58 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I have to say, like the member for Page, I was really interested in discussing a national integrity commission—the basis for it, the principles underlying it. And then for 15 minutes—add another 2½ minutes, because the member for Blaxland did actually make some valid comments at the beginning of his presentation. So we had about 17½ minutes of character assassination. As the member for Page pointed out—and the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure made a comment earlier—there was clearly no intention of a discussion about a national integrity commission. I am in favour of a national integrity commission. This government is in favour of a national integrity commission. We need to establish the principles behind it, and we need to make sure that the body is just as appropriate. Character assassinations, allegations such as those that have been carried out in this House this afternoon, lead further to the conclusion that we need such a commission. That people can come in and make allegations without the person against whom they're made having the opportunity, with appropriate natural justice and appropriate representation, to defend themselves is inexcusable. Something I also have to say is that the 17½ minutes that I sat through is why the Australian public has lost confidence in our parliament. There is a pandemic. The topic is meant to be about integrity, and it was 17½ minutes of character assassination. I don't think that the member who put forward the topic actually mentioned the words national integrity commission in his 10-minute address. That to me is an abuse of parliamentary time. It's a waste of government money. I'm going to spend the next two minutes 46 talking about what should be in a national integrity commission. I know something about these bodies. I know that when these bodies are not done properly, they can ruin peoples' lives. They can drag innocent people into them and they can have their lives, their livelihoods, destroyed. I know people who've been caught up in false or untrue allegations through integrity commissions, and their lives were irredeemably changed for the worse. When we set up a national integrity commission—and this is what our Attorney-General is doing and this is what our Prime Minister is committed to—it's got to be balanced. It's got to make sure that we are weeding out serious corruption and that corruption is properly defined. We have to have a body that actually tries to educate people about corruption and then has the power to properly investigate and enforce. But you've got to have the balance on the other side so that people who get drawn into this commission or these bodies are given natural justice and protections. That is why we have been spending time, that is why the Attorney-General has been consulting widely. I'm really disappointed that members of the crossbench aren't here today, because I know the member for Indi is passionate about a national integrity commission. She and I have had a number of excellent discussions about what should be in it. She has been engaged with the Attorney-General, as have other members of the crossbench, to discuss the framework as to what should go in it. What is important are the hours that have gone into the consultation to set it up. We know that corruption exists—I think the member for Blaxland said that. Anybody who thinks that corruption in public office doesn't exist is extremely naive. Corruption does exist, and it's something that must be stamped out. That is why we're going to set up an appropriately resourced body, $106 million put into the budget. That money has been committed. We are setting it up and we're going to set it up with an appropriate balance. Again, I go back to my starting point, like the member for Page: this was an inexcusable waste of a Thursday afternoon of taxpayers' money and, if anything, this would fall within my definition of corruption. Thank you. 16:03 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I don't think calling out corruption is ever a waste of the federal parliament's time. It is absolutely critical. We've all had conversations across the last year about the public's faith in our public institutions, and today's MPI is about just that. I'm speaking from my electorate office today in Werribee. During the pandemic, my staff have been incredibly dedicated. They've worked tirelessly to assist locals in these tough times. They've worked tirelessly in my office to assist constituents every day that I have been the member for Lalor. They have worked and worked to support the community that I am honoured to represent. I'm speaking on this MPI today because I'm concerned that, after what I saw on 60 Minutes on Sunday night, the people in the seats of Deakin and Menzies are not getting that same attention to detail. There are other things going on in their office as alleged on 60 Minutes. If Mr Sukkar has neglected his job as the member for Deakin, and as a minister, because he wants to be emperor of the opposition benches in Spring Street then the people of Deakin are missing out! In today's MPI we heard from the member for Aston and the member for Page about an integrity commission. Well, folks, we've been waiting a long time now for this integrity commission. You can't miss the connection here: we've been waiting 1,369 days for draft legislation to come into this parliament to stop payday lending sharks, and we've now been waiting 18 months for an integrity commission. We were shown clearly why we needed one by 60 Minutes on Sunday night—so that these things can be investigated independently, so that these things can be cut out at the core. The allegations are that people who sit in the building where we all sit—in the House of Representatives, in the people's house, in the federal parliament—have had their minds on things other than serving the Australian public, the people they are elected to represent. I know how my constituents feel about that. I know how my community feels about that. They don't want to see that in the federal parliament—and they don't want to see it anywhere. But do you know what they do want to see? They want to see a Prime Minister stand up. They want to see the Prime Minister assure them that he will put a stop to this kind of behaviour—and here is his chance to do exactly what the Australian public want to see. They want to see a Prime Minister who doesn't shirk his responsibilities. They want to see a Prime Minister sack anyone who is connected to this kind of scandal. So this Prime Minister needs to take that action. To those opposite who think it's a day to talk about a national integrity commission: no, the ball is in your court. It is time for you to act on a national integrity commission. It is time for you to win back some of the faith for our public institutions. The Prime Minister should act immediately. He should sack anybody involved in this scandal. If those involved in this scandal had any honour, they would sack themselves and would resign. They would act like others have acted. They would act and not allow for a timely resignation somewhere down the track. They certainly shouldn't be hiding behind a pandemic as to why we don't have a national integrity commission. This government needs to step up and reassure the Australian public that it has their best interests at heart. In doing so, they would sacrifice themselves to do the right thing by the Australian public. Yes, it's time for a national integrity commission. But, more importantly, it is time for this Prime Minister to sack Minister Sukkar. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 In further speeches, members shall refer to other members by their title or by their electorate, not by their name. I call the member for New England. 16:08 Mr JOYCE E5D New England Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well, aren't we the Teletubbies of Australian politics! With less than an hour to go—go to bed Laa-Laa, go to bed Po; get back down your holes! An MPI brought on on a Thursday by the Cosmo Kramer of Australian politics, the member for Whitlam, means you're not very serious about this issue. With an MPI brought on on a Thursday, when many have already left—I would say some are on the sauce and some are on the sleep—it is KwaZulu that this is an absolute and utter afterthought. An MPI that is brought on on a Thursday, last thing before everybody goes to sleep, about a program that was on Sunday, means you're not really serious about this at all. It's called a tick-a-box MPI: 'Somebody had better say something about this. Otherwise, they'll think we're up to our necks in something similar!' That's what an MPI on Thursday means. I mean, look at it—hardly anybody's here! They've all gone. They've left. They're in their black-and-white Comcars and they're out at the airport, or they're going home or going for a quick round of golf or booking in early to a restaurant. You don't take this seriously at all! And of course you wouldn't. I mean, this is the same crowd, the Australian Labor Party, that has made 10 referrals to the AFP on spurious grounds. This is the concern. If we go back to the actual subject matter, these things can be used as a mechanism to exalt the bureaucracy over the rights of the parliament and over the rights of the minister. The reason we have a parliament is that the Australian people, for better or worse, put faith in their politicians and the representatives of executive governments, as noted by cabinet ministers, to do the job that they have been voted in and appointed to do. Of course the people who love excessive ICACs and integrity commissions are bureaucrats, who never want their decisions doubted, and minor parties, who can use this as a mechanism of leverage to drive agendas that are at odds with the elected body. And we know the people who are going to be referred to this. They're going to be ministers, because they dare to differ from the bureaucracy; therefore, they must be, obviously, corrupt! So don't create a rod for your own back. You will be the government. Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D I hear the interjections, Member for Fenner. Well, let's just go through a little list. What do these people have in common: Eddie Obeid, Mr Macdonald, Mr Somyurek, Mr Tripodi, Mr Dastyari, Mr Theophanous, Craig Thomson, Milton Orkopoulos? Then let me go to a union official: John Setka. And I'll finish with this one: John Curtin. Member for Fenner, as a good reader of history, you will know why I mention John Curtin, won't you? You'll know why, because you're an intelligent feller. Why would I mention John Curtin? You don't even know the history of your own party. It's because John Curtin had a criminal conviction against him, before he came to parliament. John Curtin, you see, refused to have the compulsory medical required for conscription. He was the first Prime Minister who came to parliament with a criminal conviction. So what would you say? Would you remove John Curtin? Would you get rid of him? I'd put him down as one of the greatest Prime Ministers this nation has had. So be careful what you create. I would also say to the member for Fenner: you're not as smart as you look, mate. Go do some reading. So we would see this is as, basically, a mechanism that would be a rod for your own back. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Withdraw that. Mr JOYCE E5D You know, I do a bit of reading, and the socialists— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for New England will pause for a minute and withdraw that comment. Mr JOYCE E5D What's that? Which one? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The insult before—the unparliamentary comment. Mr JOYCE E5D Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw, with due deference, the insult, and I apologise. I apologise deeply. The socialists—and I hope that's not the insult!—on 22 June said that they believed 'a quarter of the Victorian members are there by reason of branch stacking'. Well, what an indictment! So if you get a proper ICAC, you know who you're going to get rid of? The whole of the Australian Labor Party! 16:13 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga It is a difficult time for our community here in Victoria. We're anxious. We're tired. All the while, we're hoping that our efforts mean our COVID case numbers continue to head in the right direction. I am really grateful that this week our parliament has been able to work out the technology and the procedures for me to be able to participate remotely, because it's part of me being accountable to my community, and that's what my community expects of me, and of all their politicians, particularly at this time of crisis. Leadership at this time means demonstrating accountability and responsibility. It means taking every opportunity to show you are behaving with integrity so that you demonstrate you are respecting the many, many sacrifices people in our community are making. But that's not what we're getting from this Prime Minister, his ministers or, indeed, the government members who have taken part in this debate. I can assure the member for New England that I'm deadly serious about this debate this afternoon. His reference to members being on the sauce at this time of a Thursday afternoon might be what he normally does, but it's certainly not what I do and it's not what the point of this debate is about. If you've got integrity, you're prepared to be judged and you're prepared to be measured on it. This government has not only refused to establish a national integrity commission but also refused many times to allow the establishment of one to be debated in the House. In some ways, that's not surprising when you consider the long list of scandals this government has no interest in having a proper investigation into. The most recent of those is the Liberal Party branch stacking and the role of the Assistant Treasurer. That's obviously just the most recent example. Of course, from earlier this year, we've got the sports rorts affair. My community certainly has not forgotten that and the unfair and unjust way this government spent taxpayers' money to secure its own re-election. We have the energy minister and his forged document that he apparently knows nothing about the origin of. We have example after example of why we need a powerful, transparent and independent national integrity commission. What we got from the Prime Minister in question time today was a triumphant, 'There's no-one better than us,' roll call of his scandal-plagued list of ministers. Well, Labor is fully committed to a genuine, powerful commission. We take our responsibility seriously. We know the government has made some noises about a sham commission, but it's failed to even follow through on those. We've heard from members opposite in this debate this afternoon about how they're all in favour and there's some talking going on. Well, you're the government. If you're serious about this, get on with it and act now—give us a genuine, powerful national integrity commission. In fact, it's been almost two years since Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Attorney-General promised to have draft legislation ready before the end of 2019. We still haven't seen it—not even legislation for a sham commission. This government is too afraid to put up anything that would demonstrate that they are prepared to be held accountable and show integrity at this time of crisis in our country. It is a disgrace. We've seen the ultimate failure of that lack of accountability and responsibility this week as the Prime Minister and his aged-care minister refused to take responsibility for what's happened in our aged-care homes. This is an insult to all the people in my community who are grieving the death of a relative or friend, to all the people here who've been lying awake at night worried about what is happening to their parents and to all the staff and healthcare professionals who've been doing all they can to take care of people in aged care at this time. We know now that this government had time to prepare, but they dropped the ball, as the royal commission has so clearly set out. They refuse to take any responsibility for it. They haven't told us how they'll make sure that it never happens again. We deserve better. We deserve a Prime Minister and a government who show responsibility and accountability and who have integrity. A national integrity commission with serious powers would be an excellent demonstration of their commitment to this. 16:18 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission. I look forward to the legislation imminently coming before this chamber, another excellent reform of the Morrison government. In the last week, we've seen one of the most prominent leaders of the opposition in Russia having to be evacuated from that nation and taken to Germany on suspicion of being poisoned, potentially for politically motivated reasons. There are certainly some countries in the world that don't get to do what the opposition in this country can do, which is come into this chamber, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, and assassinate the character of a member of the government, cast all sorts of aspersions against a person that they're too cowardly to do outside of this chamber, because they know it would be defamatory. In this great country of ours, our opposition can do that. That's one of the great fundamentals of our democracy—a democracy that's been in place since Federation. In the great traditions of the Westminster system, governments are held to account by the peoples' House of Representatives. That's a great thing that we celebrate. The suggestion from Labor that there are some worst-in-the-world examples of corruption in this great country is complete and utter rubbish. I totally and fundamentally reject that assertion that's come across in the petty contributions that have been put forward by the Labor Party in this politically-motivated debate on a Thursday afternoon before we rise for the weekend. We have committed to introducing a Commonwealth integrity commission, which we will be doing very shortly. It will be far superior to what we can glean was the intention of the Labor Party in what they said they would institute when they went to the last election. We're putting a further $89 million more into our integrity commission than what Labor intended to. That doesn't really come as much of a surprise to me, because, of course, a Shorten government would have wanted an underfunded and under-resourced corruption and integrity commission—what a great bullet we and the Australian people dodged there. There's also the suggestion that the Labor Party have suddenly come up with the concept of having an integrity commission in this country. The concept has been around for a very long time. The Rudd government and the Gillard governments could have established a Commonwealth integrity commission but didn't. The Hawke government and the Keating government could have done that but, of course, they didn't. The Whitlam government could have done it. Imagine if the Whitlam government had established an ICAC. There would be a lot more people in jail, had the Whitlam government established a corruption body to oversee the performance of that government and what some of those ministers got up to in their three brief years of power. We are taking the time to make sure that we bring forward legislation that is worthy of the very important task this new integrity body will have. We are resourcing this new integrity body to the standard that it should be resourced to, to ensure that, yes, we are identifying and catching and prosecuting people who are engaging in any form of corruption at a Commonwealth level. That's not to suggest that that isn't already occurring in this country. If there's evidence of corruption, there are a number of avenues that people have to raise with other integrity bodies and to, when evidence justifies, prosecute. People have been convicted in this country many, many times in our history for corruption, but it is sensible and worthy of having a dedicated body, which most state jurisdictions now have in this country, which is why we made it very clear that we were supportive of establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission. But we will do it, like everything that this government does, sensibly. We will do it thoroughly and we will resource it properly. It won't be populist. It won't be about cheap headlines. It will be about making sure that we continue to increase the standards of integrity that we have in our government in this country, in our parliament and in our publicly-elected officials. I am very proud, unlike the Labor Party, of the history in this country of transparency and of democracy. We are world leaders, and we are looked up to around the world for the standards that we have in this system. I concede, under both Labor and Liberal governments, I'd much rather be living in this country than any other comparable country around the world when it comes to our high standards of integrity. Those standards will be that little bit higher when we bring in the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. I look forward to supporting that legislation and being part of a government that leaves that lasting legacy in this country. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee, Economics Committee 75 Membership 75 16:23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees. 16:23 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Zimmerman be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in his place, Mr Joyce be appointed a member of the committee; (2) Mrs Archer and Mr Ted O'Brien be discharged from the Standing Committee on Economics and that, in their place, Ms Hammond and Mr Simmonds be appointed members of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 76 BILLS Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020, Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020, Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020, Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020, Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020 76

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020

Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020

Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020

Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020

Returned from Senate 76 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020 76

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020

First Reading 76 Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 76

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020

Second Reading 76 16:26 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 16:26 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah So employers can claim deductions and not incur administration charges or penalties during this amnesty, but, paradoxically, the amnesty may lead to many businesses being forced to pay significant fees on superannuation which they have not paid, as late penalties are crystallised on the completion of the superannuation statement form. If you do pay the super but do not complete the SGC form, you incur nominal interest until it is completed. In many cases, businesses have paid super but not been aware of the requirement to complete the form, leading to penalties in the tens of thousands of dollars accruing over time. There is no discretion given to the Australian Taxation Office in these situations to waive these costs. I've written to the Treasurer on this but, regrettably, have not received any advice as to whether it can be rectified. I would urge the Treasurer to look at this question, as it is unfairly penalising businesses for an administrative oversight, not a failure to pay appropriate superannuation to their employees. I believe that the penalty is disproportionate to the harm caused as, in most cases, the employee has received the correct amount of super. I worry that it is unfairly penalising businesses around Australia for that administrative error. Calculating nominal interest charged from the date of noncompliance to the lodging of the SGC form, not the actual superannuation payment date, results in huge costs for businesses that receive poor advice. Finally, I welcome the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 and the changes it makes to the flexibility of the super system. The changes will provide further incentives to stash more savings away for a comfortable retirement. The super system, in this way, is an essential pillar to our retirement income and policy foundations. Yet we must not overlook that it does leave some, especially women, disadvantaged. I urge the government to go further than this bill and look at policies and private solutions to fix a still deeply unequal system. 16:29 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Can I just say thank you to the parliamentary staff and everyone who's made it possible for us to tune in from our electorates. Today I'm speaking to you from the electorate of Adelaide. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020, is called the more flexible superannuation bill, but the bill isn't really about more flexible superannuation; it's just the realignment of different acts. So it's a very promising name but doesn't really change too much. I think it's important to raise the fact that, on superannuation, we know that the government's currently preparing to abandon a commitment made at the last election to stick to the legislated increase to the superannuation guarantee and boost super payments from 9½ per cent to 12 per cent. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 77 ADJOURNMENT JBS Dinmore Meatworks 77 16:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair More than 1,700 workers at the JBS Dinmore meatworks in Ipswich, in my electorate, are struggling. They're struggling because they have been stood down with no pay, as the plant was shut down for two weeks from last Monday. This latest blow comes on top of cuts to shifts over the last two weeks, with workers having their hours and incomes slashed by 40 per cent. After this closure, the very best these workers could hope for is working a three-day week until Christmas, when the plant has its annual month-long shutdown. This is a terrible state of affairs for these workers and their families. JBS Dinmore has been hit hard by a perfect storm of market and policy induced factors. The drought, reduced cattle herd, the Chinese beef import ban and competition from other meat processors using labour hire to access the JobKeeper scheme have all hurt JBS Dinmore this year and seen its revenue collapse by 40 per cent. JBS Dinmore is the largest meat-processing plant in Australia and one of the biggest employers in Ipswich, with a long history in the region. This closure is having a devastating effect on the local community and local economy, not to mention the national economy. Numerous workers and their families have contacted me about this, and I know morale is at rock bottom, with many saying that this is the very worst they've seen it. What is the Morrison government doing about it? All that is being offered is JobSeeker—in other words, unemployment benefits. As the wife of one JBS worker told me, this so-called big announcement was a slap in the face to these people and a huge let-down. It's simply not good enough. At times, this government seems more interested in getting a headline than actually helping people. There is no guarantee these workers will be eligible for JobSeeker when assessed on an individual case-by-case basis. And, besides, these workers don't want unemployment benefits. What they want is to keep their jobs. They want JobKeeper payments. More importantly, they want the meatworks to get back to full operation so they can get back to working full time. Last week, I met with JBS management and the AMIEU Queensland branch, which is the meatworkers union, to talk about how we can fix this. I can tell you: the company and the union are singing from the same hymn sheet. Together, they're calling on the Morrison government to extend JobKeeper to these workers. This is the very best thing the government could do to help them and something the Treasurer could do with the stroke of a pen. Last week, I wrote to him to ask him to change the JobKeeper rules so these workers can be eligible for wage subsidy. Currently these workers are not eligible because JBS, as a consolidated company, hasn't lost enough income. Yet the JBS plant at Dinmore is clearly struggling, with its revenue down 40 per cent, so it alone as a standalone business would qualify. This is an anomaly and should be fixed. These workers and their families deserve better, and they need our support. The government has made a number of changes to JobKeeper before, so they can tweak it again to change the eligibility criteria if they want to, to cover these workers and their families and save these jobs. While they're at it, the Morrison government could crack down on large meat processors using labour hire companies to access JobKeeper. These other processors are able to undercut JBS, outbidding them on cattle prices at the saleyard and distorting competition in the market, so JBS is being penalised for doing the right thing in keeping on its full-time staff, while competitors using JobKeeper subsidised labour hire workers are being rewarded. It's not a level playing field. It's not fair. Finally, the government needs to fix the issue of the Chinese beef import suspension, which is also affecting the abattoir in Kilcoy in my electorate. It is clear the government has mismanaged the complex and challenging relationship with China, and now we're seeing the economic and human costs locally, in my electorate. The government needs to work with stakeholders here and in China and with the industry and unions to resolve this as soon as possible. It's taking far too long and costing Australian jobs. While they're at it, the Morrison government can consider universal national paid pandemic leave which includes Queensland. I'm asking the government, on behalf of these workers and their families, to support these local jobs and make sure these people are not left out and left behind. I can assure the House I'll keep fighting to protect these workers and their families, and stand up for my local community. Australian Renewable Energy Agency 78 16:35 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Earlier today I was able to speak to the newly appointed chair of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, Mr Justin Punch, a constituent of mine in Wentworth, who brings to the role of chair a wealth of experience in environmental investing focused on climate and energy. I want to take this opportunity to thank Martijn Wilder, as the outgoing chair, and other outgoing board members of ARENA for their service. They have led ARENA through a transformative period in Australia's energy landscape. ARENA has played an instrumental role in delivering significant improvements in the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies such as large-scale solar, grid-scale batteries, bioenergy and distributed energy technologies. Its track record is impressive. Since its creation, ARENA has committed $1.58 billion of funding towards 543 renewable projects; $236 million to projects that support integration of renewable energy into the grid; $105 million for energy storage projects, including batteries and pumped hydro; and $703 million to support research, development and deployment of solar photovoltaic projects on a large scale. This seed investment by ARENA has helped unlock a total investment of almost $5.5 billion in Australia's renewable energy industry, a leverage ratio of almost one to three. ARENA's purpose is to accelerate Australia's shift to renewable energy that is both affordable and reliable, and, measured against this purpose, ARENA is succeeding. Solar power generation in Australia was up 46 per cent last year, wind power generation was up 19 per cent last year, and Australia's deployment of wind and solar is happening at 10 times the global average—10 times faster than the global average. In the first weeks of 2020 in Australia, we ticked past 25 gigawatts of wind and solar generation, meaning we are one of only three countries in the world to have more than one kilowatt per capita of renewable energy generation capacity. More surprisingly, nearly 40 per cent of this capacity in Australia has been installed in the past two years. Last year alone, we had $9 billion invested in 6.3 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity. AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, in its recently published 2020 Integrated System Plan, predicts that renewable energy will supply as much as 90 per cent of the National Electricity Market by 2035. The report says: On certain measures, the rate of change in Australia is the fastest of any country in the world. The challenge here for us, as the report outlines, is to invest in the transmission, the firming and the storage assets to allow this much higher share of renewable energy in the grid and to smooth out what is the intermittent nature of wind and solar. This is where ARENA's investments come in so importantly in projects to support pumped hydro, large-scale battery systems and distributed energy resources. It's also why the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's Grid Reliability Fund introduced into parliament this week is so important. It will provide an additional $1 billion to invest in energy storage projects, including pumped hydro and batteries, transmission and distribution infrastructure. Our energy system is in transition to a lower carbon future. It's a transition driven by technology and market forces. It's a transition that we should all welcome. The role of government here is to smooth and accelerate this transition and to help spur it on in areas that might be lagging. That's why I believe it's important that ARENA continue to play a pivotal role in supporting our clean energy transition and that its funding be renewed. I've made this view known to the energy minister, the member for Hume, and I know it's under consideration by the government. We're still only in the early stages of this transition. Whilst we are now doing well in rolling out affordable renewable energy generation, it's the second-order challenges we need ARENA to focus on: how to manage a system powered by significantly more renewable energy; how to reduce emissions in harder-to-abate sectors, particularly industry and transport; how to position ourselves to be a global exporter of hydrogen; and how to exploit Australia's full potential to be a renewable energy superpower. ARENA will have a critical role to play in this path ahead. ARENA's funding is guaranteed until 2022, and the government has always said that ARENA's funding will be addressed in the most appropriate budget context. I will continue to work with the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction on this important issue to ensure that ARENA has the funding and the certainty to continue to play an important role in our energy transition ahead. ARENA will be a vital partner in delivering our priorities as part of the Technology Investment Roadmap, and I wish Justin Punch and the entire new board of ARENA the very best for their task ahead. Richmond Electorate: COVID-19 78 16:40 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to speak about the effects of the COVID-19 crisis in my electorate of Richmond, on the New South Wales North Coast. It's been a very tough time across the country, but particularly hard in our regional areas. In late 2019 we had the bushfires right throughout our communities, and many had only just begun to recover. Then, at the start of this year, we had the COVID-19 crisis and its many consequences, including the first recession in decades. This crisis is, of course, both a health crisis and an economic crisis, and it is particularly harsh in our regions. Industries in my region were hit hard at the very start of the pandemic. Our main industries, like retail, tourism and hospitality, were especially affected, as were those in the arts and entertainment sector. We've seen devastation right across our local economy—workers losing their jobs; our struggling local businesses; the impact on some of our major employers, such as our local councils, our airports at Gold Coast and Ballina, the Southern Cross University; and the loss of large music festivals. At the start of the pandemic, Labor called for wage subsidies and we welcomed JobKeeper and its recent extension. It's vitally important that JobKeeper be extended, and we've supported that, as many businesses and employees rely on it. We need to do whatever we can to keep local people in local jobs and support our local economies. But very, very importantly, we need a jobs plan for the future, for the recovery, tailored towards rebuilding. The focus must be on protecting jobs and keeping businesses viable. Whilst the extension of JobKeeper is needed, there are still many people who've been excluded, and this is a major concern. Indeed, many of the hardest hit industries are those that have been excluded from JobKeeper, and they include many casual workers and those in the arts and entertainment sector. When we look at any indicator, the impacts in the regions are massive. In fact, we have some of the highest percentages of businesses that rely on JobKeeper: Byron shire, more than 60 per cent of businesses; Tweed shire, more than 50 per cent; and Ballina shire, more than 40 per cent. Current figures for my electorate show there are now almost 8,700 locals accessing JobKeeper. We've also seen massive increases in the number of locals receiving support through JobSeeker and through youth allowance. Currently, there are over 14,900 North Coast locals who are unemployed or underemployed and accessing income support. That is an increase of almost 8,000 people. We've seen an increase in the number of young people on youth allowance, with an additional 1,000 young people receiving youth allowance in the six-month period between December 2019 and May 2020—that's an increase of 169 per cent. On the North Coast we're very fortunate to have an incredibly diverse and vibrant arts and entertainment sector, but the government has left those workers and that industry behind. The government must provide much more overall industry-specific support to this sector because of the vast numbers that it employs and the huge economic benefits that it generates. My region is the home of the music festivals, and our three largest major festivals have all been forced to cancel this year: Bluesfest, Splendour in the Grass and now Falls Festival—all major economic drivers in our community. Bluesfest is one of Australia's most acclaimed and respected music festivals. It's operated by a 100 per cent Australian owned company, and it is Australia's most highly awarded event. It is a five-time winner of the New South Wales Tourism award for major events and a member of the New South Wales Tourism Hall of Fame. Due to the crisis, the event was cancelled this year, resulting in a massive economic loss for our community and our region. Reports indicate the loss of the event this year will cost our region approximately $130 million and more than 1,400 full-time employment positions. That is a huge economic loss. Yet the Morrison government is failing to support this industry and the broader arts and entertainment sector. This industry, like so many in my region, needs support. This pandemic has meant that our local workers and our businesses on the North Coast have been dealt a devastating economic blow. Our regional economies need more support, tailored to the needs of our area. We need a specific jobs plan, we need increased infrastructure investment and we need greater education and training opportunities for our young people. Our regions matter, and the Morrison government must stop neglecting them. This is why we need a concrete plan from this government about rebuilding, focusing on the recovery, focusing on jobs. Workers, businesses and communities need, and absolutely deserve, a comprehensive plan to get them through this crisis. I'm calling on the Morrison government to act and put in place a specific jobs plan, based on the recovery and based on rebuilding. Our regions need and deserve it now. Seton College 79 16:45 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Recently I was very shocked and saddened to learn that Seton College, on the border of my electorate of Bonner, will permanently close in 2024. Seton College was purpose-built for personalised learning and has a reputation for supporting students with learning difficulties, including special needs. They help students who are struggling in a mainstream school and turn their educational experience around, into a positive, inclusive and successful one. The announcement of their closure has had a profoundly devastating impact on the Seton College community. Parents, students and even current and former teaching staff have spoken out against this decision and have formed a Save Our Seton, or SOS, action group. While their cries for help have fallen on the deaf ears of some, to great disappointment, when parents of the Save Our Seton group contacted me, I was ready not only to listen but to fight for their cause. Parents of a child with special needs will understand why it is so difficult for them to accept this news lying down. If you have a child with learning difficulties—mental or physical disabilities—then you know every single day is a battle. You fight to give your child the best opportunities to not only survive but thrive in this life. You want them to have the best chance to be happy and successful. This is true of every parent, but, for a child with learning difficulties, the battle to give them this is that much harder. Since speaking with some of the Save Our Seton parents, I have been inundated with families sharing their experiences with me and why they are so desperate to keep Seton College open. At last Sunday's Mount Gravatt Markets, the LNP candidate for Mansfield, Janet Wishart, and I were approached by families who expressed that this fight was about not just their children but future students who would benefit from this inclusive school. I would like to share some of these stories with the House. One parent wrote: 'My two boys with autism found a more sympathetic and effective environment at Seton. Standard schools do not have the knowledge or focus to protect and enhance the lives and education of students with special needs, including autism.' Another parent wrote to me and said: 'Seton has given my child the opportunity to socialise, to integrate with others, to feel like he belongs and to have friends that he's never had before. He has every right to be part of this world and feel socially accepted. I cannot tell you how important it is that a school like Seton stays open for children like mine. It is the only school in this area that provides and addresses all needs concerning children with a disability. I've never seen my boy so keen to go to school, so happy to be there and to feel so content when he comes home without being angry, upset or traumatised.' Another parent shared this: 'Like many Seton parents, it was our last hope educationally for our daughter. Instead of closing Seton College, I believe Catholic Education should be duplicating this educational model around Australia. My daughter is currently in year 10 and, as a family, we are devastated by the news that the school will close. Seton College has been a blessing for us, as it has provided my daughter, who suffers ASD, is severely dyslexic and has oral and written language disorder, with a safe and happy educational environment where she can achieve her goals both academically, socially and emotionally.' To all these families I say: I stand with you, I am listening to you and I will support you. Infrastructure 80 16:49 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Tomorrow is The Daily Telegraph's second Bush Summit. It was held in Dubbo last year, and tomorrow we will be hosted by the wonderful community of Cooma. Last year, the focus was largely on the terrible drought we were experiencing. Tomorrow, the focus will be on the economic recovery in the regions post COVID, something that I hope comes sooner rather than later. I've been a student of regional development policy for a long, long time. I've read all the books, the reports, the research papers, but, most importantly, I've lived in a regional community all of my life—born and bred in regional Australia. I know that the foundation to good regional development policy is the people in our local communities. They know where the opportunities and challenges are. They are the innovators. They know how to make their local economies work best and how to make their local communities more vibrant. It is for government to supply the building blocks for the foundations local people provide as they seek, rightly, a bottom-up approach to economic development. Governments need to therefore provide the enablers: the connectivity, whether it be transport or telecommunications; the skilled workforce a local economy needs; the schools and hospitals and the health services that local families need—and a community needs to attract new people. These are the things that a vibrant region needs. This approach will be the right approach post COVID. In fact, it's always been the right approach. It was certainly the right approach pre COVID. But, sadly, this is not the Morrison government's approach. This is the point I will be trying to make tomorrow. To stick religiously to this approach, you need plans. At the last Bush Summit, in Dubbo, the Prime Minister said he'd develop a plan. He said he'd develop a plan to back the National Farmers Federation's plan to grow the farmgate value of the agricultural sector to $100 billion. Alas, and sadly, more than a year on there is no such plan. In fact, since Dubbo, the Prime Minister hasn't even mentioned the development of such a plan. He also told the Bush Summit that he'd have a Regional Development Committee. This is one promise, other than promising to do nothing—one other promise—that he's kept. In fact, he's had not just one Regional Development Committee but two. He had one in the last parliament, announced with great fanfare. It did a lot of work, and I congratulate all members for their good work, but the government never responded to the committee's recommendations. Then, in this new parliament, he appointed another Regional Development Committee, with almost the same terms of reference. That's not good enough. When Labor were in government and we were dealing with the global financial crisis, what did we do? We asked local people what they needed in their communities that would provide both economic stimulus and long-lasting benefits—in my own electorate, the $1.7 billion Hunter Expressway and the $1.2 billion dedicated coal trail track to get more coal to the Port of Newcastle more quickly and more efficiently. We upgraded our TAFEs. We refurbished every school, giving them new and meaningful capacity. We built a mining school. We built a tourism-hospitality school. We put trades training centres in our local high schools. We went to the councils and asked them about smaller infrastructure projects—parks and gardens and the like, the things that make for a vibrant and happy community. We did those projects in their electorates. We put gates on railway level crossings that were dangerous. We put roundabouts in. We rebuilt intersections that councils deemed dangerous. These are the things this government should now be thinking about—talking to local communities, building their infrastructure projects and giving them the best opportunity to be strong post COVID. Cyberabuse 81 16:54 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Last week, I had the great displeasure of having my Instagram page impersonated on three occasions. Someone had set up a fake Instagram account under my name, and I was, naturally, very concerned about why someone would do that. I was concerned that they would post things as though they were me, so I ended up contacting the eSafety Commissioner. To my surprise, she told me that this is something that happens to thousands of ordinary Australians every year. As a federal member, I was able to get onto the eSafety Commissioner very easily and tell her about my woes, but it got me thinking: what sort of damage is being done out there in the community to everyday citizens who can't just pick up the phone and ring Julie Inman-Grant, the eSafety Commissioner? Julie was telling me the various reasons why people are setting up these impersonation accounts. One reason is to create maximum harm through cyberabuse by pretending that, for instance, you're Andrew Wallace. You could say horrible things, and I would get the blowback for it. We've all heard stories of Chris Hemsworth promoting a particular stock or product and, of course, it had nothing to do with Chris Hemsworth but it's relying on his good name. Whether it be Chris or Kochie or any other celebrity, people believe in those people and think: 'If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.' Others are selling fraudulent financial packages. Some are sending messages to friends of the account holder, saying: 'I'm overseas'—although that wouldn't work these days—'I've broken my leg and I need $1,000 for medical treatment.' We've all heard those stories. We've also heard stories of people impersonating social media accounts to peddle a false political narrative. We've all heard about the fake news and the attempts to alter political and election campaigns in the US, Europe and the UK. The eSafety Commissioner told me that it's actually very easy to create these false social media accounts, and that the dark web is full of them. These false accounts are being created by criminal gangs in Australia and overseas or by kids, adolescents. One of the things that really struck me—and I have known about this—is that the level of vitriol that is being peddled on social media is an absolute disgrace. About 12 months ago, in my own social media, I put everybody on notice: if you denigrate someone or use offensive language, I'm just going to wipe you. And things have been pretty good since I did that. The thing that surprises me most is the level of vitriol from parents directed towards children, and it comes down to this concept of anonymity on social media. People think they can do and say what they like on social media, because they've got a degree of anonymity—'I can say what I like. I'm not going to be found out.' That's something we need to look at. But it's not just a matter of addressing these problems through—and we often pick on social media companies. I believe we need stronger deterrents for people who commit these acts against other people. We need to step up our offences and make it more of a punishment, in my view, and I'm working with the Attorney-General to do just that. NOTICES 81 NOTICES

Thursday, 27 August 2020

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) took the chair at 10:00.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 83 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Assange, Mr Julian 83 10:00 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Eleven days from now, an Australian citizen will fight for his life in a London court as the United States government seeks his extradition. If this Australian is extradited and manages to escape execution, he will still face an effective death sentence in the US, confined in extreme isolation for 175 years. This Australian will be trapped in a system that ensures political prisoners like him will be systematically broken, with no hope of a fair trial. The Eastern District Court of Virginia in the US, the espionage court, is a place where no national security defendant has ever succeeded. This Australian, who exposed American crimes, including international law violations at Guantanamo Bay, will be buried alive in the same oppressive system. I don't personally agree with all that Julian Assange has done, but if we're to protect our democratic values, that must never be the point. At the very least, our government must demand that he receive a fair trial, as Julian Assange is not receiving a fair trial. This Australian has not been convicted of any crime, yet he is being held on remand in inhumane conditions at the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison, reserved for the most violent offenders. For nearly six months, he's been unable to see his family or speak to his lawyers. It's a pathetic form of progress that I learnt yesterday that he's still not allowed to see his lawyers to prepare a defence, but he can now talk to them for more than ten minutes by phone. After the court deadline, the prosecution filed over 100,000 pages of dense legal documents, yet he's not allowed to access them all. He can view some of the documents on a laptop, except the keyboard is glued down and the USB port is glued shut and he only has some paper and pens to take notes as best he can. When in court, he's not allowed to sit next to his lawyer or privately communicate with them. He's locked in a glass box. Even war criminals accused of genocide on trial at the International Criminal Court can sit down and communicate privately with their lawyers. They're also housed in a unit, not a maximum-security prison with mass murderers. How ironic that this Australian, who exposed the United States' war crimes, is treated worse than a war criminal. The UK claims to be a rule of law country guaranteeing a fair trial, open justice and due process. What a joke! In a blatant breech of due process, once the US had his entire defence to the indictment, they issued a new indictment by press release, despite being out of time to submit anything new to the court—and this was allowed. The persecution and treatment of Julian Assange are unconscionable. This is inherently political and our government is too cowardly to defend him, to even demand that he gets a fair trial. His treatment corrupts our alliance with the United States and makes a mockery of the United Kingdom's justice system and international law. I and other MPs, from every party, standing up for Julian Assange are writing to the UK High Commissioner requesting an urgent meeting to relay our concerns and demand his extradition be blocked as he is not receiving a fair trial in the UK. Vietnam Veterans' Day 83 10:03 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Like many of us, I attended a Vietnam Veterans' Day memorial ceremony at the RSL club in Taree. The Vietnam War was Australia's longest military engagement in the 20th century and started with the training unit, but it went through to full battle operations. By the time the war had ended, 60,000 Australian service men and women had served. Tragically, 521 of them died and 3,000 were wounded. Today, many of those veterans still carry the mental burdens, as well as the physical problems, that they inherited as a result of their service. They've relied on the Vietnam Veterans' Association, the RSL, Soldier On, their family and their friends. The whole message is that we should never forget their service. Today, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the individual stories of sacrifice of six sons of the Manning Valley who served and never returned. First of all, Captain Robert Bruce Milligan, aged 30, of Taree, joined the Army aged 19 and graduated from officer cadet school as dux of his class at Portsea. Bob, as he was known, served as a lieutenant with the Pacific Islands Regiment in Papua New Guinea. He was second in command of C Company, 5th battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. On the morning of 14 February, he was unfortunately killed by a landmine. Second Lieutenant Kerry Patrick Rinkin, aged 21, also of Taree, was a bank clerk who graduated from the Officer Training Unit at Scheyville, six months after call-up, in June 1965. He was a platoon commander and transferred to the regular Army midway through his national service in 1966. He served with the 5th RAR in Vietnam, where he was wounded by a mine blast in April 1967 and died of his wounds subsequently at the 2nd Field Ambulance at Vung Tau. Private Alan John Wallace, also 21, was an apprentice railway fireman when he answered the call. He was posted to the 1st RAR and was killed on 16 May 1968 during enemy attacks on the Fire Support Base Coral at Bien Hoa Province. Sapper Peter John Bramble, also 21, of Taree, was a plant operator when he was called up. He was a sapper in the 1st Field Squadron and he died of his wounds from a mine explosion in Phuoc Tuy Province on 22 May 1969. Lance Corporal Michael Paul White, another young man in his prime at age 20, was born in Cronulla but was from Taree when he entered service. He followed his two older brothers into service and was wounded, also in Bien Hoa Province, on 1 November 1969 and died 24 days later. Last of all, I mention Private Arthur John Gibson, aged 27 of Taree, who also served and died. Thank you. (Time expired)I Chifley Electorate: Roads 84 10:06 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Nearly 70 days ago, I wrote to the minister for infrastructure seeking funding for, in particular, bottlenecks that exist in the Chifley electorate on the road network. In our part of north-west Sydney, 200,000 people are moving in. It is a massive challenge trying to ensure that people can move either by road or by public transport. I can't understand why, in 70 days, I can't get any type of response from the Deputy Prime Minister. Just 11 days after writing to him, he announced $1 billion of funding for joint projects with the New South Wales government, including $240 million for congestion hotspots, but none of these hotspots seem to appear on the radar for the minister. Basically, to put it frankly, they're in Labor electorates. While he may choose to ignore me and stick his head in the sand over the bottlenecks, the government can't afford to ignore this, because people are getting really uptight. For example, if I look at the data from February, I see that one particular bottleneck, at Francis Road, is regularly at more than 150 per cent of its capacity during peak times—150 per cent! The one-lane road acts a major access point for Mount Druitt Hospital. It also connects West HQ, which features a massive new entertainment facility, and congestion is a regular problem there. I just completed a community survey in my area where residents around Marsden Park and Coleby are hopping mad about the fact that Richmond Road, which had been upgraded and widened, is already a slow-moving car park in our part of north-western Sydney. How did planners manage to get this so wrong? What we need to see out of infrastructure investment in our part of north-western Sydney is major roads like Richmond Road upgraded, the M9 built, the extension of the Metro North West down to St Mary's, and the decongestion of the western Sydney rail line—the one that goes from Penrith to the city and passes through the Chifley electorate. These are major projects that need to be completed and they need federal and state governments to work together. We don't need dollars for an ad campaign; we need dollars for actual infrastructure. Just to let you know: on the issue of Richmond Road, even if all the planets were to align and the money were set aside, if work started today it would take three years to complete that work for a growing part of Sydney. It shows that you can't just make the announcement and then not follow through. I'm sick of seeing a government that's big on announcements and short on delivery. Certainly residents in my part of western Sydney are sick of it as well. Curtin Electorate: Swanbourne-Nedlands Surf Life Saving Club 84 10:00 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin Surf lifesaving clubs are an invaluable part of the Curtin community. We, of course, have the best beaches in the world on our side of the country, which are visited by thousands of people each year, and our volunteer surf lifesaving clubs in Curtin do an amazing job—as they do, I'll admit, on beaches all around Australia. They do many things: they provide advice and first aid to people, they take preventative actions to make sure that the beachgoers are safe, and they educate the public on how to stay safe at the beach. Swanbourne-Nedlands Surf Life Saving Club is one of six fantastic surf lifesaving clubs in Curtin. It's known simply as 'Swanny' to locals, and it's been keeping the Curtin community safe since 1932. On average, the volunteer surf lifesavers at Swanny perform over 4,000 patrol hours each summer and log over 600 preventative actions. They've got a growing membership of over 740 people, with nearly half of that membership—about 48 per cent—being women. Swanny doesn't just keep our community safe at the beach. It also plays a really important role in training the kids through its fantastic Nippers program, it helps people to get bronze medallions, it runs first-aid courses, and it hosts and participates in a number of sporting competitions. While Swanny plays an undeniably vital role in our community, its facilities are, quite frankly, outdated and inaccessible, and they require urgent and long-overdue upgrades. The over-330-strong female membership currently have access to only one toilet amongst them, and they are required to use four dilapidated gangway-style showers of the sort that you might have seen in the old TV show Prisoner. Their change rooms are just a converted old, tiny first-aid room located in a building that was built in 1959, when the club had zero female lifesavers. Volunteer surf lifesavers who are looking out for us on the beach deserve better than sharing one toilet amongst 330 of them. The club also requires urgent improvements to storage facilities, as it's outgrown its current storage space, meaning that vital rescue and training equipment is not readily accessible or stored under cover. I, along with the state member for Cottesloe, Dr David Honey, and the club's president, the marvellous Luke Bishop, recently launched a petition to build support for the much-needed funding Swanny requires to bring its facilities up to modern standards. I will continue to work with Swanny and its remarkable team and members to make sure that we can get it the funding so that it gets the facilities that it deserves. El Halabi, Mr Mohammed 85 10:13 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler 'Every single day I try to do all I can to raise awareness for my son's cause. I want to hold him close and tell him how proud I am for all the work that he's done for Gaza and the Palestinian people.' These are the words of a heartbroken father, Khalil El-Halabi, who recently contacted me regarding the ongoing plight of his son, Mohammed El Halabi. Mr El Halabi is the former director of World Vision Australia operating in Gaza and the West Bank. He was arrested on 15 June 2016 by the Israeli authorities on allegations of funnelling $50 million of World Vision money into the terrorist group Hamas. The father of five, who was responsible for supervising humanitarian relief programs for World Vision, was declared by the United Nations in 2014 as a 'humanitarian hero'. It has now been more than four years since his arrest, with the Israeli prosecutors yet to prove the allegations made against him or order his release. According to reports, Mr El Halabi has been subjected to physical and psychological torture, has restricted medical care and limited visitation rights, and has been forced to attend court 146 times, without evidence having been presented to substantiate the allegations. Mr El Halabi's Jerusalem based lawyer has also been obstructed at every turn. The Israeli courts have imposed unprecedented restrictions on the defence counsel throughout the four-year ordeal, thereby depriving Mr El Halabi of the prospects of a fair trial or the presumption of innocence before the law. His lawyer argues that this is a very clear case of political bias, stating, 'Mohammed is a scapegoat for a misinformation campaign to intimidate international humanitarian organisations working in Gaza.' Investigations conducted by our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and independent auditors, as well as World Vision, have all failed to show any evidence that the money was ever diverted. World Vision has even gone so far as to say 'the allegations are incomprehensible' and that Mr El Halabi simply did not have access to the amount of money in question. With no evidence presented thus far by the Israeli authorities to substantiate the charge against Mr El Halabi, it is imperative that the international community continues to place public pressure on Israel to finalise his trial without further delay. In this matter, Israel should and must remain accountable for upholding human rights, maintaining due process and, above all, complying with the rule of law. COVID-19 85 10:16 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes About half an hour ago we heard the most extraordinary attack on the reputation of Professor Harvey Risch by the shadow health minister of this country—statements that were a disgrace. What is Professor Risch under attack for? He has said, 'The evidence in favour of hydroxychloroquine benefit in high-risk patients treated as outpatients is stronger than anything else I've studied in my career.' He has 38 years as a professor of epidemiology, and you Labor people are criticising this gentleman without any idea what you're talking about. I have never seen a greater example of groupthink and inability to think. Honourable members interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 But even since Professor Harvey Risch made those comments, some more studies have come to light. I hear the Labor Party say, 'There are no studies! What medical journal are you quoting from?' I will quote from the medical journal, the European journal— Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! The member for Bruce is skating very close to being disorderly. I won't ask him to withdraw at this stage, but if he repeats the claims I will ask him to withdraw. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I was asked what medical journals I read. I will quote from the European journal of internal medicine. You two might like to read it after and go and do some homework. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The member for Hughes will direct his comments through the chair. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 This was a recent study, only out yesterday, by Dr Augusto Di Castelnuovo. What did Dr Di Castelnuovo say of his study? This was a study of 3,451 hospitalised patients in 33 clinical settings in Italy. His conclusion was—you might like to take this to your shadow health minister, who has no idea what he's talking about—'We observed that the patients treated with hydroxychloroquine had a 30 per cent lower in-hospital mortality rate than those not receiving it.' That's 30 per cent fewer deaths. And you people are engaged in groupthink and not reading the evidence. The statements that we heard today from the shadow health minister of this country were a disgrace. This study out of Italy is not the only— Mr Hill 86256 I move: That the member be no longer heard. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 You don't want to hear the medical studies—the medical studies that you should be reading. You want to shut us down. What a disgrace! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! The question is that the member be no longer heard. As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 it will be referred to the House. Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! The member for Bruce will come to order or he will leave the chamber. Solomon Electorate: Military and Veteran Heritage 86 10:19 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I am very proud of our military and veteran heritage up in the north of Australia, the place that I represent—Darwin and the rest of the Northern Territory. I want to acknowledge the commemorative service that we had at the USS Peary Memorial on the Darwin, which was attended by over 200 people and where we commemorated the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific and the end of the Second World War. I want to particularly pay tribute to the moving speech by US Marine officer Lieutenant Colonel David Banning, who reminded all present of the historic and deep relationship between the United States Marine Corp and the Australian Defence Force. This is reflected, as he said, and continues to be reflected by the fact that the song of the 1st Marine Corp Division remains Waltzing Matildaand their banner includes the Southern Cross. I also want to acknowledge Veterans Australia NT, who have taken many steps to support younger veterans over the years. Some local INTERFET veterans and Vietnam veterans felt that more could be done to commemorate the important deployment from Darwin of INTERFET 21 years ago. As a result, on the weekend of 19 and 20 September, next month, we will be commemorating that deployment. On Saturday 19 September, there will be a service at the Darwin Cenotaph, followed by a lunch at NT Parliament House. The following day, on Sunday 20 September, there will be an informal barbeque at Veterans Australia NT, out in the rural area. Speaking at the commemorative service will be Colonel John Papalitsas, who is currently the commander of the Regional Force Surveillance Group and was a platoon commander with the 3rd Battalion Old Faithful during that INTERFET deployment; and also Sam Weston, who was with the 5th Battalion of the Royal Regiment—a veteran from Darwin. All INTERFET veterans are invited to come to Darwin—if you're not from a hotspot. Check with the NT government's Health website to see whether we'll let you in! I want to give a shout-out to all INTERFET veterans and welcome them to Darwin. Also out of Veterans Australia NT recently we've had the dedication of a Long Tan replica cross. It looks fantastic and is a credit to that great organisation. Well done to all the ex-service organisations in the Top End who continue to serve our veterans and their families. Assange, Mr Julian 86 10:22 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I commend the member for Solomon for his words, being a former member of the Army Reserve. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Bruce. I know that this is an issue where we're both basically on the same page. An Australian, whether you like him or not, cannot be extradited to another country for something that he did in Australia, and for which he was never actually present in that country which deems that it is a crime. The United States want to extradite Julian Assange from England to the United States for what they deem is an affront to United States law. But the point is that he was in Australia, and it was not an affront to an Australian law and he committed no crime in Australia. If we let this fall through, if this slip happens, then really, what is the difference if he did something that was an affront to Koranic law and Saudi Arabia asked for him to be extradited to Saudi Arabia, although he wasn't there? Our nation has reason to exist by many things but, of course, primarily, by reflecting its sovereignty. Sovereignty means that, whether you like them or not, Australians are guided by Australian rules for crimes or otherwise committed in Australia. Mr Assange, who, if I met him, I imagine I probably wouldn't like. But that is not the issue. The issue, like it was with Mr Hicks, is about the law. It is about the process of law and it's about whether we respect it or whether a time comes where we put it aside because it's convenient or embarrassing. That makes us lesser of a nation. Mr Assange is currently in England, and the United States is making a very strong case for his extradition to the United States, where he will go to jail forever, 175 years, be in maximum security and basically be bereft of any real connection to a proper trial, which would be ridiculous in any case because he was never in their country when they propose he committed a crime. If anything, he's also a person who has won a Walkley Award. I would expect the media—the fourth estate—to be rallying to the cause, whether or not they like him. This is an issue for Australians at the highest level. I call on Minister Payne and I call on the Attorney-General for their very best efforts in making sure that the sovereignty of our nation, the truth of our nation, the whole mechanism and reason for our nation, are respected by reason of an Australian citizen not being extradited to a third country. Lilley Electorate: Men's Shed 87 10:25 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Next week is national Men's Shed Week, and I would like to recognise the important work of the local Men's Shed in my electorate of Lilley on the north side of Brisbane. Chatting with northsiders who are members of the local Men's Sheds, I have heard a lot about how being part of the Men's Shed gives people a sense of the community beyond what they had when they were working. Members have time on their hands but they want to spend that time meaningfully and contribute something, and Men's Shed is not just a way of catching up with one another but also a way to do that useful work. They check in on each other and, in a year where we have a global pandemic, I'm sure members have noticed the collective mental health of their communities is tricky, more anxious and at more peril than it would have been otherwise. It's essential that we have these services continue so that people feel that they have a place in the world where they can go. For many men, that is their Men's Shed. Half of Australians say that they feel lonely at least once a week and a quarter say that they feel lonely more than three times a week. People felt those real emotional effects before COVID but particularly feel them now they can't visit their family who might live over the border or their friends when restrictions have been in place. I think maybe we've taken for granted the profound impact that has on people, so thank you to Men's Sheds, who continue to do that work in these times of difficult and changing restrictions, who serve our men and who go to Men's Shed to serve our community. To finish off the week, I would like to share good news stories from my electorate of Lilley. Kerala from Virginia contacted my office asking for assistance with her parents' visa application. Kerala is in her third trimester with her second child due in October—solidarity Kerala! Her husband is currently in the Australian Army in New South Wales and unable to attend the birth of their child as his quarantine time would have exceeded his time off between SAS courses, so she essentially would have been on her own with a newborn and a toddler recovering from surgery. Unfortunately, the Department of Home Affairs knocked back her parents' application for a visa to come to Australia to help care for her during that time. After some back-and-forth with the parliamentary liaison network, we have finally secured that visa for her parents to come and assist with her toddler and her recovery from the birth. My office was also able to secure assistance for Phillipa, a 20-year-old from Kedron, to secure a travel exemption to the US. She is travelling to America on a college scholarship to play water polo next year so best of luck, Phillipa. Doreen had a stroke in May and wasn't able to get physio because she couldn't walk on her own. We helped Doreen to get a home-care package reviewed and now she has the care that she needs to be independent and stay in her own home. Tim from Kedron finally got his NBN connected after four months—good on you, Tim! And finally, I'd like to wish a 100 birthday to Jean from St Martin's in Taigum. She turns 100 on 1 November, a very good innings. Happy birthday, Jean. Page Electorate: Clontarf Academy 87 10:28 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to highlight today the fantastic work being done by the Clontarf Academy at the South Grafton High School. The Clontarf Foundation exists to improve the education, discipline, life skills and employment prospects for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men through sport. Beginning in 2000, the foundation now has 119 academies, 9,000 participants and nearly 500 staff nationwide. The South Grafton High academy director, Bobby Batty, staff members Luke Walker and Grant Stevens, and school principal, Kristine Pizzaro, are changing lives with the program they've created there. They have increased attendance dramatically, improved academic results and empowered the young men in the program. Luke Walker, whose brother Cody plays for the Rabbitohs, told me that before the academy program started, some of the boys were at school once or twice a week. Now the same boys are waiting at the front of their house at 6 am for a bus to get to their footy training session, and then get ready for school. I'd like to congratulate last year's graduates, Sebastian Knox and Zac Mason. Graduating this year are Damon Kirby, Isaiah Thornton, Blade Blackadder, Adam Barrett and Jarrod Chalker. And the current year 11s who will graduate next year are Liam Godwin, Oscar Knight, Koby Cook, Jamal Laurie, Josh Seaton and Kaylan King. Congratulations to everyone involved at this South Grafton High School on a fantastic program. I would like to recognise 18-year-old Anika Learoyd, a rising cricket star in my community. Anika grew up at Corindi and has just signed her first major cricket contract with the Sydney Thunder. It has been a very big year for Anika, who has also been selected as part of the New South Wales women's cricket team. She's a talented top-order batsman who also bowls leg spin. Annika also went to nationals in the New South Wales country team and was the top run-scorer for the team in the T20 format. Anika joins Lismore cricket champion Sammy-Jo Johnson in the New South Wales women's cricket team and Sydney Thunder. Anika, I know your parents, John and Cheryl, and your sister, Nicola, are very proud of you. Congratulations. I'd like to acknowledge the Seaview Tavern in Woolgoolga. They have just been named in the top 10 per cent of hospitality businesses worldwide by Tripadvisor, an exceptionally exciting achievement for a locally owned business. It's awarded by looking at the hundreds of reviews that are left by customers. They were also awarded a Tripadvisor 2020 Travellers' Choice Award. I want to congratulate the management staff: Mark Mihai, the managing director; Harry Barry; Ric Gianoli; Charlie Nalder; Gerard Geerligs, the head chef; and the staff, Laura Howe, Ben Cardillo, Carla Angel, Charlotte Jordan and Matt Scroggy. From the bar staff to the chef, the kitchen, this is a massive team effort. Well done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The time for three-minute constituency statements has expired, but traditionally we get the leave of the House to continue for another 30 minutes. So, if there's no objection, we will continue for another 30 minutes. JobKeeper Program 88 10:31 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Let's be honest about the JobKeeper program: if you could have your time again, you'd redesign it. The program rollout has been clunky. Businesses have complained that it's been poorly communicated. It was a simplistic program for a very dynamic and complex labour market. However, it's all we've got, and it needs to keep going. JobKeeper has saved thousands of jobs, particularly in my home state of Victoria and in my electorate. There are over 4,000 businesses currently accessing the JobKeeper program. Over 16,000 employees are on that program. It has saved jobs. We are in stage 3 in Bendigo. We are not feeling the pain as acutely as our Melbourne colleagues, but stage 3 has still had a significant impact on our businesses and on local jobs. And it's not just been stage 3 for a couple of weeks, I'd like to remind the House that we are coming up to six months of stage 3 restrictions, with a brief period of about three weeks where we went back to stage 2. What it has meant is a significant hit to local business, and this is why JobKeeper, I believe, needs to be linked to restrictions. That is why, whilst we let the passage of the legislation go through the House last night, when it goes to the Senate we are calling upon the government to negotiate, to be more flexible, so that we can make sure that the assistance where it is most needed, like states like Victoria, is getting to those workers and those businesses. What's it like right now in my part of the world? I spoke to a few hospitality businesses before coming up here. Brookes Brewery are a craft brewer. Their on-average downturn for the last five months is about 40 per cent. They're a wholesaler. They have two staff on JobKeeper receiving about $3 K per month. They say, 'It feels like we need to start from scratch because it has been going on for so long.' Sharon and Tim Carlson, from the Best Western Crystal Inn, say downturn is down 80 to 95 per cent over five months. In August, they only took $6.5 K, and most of it was from one aged-care patient who's now living in a motel room—that's a story for another day. We also spoke to Jacqueline Brodie-Hanns who has the Taproom in Castlemaine, which is connected to their Shedshaker Brewery business. They are down 90 per cent on the brewing side and surviving by selling at farmers' markets. They are particularly worried about the impact that this pandemic is having on the creative sector and musicians and the fact that there is very little support from this government. We do support JobKeeper but believe it needs to be tailored and it needs to support people in Victoria the most. Cowper Electorate: COVID-19 88 10:34 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Small and medium businesses are certainly the backbone of the Australian economy. Those businesses in my electorate have rolled with the punches over the last 12 months. We've had drought, fires and floods and now the coronavirus. It has hit them hard. Now more than ever they need the help of all levels of government. It pleases me to see that many of those local businesses are accessing the government's support packages and payments through these difficult times. I recently undertook a random survey of 402 businesses in my electorate to establish their needs and to better understand what they want working out of this health and economic pandemic. Among the survey's major conclusions were that half of all businesses surveyed were impacted by the drought, 70 per cent were affected by the summer's bushfires and 80 per cent, unsurprisingly, have been affected by COVID. The major impacts of COVID-19 included reduced employee hours, staffing levels and falling income. Significantly, social distancing, staff working from home and mental health concerns were also frequently mentioned. Two in five businesses had adapted their operating models and tried to find new sources of revenue. This included 73 per cent of hospitality businesses. Seeking more localised suppliers was a commonly cited example. There was also a greater trend to use online and social marketing. Two in five respondents had considered future changes to combat tough trading conditions, while half of the businesses surveyed said the government could make it easier for them to pursue additional business opportunities. There was a clear appetite for decentralisation, both of government and offices of larger corporates. We asked the businesses what new industries might thrive on the Mid North Coast. A number of common themes did emerge—new manufacturing, logistics and transport, aviation, back offices for major metro based corporates, a greater focus on ecotourism, more sports tourism, and innovation and R&D that would make us less dependent on China. Finally, but importantly, there was a consistent theme throughout the research: a growing importance in embracing the power of locals—more local customers, more local suppliers and a generally greater awareness and appreciation for locals supporting locals. The trend towards hyperlocalism should be encouraged wherever it makes financial sense and helps businesses become more resilient. I will continue to work with those hardworking business owners across my electorate to help them achieve their goals in the future. COVID-19: Queensland 89 10:37 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I'm a proud Queenslander. During this pandemic I have been even prouder to see my fellow Queenslanders and local residents, in particular, lead the way with managing this pandemic in my home state. Just this morning Queensland recorded two new confirmed cases—one in Brisbane, in my electorate at Forest Lake, and one in Cairns. There are 17 active cases and 1,110 confirmed cases. As we know, there have been six tragic deaths. In the last 24 hours we've seen over 19,000 Queenslanders come forward to be tested. This is remarkable. It's fantastic to see the community come forward, take the initiative and take advice from our health professionals. I want to place on record my thanks to Queensland Health officials, led by the best chief health officer in the nation, Dr Jeannette Young; Metro South and West Moreton health staff; local contact tracers; and especially our local residents who have done the right thing and come together to support each other. I'm also conscious of the stress and strain for many local seniors. They are anxious and concerned about the current outbreaks. Please know that I and my office will continue to be there to support you during this difficult time. I want to acknowledge our amazing local businesses in the south-west of Brisbane. They deserve a shout-out. They are continuing to trade during this very tough time. I've visited a number of those businesses. I salute them all. Yet in the middle of this crisis, when the Victorian and New South Wales governments are still getting on top of this virus, we see the Queensland LNP and opposition leader, Deb Frecklington, call 64 times for our borders to be reopened. The LNP's dangerous policies pose a serious risk to the health of Queenslanders and to jobs in my home state. As the Premier said last night: We made difficult decisions, hard decisions, often contentious decisions. There are now more active cases in aged care in Victoria than Queensland has had during the entire pandemic. Not only that, not only are the LNP campaigning on this, they are setting up billboards in Queensland saying, 'Open the borders'. Some MP called Michael Hart thought that was a smart idea. Well, I've got to tell you, it is not a smart idea. When I think about my Oxley community and the safest way forward for them, the many businesses that I have visited all say the same thing: stay firm and tough on border control. Time and time again we've seen the state LNP putting Queenslanders at risk—no apology from those opposite—aided and abetted by the Prime Minister and every single LNP member from Queensland. Well, I'm telling them very clearly today: 'Hands off our borders! You've got to stop putting your politics before the health of Queenslanders and the economy of Queensland.' I know my Labor colleagues on this side of the House will continue to stand strong with the Queensland government. Now is not the time to go backwards. Now is the time for forward thinking. (Time expired) Forde Electorate: Small Business 89 10:41 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As all of us across this place know, small and family businesses are the lifeblood of our local economies. In the electorate of Forde that is no different, with over 17,000 such businesses stretching from Shailer Park in the north to Upper Coomera in the south, Carbrook in the east and Park Ridge in the west. We have fantastic local, family-owned businesses like Mosaic Pizza at Charlotte Park, run by Louis Oberleuter; Coffee Reserve in Upper Coomera, run by Scott Stratford, so if you want a great coffee in Upper Coomera, there's no better place to go; Michael Boehm runs Beenleigh Glass; and Harvey's Towing at Park Ridge is run by Joe Andriske. Other examples include Peter and Sue Wilkings, who run the Bayside Wake Park at Carbrook, or Alex and Tina, who run A&T Cabinets at Loganholme. These businesses support our local community in a wide variety of areas, but importantly also provide jobs for locals. And it's their contributions to our communities that make those communities such great places to live. I want to take this opportunity to recognise one of our longstanding local businesses, JG Lohrisch Funeral Directors in Beenleigh, which celebrate 150 years in business this year. They are one of the oldest family-run funeral homes in Queensland, and can trace their history back to 1870, when Emil Lohrisch established the business shortly after emigrating to Australia from Prussia. Today the fourth-generation owners, Richard and Vicky Lohrisch, run a business that is a far cry from the horse-drawn hearses that their ancestors had. Richard and Vicky are stalwarts in the Beenleigh community, and I've had the privilege, as their federal member of parliament, of being able to get to know them over the past 10 years. They support a wide range of community organisations and events, the Beenleigh PCYC among them. Part of that support is seeing the PCYC's new boxing centre being built. They also provide enormous support to the Beenleigh Historical Village and Museum. Earlier this year they'd hoped to host a big celebration for their 150th anniversary at the historical village, but, as with so many things, coronavirus took care of that. But more importantly, businesses like JG Lohrisch Funeral Directors, as well as many others in Beenleigh, a town that's been around for over 150 years, show the enormous potential and opportunity that exists for a town located halfway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. We now, courtesy of Logan City Council, through investLogan, have a new crane in town. A new eight-storey tower is being built as we continue to invest and grow and develop what is a key community asset in a key town halfway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Vietnam Veterans' Day 90 10:44 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Mr Deputy Speaker, 18 August was Vietnam Veterans' Day, otherwise referred to as 'Long Tan day'. As I have done every year, I attended the annual commemorative service at Henderson Square in the Montague Farm estate of Pooraka, where a Vietnam War memorial has been established. In spite of this year's COVID-19 restrictions and wet, wintry weather, the service was very well attended. Standing on damp grass with a bitterly cold wind blowing and intermittent drizzle, it crossed my mind just how insignificant our discomfort was when contrasted to the conditions endured by the 61,000 Australians who served in Vietnam, and it paled into insignificance when compared to the horrific ordeal faced by soldiers in the midst of a sloshy jungle, with rain and enemy bullets pelting down through the 1966 Battle of Long Tan. Guest speaker, His Excellency Hieu Van Le, whose own journey to Australia was precipitated by the Vietnam War, provided a moving personal insight into the horrors of war. His address was later followed by keynote speaker Lieutenant Colonel Bill Denny AM BM. Bill, himself a Vietnam veteran, in his honest and frank remarks shared three anecdotes about the Vietnam War which exposed the truth, the fallout of the war and the futility of war. I particularly noted Bill's recount of local South Vietnamese people's heart-wrenching pleas to Australian soldiers not to leave them to the mercy of the North Vietnamese forces. Earlier this year, I met with local resident Adrian Taylor, who co-authored with Karl Metcalf From Nui Dat to Discharge; Book 2. The book honours the service of Vietnam veterans, with a special reference to 4 Platoon, B Company, 7 RAR. Graphic insights and not previously told stories collated from personal diaries, letters and interviews with veterans reveal the Vietnam War as it really was for those who served. Around a quarter of the Australians who served in Vietnam were national service conscripts. Over 200 of them died between 1965 and 1973, representing around 45 per cent of all deaths during that period For many who served, their return home from Vietnam was difficult. They were veterans of a lost war, physically or mentally scarred, shut out by many RSL clubs, and often treated with indifference by society. Life for them would never be the same. They share a special bond with one another that only they understand. But their service to country should be recognised and thanked, no lesser than the service of any other personnel who has worn the Australian uniform. Today I salute their service. Ryan Electorate: Veterans 90 10:47 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan On 15 August, I had the honour of attending the Toowong RSL's service to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II. It was an opportunity to pause, reflect and acknowledge the service and sacrifice of almost one million Australians who served in the Second World War. COVID-19 has been incredible tough on some of our RSLs and on our defence community. I know that many were so very disappointed that they couldn't come together to commemorate Anzac Day this year, as they normally do with their mates over a beer at the RSL. It was great to gather for this anniversary instead and to pay our respects together. I had the privilege of presenting a commemorative medallion to Mr George Hulse, the President of the Toowong RSL. Mr Hulse shared with me his thoughts on the importance of the World War II conflict. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to read this to the House. He said: 'World War II was the largest conflict in human history. It caused 70 million people to lose their lives over a six-year period and changed forever the geopolitical structure of the human race. The outcomes of that war continue to be experienced to this day, and we who benefit from a great continuation of our legal rights, civil liberties and human dignity owe a great debt to those who made these things possible for us at a difficult time during their youth.' While Australia can never repay the debt that we owe to those who serve, the medallions—as I said, the first of which I gave to George—are a small but meaningful way to thank veterans for their service to our country. The medallions that the federal government is rolling out demonstrate our recognition of the significant contribution of our World War II veterans to the lifestyle and freedoms that we all enjoy in Australia today. The Morrison government is committed to providing support, compensation and welfare assistance to our defence and veteran communities right across Australia. I'm particularly passionate about providing it in the electorate of Ryan. Locally, I've been proactive in securing funding for organisations that assist our current and ex service men and women and their families, as I know the vital role these groups play in supporting the electorate of Ryan and our veteran community, particularly those who call the Gallipoli Barracks home. I was recently pleased to announce that two RSL branches in my electorate have received federal funding under the Building Excellence in Support and Training program. The Kenmore Moggill RSL received $1,284, and the Gaythorne RSL received $44,898, both to assist our veteran and Defence community by providing support and resources to ex-service people and practitioners, as well as advocacy work for them. We owe so much to those who have served our country. By providing these medallions as well as funding to support them in their post-service life we are supporting them as best we can. We say thank you to them every day for their service. JobKeeper Payment 91 10:50 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Yesterday the House passed the JobKeeper extension measure, which of course Labor supports, and now it's on its way to the Senate. I put out a JobKeeper survey to businesses in my electorate. One of the responses was, 'I'm very grateful for the JobKeeper allowance, as it helps me pay the bills and buy food.' That's what it's all about: keeping people attached to their businesses, their places of work, and making sure they can pay bills and buy food. It's worth remembering that the Prime Minister opposed the idea of a wage subsidy when Labor and the unions proposed it. This is a Labor and unions initiative. It wouldn't have occurred without us. Yesterday government MPs lined up in the House to extoll the virtues of JobKeeper. It's important to note that this was a Labor and union initiative. But too many are still missing out. This is the great tragedy: government MPs were lining up yesterday to say how great JobKeeper has been and how important it's been for their electorates, yet they are not extending the benefits of JobKeeper to more than a million Australians who are missing out. It's a great tragedy. One element of the legislation that Labor did not want to see go through the House yesterday was the element that allows businesses that are recovering from the pandemic to continue to cut the hours of their employees. As the Manager of Opposition Business mentioned, some businesses who continue to suffer a 10 per cent cut in their turnover can cut up to 40 per cent of the hours of their workers. So businesses that are doing better can cut the hours of their workers. We hope that that provision is knocked out before this legislation gets to the Senate. Labor moved those amendments yesterday, but the government saw fit not to support them. That is a great shame, but we do hope that the government sees sense and knocks that provision out. The burden of this pandemic should not fall on workers and their families trying to make ends meet. It is unfair. It is unfair to employees, to wage earners, to expect them to cut their hours and cut their pay—cut their pay by nearly half. If you're a shift worker doing night shifts or weekend work, you could lose up to half your pay under this provision. It's unconscionable that the economic burden of this pandemic should fall from the shoulders of government to the shoulders of wage earners and their families. Workers and struggling businesses could be losing up to half their pay, going from $800 to $400. So we certainly hope the government will see sense and cut that provision out of the legislation when it gets to the Senate. Wentworth Electorate: Surf Life Saving Clubs 91 10:53 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I like to think that my electorate has some of Australia's most beautiful beaches. From the surfers paradise of Bondi Beach to the gentle waves of Clovelly, Sydney's eastern beaches have something for everyone. Our beaches are lucky to be served by excellent surf clubs, staffed by courageous and selfless volunteers. The courage shown on a regular basis by our lifesavers is a testament to their own community spirit and their commitment to our safety. Our surf clubs are also the centre of much of our community in the east. Earlier this year many of the clubs stepped up to the plate during the bushfire crisis, working to deliver and collate donations for those in need who were suffering from the bushfires. Four of our surf clubs have recently held their annual general meetings. Last weekend it was Bronte Surf Life Saving Club and North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club. They both elected new committees to lead the clubs for another year. I want to congratulate Basil Scaffidi on his election as president of Bronte Surf Life Saving Club. It his 10th year now leading Bronte. Also my congratulations go to Vanessa Power, Amber Brown, James McClennan, Sam Stone, Craig Betts, Kimberley Johns, and Gaby Naher on their election. I'd also like to recognise Roley Tyrell, who has stepped down as treasurer after serving for 16 years. In North Bondi, I'd like to congratulate Andrew Christopher for his re-election as president. I'd also like to extend my warm wishes to Karen Stott, Daniel Ekins, Phil Suriao, John Clothier, Eloise Starr, Matt Hamilton, Brenan Bastyovanszky, Lex Mankur and others on their recent election. I'd also like to thank outgoing committee members Peter Zieme and Michael Boland for their commitment and service to the club. In July, Tamarama Surf Life Saving Club and Clovelly Surf Life Saving Club held their AGMs, and I was privileged to attend both of those. At Tamarama I'd like to extend my congratulations to Tim Murray, Matteo Salval, Michelle Cowans, Jon Hancock, Georgia Farrell, Richard Hamilton and Jack Collins for their elections to the Tamarama Surf Life Saving Club committee. I'd also like to thank Robert Foulkes, Holly Love and Daniel Qualischefski for their commitment to the club, having served on the last committee. In Clovelly, congratulations go to Bryce Wilde, Andrew Goodieson, Martin LaNauze, Michael Bradshaw, Rebecca Cocks, Madeleine Wheatley, Keiran Stone, Michael Walker and Matthew Meynell on their election. Sydneysiders are only able to enjoy everything our beaches have to offer thanks to the selflessness of our lifesavers and the volunteers that run and organise our surf clubs. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all lifesavers and all volunteers at our surf clubs for their efforts, their courage and their sacrifice and wish them the best for the lifesaving season ahead. Newcastle and Hunter Region Vietnam Veterans, Newcastle Electorate: Australia Post 92 10:56 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'd like to draw the parliament's attention to the Morrison government's savage funding cuts to the Newcastle and Hunter Region Vietnam Veterans, one of the lead organisations looking after the health and wellbeing of ex-service men and women in my community. In previous years, they have been awarded close to $20,000 through the Building Excellence in Support and Training grants to help deliver ongoing support to our veterans. This year, with no explanation and no apology, their grant was slashed by two-thirds to just over $6,000. Like most community organisations, Newcastle and Hunter Region Vietnam Veterans delivers vital services on a shoestring budget, but this cruel cut has plunged them into financial dire straits, where they'll have to make some very difficult decisions. Veterans are doing it tough at the moment, and veterans' organisations are more important than ever, with record demand for their support and services. These are the men and women who have served their nation, and this is an appalling way to repay them. I've been in touch with the minister's office to ask for an explanation for this savage cut in funding. It's not right, it's not fair and the minister needs to explain what happened and how he intends to fix it, because Newcastle veterans deserve better. There's another matter I wish to raise. Newcastle has recently been hit by the largest reduction in postal services in history, with letter deliveries going from five days a week to once in every two business days. This week, one of my constituents told me his shocking experience of waiting 13 days for a letter to get from the John Hunter Hospital to his home at Lambton, which is less than a 10-minute drive—and this was before the cuts to postal services had kicked in. In taking up this issue with the government, I need to know if this problem is widespread. That is where my community comes in. I'm calling on Novocastrians to tell me about their experience. Have you had a letter that has taken forever to arrive? How long are your letters taking to get to their destinations? Have you had any other problems with the post that you want to share? If you email me, post me, phone me, leave a message on my Facebook page, I'll tell your stories to the Prime Minister and demand an explanation. The government and Australia Post have shamefully used the cover of the pandemic and some dodgy figures to slash postal time frames, and regional communities like ours are paying the price. I'm asking the people of Newcastle to help me say that enough is enough and hold the Morrison government to account for these brazen attacks on our important public services. Grocery Prices 92 10:59 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Today I'm very pleased to hear the news that Minister Littleproud and Minister Frydenberg have announced an inquiry by the ACCC into the supply chain costs of fresh food, or perishable food, into our supermarkets. It is quite right that on one hand we applaud the fact that we have a very competitive system in Australia which delivers low-cost and super high quality food to consumers, but on the other hand we also have to make sure that we achieve balance, because it is no good at all if our food producers are driven to the wall and then we end up surviving almost solely on imported perishable products, I must say. I'm hoping that the ACCC is able to broaden its inquiry—or take a very broad look at the inquiry, because it expressly mentions supply chain costs—because there are many other things in there besides bargaining ability with the supermarkets. One of the things that I focus on is what I call ' fake news advertising', where supermarkets have used what I think are questionable tactics, such as when they talk about 'sustainably-caught Australian fish'. I'd make the point that all Australian fisheries are managed in a sustainable manner, so they're all sustainably caught. When they talk about 'hormone-free beef' or 'stall-free eggs' or 'free-range eggs' or 'permeate-free milk'—for goodness sake, permeate is a natural part of milk—all of these things have very little scientific basis to back them up as being superior products or better for animal welfare across the board. So, I hope the ACCC can have a look at that, because that puts production costs back on growers and almost invariably never delivers a higher price to them. There is so much more in the path to market. If you look at inspection costs or licensing costs within processing works, a single processor might have anything up to seven or eight different streams of inspectors coming into their workplace to give them the licence to continue that workload. I think we need to streamline that system. We need more single-point inspections—multiskilled inspections, if you like. If you look at the road transport industry, overzealous transport inspectors are repeatedly pulling up a company's trucks, even though it might have a very clear track record of being completely on the ball. There are many, many points that the ACCC inquiry could look at. If they find that it's too complex and wideranging, I hope that they ask for more time to complete the inquiry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. ADJOURNMENT 93 ADJOURNMENT Young Australians 93 11:02 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak for the last time before I have my baby. I've been thinking a lot about what it means to bring a new person into this world and what that world will be like. This baby will be born at what is a difficult time for Australia and for our world, as we grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout, the existential crisis of climate change, and rising inequality. Young people have worries at the moment that I didn't have when I was a young teenager. It's very disconcerting to me to hear my two-year-old son, Paul, talk about 'After the virus goes', and I'm glad that, thankfully, he's blissfully unaware of most of what it means to be in a pandemic. But it's the young people at school, particularly those finishing high school, who will be most acutely aware of what it means to be in our first recession in 30 years. At a time when they need all the help that they can get, their government is decimating the TAFE and university sectors, where they need to be training for the jobs of the future—and even attacking the sorts of degrees that they can choose to do—and letting these institutions suffer through this pandemic without help. Young people have been left behind by the government's response. Those supporting themselves through casual work and study have not been able to access any of the assistance that the government have offered. Young people see our parliament doing nothing about the man-made crisis of climate change, even after it was made so brutally apparent through the bushfires and the smoke crisis we had here in Canberra and given the detrimental impact it is having on our world. Young people have been amongst the most actively informed on these issues, and they see us doing nothing. As a constituent and mother of three put to me the other day, 'Young people at the moment feel that the adults have let them down, and this is a very worrying thing.' Teenagers today have worries that I didn't have. But what might shock teenagers today is that when I was a teenager—and I know that you think that that was so long ago—we did know about climate change. Even when I was in primary school, we learnt about what we then called the greenhouse effect. But what my school friends and I could never have imagined is that we would not have addressed it by now—that, in the year 2020, I would be standing in a parliament calling for action on climate change. I want this little child, who I don't know yet, to grow up with the same optimism that I had, to have faith in our democratic institutions, to have faith in humanity and to not feel let down by the adults. But we in this place have to earn that. We couldn't control the advent of a global pandemic but we can control how we rebuild. We can support our universities to survive this crisis and build up our TAFE sector so that young people can train to take on the jobs of the future, and we can support them with adequate income support while they do this. We can ensure that stable jobs are created in sustainable industries like renewable energy. We can deliver a decent standard of living to all Australians by ensuring that our social security system provides that standard of living, by making sure that JobSeeker never returns to the inadequate rates of Newstart that we had before the pandemic. We can look more broadly at the system, including family payments, to address the problems for the one in six Australian children who currently live in poverty. We can increase the age of criminal responsibility, so that we stop putting children as young as ten in jail; mostly First Nations children—and I'm proud to say that, last week, the ACT became the first jurisdiction to commit to this. We can begin to address the gap in life outcomes that First Nations children born today still face, beginning by delivering on the Uluru Statement in full and giving First Nations people the voice to parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, that they have asked for. We could show today's youth that we uphold our international obligations and that we are a truly welcoming and multicultural country by not locking people up in detention who are exercising their legal right to seek asylum. We could start by getting two little girls, Tharunicaa and Kopika, out of immigration detention on Christmas Island and returning them to Biloela, where they belong. Or we can snap back to old ways and continue down the conservative agenda of derision and of haves and have-nots. I say to young people today that the adults don't want to let you down and that my Labor colleagues and I are fighting in this place for a fairer future. Mackellar Electorate: Community of Calm 94 11:04 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I wish the member for Canberra all the best on what I hear is a very painful process but a joyous one at the end of it. I rise today to acknowledge the work done by the members of a local group on the Northern Beaches. This innovative and compassionate group is known as the TIPs Community of Calm. This volunteer group was first established to combat the silent mental health problems that plague our community. Mental health has been a growing concern on the Northern Beaches, with a rising number of practitioners and support groups required to support those dealing with anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions. The Community of Calm aims to increase awareness surrounding the impacts of stress and trauma on the body by teaching people coping techniques through their programs. The Community of Calm began in early 2019 with Jane Macnaught as the founder. Her intention was to stop the cycle of people suffering in silence on the Northern Beaches and reminding them that help is just around the corner. Jane set up her private practice in Mona Vale in 2016. It was here that she brought together numerous passionate practitioners, developing a network of creative approaches to combat stress, grief and anxiety. Generously, Jane and her practice provide mental health training sessions for other local practitioners. To date, more than 90 practitioners have benefited from these training sessions, some specialising in yoga, dance, art therapy, mindfulness, counselling and nutrition. The Community of Calm places a weighted focus on encouraging trauma awareness, not only for their own practitioners but also for those within the wider community. Being aware of the severe and often lasting impacts that complex trauma may have on an individual allows for increased understanding and support of an affected individual, which is why the TIPs group have included the five core principles of trauma informed care and practice into their programs. These five core principles are safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration and empowerment. Jane has always worked alongside Mandy Loveday, and they both testified to the importance of movement in supporting mental health. The two attended trauma sensitive yoga training in 2015. Mandy found her client base tripled when she made more trauma-informed alterations to her own classes. The TIPs group also run the Arts for Wellness workshop. This initiative is led by Mandy herself. This program encourages the community to engage in wellness support. The Arts for Wellness workshop is a month-long program that takes place at Mona Vale and Manly. The program allows members of the community to sample creative and expressive activities, therapy sessions, all whilst relaxing and forming social connections. To quote Jane, 'It is so important for everyone to slow down a little and find some creative outlets.' As an alternative to other coping mechanisms, I could not agree more. Another note-worthy endeavour of the Community of Calm is their partnership with the Big Anxiety Festival, which is the world's largest mental health and arts festival. In 2019, the festival focused on one central challenge: how do we cultivate empathy in place of stigma, fear and discrimination? The festival highlights the importance of using innovative and engaging tools to encourage Australians to seek help for mental health related issues. I commend Jane, Mandy Loveday and the entire TIPs Community of Calm team for their ongoing altruistic work, which continues to provide for support for those impacted by poor mental health and dealing with mental illness. I would like to thank them for establishing the proactive Arts for Wellness program that continues to aid the Northern Beaches community by promoting a kind and calm community. Arts Industry 94 11:12 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley COVID-19 and its impacts have caused many in our communities to contemplate what we as Australians value, how we describe a good life, a contributing life and a strong community. Australia is now entering what may be the worst recession since the Great Depression. Hundreds of jobs have disappeared, particularly for women and young people. The health danger has far from passed and the effects of the pandemic are going to be felt for years to come. These ongoing crises present profound challenges to governments at a time when inaction over many years on many of our vast challenges facing the nation had already eroded public trust. Australia's future is going to be written by those who step up now to shape it. We have an opportunity to reconsider the way we measure the economy, the way we look at environment and social wellbeing, and talk about the role of culture in this. After major crises, Australia has been able to craft new national stories that reflect both the opportunities and the challenges of the era. We can do so again but we need policy leadership. We need the capacity to powerfully articulate what Australians might become and we need the imagination, the courage and the hard work to define new ideas to make it happen. On 14 August in The Age, Andrew Stevens wrote an informative piece called 'What the world needs now is art.' Stevens wrote: The executive director of the National Association for the Visual Arts, Esther Anatolitis, says artists and the creative industries are crucial to culture, the economy and social connectedness, and to envisioning and planning for the future. After all, artists, along with scientists, are the visionaries who offer us road-maps, practically and emotionally, to how things are likely to pan out. Anatolitis says the ability to envision a complex set of possibilities is the basis of good government. "And it is of course the fundamental skill of the artist and anyone with a humanities degree who has been taught how to critically analyse risk and ethical implications, how to think outside the box. That is exactly what we need right now and into the future." Anatolitis says she worries when she hears statements about "quiet Australians", a phrase regularly used by Prime Minister Scott Morrison … because she wants to look to our government and hear a group of people who find Australians inspiring. She says, 'I want a nation of confident Australians, innovative Australians, ethical Australians.' So do I and so do my constituents in the electorate of Dunkley. Yet in June this year the federal education minister foreshadowed a doubling of fees for humanities degrees. This was in the same week that the National Gallery of Australia announced it would slash future acquisitions from about 3,000 to about 100 annually and lose about one-tenth of its staff. We've seen arts organisations and galleries everywhere contemplating closure and we've seen artists and people working in cultural industries without work and without income. The government's idea of a package of support for the Australian arts is to bring American films to Australia to be filmed and to not have a department for the arts. Compare that to the great Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating. In 1994 he established Creative Nation. It was the first Australian federal government to formally develop a cultural policy emphasising national identity and our broad culture. It also understood the economic potential of cultural activity and arts. Culture adds value. It makes an essential contribution to innovation, marketing and design. It's a badge of our industry. The level of creative activity substantially determines our ability to adapt to new economic imperatives. It is essential to our economic success. Paul Keating knew that in 1994, the federal Labor Party know that now and I know that now, but the government doesn't appear to know that now. The story of who we are as a nation—the story of the faces, the voices, the experiences and the broad spectrum of Australians and Australian lives—cannot be told without a vibrant and diverse Australian culture and artistic sector. The wellbeing of our communities and the people in them can't be measured simply by the rise and fall of our GDP. We're doing this in Dunkley. The McClelland sculpture gallery has an online initiative called Inspired Minds. It's an art and wellbeing series to explore how art and nature can foster positive mental health and wellbeing. It's in a unique bush setting. The series involves meditative aerial videos and an exploration of some of the amazing sculptures there. As the director at McClelland, Lisa Byrne, said, 'We believe that the combination of art, environment and meditation can provide positive relief and inspiration for our community.' The 2019 World Health Organization summary report demonstrated strong evidence for the role of arts in improving health and wellbeing. We want to inspire. That's what we're doing in Dunkley. That's what we need the federal government to do. Lindsay Electorate: World War II 95 11:17 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Earlier this month we commemorated the 75th anniversary of victory in the Pacific bringing an end to the Second World War. 15 August 1945 was marked with celebration as peace was secured. Almost one million Australians served our nation, while millions more supported the war effort at home. Today we are fortunate to have around 12,000 veterans of the Second World War still with us. In our first week back in parliament since this anniversary I'm honoured to share the stories of some of the local heroes in the electorate of Lindsay who served in the Pacific theatre. David Trist OAM demonstrates a lifelong commitment to service and his mates. Prior to enlisting David served in the cadets and the volunteer defence force. During the Second World War David served in the 58th/59th Battalion in Papua New Guinea in the Salamaua area. It was a slow and grinding campaign in an exhausting climate and difficult terrain. To protect the base at Salamaua the Japanese established strong defensive positions in the hills to the east and advanced inland. The Australian War Memorial reports that, between March 1943 and April 1944, some 1,200 Australians were killed in New Guinea while an estimated 35,000 Japanese died. After the war David embarked on a successful and well-respected career in banking at the local St Marys branch, but he never stopped serving. David's local RSL branch in St Marys nominated him for the Commemorative Medallion and Certificate of Commemoration and are rightly proud to have had David as a member for many years. Penrith resident Robert Lang served in the Royal Australian Navy. Robert was a coast watcher in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. It was an extremely dangerous mission behind enemy lines to broadcast to allied headquarters the movement of enemy ships, planes and troops. These reports were vital to keeping Australian and American forces in the Pacific theatre informed of potential Japanese assaults and offensives. After the Second World War, Robert continued to serve his country as an instructor and served in Vietnam, eventually retiring with the rank of warrant officer. John Rattenbury served in Unit 2 of the 3rd Australian Infantry Battalion. He served in the Aitape-Wewak campaign, an offensive campaign against the Japanese in northern New Guinea. In the difficult conditions progress was slow but steady. Australian casualties in the campaign amounted to 442 killed and 1,141 wounded. John's brothers also served and survived the war. One of them was captured at the fall of Singapore and spent the remainder of the war as a prisoner of war. Lillian Baldwin enlisted in the Australian Women's Army Service in March 1944. She was tasked with providing troops in Australia with their non-food equipment requirements. She was one of over 24,000 women who enlisted in the Australian Women's Army Service. They were the first women to serve in the ADF outside the medical and nursing field. This year we have not been able to gather together in large numbers to remember and respect the service of so many to our country, but I'm proud to stand here today on behalf of my community to thank David, Robert, John and Lillian for their service. We would never be able to repay them for their service to our nation, but this is a small token of our appreciation from a grateful nation. Earlier this year I reached out to our local veteran community to recognise Anzac Day. I was overwhelmed by the community response to sharing our local veterans' service and their messages for the future. Once again, at this important anniversary, it has been an honour to recognise our local veterans. Keeping these stories alive ensures that we will not forget their sacrifice. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our local veterans organisations. To all the local veterans, thank you for your service. Lilley Electorate: Infrastructure, Lilley Electorate: Aircraft Noise 96 10:22 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I'd like to congratulate Bart Mellish, the state member for Aspley, for the fantastic work that he's doing for his constituents in Aspley. In 2017 Bart committed to fix the local level crossing, which was a notorious bottleneck on the busy Beams Road. He recently secured $128 million from the Queensland state Labor government for the removal of the Beams Road level crossing, which is one of seven priority locations for level crossing removal in Queensland. The project will also see 170 new car parks at Carseldine station and deliver over 500 construction jobs in my electorate of Lilley. He has also secured $16 million for two new buildings at Aspley State High School. Construction is already underway on a new multipurpose sports hall and music centre there. He has secured funding for Aspley State School, who have some great projects planned, including completely refurbishing classrooms that are over 100 years old and redoing a patch of concrete to become a vibrant outdoor learning centre. This spruce was part of a $220 million education package that will see schools right around the state benefit. It's fantastic local work that he's doing and I hope that he gets to continue it. I'd like to provide an update on the Lilley grassroots campaign to reinstate three hours free parking at Westfield Chermside. In the midst of a global pandemic, with many people working reduced hours or receiving JobKeeper payments, or JobSeeker payments having been laid off altogether, the re-introduction of paid parking at Westfield Chermside was a cost few could afford. Many groups in our community will be disadvantaged by the changes, including families with young children, senior citizens and people with a disability, whose visits may extend over three hours because of their reduced mobility to get around an enormous shopping centre or the extra stops required to feed babies or change young children. So I started a grassroots campaign to reinstate three hours free parking at Westfield, which is what we had before the global pandemic. My constituents are backing it. So far we've collected approaching 2,000 signatures on our Westfield petition, with over 700 comments , which are overwhelmingly negative. I'd like to share some of these with the House: 'A very bad move at this time. Many people are finding it difficult to cope as it is because of COVID-19. Whereas many other companies are helping out with reduced fees and length of time to make payments, Westfield is doing the opposite. Think again, Westfield, and reverse your decision. Shortened unpaid hours mean those with a disability or seniors will have much less time to shop, taking into consideration entering and leaving the parking areas within two hours. I am a support carer and take people living with disabilities here for social and family support. It's a long day and most times we manage to get out in just under three hours. A reduction to two hours would mean someone would have to pay for parking, and neither my client nor myself can afford that.' I am extremely concerned that, after I sought and had a meeting with Westfield about this, they advised that the decision to reduce the three hours of free parking is not only planned to stay but will be rolled out in other Westfield shopping centres across Brisbane before Christmas, at a time when so many small businesses and local people are doing it tough. It seems cruel, and I call on them to change their mind. Our grassroots campaign will continue until they do so. Like the member for Brisbane, my electorate office has been dealing with an increased number of complaints about aircraft noise following the opening of Brisbane airport's parallel runway. My office has met with representatives of Brisbane Airport Corporation and I am seeking a subsequent meeting with Air Services Australia. I have been corresponding with them regarding the specific nature of the complaints that we have received from my constituents. There may be some relief in sight for residents, with more take-offs and landings over Moreton Bay set to occur once the weather warms up and northerly winds increase. I've been advised that, during the COVID pandemic, much of the operations at Brisbane Airport have been intrastate rather than interstate, and it's those operations that are typically serviced by turbo props. But questions remain. Residents have questions for the federal government about why turbo-prop aircraft aren't required to be tracked through the BAC flight path tool. Overwhelmingly, the complaints that I've been receiving from my constituents are about turbo-prop aircraft noise and the fact that residents were not warned and were not able to look online to track turbo-prop aircraft flight paths before the new runway opened. This has put a dent in the good faith that the community has around the process and the community consultation that should have occurred. The federal government now has questions to answer. The agencies that govern these matters have questions to answer about why those things didn't happen. If any of my constituents are experiencing noise problems, please reach out to my office so that we can put you in contact with the right people at either Brisbane Airport Corporation or Air Services Australia. Of course, we'll continue to meet and consult with our residents to make sure that their views are heard by this federal government. Media Freedom 97 11:27 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay We, as humans, must know how to disagree, debate and deliberate. Whilst we may not always like what the media say about us in this House, we must always fight for their right to say it. Civil discourse is essential for a healthy community. Journalists as close to us as Papua New Guinea have endured a rocky relationship with their governments, notorious for removing freedoms when they criticise their actions. In China, where there is no free press, victims can't be heard. This is where human rights are seriously at risk. The fourth estate plays an important role in regional Australia, campaigning for their communities and holding up a mirror to reflect society onto itself. Just as the local mayor and the local police officer in charge have important community roles, so do local journalists. The local journalists live in and love the regions they report on. They fight for better roads because they're on the scene at crashes. They fight for bushfire victims because they see their homes destroyed. They fight for small businesses in their towns because they live in those towns and the businesses are what keeps the heart beating in those towns. When it comes to regional media, the more parochial they are the better. It's the local journalists in regional towns, often massively underpaid compared to their city counterparts, who go to every event and every ribbon-cutting. They are photographing and posting and writing all day and into the night and on weekends to meet their deadlines. Rather than focusing on gossip, they're often calling for road upgrades because they hate reporting on vehicle crashes. To them, they're not just another number but a person with a family that they sometimes know. And, unlike some, it's our regional journalists who attack on policy and fight on issues, all with the reader in mind. Readers are all that matter. To regional journalists, their readers are right on the doorstep. If they don't like what is written, the regional journalist quickly finds out. We could not have delivered as fast and as well as we did section D of the Bruce Highway without the help of our local journalists, especially Shelly Strahan at the Gympie Times and Carly Walker at the Fraser Coast Chronicle. We could not have stopped the Traveston Crossing Dam without the local media being instrumental in the fight against it. Our media have been incredibly effective in highlighting areas of need and helping the community campaign. But times have changed. Sadly, many local media jobs have been lost. It's not enough in this age of congregated style and often fake news to churn gossip into headlines and baselessly attack ideas or individuals, and regional operators know this very well. The media landscape in Wide Bay has now become more diverse. Noosa Today has returned to print and we have new outlets. The Maryborough Sun, Gympie Today and South Burnett Today are all in print. The Gympie Times, Sunshine Coast Daily, Fraser Coast Chronicle, Noosa News and South Burnett Times have moved to a digital-only format. Local community publications, like Gympie Living, Cooloola Bay Bulletin, Rainbow Beach Cooloola Coast Community News, Kandanga Rag, the relaunched Cooroy Rag, Murgon Moments and the recently established Eastern Beaches News, are a vital part of Wide Bay's diverse media landscape. The Wide Bay electorate spans two television markets—the Sunshine Coast and Wide Bay—and we have local journalists at WIN, Seven and Nine reporting on local issues. We have the ABC, which covers Wide Bay from Bundaberg to the Sunshine Coast and Maroochydore communities, and radio at Noosa, Gympie and Cherbourg. They are all local people and all local journalists, which we welcome and value. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:31 QUESTIONS IN WRITING 99 QUESTIONS IN WRITING