The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
Migration Amendment (Common Sense Partner Visa) Bill 2020
That this bill be now read a second time.
(1) notes that:
(a) Tuesday, 1 December 2020 is World AIDS Day, an annual day to acknowledge those we have lost to AIDS related conditions and those who are living with HIV;
(b) the theme for World AIDS Day 2020 is ‘Now More Than Ever’;
(c) the stigma associated with HIV acts as a barrier to treatment and prevention;
(d) action is needed to address rising HIV transmission among First Nations, trans and gender diverse people, and other emerging high-risk population groups;
(e) gay and bisexual men continue to bear the burden of Australia’s HIV epidemic and ongoing health education and awareness among this population group is needed; and
(f) further bipartisan political action and leadership is required to meet our national target of ending HIV transmission in Australia; and
(2) recognises and acknowledges the:
(a) journey that people have made through their diagnosis, treatment and experiences of living with HIV;
(b) tremendous efforts of peer educators, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists in developing treatment and prevention regimes that have improved the lives of people living with HIV and prevented a generalised epidemic in Australia;
(c) success of a bipartisan approach in Australia’s health response; and
(d) tireless community advocates, civil society organisations and support groups that actively tackle stigma associated with HIV.
We were told promoting the rights (and responsibilities) of those with HIV/AIDS was irresponsible and would accelerate the spread of the virus. But it turned out that the reverse was true.
… importantly, a new model for dealing with other diseases was created, and shown to work outstandingly well. It is a legacy of which we can all be proud.
Stigma and discrimination will continue to exist so long as societies as a whole continue to judge people with HIV.
The collective failure to invest sufficiently in comprehensive, rights-based, people-centred HIV responses has come at a terrible price … Implementing just the most politically palatable programmes will not turn the tide against COVID-19 or end AIDS. To get the global response back on track will require putting people first and tackling the inequalities on which epidemics thrive.
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that during the earliest onset of the coronavirus pandemic, many Australian families found themselves unexpectedly in need of government support; and
(2) pays its deepest gratitude and thanks to all the women and men of Services Australia for their efforts in supporting their fellow Australians during this time of crisis.
… pays its deepest gratitude and thanks to all the women and men of Services Australia for their efforts in supporting their fellow Australians during this time of crisis.
Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020
Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Family Law Amendment (Risk Screening Protections) Bill 2020
Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020
Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020
Services Australia Governance Amendment Bill 2020
Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Wellbeing of Veterans and Their Families) Bill 2020
That:
Ms Liu be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue;
Mrs McIntosh be appointed a member of the Publications Committee; and
Mr Pasin be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020
That the House take note of the report.
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on 19 November 2020 the Australian Defence Force's Afghanistan Inquiry Report was released, revealing shocking revelations of war crimes allegedly committed by ADF personnel;
(b) Major David McBride had been bravely warning Defence about command failings and a deliberate blindness to the conduct of the war in internal reports since 2014 and of course his career was ruined;
(c) when the ADF took no effective action after a multitude of approaches from him, Major McBride disclosed information to the ABC, which formed the basis for The Afghan Files, which raised the alarm on all of the matters now before us in the Afghanistan Inquiry Report;
(d) Mr McBride has been charged with numerous Commonwealth offences as a direct response to his heroic whistleblowing; and
(e) Mr McBride now faces the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison; and
(2) calls on the Government to drop all charges against Mr McBride.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following motion being moved immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on 19 November 2020 the Australian Defence Force's Afghanistan Inquiry Report was released, revealing shocking revelations of war crimes allegedly committed by ADF personnel;
(b) Major David McBride had been bravely warning Defence about command failings and a deliberate blindness to the conduct of the war in internal reports since 2014 and of course his career was ruined;
(c) when the ADF took no effective action after a multitude of approaches from him, Major McBride disclosed information to the ABC, which formed the basis for The Afghan Files, which raised the alarm on all of the matters now before us in the Afghanistan Inquiry Report;
(d) Mr McBride has been charged with numerous Commonwealth offences as a direct response to his heroic whistleblowing; and
(e) Mr McBride now faces the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison; and
(2) calls on the Government to drop all charges against Mr McBride.
The House divided. [12:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
Let us keep in mind that marriage is essentially a human relationship between 2 people. It takes 2 people to make a marriage but it takes only one to break it. Idealists might wish that it were otherwise, but it is not. It is time society acknowledged that simple fact. We have no right to condemn 2 people to live together in misery and suffering for a moment longer than necessary. Ultimately the only test of a marriage is whether both parties agree to maintain it. If one party is unwilling to maintain it the marriage has broken down.
In public discussion of the Family Law Act, most of the attention has understandably, and quite properly, focused on the ground of divorce and, to a lesser extent, the maintenance provisions. While not underrating the magnitude of the reforms to the divorce and maintenance laws, I feel sure that, in time, the provision for the establishment of Family Courts will come to be seen as a reform of equal importance.
The essence of the Family Courts is that they will be helping courts. Judges will be specially and carefully selected for their suitability for the work of the court. There will be attached to the court a specialist staff, notably marriage counsellors and welfare officers, to assist the parties at any stage—and even independently of any proceedings. These courts will therefore be very different from the courts that presently exercise family law jurisdiction. The Family Court will, of course, determine legal rights, which it is bound to do as a court, but it will do much more than that: Here will be a court, the expressly stated purpose of which is to provide help, encouragement and counselling to parties with marital problems, and to have regard to their human problems, not just their legal rights. Parties will not be driven to the court by their own despair as a last resort; they will be encouraged to come to the welfare and counselling staff of the court whenever they have a matrimonial problem, even if they are not contemplating proceedings of any kind. This help would also be available after divorce proceedings, and this would, as I have already indicated, be of great importance where there were young children.
Merging the Family Court into a generalist court will undermine the integrity and the structural specialisation of the Family Court. The impact of losing this institutional specialisation is not properly understood, and has been downplayed. The increasing number of cases in which issues of family violence and child abuse are raised has led to an even greater need today for family law jurisdiction to be vested exclusively in specialised judges who can give their full attention to the needs of family law clients without being diverted to exercise other unrelated jurisdictions. The current bill undermines this principle, is not in the public interest and should not be enacted.
It is unbelievable that Government would propose the dissolution of a Federal Superior Court in this fashion without the most careful and searching Public Inquiry and without carrying out significant research and without consulting the many experts in this field.
I am firmly of the view that the passage of the Family Law Act 1975 … and the setting up of the Family Court was some of the most significant social legislation ever to be passed by the Federal Parliament.
What those proposing this merger do not seem to understand is that family law is complex and nuanced, and it is not to be judged by the output by numbers of cases as if the Courts are sausage machines. Throughput is important, but so is the quality of the decisions made.
Cases can be extremely complex and require specialist knowledge of the type that has always been available in the Family Court, which has provided leadership in the proper interpretation and principles to be applied by other courts with family law jurisdiction.
Many involve the determination of important issues relating to children, including their rights and need for protection, not only from individuals, but also from government in its myriad forms. Many also involve problems of family violence and the effects of it upon the parties and their children. Others involve extremely complicated property disputes either alone or combined with the above issues and requiring other important specialist levels of legal knowledge, whilst understanding the important family issues that may be affected by the decision.
The Family Court is a Court that has been envied throughout the common law world and its judgments have often been cited with approval by the courts of many countries including New Zealand, UK, Canada, the USA and others. Its significance as the only specialist Family Court set up as a superior Court of Record and particularly that of its Appeal Division cannot be over emphasised.
… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) recognises the critical importance of the family law system to the wellbeing and safety of families across our nation;
(2) notes that:
(a) the Family Court of Australia was established in 1975, and has served Australian families for 45 years;
(b) after seven years of neglect by Liberal Governments, the family law system is in a state of unprecedented crisis; and
(c) if passed, these bills will cause further harm to vulnerable children and families in need of specialist family law assistance; and
(3) calls on the Government to withdraw these dangerous bills and to instead get to work doing things that would actually help Australian families in times of need, including:
(a) responding to the sixty recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's landmark 2019 review into the family law system;
(b) increasing resources to the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court in order to reduce case backlogs and the stress current delays are causing to families;
(c) increasing resources to legal assistance services that provide vital help to vulnerable families in crisis, including Legal Aid Commissions, Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Women's Legal Services and other Community Legal Centres; and
(d) consulting with experts and progressing meaningful reforms to improve the experience of all users of the family law system".
Since I left, there isn't, at a senior level, anyone taking an interest in cybersecurity … I don't think Scott Morrison is particularly interested in it, or familiar with it.
The petition of Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' League (QLD) Inc and citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House that the current single aged pension is not enough to cover basic living needs as the current aged couple pension is $1407. As at the 20th of September 2019 when a person is widowed this reduced to $933.40 a reduction when support is most needed. Difference between coupled and widowed pension is $473.60. This has not been reviewed for a long time and we believe the difference should be 18% between the two pensions not 33%.
We the undersigned therefore ask the House to enact necessary legislation to ensure that the difference between the Aged Couple Pension and the Aged Single Pension is reduced to 18% from 33%.
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
HomeBuilder has been the most successful Federal stimulus for the construction industry of the past two decades and has kept hundreds of thousands of Australians employed.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) as Minister for Social Services, the Prime Minister was personally responsible for the design of the illegal robodebt scheme;
(b) as Treasurer, the Prime Minister continued his illegal robodebt scheme, announcing it would save the budget $2 billion;
(c) after deposing Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister continued his robodebt scheme for years despite knowing it was illegal;
(d) the Prime Minister announced his robodebt scheme would save the budget $2 billion but it has in fact cost taxpayers at least $1.2 billion;
(e) the Prime Minister's illegal robodebt scheme harmed thousands of Australians and led to the suicide and self-harm of vulnerable people; and
(f) no one in this eight-year-old Liberal-National Government is willing to take responsibility for the Prime Minister's illegal robodebt scheme; and
(2) therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for designing and maintaining the illegal robodebt scheme which led to the suicide and self-harm of vulnerable people.
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the question be now put.
The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [15:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
Merging the Family Court into a generalist court will undermine the integrity and the structural specialisation of the Family Court.
The Family Court will, of course, determine legal rights, which it is bound to do as a court, but it will do much more than that.
Many involve the determination of important issues relating to children, including their rights and need for protection, not only from individuals, but also from government in its myriad forms. Many also involve problems of family violence and the effects of it upon the parties and their children.
The increasing number of cases in which issues of family violence and child abuse are raised has led to an even greater need today for family law jurisdiction to be vested exclusively in specialised judges who can give their full attention to the needs of family law clients without being diverted to exercise other unrelated jurisdictions. The current bill—
undermines this principle, is not in the public interest and should not be enacted.
We understand and support having a single entry point to the family courts and common rules so the family law system is easier for families to navigate.
… this can be done without abandoning the benefits otherwise available to children and families from a properly resourced and specialised court system.
… the proposed merger of the Family Court and the Federal Court is likely to undermine the integrity of the Family Court and lead to undesirable outcomes for the parties.
Filings continue to grow at an unprecedented rate and this growth is placing increasing pressure on judicial resources.
The increasing number of cases in which issues of family violence and child abuse are raised has led to an even greater need today for family law jurisdiction to be vested exclusively in specialised judges who can give their full attention to the needs of family law clients without being diverted to exercise other unrelated jurisdictions. The current bill undermines this principle, is not in the public interest and should not be enacted.
It is unbelievable that Government would propose the dissolution of a Federal Superior Court in this fashion without the most careful and searching Public Inquiry and without carrying out significant research and without consulting the many experts in this field.
The second area being harmonised and expanded as a priority is the rules that delegate judicial power to registrars in the family law jurisdiction.
This will allow registrars … to provide greater support to judges by assisting with case management work and free up judicial time so that judges can focus on determining the most complex matters and hearing trials.
… we recommended in the report that the potential impacts of all opportunities identified be explored further to fully understand their impacts, including through further data capture and analysis.
Our focus of the report was very clearly on operational data; it didn't consider detailed reform opportunities.
Where there is likely a divergence in operational changes proposed by this Review and subsequently by the ALRC, advice should be sought from court stakeholders to understand where and how opportunities could be implemented in practice and which would bring about the greatest positive outcomes. Assessment of those opportunities, informed by detailed analysis, should underpin decision-making.
The report on the merger by Government Senators is entirely unsatisfactory because it does not engage in any meaningful way with concerns raised by more than 110 stakeholders who work in the family law system and witness daily, the impacts on children.
… the proposed merger of the Family Court and the Federal Court is likely to undermine the integrity of the Family Court and lead to undesirable outcomes for the parties. It is inconsistent with the original aims of the Family Court, which was established as a specialist Court.
With increasing numbers of cases in which issues of family violence and child abuse are raised, there is an even greater need today for family law jurisdiction to be vested exclusively in specialised judges who do not exercise any unrelated jurisdiction.
… the passage of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the setting up of the Family Court was some of the most significant social legislation ever to be passed by the Federal Parliament.
What those proposing this merger do not seem to understand is that family law is complex and nuanced, and it is not to be judged by the output by numbers of cases as if the Courts are sausage machines. Throughput is important, but so is the quality of the decisions made. Cases can be extremely complex and require specialist knowledge of the type that has always been available in the Family Court, which has provided leadership in the proper interpretation and principles to be applied by other courts with family law jurisdiction.
No amendment to the bill can cure what remains a flawed and dangerous proposal without evidentiary foundation.
There must be an increase not a decrease in specialisation in family law and violence issues. This is critical for the safety of children and victims of family violence.
… will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families who need the most support.
From our experience, as Aboriginal organisations, we say that mainstreaming does not achieve efficiency or better outcomes for our people and that specialisation in the law is important and it works. Our main call is for more specialisation and more resourcing into the cultural competence of the family court system. The introduction of specialist Aboriginal Courts in the family law system has seen an increase in Aboriginal participation. We implore the Parliament to do the right thing by our communities and reject this bill which does not address the root causes of these problems. We fear, in the middle of this global pandemic, the bill will exacerbate the issues that our communities are facing.
… been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
… the merger would abolish the existing specialist, stand-alone, multi-disciplinary Family Court system dedicated exclusively to family law matters … What currently exists as a stand-alone, superior court ecosystem would be collapsed into a division of an inferior, generalist, over-worked and under-resourced Federal Circuit Court, to the detriment of families' wellbeing. The Federal Circuit Court already struggles to manage the workload of less complex family matters alongside nine other diverse areas including migration and workplace law.
The Family Court was designed purposely as a world-leading, specialist, stand-alone Court to deal only with family law matters, with the support of a dedicated multi-disciplinary team of counsellors and mediators. Its stand-alone nature is one its greatest attributes, providing protections for vulnerable people in need of family law assistance.
The impact of losing this institutional specialisation is not properly understood, and has been downplayed.
The increasing number of cases in which issues of family violence and child abuse are raised has led to an even greater need today for family law jurisdiction to be vested exclusively in specialised judges who can give their full attention to the needs of family law clients without being diverted to exercise other unrelated jurisdictions. The current bill undermines this principle, is not in the public interest and should not be enacted.
It is unbelievable that Government would propose the dissolution of a Federal Superior Court in this fashion without the most careful and searching Public Inquiry and without carrying out significant research and without consulting the many experts in this field.
The Family Court will, of course, determine legal rights, which it is bound to do as a court, but it will do much more than that. Here will be a court, the expressly stated purpose of which is to provide help, encouragement and counselling to parties with marital problems, and to have regard to their human problems, not just their legal rights. Parties will not be driven to the court by their own despair as a last resort; they will be encouraged to come to the welfare and counselling staff of the court whenever they have a matrimonial problem, even if they are not contemplating proceedings of any kind. This help would also be available after divorce proceedings, and this would, as I have already indicated, be of great importance where there were young children.
… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
It is unbelievable that Government would propose the dissolution of a Federal Superior Court in this fashion without the most careful and searching Public Inquiry …
… moving away from a specialist family court model would be a retrograde step and expose survivors of family violence to unnecessary risk.
Legislation merging the specialist Family Court into a single generalist court will not alleviate the fundamental problems plaguing the family law system, including the risk of victims of family violence falling through the cracks.
With such prevalence of family violence matters in courts, family violence can be described as "the core business of the family court."
This misstep will harm families. For more than 40 years, the Family Court has been a premier legal institution, a specialist superior court admired by other family law jurisdictions around the world for its innovative management of the most complex and difficult family law matters. The Bill, will not produce efficiencies, reduce delays, or deliver anything of real value. Nor will they reduce complexity or legal costs in the family law system. In fact, it could make the system worse.
… deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
The essence of the Family Courts is that they will be helping courts. Judges will be specially and carefully selected for their suitability for the work of the court. There will be attached to the court a specialist staff …
… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia, and to whose family law system other countries once looked and tried to emulate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): took the chair at 10:30.
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the importance of the Auditor-General, who is responsible for auditing Commonwealth entities and reporting to the Parliament, providing crucial accountability and transparency regarding Government administration, and scrutiny of the expenditure of public monies;
(b) that as an independent officer of the Parliament with responsibilities under the Auditor-General Act 1997, the Auditor-General reports not to a minister, but directly to the Parliament via the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit;
(c) that unlike similar entities such as the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) sits within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, and the Prime Minister is responsible for administering the legislation and presenting budget bids for the ANAO, which is also subject to directions from the Minister for Finance as an entity under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and
(d) the potential conflicts inherent in these arrangements, given the Auditor-General exists to scrutinise the performance and actions of the executive;
(2) declares that independent scrutiny of Government spending to get maximum value for every taxpayer dollar is more important now than ever, given:
(a) the Government is racking up one trillion dollars in debt;
(b) Australia's budget deficit is now at a record high; and
(c) Government spending has blown out to the highest percentage of gross domestic product since 1970, the earliest year that records are available in the budget papers;
(3) further notes that:
(a) the ANAO's budget has been in structural deficit for years because of this Government's cuts, recording unsustainable operating losses of $3 million in 2018-19 and $4 million in 2019-20;
(b) the Auditor-General wrote to the Prime Minister prior to the 2020-21 Budget requesting $6 million in new funding so he could continue to undertake his role, related to the accumulated budget pressures and COVID-19 cost pressures; and
(c) without new funding the Auditor-General is forced to reduce his program of performance audits which is projected to fall rapidly below the longstanding target of 48 performance audits per annum to around 38 per annum;
(4) condemns the Government for its ongoing efforts to hide rorts, waste and corruption from scrutiny and avoid accountability by:
(a) taking revenge on the Auditor-General and making further cuts to the ANAO's budget and staffing, with a $1 million cut to revenue, a reduction in resources of $14 million in 2020-21 and a reduction in the average staffing level allocation; and
(b) failing for years to introduce a National Integrity Commission; and
(5) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately reverse its cuts to the ANAO's budget and provide the Auditor-General with the funds he has requested, by having the Minister for Finance provide an immediate advance, and making a commitment to boost funding over the forward estimates in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook;
(b) apologise for the Prime Minister's failure to protect and support the independent Auditor General, as the Prime Minister has proven that he cannot be trusted to protect the integrity of the office;
(c) consider introducing legislation to remove the ANAO from the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio and establish the ANAO as a parliamentary department, cementing the Auditor General as a truly independent officer of the Parliament; and
(d) stop stalling and introduce legislation to establish a National Integrity Commission.
There is a 10-year review currently underway into the ANAO and what their resourcing requirements are.
… when the government receives the outcomes of that 10-year review, we will consider the resourcing for the ANAO.
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the developments worldwide on vaccines for COVID-19;
(b) that the Government has announced a $1billion agreement for two of the most promising COVID-19 vaccines, namely the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and the University of Queensland/CSL vaccine;
(2) acknowledges that under the agreement, the Commonwealth has secured 84 million doses which will be almost entirely manufactured in Australia; and
(3) recognises that the Government is contributing significantly to COVID-19 vaccine, treatment, research and development work in Australia and around the world with an investment of $362 million.
This is an important milestone and marks the end of many months of around the clock preparation by our skilled personnel globally within CSL Behring, Seqirus and research and development. Both campaigns are still technically challenging but at this time we are tracking well and expect to produce the AZD1222 and the UQ-CSL V451 vaccine for Australia by mid-2021.
The generosity and commitment I've witnessed has been nothing short of amazing. And this enormous group of contributors is still not everyone who's been involved. I'd like to thank absolutely everybody who was part of this broader team in the ongoing journey.
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that 1 December 2020 is National Water Safety Day where we highlight the importance of staying safe and acting responsibly around water;
(b) that from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 some 248 people lost their lives to drowning across Australia;
(c) that Royal Lifesaving estimates in its annual drowning report that an additional 504 people experienced a non-fatal drowning incident;
(d) the drowning report indicates the total number of drowning deaths over the past year decreased by 8 per cent on the previous year;
(e) people aged 25 to 34 years accounted for 17 per cent of the total number of drowning deaths, the most of any age group; and
(f) despite still being the leading location for drowning, deaths in rivers and creeks decreased by 32 per cent, compared with the 10-year average;
(2) acknowledges:
(a) drowning and accidents in the water can be avoided if people act responsibly and follow the basic water safety rules:
(i) always swim between the red and yellow flags at the beach and obey the instructions of lifesavers;
(ii) alcohol and swimming or boating don't mix;
(iii) don't swim at unpatrolled beaches;
(iv) don't swim alone; and
(v) never take your eye off children around water; and
(b) that too many avoidable drownings occur when rock fishing and rock fishers should:
(i) stay alert to the weather conditions;
(ii) learn how to swim;
(iii) choose the safest possible location;
(iv) wear the right gear;
(v) never fish alone; and
(vi) always wear a lifejacket; and
(3) encourages:
(a) all Australians to learn how to swim from a qualified instructor before they enter the water on their own; and
(b) people who use our waterways regularly to take the opportunity to learn rescue techniques and resuscitation from organisations like Surf Life Saving Australia by joining your local surf club.
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the importance of the Auditor-General, who is responsible for auditing Commonwealth entities and reporting to the Parliament, providing crucial accountability and transparency regarding Government administration, and scrutiny of the expenditure of public monies;
(b) that as an independent officer of the Parliament with responsibilities under the Auditor-General Act 1997, the Auditor-General reports not to a minister, but directly to the Parliament via the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit;
(c) that unlike similar entities such as the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) sits within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, and the Prime Minister is responsible for administering the legislation and presenting budget bids for the ANAO, which is also subject to directions from the Minister for Finance as an entity under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and
(d) the potential conflicts inherent in these arrangements, given the Auditor-General exists to scrutinise the performance and actions of the executive;
(2) declares that independent scrutiny of Government spending to get maximum value for every taxpayer dollar is more important now than ever, given:
(a) the Government is racking up one trillion dollars in debt;
(b) Australia's budget deficit is now at a record high; and
(c) Government spending has blown out to the highest percentage of gross domestic product since 1970, the earliest year that records are available in the budget papers;
(3) further notes that:
(a) the ANAO's budget has been in structural deficit for years because of this Government's cuts, recording unsustainable operating losses of $3million in 2018-19 and $4million in 2019 20;
(b) the Auditor-General wrote to the Prime Minister prior to the 2020-21 Budget requesting $6million in new funding so he could continue to undertake his role, related to the accumulated budget pressures and COVID-19 cost pressures; and
(c) without new funding the Auditor-General is forced to reduce his program of performance audits which is projected to fall rapidly below the longstanding target of 48 performance audits per annum to around 38 per annum;
(4) condemns the Government for its ongoing efforts to hide rorts, waste and corruption from scrutiny and avoid accountability by:
(a) taking revenge on the Auditor-General and making further cuts to the ANAO's budget and staffing, with a $1million cut to revenue, a reduction in resources of $14 million in 2020-21 and a reduction in the average staffing level allocation; and
(b) failing for years to introduce a National Integrity Commission; and
(5) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately reverse its cuts to the ANAO's budget and provide the Auditor-General with the funds he has requested, by having the Minister for Finance provide an immediate advance, and making a commitment to boost funding over the forward estimates in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook;
(b) apologise for the Prime Minister's failure to protect and support the independent Auditor General, as the Prime Minister has proven that he cannot be trusted to protect the integrity of the office;
(c) consider introducing legislation to remove the ANAO from the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio and establish the ANAO as a parliamentary department, cementing the Auditor General as a truly independent officer of the Parliament; and
(d) stop stalling and introduce legislation to establish a National Integrity Commission.
Are you prepared to admit that, since the Creator said in his Word that all men are of 'one blood' we are humans with feelings like yourselves in the eyes of Almighty God, that we can have joys and our sorrows, our likes and our dislikes, that we can feel pain, degradation, and humiliation just as you do?
On 26 May—
he took part in the bayonet charge at '42nd Street' that temporarily disorganised the enemy. When Allied resistance on the island ceased at the end of the month, the 2/7th Battalion was left behind in the hasty evacuation. Saunders was one of a number of soldiers who refused to surrender. Assisted by sympathetic Cretans, he avoided capture for eleven months. On 7 May 1942 he escaped aboard a trawler to … Libya.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) it has been seven years since New Zealand offered hope to those refugees in Papua New Guinea and Nauru to resettle them in New Zealand; and
(b) more than 65,000 Australians have signed a petition organised by Amnesty International Australia with Craig Foster and Sonny Bill Williams urging the Government to accept the New Zealand Government's generous offer to resettle those refugees; and
(2) calls on the Government to accept the New Zealand offer to resettle refugees.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the koala is an iconic Australian species;
(b) the Queensland, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory koala populations have been listed as vulnerable under national environment law;
(c) vast numbers of koalas were killed in last summer's national bushfire crisis, including an estimated third of the New South Wales population;
(d) in the wake of the fires the koala is being considered for up-listing (an increased threatened listing status);
(e) habitat loss is among the most significant threats to koalas;
(f) the Government is years overdue in making a Threatened Species Recovery Plan for the koala, which was initially due by 2015; and
(g) the National Koala Conservation Strategy ran until 2014 and has yet to be replaced by this Government; and
(2) therefore calls on the Government to prevent further habitat loss through yet-to-commence development in areas in which the koala is listed as vulnerable, pending the completion of the formal assessment for up listing, the making of a Threatened Species Recovery Plan, and the making of a new National Koala Conservation Strategy.
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the enormous success the scouting and guiding movement has had around the world in promoting personal development programs for children and young adults from 5 to 25 years old; and
(b) that the world scouting movement was founded by Lord Baden-Powell in 1907;
(2) recognises that scouting is one of the most popular programs worldwide for personal development with over 500 million people going through the scouts and guides;
(3) further notes that in 2007 the scouting movement celebrated its 100th anniversary since its founding; and
(4) congratulates Scouts Australia, Girl Guides Australia and the World Organization of the Scout Movement for continuing to provide an outlet for children to channel their desire for adventure, education and fun, and for providing ongoing assistance around our communities.
That this House:
(1) agrees that effective politics requires constructive debate and consensus building on policy challenges and roadblocks that, if left unresolved, undermine the national interest;
(2) commends the Menzies-Calwell club for facilitating consensus-driven, cross-parliamentary policy discussions that do not regress into ineffectual, politically polarised rhetoric;
(3) reaffirms that establishing a robust federal integrity commission during this parliament well before the next election is essential to arresting the declining public trust in institutions and restoring Australians' faith in the democratic system;
(4) notes that, according to the Beechworth Principles and the motion agreed to by the Senate on 9 November 2020, a federal integrity commission must have:
(a) broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct within the public sector;
(b) common rules for all public officials;
(c) strong investigative powers and procedural fairness safeguards;
(d) an ability to hold public hearings when in the public interest;
(e) direct avenues for public referrals and an ability to commence investigations independently based on those referrals;
(f) strong whistleblower protections;
(g) adequate and secure funding to be able to fulfil its purpose; and
(h) oversight by a multi-party parliamentary committee, including of the appointment of commissioners, and an independent parliamentary inspector to ensure accountability to the people; and
(5) encourages Members of Parliament to debate the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020 as a robust consensus package that all parliamentarians can engage with, in good faith, as a non-aligned private member's bill that answers the strong call from the Australian public for a robust federal integrity commission.
That this House:
(1) recognises that metropolitan and regional Victorians continue to face significant limitations to their freedoms due to COVID-19 restrictions;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) the epidemiological data in Victoria is now at a point where many health experts consider it safe to reopen in a COVID-safe manner; and
(b) the initial lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were intended to build capacity in the health system, and the Victorian health system has done this;
(3) commiserates with business owners that have been forced to shut their doors;
(4) notes that many businesses will not survive continued lockdowns;
(5) calls on the Victorian Government to give Victorians their freedom back;
(6) further recognises the undue pain and distress facing regional communities around the nation due to ongoing state border restrictions;
(7) further acknowledges that:
(a) border communities are unique in their interdependency; and
(b) regional and border communities are experiencing some of the most severe disruptions in the country, with impacts on healthcare, education, access to supplies, and the agriculture workforce;
(8) further notes that seven out of eight states, through the National Cabinet, have agreed to seek a sustainable model for border restrictions by December 2020;
(9) calls on state governments to open their borders to allow for the free movement of Australians; and
(10) acknowledges that the continued lockdowns and border restrictions will continue to cause significant mental health, wellbeing, and economic issues, particularly in Victoria, but also in other affected parts of the nation.
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) prior to the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 the houses of the Australian Parliament had the power to expel a senator, or member of the House of Representatives;
(b) the expulsion of a member of this House is the most drastic of sanctions;
(c) on 11 November 1920, the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon, was expelled from this House; and
(d) that the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie is the only member to have ever been expelled from this House;
(2) acknowledges that the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon, was expelled:
(a) by a motion brought on hastily and with limited time for debate;
(b) by a vote of the House on party lines; and
(c) without the due process and procedural fairness that such an important issue deserves; and
(3) further recognises that:
(a) it was unjust on the limited evidence for the institution to which Hugh Mahon had been democratically elected to reverse the decision of his constituents;
(b) the expulsion of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon, was therefore a misuse of the power then invested in the House; and
(c) for a century the Mahon family has endured this injustice and it is time that the Parliament revisit the matter of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon's, expulsion.
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.