2021-08-25 46 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 25 August 2021

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1 Report 1 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I present report No. 37 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 30 August 2021. The report will be printed in the Hansard today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 24 August 2021. 2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 24 August 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 30 August 2021, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS Presentation and statements 1 Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs: Report on Indigenous Participation in Employment and Business The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.30 am. Speech time limits— First Member speaking —5minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1   Mr C. Kelly: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, and for related purposes. (Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2021)    (Notice given 24 June 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 2   Mr C. Kelly: To present a Bill for an Act to implement Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, and for related purposes. (No Requirement for Medical Treatment (Including Experimental Injections) Without Consent (Implementing Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights) Bill 2021)    (Notice given 24 August 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 3   Mr Connelly: To move: That this House: (1) recognises and celebrates the centenary of the Australian national flag which occurs on 3 September 2021; (2) honours the ideals for which our national flag stands including our history, geography and unity as a federated nation; (3) notes that this is the world's only national flag ever to fly over one entire continent; (4) acknowledges that our flag has been Australia's pre-eminent national symbol in times of adversity and war, peacetime and prosperity; (5) further recognises that our flag now belongs to the Australian people and has been an integral part of the expression of our national pride; and (6) expresses its respect for the Australian national flag as a symbol of our profound achievements as a federation, our independence and freedom as a people, and our optimism for a common future together.    (Notice given 5 August 2021.) Time allotted—35 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Connelly—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 4   Mr Hayes: To move: That this House: (1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 29 September 2021; (2) acknowledges the crucial role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the tremendous risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty; (3) honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty and specifically this year honours, Senior Constable David Masters of the Queensland Police Service, who was killed while trying to intercept a stolen vehicle; (4) pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation's history; (5) commends the valuable work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers who have fallen; and (6) reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication in ensuring the peace and safety of our communities.    (Notice given 3 August 2021.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits— Mr Hayes—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP Speaker of the House of Representatives 25 August 2021 BILLS 2 BILLS Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 2

Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:32 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction The government is committed to ensuring our national security agencies have the powers they need to combat threats to national security. The Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 gives effect to this commitment. The bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979(ASIO Act) to address two critical gaps in the foreign intelligence collection framework. Intercepting a communication for foreign intelligence purposes The first reform is a necessary update in light of the modern communications environment. Currently, the Director-General of Security may request a warrant for the collection of foreign communications to obtain foreign intelligence. The interception of any domestic communication is strictly prohibited. The prohibition made sense when the warrant was introduced in 2000. Today, internet communications, such as messaging apps on smart phones, can make it extremely difficult to determine the geographic location of a sender or recipient of a communication prior to collection. Currently, intelligence agencies cannot intercept communications where there is even the smallest risk of incidentally collecting a domestic communication. This is a considerable constraint on the collection of foreign intelligence. There is a real risk that intelligence agencies are missing critical foreign intelligence. This could result in serious threats to Australians being missed. The amendments in the bill will allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)—for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence from foreign communications—to obtain a warrant that authorises the collection of a communication which may not have a clear geographic location. The amendments will restore the foreign communications warrant to its original intended function. Australia will have greater visibility of foreign threats; such as malicious cyberactivity targeting Australian interests, terrorist communications, and indications of foreign interference. These reforms will be accompanied by robust safeguards to ensure the privacy of domestic communications. The Attorney-General must put in place a mandatory written procedure for screening communications in order to identify domestic communications incidentally collected. Importantly, the warrants are only for the purpose of foreign intelligence. Intelligence agencies will not be able to deliberately target domestic communications. If any domestic communication is identified it must be destroyed. The existing thresholds and stringent safeguards that apply to the foreign communications warrant will also continue to apply, including robust oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Obtaining intelligence on an Australian person acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power The second set of reforms will address a legal gap where foreign intelligence can be collected on an Australian working for a foreign power offshore, but that same intelligence cannot be collected on that Australian in Australia. Currently, this means that if an intelligence agency is collecting intelligence on an Australian working overseas for a foreign intelligence service, and the person returns to Australia, the intelligence agency must immediately cease its activities. These reforms will enable intelligence agencies to continue collecting that vital intelligence. The comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community led by Dennis Richardson AC recommended that the government close this gap. The gap costs the Australian government valuable foreign intelligence and has a direct bearing on Australia's national security, foreign relations and national economic wellbeing. Robust safeguards will apply to these reforms to protect everyday Australians. The Director-General of Security must provide details about the grounds on which a person is suspected to be acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power. Before issuing the warrant, the Attorney-General must also be satisfied that the person is, or is reasonably suspected by the Director-General of Security of acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power. The law will continue to prevent the request of a foreign intelligence warrant on Australian persons who are not acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power. All existing thresholds and stringent safeguards that apply to Australia's foreign intelligence warrants will also continue to apply, including robust oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Closing remarks I would like to take this moment to reaffirm the vital importance of adequately equipping our intelligence agencies to combat security threats to Australia and Australians. This bill will ensure that intelligence agencies have the tools needed to deal with current and emerging threats. It is vital these amendments are made urgently. Each day these amendments are not in place risks our agencies missing critical foreign intelligence about threats to Australia and Australians. The bill demonstrates the government's unwavering commitment to ensuring Australia's national security framework is, and continues to be, as robust and responsive as possible. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 3

Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021

First Reading 3 Second Reading 4 09:39 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 will improve and modernise the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act). More than 3,300 corporations, and the communities they serve, will benefit from these reforms. 'Strong corporations, strong people, strong communities'—that's the vision statement of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC). This simple statement reflects the unique role that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations play within their communities, delivering critical services like health, housing and municipal services. In the case of native title corporations, registered native title bodies corporate (or RNTBCs) have the important role of managing native title rights and interests on behalf of the determined native title holders. Often, these corporations deliver services in the most remote parts of Australia, including to homelands and outstations. Strong, well‑governed corporations inspire trust in the sector, and provide effective and vital services to build and maintain strong communities. Without their corporations, many communities, particularly those in remote areas, would not receive the services they need to continue to exist. This bill will modernise the act and make it more useful and relevant for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as they form and operate corporations that build strong communities. There is an expectation that the CATSI Act will continue to support the evolving needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including as a driver for the continued growth of the Indigenous sector, and the increasing economic independence of its population. It is also vital that the CATSI Act continues to work in partnership with the Native Title Act 1993 to ensure a strong governance framework for the growing number of RNTBCs. The CATSI Act has delivered outcomes for Indigenous Australians for the 14 years it has been in operation, and it is time to refresh and renew the act for the future. In December 2019, I announced a comprehensive review of the CATSI Act, which was to build on a number of previous reviews. This announcement was a direct response to feedback calling for a broad-ranging review of the CATSI Act, including whether it was achieving its objectives, particularly as a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. One of the most important questions explored during this comprehensive review was whether the CATSI Act is actually doing what it was established to do. Special measures are important tools for building pathways out of disadvantage, but they should not continue once they have achieved their objectives. The review found that a very substantial majority of stakeholders agreed that the CATSI Act is necessary to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations receive targeted support and members can run their corporations in a way that reflects their cultural practices. Importantly, this bill will provide for regular review of the CATSI Act in the future to ensure it continues to support self-determination and be relevant and useful to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The bill comes at a time when public expectations of corporate governance have never been higher. More registered native title bodies corporate are established each year as native title claims are determined. More Indigenous corporations are focusing on economic development as their primary purpose, be they registered native title bodies corporate, or corporations supported by the Indigenous Procurement Policy. As the Indigenous corporate sector grows and evolves, it is vital that regulation of the sector provide an adequate level of scrutiny balanced with the flexibility to feed innovation and expansion. A modern regulator needs a broad suite of powers to ensure a proportionate response to noncompliance. The bill's provisions for the introduction of fines and enforceable undertakings, as well as investigative powers as extensive as those of ASIC, will improve the registrar's ability to support corporations and react effectively and decisively when required. Corporations are most effective when their members are informed and engaged. The bill introduces a range of measures that will allow corporations to take advantage of the benefits provided by advancements in technology, particularly through the use of electronic communications and virtual meetings, helping to manage what is often a mobile and geographically dispersed membership. At the same time, the bill will see additional protections for members and former members by allowing them to redact their contact information from member registers without having to justify why, and ensuring that third parties have a proper purpose in order to inspect or copy registers. Membership confers benefits, sometimes of a financial nature, so it is important that applications are decided in a timely manner. The bill will require corporations to deal with membership applications within a specific time frame, unless exempted by the registrar, and allow corporations that are not RNTBCs to have rules specific to their circumstances, in relation to the process for considering membership applications. The bill will also provide corporations with greater flexibility by allowing non-RNTBC corporations to include rules that better suit their own conditions for cancelling membership. Since its commencement, the CATSI Act has performed a key role in developing the Indigenous economic and corporate sector. Today that sector provides vitally important services such as health, education, housing and employment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We have seen the sector mature, adapt, and innovate, blending tradition and culture with entrepreneurship to create sustainable and economically viable industries. However, there are unintended limitations in the current act that make it difficult for CATSI corporations to take advantage of the full range of corporate structures available to other companies, without stepping outside of the protections provided by the CATSI Act. By removing this barrier, the bill reduces the cost of doing business and promotes the use of a variety of modern corporate structures. The diversity of size and function of CATSI corporations reflects the broad needs of the communities they service, as well as the enterprise and industry of those who form corporations. Classifying corporations by size is important to ensure that the level of regulatory oversight is proportionate to the revenue and activity of the corporation. The bill aligns the size classifications, and more importantly reporting obligations, of CATSI corporations, with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, or the ACNC. Over 64 per cent of CATSI corporations will be classified as small under this regime, resulting in minimal reporting for those corporations. As well, the government is reducing the reporting burden for medium-sized corporations which will be able to elect to have a review of financial statements rather than an audit. In recognition of the unique circumstances of many CATSI corporations, the bill introduces measures designed to reduce some of the administrative burden associated with holding meetings, in particular annual general meetings, or AGMs. Small corporations with little or no revenue that are not registered with the ACNC will be able to choose not to hold an AGM for up to two years, as long as 75 per cent of members voting agree. However reducing red tape doesn't mean reducing transparency. Annual reports will still be required to be lodged with the registrar, who has the power to direct a corporation to hold an AGM, should it seem reasonable to do so. All corporations will be able to access automatic extensions of time to hold an AGM or lodge reports when unforeseen events such as a death in the community or natural disaster occur. Although many corporations currently do so as part of good governance, the bill will require any reports lodged with the registrar to be laid before the AGM so that members are provided information without having to ask for it. The bill recognises the unpredictable environments within which many CATSI corporations operate by making it easier to hold virtual meetings, or change the date, time or place of a meeting after a notice of meeting has been sent, or even cancel a general meeting. The CATSI Act demands high standards of corporate governance, but at the same time recognises the special incorporation needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. By improving the way rule books operate, the bill will make it easier for members and directors to know and follow internal governance rules, and be more engaged in the management of their corporations. Special administrators often make changes to rule books to improve governance in struggling corporations. The bill supports the registrar to keep these arrangements in place, unless the conditions no longer exist to require such rules. Transparency and accountability of remuneration arrangements for senior executives and directors remains a significant issue for members, common law holders and communities. Maintaining the delicate balance of enabling effective scrutiny whilst safeguarding individuals' rights to privacy, the bill also provides a much-needed mechanism to support corporations to make informed remuneration decisions. This transparency will also extend to director remuneration and that of senior executives of related entities, shining light into what can often be the dark corners of the corporate world. The original drafters of the CATSI Act felt there was a need to hold CATSI corporations to a very high standard of governance around related party transactions because of the essential relationship of many CATSI corporations to the communities they serve, the high rate of government funding and to protect the interests of members. While there is a need to prevent misuse of corporation assets and funds, the current standards and processes around related parties are disproportionately burdensome for some CATSI corporations, particularly small and remote ones. Amendments proposed in this bill are aimed at reducing that burden, without increasing risk, and supporting corporations that are the lifeblood of many communities to be able to operate effectively without needless red tape. Changes to a number of different restrictions around directors are designed to better meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. In particular, allowing corporations to appoint independent directors without having to first change their rule book is seen as being of real value for CATSI corporations. After nearly 14 years of operation, the review of the CATSI Act identified a clear need to make changes which modernise and update the legislation. The bill will allow Indigenous corporations to harness the advantages offered by modern technology, electronic communication channels and storage facilities, and contemporary systems and processes. The CATSI Act differentiates itself from the Corporations Act because it takes account of the traditions and circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, it is also important to ensure a level of consistency across Commonwealth regulators, and make sure that beneficial advances in other corporate legislation are made available to CATSI corporations. Changes to the Corporations Act, which were designed to provide a higher level of protection for whistleblowers, will be made available through this bill, which will also align some penalty provisions, and ensure qualified privilege for auditors. Creditors, funding bodies, business partners and others will take a keen interest in the activities of the regulator, particularly when those activities involve a corporation with which they have a relationship. It is important that corporations are able to demonstrate a positive outcome following an examination or rectification of all issues following receipt of a compliance notice. The bill will formalise this process by requiring the registrar to issue a notice to a corporation if he or she is satisfied that the actions specified in a compliance notice have been taken by that corporation, or to notify a corporation at the conclusion of an examination that he or she will take no further action. One of the very positive outcomes of this bill will be the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander assets protection special account. The funds for this account will be taken from the existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander unclaimed money account, rather than being returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander money is used to protect and maintain Indigenous assets. Unique to the CATSI Act, special administration is one of the most effective tools the registrar has to support corporations at risk. Minor but important changes to the provisions around special administration will make it easier for the registrar to provide this support. Rapid access to help can be important when corporations are in difficulty, so removing the need for the registrar to send a show cause notice when a majority of directors request a special administrator be appointed will be valuable. In the same way, other changes will make it easier for corporations to voluntarily deregister when the community no longer requires the corporation instead of the more complex and costly process of winding up. The bill also introduces some rebuttable presumptions of insolvency that the court can rely on for the purposes of finding a corporation insolvent, but still allow a corporation to prove it is not. The bill addresses a range of other minor technical deficiencies or oversights in the current legislation, including a small amendment to the Native Title Act 1993, and makes minor changes that better support a modern risk based regulator. This is the first time extensive amendments have been made to the CATSI Act in its 14-year history. The bill brings the CATSI Act up to date in line with the expectations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It strikes the critical balance between strong governance and effective regulation on one hand, and removing red tape on the other, so that corporations do not experience unnecessary barriers in delivering for their members and communities. Ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations are well governed is a cornerstone to supporting self-determination and closing the gap. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021 7

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:56 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I move: That this bill be now read a second time. When Vincent Lingiari and other Gurindji people walked off Wave Hill station on 23 August 1966, their dignified call for land rights and justice resonated around the nation. They paved the way for land rights in the Northern Territory. In 1976, the Fraser government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act with historic bipartisan support. The previous Whitlam government had established the Woodward royal commission in 1973 to inquire into land rights and tabled the first legislation in 1975. Enactment of the land rights act by the Commonwealth, just 10 years after the Gurindji sat down at Wattie Creek to demand the return of their country, remains a proud day for the nation. Today, that history is continued through the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021 by the government, the most far-reaching set of reforms to the land rights act since it was enacted in 1976—and almost 55 years to the day after the Wave Hill walk-off in 1966.The Gurindji people had organised the Freedom Day Festival for this coming weekend but unfortunately the event has been cancelled for the second year in a row due to COVID-19. It is hoped the Gurindji people will be able to reschedule this festival for the near future. Importantly, Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have asked for these reforms and they have been extensively co-designed with traditional owners in the Northern Territory and their land councils over the last 3½ years. The co-design process, and the intent of the reforms themselves, put the government's Closing the Gap commitments into practice, through shared decision-making, working in partnership with Aboriginal people, and supporting strong economic participation and Indigenous peoples' relationship with their land and waters. The land rights act provides the strongest form of traditional land title in Australia. It enables the grant of land title to Aboriginal landowners in the Northern Territory, and sets up Aboriginal land councils to represent traditional owners and help manage that land. It also continues the Aboriginals Benefit Account (known as the ABA), which was originally established in 1952 by then Minister for Territories, for whom the electorate of Hasluck is partly named, the Rt Hon. Sir Paul Hasluck, to collect amounts equivalent to royalties from mining on Aboriginal land. It is these amounts that fund the land rights system in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginal Territorians. The ABA has accumulated substantial wealth from the abundance of Aboriginal land resources. Recently, the mining boom has seen the ABA almost double from around $634 million in 2016-17 to over $1.3 billion today. While the fight for land rights is ongoing for some families, for many in the Northern Territory their hopes and dreams for the return of their land have been realised. More than 47 per cent of the Northern Territory is now Aboriginal land and Aboriginal Territorians, along with Indigenous peoples all over Australia, are seeking new ways to activate the potential of their land. The Morrison government is unlocking the ABA to empower Aboriginal Territorians to do exactly that. As our Prime Minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison MP, said in his 2021 Closing the Gap address, it is economic opportunity and a culture of responsibility and empowerment that provide the foundation for the transformation of local communities. The centrepiece of these reforms is the establishment of a new, Aboriginal controlled corporate Commonwealth entity—the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation (the new corporation). Currently, all decisions about ABA funding are made by the Australian government. This includes the beneficial payments, where the Minister for Indigenous Australians makes the final decision on payments, on the advice of the ABA Advisory Committee. Despite the fact that ABA money largely reflects royalties from mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, Aboriginal Territorians are not the decision-makers for how the money is spent. This is about to change. The new Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation will be funded from the ABA to invest in projects that will grow wealth, create jobs and support sustainable Aboriginal economies in the Northern Territory for the long term—for generations ahead. It will have the ability to invest in a wide range of projects from agriculture and aquaculture, tourism opportunities and community art centres. It will also make decisions about and administer beneficial payments shifting decision-making from Canberra to the Northern Territory. For the first time, an Aboriginal controlled body will be able to use funds derived from the ABA to strategically and proactively seize and generate economic and social investment opportunities. The Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation will be led by a board of eight Aboriginal representatives from the Northern Territory, two government appointed directors, and two independent directors, appointed by the board. This board composition captures the representation, cultural and financial expertise and independence required to make these critical investment decisions. The bill guarantees a substantial amount of ABA funding for the new corporation. It will receive from the ABA an initial $500 million endowment, $60 million per year during the first three years of its operation and subsequent funding each year. With these assets the new corporation will be a significant new economic vehicle in the Northern Territory. Increased investments will support long-term, large-scale Aboriginal economic development, building the productive capacity of the Northern Territory economy, growing Aboriginal enterprise and jobs and improving the intergenerational transfer of wealth for Aboriginal families and communities. The effects of growing Aboriginal economies will flow across the Northern Territory economy benefiting all Territorians, with an estimated boost to gross regional product in the Northern Territory by $484 million out to 2029-30. To hold the new corporation accountable at the local level, its investment priorities will be set out in a strategic investment plan based on consultations with Aboriginal people and organisations in the Northern Territory and tabled in the parliament. As a corporate Commonwealth entity, the new corporation's governance structures will also ensure accountability at the national level. A strong investment committee will provide business advice and support to the board. Investments over $100 million will require the agreement of government, and rules set by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the finance minister will govern the new corporation's ability to loan, borrow and provide guarantees. This is a reform which is long overdue, with recommendations for changes to the ABA stretching back to 1984. The Northern Territory land councils have provided their support to the introduction of these historic reforms. In addition to these momentous changes, this bill also enables other mechanisms for activating the potential of Aboriginal land. Current processes relating to exploration and mining under the land rights act can be unnecessarily time-consuming and costly for all stakeholders. These problems were identified in an independent review published in 2013. We have worked with peak industry bodies, the land councils, and the Northern Territory government to develop workable solutions to these problems. The changes to the exploration and mining processes create clarity and build confidence for industry and investors by: improving the processes for consideration of exploration licence applications; reducing the length of time for an application to be granted once traditional owner consent has been provided; saving money and time as a result of more flexible traditional owner consultations; and updating definitions to align with relevant Northern Territory legislation. Importantly, the rights of traditional owners are maintained. The final component of this bill is a package of land administration amendments which strengthen Aboriginal control over decision-making, address operational gaps and remove unused provisions. Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory recognise the cultural and economic value of township leasing, which provides for decisions about land use to be made locally by traditional owners. Under the leadership of Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, it was the Gumatj traditional owners in East Arnhem Land who, in partnership with their land council, first proposed and advocated for an intergenerational community lease held directly by a local Aboriginal-owned corporation. The government worked with the Gumatj people to develop the first locally held township lease over the Gunyangara township, executed in 2017. More recently, this year the Jabiru township lease commenced operations: held and governed by local Mirarr people. Township leases on the Tiwi Islands, in Central Australia and on Groote Eylandt each have designated provisions to allow them to transfer their leases from the Commonwealth Executive Director of Township Leasing to another entity, ensuring other traditional owners will be similarly empowered to have a community-controlled lease over their land. The amendments will embed the community-controlled leasing model by providing a process for nomination by a land council and approval by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and set out a general budget process from the ABA. All community entities will be required to incorporate under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, thus codifying existing practice. The amendments will standardise the community-controlled leasing model in the land rights act and provide for greater local decision-making on Aboriginal land to deliver housing, business and government services outcomes that meet the needs of the local community. This in turn establishes a secure and certain environment for investors, critical to fostering economic development opportunities on the Indigenous estate. The bill repeals section 28A, which currently allows the delegation of certain land council functions to non-statutory organisations, such as local Aboriginal corporations. Section 28A was introduced into the land rights act in 2006 but has never been used. Removing this redundant provision will simplify land administration on the Indigenous estate and will clarify that community-controlled township leasing is the preferred mechanism for local decision-making. In a further effort to maximise the opportunities to promote local Indigenous control over decision-making, the bill clarifies that land councils can enter into agreements in respect of land that is the subject of a deed of grant held in escrow. This will provide increased certainty for residents, businesses and government service providers, particularly in towns that are transitioning to local Aboriginal control because mining operations in the area are winding‑up. A further measure in the bill clarifies arrangements for issuing and revoking permits to access Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. This issue became apparent as a key risk during early days of the emergency response to COVID‑19 with Northern Territory remote travel restrictions. The amendments repeal section 74AA of the land rights act, which currently prevents land councils from revoking permits for access to Aboriginal land issued by minority groups within a traditional owner community. The bill demonstrates this government's respect for and commitment to protecting Aboriginal land. It increases the penalty for unauthorised access to Aboriginal land from 10 penalty units to 50 penalty units. This will deter people from unlawfully entering or remaining on Aboriginal land. Commencement of this increase will be delayed to allow the Northern Territory government to amend its Aboriginal Land Act 1978 to enable consistency. Taken together, the reforms provided in this bill realise the longstanding aspiration of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory for greater control over decision-making and realise the potential of their land. Aboriginal stakeholders in the Northern Territory have strong voices through their land councils and this government has committed to only amend the land rights act with their support. At all stages of the process, the land councils have consulted around 220 elected landowners from whose land the ABA moneys are generated, agreeing to principles and providing input to the design of the reforms. The government would like to take this opportunity to thank the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the Tiwi Land Council for the strong partnership that produced this highly significant set of reforms. We acknowledge the outstanding leadership of their chairs, Mr Samuel Bush-Blanasi, Mr Sammy Wilson, Mr Tony Wurramarrba and Mr Gibson Farmer Illortaminni. The government also acknowledges the members of the ABA Advisory Committee who have contributed to the reforms and provided government much valuable advice on funding needs in the Northern Territory, including the chairs, Ms Leanne Caton and Ms Barbara Shaw, who made important contributions to the reforms. The global pandemic has prevented these strong Aboriginal leaders and many more from witnessing the introduction of these historic reforms in person, but they are watching from afar. These reforms are about creating enterprise opportunity. They are about supporting Aboriginal Territorians to manage the land that has been the lifeblood of their lore and culture for at least 60,000 years and still is today. The reforms are about activating the economic potential of Aboriginal land to grow the prosperity of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory for the long term. Through the new corporation we are supporting our elders and our youth, our Aboriginal business men and women, our artists and our rangers to take the destiny of their communities in their hands. This is a new era of land rights—one that empowers Aboriginal people to unlock the potential of their land and grow their communities, their businesses and their culture for generations to come. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021 10

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:13 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to assist people who have been affected by the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic to be eligible under the Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme. The PPL scheme is intended to support working parents. As such, to be eligible for parental leave pay or dad and partner pay, a person must meet certain work test requirements, including having worked for 10 months out of a 13-month work test period and having worked a minimum of 330 hours in that 10-month period. State-imposed lockdowns and restrictions are affecting the ability of some people to work. Across Australia, people are being stood down or experiencing a significant reduction in work hours. This may in turn have an inconsequent effect on the ability of these people to meet the work test requirements and qualify for payment under the PPL scheme. Amendments to this legislation are proposed to allow periods a person is in receipt of the COVID‑19 disaster payment (CDP) to count towards meeting the paid parental leave work test. The CDP is a lump sum payment for those who have lost work or income as a result of a COVID-19 lockdown. Allowing periods in receipt of CDP to count as qualifying work for the PPL work test is consistent with the objectives of the PPL scheme and would align with the government's response of being temporary, targeted and proportionate. Qualification for the CDP is dependent on losing income and work as a result of living or working in a Commonwealth-declared COVID-19 hotspot. Aligning this proposal with CDP will ensure that the proposal is targeted and can be accurately applied to those whose workforce participation has been affected by COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. These changes will ensure that parents with a genuine connection to work are able to access the government's PPL scheme. Without this amendment, parents who work part time, or have been in lockdown close to, or longer than, the permissible 12-week period, may lose entitlement to the payments under the PPL scheme, due to failing the work test. This bill will support working parents to access the PPL scheme in areas affected by the recent COVID-19 lockdowns and mimics the amendments that were made to the Paid Parental Leave Act during the peak of the pandemic last year. To remind the chamber, the amendments made under that act allowed for time spent on the JobKeeper payment to count towards the PPL work test, in recognition that meeting the work test during the pandemic was more difficult. These important changes to the PPL scheme are about ensuring that the government continues to provide support to working parents to spend time with their new children. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021 10

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:17 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021 implements a number of streamlining and integrity measures. Schedule 1 to the bill extends existing third-party reporting requirements to operators of electronic platforms. Platform operators will be required to report to the ATO information regarding certain transactions that occur on their platforms, such as seller identification and payment details. This information will assist the ATO in its administration of the tax system and ensure sellers on these platforms are meeting their tax obligations. These platforms are commonly used in what is known as the sharing or gig economy and provide a range of innovative opportunities for earning an income. As Australia's sharing economy continues to grow, a transparency gap has emerged as existing tax reporting requirements do not adequately capture information about transactions in this part of the economy. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Act to facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and transitional arrangements associated with AFCA replacing the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT). The AFCA Act will be amended to allow for the transfer of SCT records and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for ongoing records management, and will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA, where previously these had been remitted to the SCT. Schedule 2 also introduces a rule-making power to the AFCA Act, to allow the minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to facilitate the closure of the SCT. Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and makes consequential amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, to remove the exclusion of the first $250 of deductions for prescribed courses of education. These amendments will reduce compliance costs for individuals claiming self-education expense deductions. The changes will apply to assessments for the 2022-23 income year and later income years, following royal assent. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 11

Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:21 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, I introduce the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. The bill improves the operation of Australian government investment funds and enhances the ability of the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the Future Fund Management Agency to continue investing for the benefit of future generations of Australians. The Future Fund was established by the Liberal-National government in 2006. Since then, the Future Fund Board of Guardians, with the support of the Future Fund Management Agency, has grown the Future Fund by over $115 billion. The board has also become responsible for managing five other Australian government investment funds since 2006, with total funds under management of more than $225 billion as of 31 March this year. The Future Fund Board of Guardians has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government and maximising returns over the long term, as at 31 March this year delivering for the Future Fund a return since inception of 7.8 per cent per annum versus a target of 6.6 per cent. As the size of the Australian government investment funds portfolio continues to grow, and the investment environment becomes increasingly challenging, this bill makes important changes to support the continued growth and responsible management of the government's investment funds into the future. Schedule 1—e mployment arrangements Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Future Fund Act 2006 to establish a new employment framework for the Future Fund Management Agency. The agency is unique compared to other government entities in the scale of funds under management, and that it operates within financial markets in a substantially commercial environment. It's appropriate that the agency has a management and investment team of the highest skill and expertise. Key investment management staff are therefore recruited from around the globe, and staff structures and remuneration arrangements differ to the Australian Public Service norms. The new framework will provide more operational flexibility by being outside of the Public Service Act 1999, similar to other specialised Commonwealth agencies including ASIC, APRA and the RBA. Under the new framework, agency staff will be employed under the Future Fund Act 2006 by the Chair of the Future Fund Board of Guardians, as the head of the agency. Staff of the agency will continue to be Commonwealth employees. To ensure the Future Fund Management Agency continues to meet the expectations of the Australian public, the chair will be required to determine a code of conduct and values that are consistent with the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and Values. The agency will remain subject to the government's policy on the average staffing level cap. To ensure a smooth transition, agency staff will continue to be employed on the same terms and conditions as those that applied immediately before the transition, and will retain all of their existing leave entitlements. After commencement, the chair will be able to determine new terms and conditions of employment as long as entitlements to staff of the agency are no less favourable. The new employment framework will enhance the Future Fund's independence from government, improve its recruitment and retention of specialised staff and allow it to continue maximising investment outcomes on behalf of the government. Schedule 2—f reedom of information Schedule 2 to this bill will provide a partial exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the Future Fund Management Agency, in relation to investment documents. These entities regularly produce, negotiate and receive documents from third-party fund managers that include confidential, competitive and commercially sensitive information. The risk of disclosing highly sensitive commercial and proprietary material has led to investment managers withholding information or reducing their engagement with the board and the agency. This presents an investment and governance risk. In particular, it can result in reduced access to investment opportunities and negatively affect investment outcomes. This exemption is consistent with the treatment of other Commonwealth entities that deal regularly with commercial information, including NBN Co, Australia Post and Export Finance Australia. It will provide certainty to the board and the agency, and their investment partners, that sensitive investment information is automatically excluded from release under FOI laws. The Freedom of Information Act 1982will continue to apply to documents concerning the Future Fund board and the agency's non-investment activities. Schedule 3—Medical Research Future Fund Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Medical Research Future Fund Act 2015 to provide a new disbursements framework and to streamline the administration of Medical Research Future Fund grants programs. Under the current framework, disbursements from the Medical Research Future Fund are determined annually by the Future Fund board. The board's calculation is largely based on the benchmark rate of return for the fund, which is linked to the RBA cash rate. This framework creates uncertain and volatile disbursements, which affects the orderly planning of grants programs from the fund. Further, the historically low RBA cash rate and requirement to preserve the fund corpus have put downward pressure on disbursements. With the fund now exceeding its mature balance of $20 billion by over $1 billion, the government is implementing a new disbursements framework that will provide a fixed maximum annual disbursement of $650 million from 2022-23. This will allow investment returns above this level to accrue to the fund corpus, which can be accessed in later years when investment markets may be more challenging. This reduction in distribution volatility will provide greater certainty of funding for the health and medical research sector and allow the important commitments under the Medical Research Future Fund 10-year investment plan to be met. The responsible ministers will be required to review the maximum disbursement amount at least every five years and will be able to amend that amount via disallowable legislative instrument. This will provide flexibility into the future and could allow for higher disbursements in the future, if the fund is able to sustainably support them over the long term. The amendments will also allow the government to issue a new investment mandate for the Medical Research Future Fund with a higher and more suitable benchmark rate of return aligned to other risk-seeking funds managed by the Future Fund board. This will increase expected earnings over the medium term and protect the level of disbursements over the long term, helping to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. It will also simplify and streamline the Medical Research Future Fund's operations. The bill will also make a number of improvements to the administration of grants programs. These amendments will expand the avenues available to provide funding to the states and territories, reduce the consultation burden on the health and medical sector and allow administrative functions to be carried out by departmental officials while ensuring ministers remain appropriately informed. Schedule 4—Emergency Response Fund Finally, schedule 4 to this bill amends the Emergency Response Fund Act 2019to transfer responsibility for expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund to the newly established National Recovery and Resilience Agency and to streamline administrative arrangements for transfers from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account. The government remains committed to providing support for local communities in responding to large-scale natural disasters and undertake new initiatives to manage the impact of future events and a changing climate. The establishment of the NRRA implements recommendation 3.5 of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements by creating a standing entity with a clear mandate to enhance national preparedness for, and response to, natural disasters. To that end, policy responsibility and administration for expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund has been transferred from Emergency Management Australia in the Home Affairs portfolio to the NRRA, strengthening transparency and assurance over Commonwealth funding towards natural disaster recovery and resilience. The bill also makes administrative improvements to the operation of the Emergency Response Fund for consistency with other investment funds. Conclusion In summary, this bill makes important amendments to the employment framework for the Future Fund Management Agency, to reflect its unique operating environment within financial markets while still ensuring the agency remains subject to appropriate controls in line with community expectations. The exemption under FOI laws will increase confidence in the operation of the law and allow important engagement with investment managers to successfully invest over $225 billion on behalf of the government where returns benefit all Australians. The new disbursements framework for the Medical Research Future Fund will provide certainty of funding to meet the government's 10‑year investment plan and support significant disbursements over the long term to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. Finally, the administrative improvements to the Medical Research Future Fund and the Emergency Response Fund will streamline the operation of the funds to support the valuable funding streams they provide into the future. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 13 MOTIONS Quarantine Facilities in Queensland and Western Australia 13 Approval of Work 13 10:30 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: new quarantine facilities in Queensland and Western Australia. The government, in partnership with the Western Australian and Queensland governments, wishes to proceed urgently with construction of new quarantine facilities in Perth and Brisbane respectively. The Commonwealth is working with both governments to progress the development of these projects, which includes consideration of Commonwealth processes, agreeing design requirements, procurement, contracting and a build program to completion. I note that a proposal to proceed with the construction project without referral to the Public Works Committee is not common. The government very much supports the work of the Public Works Committee and has not taken the decision lightly. The government has decided that given the urgency of the projects it is not feasible to refer these works to the Public Works Committee. This is consistent with the approach taken for the Victorian quarantine facility. Subject to parliamentary approval, the projects will commence as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House. 10:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, we're at August 2021 in a pandemic that began at the beginning of 2020 here in Australia, which, of course, is called COVID-19 for a reason, for the year 2019. What we have before the parliament right now is a motion, which the opposition will certainly be supporting, to bring forward public works without an appropriate committee process which would normally occur, because of the circumstances whereby the government has once again been complacent, once again failed to act and once again shown its incompetence, with real consequences for real people right now around the country. This proposition comes forward to the parliament at a time when half of Australia is in lockdown and parts of New Zealand are in lockdown. This government consistently said that purpose-built quarantine facilities weren't required. The Prime Minister consistently rejected Labor's call for purpose-built quarantine. We have said consistently that this Prime Minister had two big jobs this year: quarantine and vaccines, and he failed at both. He failed with the ultimate responsibility that he had. He went to the National Press Club, prior to parliament sitting at the beginning of this year, and said that he didn't have a big reform agenda for the parliament, because his priority was fixing the response to the pandemic. That was a right priority, except that he failed to follow it through. When we argued for purpose-built quarantine, this is what he had to say, repeatedly: 'A system that is achieving 99.99 per cent effectiveness'—that was in April. He went on to say: If I was to tell you…that would achieve a 99.99 per cent success rate, you wouldn't have believed me. No-one in this country would have believed me. I would have found that hard to believe. The praise for himself went on for months and months. In May, he said: ... 99.99 per cent effectiveness rate. If there any other country that has a more secure system than that, I would like you to tell me who it is. In June, it went on: 'We'll get a 99.9 per cent success rate.' In July, it was still going. He said: ... would have prevented transmission ... and probably over 99 per cent of cases, you would have laughed at me. You would have said that was impossible. The truth is that there have been at least 27 breaches of quarantine, going back as far as the Duxton Hotel in WA in April 2020; the Pan Pacific in WA in May 2020; Rydges on Swanston, in Melbourne, in May 2020; Stamford Plaza, in Victoria, in June 2020; a breach in New South Wales in July 2020; the Marriott in New South Wales in August 2020; the Peppers Waymouth Hotel in South Australia, in November 2020; the Novotel at Darling Harbour, in New South Wales, in December 2020. That was all last year. You would think that would have prompted some action, but every one of those quotes that I read into the Hansard occurred after the breaches. They kept happening. In January: at the Grand Chancellor in Queensland; and at the PARKROYAL, at Tullamarine, in Victoria. In February: at the Grand Hyatt in Victoria, in Melbourne; the Sheraton Four Points in WA; the Holiday Inn in Melbourne; and the Sofitel in New South Wales. In March: at the Grand Chancellor in Queensland. In April: at the Mercure, in Perth; the Adina Apartment Hotel in Sydney; and the Mercure in Sydney. It went on. In May: at the Pan Pacific again, in WA; and at the Playford in South Australia. In June: the Pan Pacific in WA again; the Holiday Inn, Flinders Lane, in Victoria; the Radisson Blu in New South Wales; Four Points in Brisbane; Novotel, Brisbane Airport, twice. And in July: at the Amora Hotel Brisbane. On top of that, of course, there was the limo driver in Sydney who took a foreign air crew to hotel quarantine, unvaccinated and without a mask. And guess what? That limo driver didn't breach any rules—not a single one. That was all okay. That is what has led to the national lockdown right now. The previous lockdowns in Victoria arose because someone came back from India and hotel quarantined in Adelaide. They survived India without catching COVID, but they got it in a hotel in Adelaide. What we have before you is a resolution, on 25 August 2021, to say: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works ... It'll go forward without being referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The minister just said, in his opening remarks, that this was unusual, and indeed it is. We support this work going forward, but the Queensland Premier put forward a proposition in October last year for purpose-built facilities at Wellcamp, next to Toowoomba airport, that could have been operating within weeks, by the end of last year, in 2020. I've met with the proponents of that proposal. They're happy to put their own money in as well. All they require is Commonwealth support, but the Commonwealth of course rejected it. That's an appalling circumstance. I visited the site and met with the proponents, who have a history of being able to build things in Queensland, yet that was rejected and is not the subject of the referral before us. Instead, the site that is the subject of the referral has issues with asbestos, and there is a range of other issues as well, which means that we will not get purpose-built facilities as a result of this resolution up and running for some period of time. There's a reason why so many people have gone through Howard Springs: because it is a labour camp that doesn't share ventilation facilities. It hasn't led to people spreading the disease and hasn't led to outbreaks, even though more people have been through that facility than through any hotel facility. Hotels were built for tourists! They weren't build as quasi-medical facilities; they share ventilation. In her report to the government last year, Jane Halton put forward propositions about the need to deal with the issue of ventilation spreading this disease—from overseas experience as well as here. And the government still don't have in place an overall mechanism to keep people safe. They have not responded to Jane Halton's report. If there's anything that defines this Prime Minister, it is two phrases. The first is, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' You know, 'It's not my responsibility,' even though quarantine is the responsibility of the Commonwealth in that little document called the Constitution. It is, even though he has rejected his responsibility. And the second phrase that will stick with this Prime Minister is, 'It's not a race.' Well, doesn't this define him? Here we are, 20 months into a pandemic, and we have before this parliament an urgent motion to circumvent proper processes because those opposite have sat on their hands for so long that they can't even have a proper examination of the proposals. Well, it was a race. It was always a race to fix purpose-built quarantine and it was always a race to get enough supply of vaccines. It is a failure on them and the reason why half of Australia is locked down, and this resolution exemplifies the failure of this government to put in place the right mechanisms at the right time to keep Australians safe. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 15 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 15 Report 15 10:43 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's Report on the 2019-2020 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act—Report, August 2021. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 15 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021 15

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021

Second Reading 15 10:44 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise today to speak on this package of electoral bills proposed by the government: the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021. Labor knows that the strength and integrity of our electoral framework are absolutely fundamental to ensuring we have a functioning democracy. Labor takes any proposals for electoral reform incredibly seriously. We've considered these bills and we believe that these amendments will strengthen our electoral system. These bills do a range of things, including, in particular, limiting the prepoll period to 12 days, amending party registration requirements, making clear that electoral violence is an offence, establishing a designated elector register to address multiple voting, and introducing measures which will increase the efficiency of voting and counting through streamlining the processes of the Australian Electoral Commission. The changes in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 have been either requested by the Australian Electoral Commission or recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. One of the biggest changes this bill makes is to limit the prepoll period to 12 days. An extended prepoll period sees the Electoral Commission having to staff prepoll booths for longer. That presents logistical challenges for the commission and for electoral participants, particularly independent candidates and smaller political parties. It also means that people are voting without necessarily having all the information on candidates' policies. We no longer have one election day but a series of election days. We know that the number of voters who vote during the prepoll period has been increasing at each election, but the figures also show that the large majority of people who vote at prepoll booths do so in the week before the election. At the last federal election, when the prepoll period ran for nearly three weeks, over 50 per cent of voters who voted during those three weeks did so in the last five days before polling day. As such, this change will not impact the great majority of prepoll voters. Labor support in principle the shortening of the prepoll period, but we need to ensure this is manageable for the Electoral Commission while it juggles the challenges presented by this pandemic. Shortening the prepoll period will mean a higher concentration of people voting across that 12-day period. Of course, Australia is presently in the grip of the third wave of this pandemic. We know that the delta variant is highly infectious and is out of control in New South Wales at the moment, with some experts predicting cases could rise to 2,000 a day. Victoria, my home state, is struggling, as we speak, to constrain an outbreak seeded out of New South Wales. And, unfortunately, cases in the ACT are also rising, as my friend the member for Fenner would be aware of and concerned about. As a direct result of the Morrison-Joyce government's failure on vaccines and quarantine, we're seeing necessary restrictions on people's movements, and there is no guarantee that our vaccination rate will be high enough to avoid these restrictions for many months to come. So, while Labor understand the merit, in the broad, of limiting prepoll to 12 days, we must consider our current circumstances. The government has indicated there will be further legislation put forward to deal with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from its inquiry on the future conduct of elections operating during times of emergency situations. We understand this legislation would allow for the Electoral Commissioner to extend the prepoll period and the reasons for exercising a prepoll vote if those are things required by circumstances. Of course, we all hope we will not need these provisions in the future, but it is important that the Electoral Commissioner has the ability to make such changes if they are necessary to preserve democratic involvement and the safety of the community. Running an election is a mammoth task for the AEC, made all the harder because at the federal level we don't have fixed terms—something every mainland state in Australia has. Imagine if the AEC were able to plan for the leasing of its counting centres, the booking of school halls for election day and the employment of its large temporary workforce. The budget would be saved millions, although, of course, this only hints at the democratic and practical benefits that would flow to the community from such a change. Short of implementing fixed terms, this bill includes measures to help the AEC provide a timely result for elections. The bill allows the AEC to open and sort prepoll House of Representatives ballot papers from 4 pm on polling day. However, counting would not be able to commence until the close of the polls at 6 pm. Declaration votes will be able to be removed from their envelopes and placed in a secure ballot box up to five days before polling day. Importantly, scrutineers will be able to view all aspects of this process, and there are increased penalties for anyone who would disclose information prior to the closing of the polls. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 also contains vote-saving provisions to reduce the number of wasted postal votes. This is particularly important during the pandemic, when we have seen, for obvious reasons, the number of postal votes increase in by-elections in Eden-Monaro and also in Groom. The bill will allow a postal vote to be counted if it's received with, but not inside, a voter's postal vote certificate envelope. This will address the situation where a voter places their ballot paper inside their own envelope rather than the official AEC envelope. Overseas voters will also be able to provide an electronic copy of their passport in order to self-certify their vote if they're unable to find an authorised witness. The bill also increases the number of scrutineers at a Senate counting centre and reduces the requirement for the authorisation of electoral material to include the name and address of the printer. This amendment is intended to reduce the number of frivolous complaints the AEC receives and the burden that imposes. The bill includes other technical efficiency measures, which I won't go into here but which will assist the AEC in streamlining its operations. As I said at the outset, some of the measures in this bill are the result of recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. During its inquiry into the 2019 federal election, the JSCEM also looked at enrolment in voting and heard from witnesses in the Northern Territory about issues with polling in remote areas and low enrolment rates in the Territory. On this basis, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes the bill addresses some of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters relating to pre-polling and scrutiny of ballots; (2) further notes that the Northern Territory's enrolment rate lags behind the rest of the country with only 85 per cent of eligible electors enrolled to vote; and (3) calls on the Coalition Government to close the gap by providing more resources to the Australian Electoral Commission so that people living in disadvantaged, remote and regional communities can exercise their democratic right to vote". I want to make it very clear to this House, and to the Australian community, that Labor supports the enfranchisement of every Australian, no matter which state or territory they live in, and recognises that the extent of underenrolment in this country is far from uniform. This is something that must be addressed. We are deeply concerned to ensure that everyone has their say on the direction of our nation at election times and, in particular, are concerned by the lower enrolment of First Nations people, especially in remote communities. Resourcing decisions affect this, as all in this place must first recognise and then respond to. We should also be thinking about how younger Australians can be enrolled in numbers consistent with their proportion of the population. Decisions taken here shape their future—rather more than that of those of us who are somewhat older, as I'm forced to concede for myself. The next bill in this cognate debate, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021, both increases the number of members required for registration of a political party and prevents parties from being registered should their name replicate a word in the name of an existing party. Non-parliamentary federally registered parties will be required to have at least 1,500 members, up from the current 500 members. The current 500-member minimum is a comparatively low number when considering the registration requirements in various states and their respective populations. New South Wales requires a political party to have 750 members before registration; Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia all require 500 members; South Australia, 200; and Tasmania, 100 members. New South Wales has a third of the population of Australia, yet requires a party to have 250 more members than is required federally to be registered within that state jurisdiction. So making this change is intended to ensure that a political party has an appropriate level of community support to attain the very considerable benefits that flow from registration. Many minor parties already meet the new threshold, including the Animal Justice Party; Shooters, Fishers and Farmers; Pauline Hanson's One Nation; Sustainable Australia; and the Liberal Democratic Party. In any case, the current number of 500 is, of course, arbitrary and has not been increased since the party registration requirements were introduced in 1984, when our population was 15½ million; we now have nearly 26 million Australians. Party registration brings with it significant benefits, as I said a moment ago. A registered party can run candidates in all 151 House of Representatives seats. It can build a profile and name recognition, with that name appearing underneath the name of the candidate on the ballot paper. A registered party's name will also be placed above the line on the Senate ballot paper, increasing its chances of having candidates elected. Parties are also able to nominate candidates without the need for 100 nominators per candidate. As such, it is justifiable that a registered party be required to show it has national support. The second amendment in this bill relates to the use of similar names and logos by political parties. The bill prevents a party from being registered if its name contains a word that is in the name, or the abbreviation of the name, of a registered political party or has a similar logo. Exceptions apply for function words, collective names for people, the name of a country, the word 'country', the name of a recognisable geographic place in Australia and the word 'democratic'. A decision by the Australian Electoral Commission under these provisions is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So this bill seeks to reduce voter confusion and the influence of big money through the infiltration of small political parties using the name of earlier registered parties. We know that some parties deliberately use words from the names of recognised parties for mischievous purposes. This amendment addresses that issue. Labor believes that these reforms will strengthen, not weaken, our democracy and that they should be supported by this parliament. The final bill in this package is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021. This bill would create a new category of 'designated elector' in an attempt to address multiple voting, and it expands the existing offence relating to interference with political liberty. To be clear, multiple voting is something that occurs extremely rarely. In some circles it's much talked about, but the evidence is very, very different. There is very little evidence of multiple voting in Australia, and the electoral commissioner described the number of voters who vote more than once as 'vanishingly small'. It's something like 0.01 per cent. Most instances of multiple voting are of older or infirm people who have forgotten that they may have already voted. Nevertheless, this bill will deal with this very small number of people who make that mistake by ensuring that only their first vote is counted. The bill allows the commissioner or their delegate to declare an elector a designated elector. To make this declaration, the electoral commissioner must have a reasonable suspicion that the elector has voted more than once in an election. If a declaration is made, the person must be given notice of that declaration in writing as well as information on their rights of review. Decisions by the commissioner are also reviewable by the AAT. The amendments also prohibit the disclosure of a person's status as a designated elector. That means no-one else will know that a person has been declared a designated elector, including polling booth officials, This is an important safeguard to protect people's privacy. Designated electors will be able to vote only by declaration vote, and this will be in accordance with the rules relating to postal voting, pre-poll declaration voting, and absent and provisional voting. This is not a new concept. The New South Wales Electoral Act contains similar provisions. I want to make it very clear that Labor has consistently opposed any form of voter ID rules, and we will continue to do so. It is extremely concerning to view what has been happening in the United States in terms of targeted voter suppression—often racist, as well as nakedly partisan. It is disturbing that there are those here, too, who look to that as a model to emulate. It shows how little confidence some conservatives have in their convictions and in the judgement of their fellow citizens—indeed, in a true functioning democracy. Elections should be contests of ideas, not determined in advance through the cynical and sinister manipulation of processes to deny people a real say over their future and that of their country. Requiring people to provide identification has the effect of discouraging some people from voting and, in turn, undermining our system of compulsory voting, a cornerstone of Australia's democracy that I am very proud of. However, because the drafting of the provisions that are now before us means that polling officials will be unable to identify a voter as a designated voter, there will be no reason for them to ask a voter for identification—no reason. In addition, I place on the record that the government and the electoral commissioner have given assurances that these provisions will not be able to be used to require, or purport to require, a voter to provide identification. On this basis, Labor is supporting this amendment. The bill before us also makes clear that the existing offence of interference with political liberty can encompass conduct such as violence, obscene or discriminatory abuse, property damage, and harassment or stalking. Violence, abuse and intimidation are never acceptable in any context. In the context of elections, Labor deplores any behaviour which is designed to influence or disrupt those exercising any of their democratic rights and freedoms. This bill increases the penalty for the offence from six months imprisonment or 10 penalty units or both to three years imprisonment and 100 penalty units or both, which is consistent with the penalties for other offences contained in the Electoral Act. Let me be clear: everyone has the right to participate in our democratic processes free from the fear of vilification, discrimination and harassment. Labor takes any reform of our electoral system incredibly seriously, knowing that the strength and integrity of our system is what ensures we have a functioning democracy. Bipartisanship is important here. We should always strive to reach for it, and the role of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is critical here in bringing all the perspectives in this parliament and the community to bear on the question of making our electoral systems fit for purpose. But this does not, and cannot, mean resiling from a wider vision of how our democracy can be improved. And, while we will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we will continue to work towards an electoral and democratic framework that's worthy of the Australian people—all of them, every Australian. We in Labor know that there is more work to be done here, as the persistence of the plague on our democracy that is the dangerous narcissism of Clive Palmer shows us and as does the worrying sense on the part of too many Australians that our politics does not work for them. We must respond to this. That is why Labor is committed, amongst many other things, to wider electoral financing reforms to take the money out of our politics and to remove barriers to democratic participation for all Australians, and, of course, to safeguarding the integrity of our systems through introducing that much-needed national anticorruption commission—something that is present in every other jurisdiction of Australia and something that needs to be a cornerstone of assurance of the quality of our democracy and our system of government in the federal system, as well. On the basis that I have set out, Labor offers our support for the three bills. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Is the amendment seconded? Dr Leigh BU8 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 11:03 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari [by video link] This is indeed a strange experience, not being in the parliament and actually speaking to it; I find it quite bizarre, to be truthful. But I do want to support the contribution of the member for Scullin, who has outlined Labor's position in fine detail and outlined the contents of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 and the associated legislation. It's not my intent to repeat the details that he has already given to the parliament. What I want to do is indicate my very strong support for the amendment which has been moved by the member for Scullin—in particular, paragraphs (2) and (3) of that amendment, which note that the Northern Territory's enrolment rate lags behind that of the rest of the country with only 85.6 per cent of the eligible electors enrolled to vote and calls on the coalition government to close the gap by providing more resources to the Australian Electoral Commission so that people living in disadvantaged remote and regional communities can exercise their democratic right to vote. This is not the first time I've raised this issue in the parliament. Indeed, I just had the opportunity to scroll through speeches that I gave in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 around this very issue. The first of those contributions came as a result of the Commonwealth government cutting the budget of the Commonwealth Electoral Commission, which meant they were required to cut their staffing in the Northern Territory office from 16 to three. That had a direct impact on the capacity to educate and enrol people who live in remote communities, and it's something which is historically par for the course, it now appears, for the Liberal Party. In 1996, when the Howard government were elected, one of the first things they did was to get rid of the Aboriginal voter education and enrolment service in the Electoral Commission, limiting the capacity of the Electoral Commission to go and enrol people and to educate them about their obligations as citizens and their rights as citizens to exercise a vote. That, of course, is the key issue here. We've now got real evidence that there has been a deliberate effort by the Electoral Commission not to enrol people, because of the passive way in which they've used their powers. This has been historical. It's not something new. They've used their discretion to effectively prevent enrolment of and voting by First Nations peoples in remote parts of the country. We have now, effectively, got a gerrymander against First Nations people and, I argue, voter suppression of First Nations people. This suppression is so extreme—and I mentioned this in the parliament in June of this year—that it has led constituents in my electorate of Lingiari to take legal action to attempt to end this discrimination. On 15 June 2021, a complaint was made to the Australian Human Rights Commission about the maintenance of the electoral roll and conduct of the 2019 federal election, in respect of remote Aboriginal communities, by the Australian Electoral Commission. The Australian Electoral Commission, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, maintains both the Commonwealth and NT electoral rolls by arrangement with the Northern Territory. This complaint was made by two constituents, Mr Matthew Ryan from Maningrida and Mr Ross Mandi Wunungmurra from Galiwinku. These Aboriginal communities in Arnhem Land are the sixth and eighth largest towns in the Northern Territory. As is common in many Aboriginal communities, there are no enumerated street addresses or letterboxes and no Australia Post mail service directly to residents. Instead, residents collect their mail from community post offices or may use a private postbox. In 2012, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was amended to provide for direct enrolments and updates via sections 103A and 103B of the Electoral Act, an initiative of the then Labor government. It was done to address the alarming drop in the number of eligible persons then on the electoral roll, being only 91.63 per cent in 2009 and trending downwards. The amendments empowered the Electoral Commission to directly enrol eligible persons who were not on the electoral roll or update the details of persons on the roll, such as a change of address. To do this, the AEC can use electronic data from trusted agencies such as Centrelink, vehicle registration, driving licences and the Australian Taxation Office, and it has the power to use the contact details from the now very up-to-date Australian Immunisation Register. The AEC simply gives written notice to the person that enrolment or an update of an existing enrolment is proposed after the elapse of 28 days. If there is no response, the AEC actions the enrolment or update. Importantly, the amendments explicitly empowered the AEC to give written notice to electors by electronic means, particularly email and SMS or text messages and via social media. In this electronic age, a large number of the AEC's notifications are, of course, done by these means. Electronic notification is now a key to the success of the direct enrolment amendments to the Electoral Act. The AEC state that it led to a staggering and truly outstanding 97 per cent enrolment in the 2019 election. But the good news doesn't extend to electorates like Lingiari, or Durack in Western Australia, which sit at the lowest enrolment rates of 75 per cent and less than 80 per cent, substantially lower than the 97 per cent enrolment for Australia overall. And it's worth pointing out that the enrolment rates of First Nations peoples as at 30 June 2020 were staggeringly poor. In Western Australia, the enrolment rate of First Nations peoples was only 67.6 per cent. In the Northern Territory, the figure was 68.7 per cent—that is, 32.3 per cent of Aboriginal voters in the Northern Territory were not on the roll. I'm alarmed that, while it is clear the AEC are fully aware of these shortcomings in enrolment, the AEC and this government have chosen to do nothing about it. The primary reason the enrolment rate languishes in Aboriginal communities is that, as a matter of policy, the AEC does not apply the most effective tool at its disposal, namely, direct enrolment and update under sections 103A and 103B. The AEC claims that direct enrolment and update cannot be used because there's no direct post to residents in Aboriginal communities. The claim is wrong in law and must be rejected. The AEC has explicit power to give notice solely by electronic means and regularly does so for other Australians. The exercise of that power is not conditional upon the existence of a household mail service. Instead, the AEC simply chooses to use the law in a way that discriminates against a larger First Nations electoral voice. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission has said that the majority of Aboriginal Territorians live in regional and remote areas that are not covered by the federal government's program. In its recent report, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission also said the failure to use direct enrolment creates 'an imbalance which places Aboriginal people at a direct electoral disadvantage'. This is a polite way of saying that in the Northern Territory there is a gerrymander. The AEC chooses to apply the law in a way that conveniently discriminates against First Nations voices being heard. By failing to act, this government is complicit in the AEC's discrimination. The AEC's policy predominantly affects First Nations residents in remote communities. It is discriminatory, and it breaches, we would argue, sections 9(1) and 9(1A) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The policy operates in practice as a form of voter suppression, or gerrymander, whereby the franchise for Aboriginal residents in federal and NT elections is suppressed or inhibited, compared with non-Aboriginal Australians and non-Aboriginal Territorians. In addition, Mr Ryan and Mr Mandi point out in their complaint that in the 2019 federal election the AEC did not ensure equal provision of polling booths to Maningrida, Galiwinku and other sizeable Aboriginal communities, compared with other towns in the Northern Territory, and these instances of indirect discrimination are also breaches of sections 9(1) and 9(1A) of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Human Rights Commission has been asked to conciliate this complaint from my constituents. On 8 September the Human Rights Commission will hear the complaint by my constituents. This step is required prior to seeking a remedy of the Federal Court. If conciliation is unsuccessful, I am reliably informed that the Federal Court will be asked to find that the AEC policy and actions are indirectly discriminatory and therefore unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. I also note that the AEC has twice delayed giving my constituents its legal response to their complaint. I can only assume that the AEC denies what I have outlined and the facts that the complaint outlines. I assume we can expect the AEC will be squandering taxpayer money and, within the terms of legal representation and legal fictions, denying what are quite clear and obvious facts. If the AEC were prepared to stop discrimination and get on with direct enrolment, then it would be very quick and easy to correct the huge electoral injustices that have now been going on for almost a decade. It is imperative that these three complaints regarding the AEC's policy about direct enrolment and updates and actions are resolved well prior to the next federal election. First Nations people deserve an electoral voice—they are Australian citizens—and a voice that is not suppressed by government or its accomplices. The electoral act currently has left too much to the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner and we need to have that rectified. Due to these oversights, large parts of Australia which have large numbers of First Nations electors are under-enrolled. There are insufficient address records for them and there's an insufficient and discriminatory period of time to allow remote people to get to a polling booth. We have an obligation as a parliament to understand and appreciate our responsibility to be sure that all Australian citizens who are eligible to vote are registered to vote—they have a right to vote—and turn up to vote where at all possible. We're seeing systematic discrimination in this country against First Nations people who live in remote communities. It's beyond time for this to be fixed. It's a matter of great importance. We're doing some more work on the population data, but the 32.3 per cent could be a lot higher. At the moment, the Electoral Commission, of its own figures, says that there are 16,527 Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory who are not on the roll. I think we will find that it's substantially higher than that. That is shameful and it needs to be addressed as a matter of great urgency. But for some reason—for whatever reason; I'm not sure what it is—the Commonwealth government, your government, fails to understand or to want to do anything about it. The Australian Electoral Commission just denies that they need to do anything. Frankly, it's insupportable and it needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed now. 11:16 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley [by video link] It's a privilege to follow the member for Lingiari, particularly after such a thoughtful and important speech. If anyone has been sitting in the chamber or watching these proceedings online and has heard that something like 16½ thousand, if not more, First Nations Australians in the Northern Territory are not able to be enrolled to vote—and, therefore, aren't given the basic right of participating in Australia's democracy—and aren't moved by that, then I would be shocked. I would like to note that it's probably appropriate that the minister at the table for that important speech is the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and I would expect—and, knowing the way the minister has conducted himself, I would be very hopeful—that he would follow through on the reforms that the member for Lingiari has just outlined as urgent. Could I also have indulgence to say this. Because of the member for Lingiari's announcement that he won't be contesting the next election, this may be my last opportunity to speak after him in the parliament, and I would like it to be recorded in Hansard that it's been a privilege to have served with him in Labor's caucus, even for the short time that I've been able to do so, and I would like to thank him very much for the support and the friendship that he has shown me over the years, and to put him on notice that he's not going to be able to get away with not giving me that support and friendship, even if he's not in the caucus next to me after the next election! Thank you for letting me do that, Deputy Speaker. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021, as the member for Scullin noted, sets out a range of measures which are designed to increase the efficiency of voting and counting and, as with the member for Lingiari, I don't intend to go through all of those; they've been set out in the chamber in previous speeches. I note that the member for Scullin indicated that there has been some advice that the government says there may be more legislation to come, to enable the Electoral Commission to deal with issues that might arise in holding an election during a global pandemic. But I will say this about this legislation: whilst it brings in some reforms, it doesn't bring in nearly enough—importantly, those reforms mentioned by the member for Lingiari but not limited to those. We often hear it said in various permutations—and many of us who are involved in politics and parliament have said it ourselves—that democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best system we have. While that is very true, it is nonetheless the responsibility of all of us who have the privilege of being elected to be members of this parliament to continue to strive to make our democracy better. The most fundamental way of participating in democracy is exercising the vote, and if Australians aren't able to be involved in voting, they cannot exercise that right. But the problems in our democracy go further than problems with the way elections are run, of course. No-one needs to have polling or research to tell us that the damage done to the trust in politics and politicians over the last decade and longer runs deep. While we may have seen at various times during this pandemic greater trust in government than in the years preceding it, it would appear that that trust is fragile. So those of us who are elected to be in the parliament must do more to bring that trust back, but we must bring it back in a profound and sustainable way, not because of any short-term measures. That will require broader reforms to the way we behave as politicians, both in this parliament and outside of it, to the way this parliament operates in question time and other times, and to the way democracy operates during elections and at other times. I am very proud to represent Dunkley in this parliament. My community elected me on a promise to work to address the declining trust, and I intend to keep that promise. I want to note then that, while this legislation does bring in some reforms that would deal with some of the logistical difficulties for the Australian Electoral Commission in running elections, it could do much more. We could do much more. We could, for example, do the hard work needed to introduce fixed four-year terms and have the Australian people agree to reform the Constitution to allow that to happen. For the 2019 federal election, the AEC employed a temporary workforce of some 90,000 people. There were a number of people from my electorate, as there were from the electorates of every other person in this chamber, who were part of that 90,000 total, and they are again every two to three years in the lead-up to an election. The AEC provided over 500 pre-poll or early-voting stations across this country. It issued more than 1½ million postal-voting packages, had more than 550 mobile polling teams visiting more than 3,000 locations, and provided just over 6½ thousand polling places on election day. Imagine how much simpler that logistical exercise would be if we had fixed four-year terms, which is something that every mainland state in Australia has. Imagine if the AEC were able to plan for the leasing of all the counting centres and the booking of the school halls for election day, and were able to plan for the pre-poll venues—some of which are better than others, it must be said—and for the employment of its temporary workforce, knowing when the federal election would be. There's no doubt that not only would the budget be saved millions of dollars but also the AEC's efficiency, and the effectiveness of all of those measures, would be enhanced. We would also, as a parliament, as a country, as people going about our day-to-day business, know when the election would be. At the moment, of course, it's anyone's guess which weekend the election is going to be. It could be any weekend—33 days from today, for example—up until 21 May. It's commonly said that not even the Prime Minister knows when the election is until the Prime Minister knows when the election is and calls it. That's a state of uncertainty not just for the Australian people but, as I've said, for the AEC trying to plan for an election. They're now trying to plan for an election in a pandemic, which is just so much more difficult. Of course, because we don't have national fit-for-purpose quarantine, and because the vaccine rollout is so delayed by the bungles, the AEC is in the state of uncertainty that families, businesses, schools and organisations across the country are in, not knowing what the public health measures are going to be at the time of the election and having to plan for all of these contingencies. Somewhere around a quarter of the eligible population has been fully vaccinated, and we don't know what proportion of the Australian population, let alone the eligible population, will be fully vaccinated by the time of the next election. We have an electoral commission that has to plan for all of those contingencies. The other benefit of a fixed four-year term is the benefit to democracy. We wouldn't have to have federal governments already on a campaign footing for the next election from what feels like almost a year or 18 months into their term. We wouldn't have a situation where no-one knows when the election is until the Prime Minister calls it. We all know from history—it doesn't matter which political party they're from—a prime minister calls an election when they think they can win. An election wouldn't be at the whim of a prime minister; it would be at a fixed time. It would benefit governments too, because they could govern. They could spend, as we've seen at the state level, a significant portion of their term of office governing, making hard decisions, bringing in important structural reforms, before having to turn their minds to how every single decision may play out in an election which is to come. They could govern for the good of the people, not for their own electoral benefit. I can't see how that could hurt anyone or do anything other than benefit our country. Maybe we'd have governments that could implement real reforms that have five-, 10- or 20-year benefits and plans attached to them. My fervent hope is that we could finally deal with a real plan to address climate change for all of the reasons that we've spoken about over and over again in this parliament. It could be a plan that's good for people, for businesses, for the country and for the world, without a government—like we've seen for the last two or three elections at least—always having an eye on short-term electoral benefit. I'm proud and pleased that Labor has a policy of fixed four-year terms, and I will continue to argue for them and raise them as a policy at every opportunity, because I am fervently of the belief that fixed four-year terms would benefit our democracy and, therefore, benefit the people that we are here to represent. There are other significant electoral reforms that we need to see. We do need to see a voice to this parliament. We do need to see Australia being a republic. There are reforms to the operation of our parliament that would also improve democracy, such as reforms to question time and codes of conduct for those of us who are in this parliament. There are reforms to our democracy like an integrity commission, which this government has promised but has failed to deliver, which will go to the heart of trust. We have to not only act with integrity and transparency as parliamentarians and as governments but be seen to act with integrity and transparency. A national integrity commission is a significant part of that. This government should be looking to introduce reforms such as truth in advertising at elections—that is, truth in political advertising. It beggars belief that political parties need to have laws imposed on them to tell the truth, I think. Nonetheless, it's clear that they do, as do individuals who are campaigning, such as Clive Palmer, who has been named already. We should be looking at introducing laws about truth in political advertising—again, not just to do the right thing but to be seen to do the right thing and, as parliamentarians, to have imposed upon ourselves the sorts of measures that the public are asking us to impose. These aren't just ideas that come from federal Labor meetings or committee meetings in parliament. These are ideas that come to me week after week from members of my community who say: 'We want all of you in Canberra to do better. We want the government to do better. And we want you to introduce reforms that will allow you to be seen to do better.' So, while there is much more that could be said about reforming democracy, from donations to spending caps, I will end by saying that I am pleased that reforms are being introduced today, but it is very clear that the time where piecemeal reforms are going to be good enough has passed, and we do need to look to those bigger structural reforms, not just to get trust in democracy back to the levels that we used to enjoy but also to ensure that our democracy keeps functioning as well as it can to deliver for the people we are here to represent. Minister, again, I'm pleased that you were at the table to hear the member for Lingiari's submissions or contributions to this debate, and I look forward to the government taking up his suggestions. 11:30 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to speak on these amendments to the electoral legislation, which basically deal with three items: party registration integrity; electoral offences and preventing multiple voting; and counting, scrutiny and operational efficiencies. They all sound fairly innocuous but they are important in terms of how our elections are conducted. I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the last five years. I like to say that it's the committee for political junkies. The member for Franklin, who is at the table, is a former party secretary and campaign director in Tasmania—alongside myself in Queensland. The member for Franklin and I are not only defenders of democracy but also people who see the value and role of every single voter in this country as important. I know from working on the electoral matters committee just how important the work of that committee is, and I want to pay tribute to the members of that committee—the chair, Senator James McGrath; the deputy chair, Senator Carol Brown; and all the members who have worked so hard to make sure the integrity of our electoral system is maintained and, hopefully, as a result of the passage of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 and related bills today, is enhanced. Firstly, I want to touch on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021. Labor believes that a number of changes proposed in this piece of legislation and the related pieces of legislation will support and enhance our electoral system, and we are supporting it. In the dissenting report for the inquiry into the 2019 election, which I was a part of, Labor members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that the minimum number of members required for party membership be increased to 1,000. This is consistent with what the committee recommended in 2013 and in 2016. In this bill the government is proposing that the minimum number of members for a non-parliamentary party be increased to 1,500. Currently, it sits at 500—which I believe was introduced around 1984. When you consider our nation's population and the different requirements at a state level, this is an incredibly sensible change and one I wholeheartedly support. Currently, the membership requirement is lower than in the state of New South Wales and is the same as in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Parties will have three months from the date specified for them to become compliant, if they're not already at that threshold. There has been some debate and media commentary on the threshold for minor parties. But parties such as Animal Justice, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, Senator Hanson's One Nation, Sustainable Australia and the Liberal Democrat Party—which I'll come back to in a moment—already meet these thresholds. This change reflects the expectation that political parties have a base amount of political support in order to attain the advantages that come with being a registered party and the responsibilities that come with a modern democratic system. I do note that there are some people whingeing and whining about this change—so-called believers in freedom and democracy—and that includes the failed former Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman. He's ratted on the Queensland LNP, and now, in his latest political incarnation, he has joined the Liberal Democrats to be their Senate lead candidate for Queensland. As I like to say, in Queensland that right-wing extreme marketplace is quite crowded—whether it be Senator Hanson's party; or Bob Katter's party; or now, of course, Clive Palmer's party, led by the member for Hughes, who is in the chamber today; and now Campbell Newman. So it's a crowded marketplace and that's even before you get inside the LNP in Queensland, which has elements of the ultra Right inside as well. Campbell Newman, who was thrown out of office back in 2015, said that this is a shabby tactic and a bid by the major parties to 'rig the electoral laws to their own benefit'. This is the guy who, when he was Premier of Queensland, rigged the electoral laws and demanded that voters right across Queensland—he brought in ID requirements and tried to shut down and disenfranchise voters and to change the electoral laws to suit his purpose. I served with Campbell Newman on the Brisbane City Council, when I was a councillor and he was the Lord Mayor. Let me tell you about Campbell Newman: he is only interested in his own political career. He has never been interested in anything else. He comes from political royalty and he has always expected and had a privilege about him. Now he's expecting, after he ratted on the LNP, to criticise these laws that we're debating in the chamber today. The guy stands for nothing and represents nothing except his own political advancement, and now he has the hide to turn around and say that we're rigging the electoral laws to help the parties' own benefits. That is just absolute nonsense! It's little wonder he was a failed experiment in Queensland and thrown out of office. Now he has the hide to criticise these laws, but I'm not surprised. Australia has always had a long line of splinter parties—those on the fringes and on the edges. He's just going to be another one of those people sniping from the sidelines because he didn't get his own way inside the LNP. He spat the dummy and now he has moved out. I support these reforms today, and we're doing this in a bipartisan way to ensure that our electoral processes are of the highest integrity. These advantages are significant if you want to register as a political party. A registered party can run candidates in all 151 House of Representatives seats. As we know, the member for Hughes, the Leader of the United Australia Party, has indicated they will do that. Its name can appear under of all their candidates on the ballot paper, allowing them to build name recognition and profile—another privilege of party registration—and they will also appear above the line on the Senate ballot paper, increasing the chances of having a candidate elected. Parties are also able to nominate candidates without the need for 100 nominations per candidate. These advantages can make a huge and significant difference come election time and I believe that it's reasonable that parties should be required to show they have the support of a significant number of Australians. Requiring a party to have only a small number of members opened the door for wealthy stakeholders to run political parties and campaigns based entirely on their own interests. That is not how our democracy should run, and I support these changes to prevent this from occurring. Secondly, the bill addresses the use of similar names and logos by political parties. This has been a growing trend on the fringes of the political classes in Australia. This will prevent the registration of a party that has used the name or an abbreviation of the name of a previously registered political party. These are sensible reforms and they will apply both to registration of parties after the commencement of the amendments and to currently registered parties with similar names. We know that some parties deliberately use words from the names of recognised parties for their own purposes. This should not be permitted and, under these reforms, it won't be. These reforms will clearly strengthen our democracy and should be supported by all members of the House. I'm a strong believer in an open and a democratic process in this country. I'm a strong believer in every vote being counted and that's exactly what these reforms will do. I know that Senator Don Farrell, Labor's shadow minister, and the Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters, the Hon. Ben Morton, have been working incredibly hard to ensure that we do work in a bipartisan way so that we do ensure that a level of integrity is respected and supported. I want to move on to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021. This bill attempts to address multiple voting, expanding the existing offence and creating a new category of designated elector. We all know that multiple voting is extremely rare. Labor will be supporting this bill. I do want to put on record that the evidence regarding multiple voting, as the Electoral Commissioner has said, is vanishingly small and is something like 0.001 per cent. This is always a bit of bogeyman that comes out. Over the years I've sat on the electoral committee we've had these vast conspiracy theories of multiple-voting allegations come forward. There are all these headlines and there's all this evidence that comes forward but, of course, there's never any evidence when you actually ask the question: 'Do you have examples? Where is it? Who did it?' Former senator Ian Macdonald was famous at coming before the committee, and Senator Abetz and all the others lining up from the other place, saying, 'There is this terrible fraud happening over all this multiple voting.' So we'd say: 'Where are the examples? What is happening? Where is the evidence? Let's get the police on to this. Let's call the investigators.' 'Oh, we'll get back to you. We just know it's happening.' It's the old bogeyman that we've heard a million times before. These reforms today are the middle road and the sensible way of doing the reforms. Designated electors will only be able to vote by declaration vote. This will be in accordance with the rules relating to postal voting, pre-poll declaration, absent voting and provisional voting. The bill does not require voter ID. Individual status, as designated, will not be disclosed to anyone. They will not be asking an individual for ID in order to vote. I'm a strong believer in making sure that we suppress and make sure that we don't have voter identification laws which make it harder for people from non-English speaking backgrounds and people without relevant ID to be able to vote. That has been tried before and has been shown to disenfranchise voters. Just as the member for Lingiari has been talking about, it's about getting more people on the roll and getting more support for the Electoral Commission so that every Australian has their vote counted and everyone has the right to participate in our democratic processes, free from fear of vilification, discrimination and harassment. That's why Labor will be supporting this bill. Finally, I want to talk about the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021. This bill increases the AEC's ability to run effective and efficient elections. One of the major changes this bill introduces is limiting the pre-poll period to 12 days. I don't think there will be too many members of this place who would be demanding that we keep the same level or increase it, so I'm delighted that I fought hard for this reform. Given we are now moving towards a voting period rather than a voting election day, I think this is another commonsense approach. It's a huge effort for the AEC to conduct three weeks of pre-polling. I think that having a 12-day period makes a lot more sense, particularly if you look at the statistics—which I have done—where the last five days is predominantly where the vote is. It makes sense; it makes sense from a practical side for the allocation of resources. I want the AEC to have the full opportunity during the pandemic to have every available mechanism at their disposal to ensure that every Australian has their vote. I know, speaking to my colleagues, that there is strong support for this. I think the public are getting used to early voting. They understand the convenience, particularly during the pandemic, where we've had local government elections in Queensland, the Queensland state election, the Tasmanian election, the West Australian election and, I think, the Northern Territory election all conducted safely and efficiently. We have seen the rise of early voting in pre-poll in particular. There is another important measure here, just a minor measure, whereby the requirement for an authoriser of an electoral matter to include the name and address of the printer has been removed, to reduce the number of frivolous complaints made to the AEC. Also, people overseas—the member for Macquarie might be interested in this provision—will be able to self-authorise, rather than getting another Australian citizen to do it. Particularly at the moment, with people trapped overseas, this will mean getting as many votes from overseas counted as possible. It will make sure that we have every Australian counted, whether they are present here and able to turn up to a polling booth, whether they are doing an early vote—a prepoll, a declaration or a postal vote—or whether they are sitting in London or in other centres across the world where they're perhaps not able to go and visit an embassy. I'm really pleased that that mechanism has been delivered. So we will be supporting this package today. Labor support these bills because we support effective, efficient and fair elections, and this legislation will help the AEC deliver for our community so that every Australian has their say. 11:46 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah [by video link] The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 and related bills will make considerable changes to our electoral laws. These changes come as a result of the recommendations of the government-majority Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its 2019 report on the federal election. It's really concerning that the government has decided to push these bills through at a time when the lower house is sitting with absolutely minimal numbers—a time when there will be minimal scrutiny of these major changes to our electoral laws. As I sit here listening to speakers from both sides of the House, and in particular Labor speakers, I feel just how opportunistic it is that we hear them, one after the other, speak about the importance of democracy and about upholding democracy and scrutiny. The only time we ever hear that strong bipartisan support is when the major parties are, ultimately, desperately trying to hold on to our two-major-party system of politics. That is definitely when they come together to really ensure that they maintain their monopoly and their status. We know that from election to election the primary vote for major parties continues to decrease. The cynic in me would say that this is an attempt to address this by cutting off competition. These bills go to the very foundations of our democracy—our right to vote and to politically organise—and they should not be pushed through under the cover of COVID-19, particularly the party registration integrity bill. This bill amends the registration eligibility requirements for a federal non-parliamentary party—that is, someone who has not already had someone elected. The amendment bill will increase the minimum membership requirements for registration from 500 to 1,500 unique members. If the bill passes, parties will have just three months to demonstrate that they have 1,500 members. Of course, it's easy for the major parties to be happy with this proposal. They don't have to worry. It's not going to challenge them. What it will do is get rid of competition, get rid of challenge. No matter what the ideological basis is, that is ultimately what this will do. The bills also amend prohibitions regarding registering names, abbreviations and logos. For example, if a party replicates the name, abbreviation or logo of an already registered name without consent, that will be a contravention of this legislation, and the Electoral Commission will refuse registration. Unique membership is the one that I really think has garnered more attention. By moving from minimum membership of 500 to 1,500, you're impeding individuals' right to politically organise; that's what you're really doing. This will decrease participation in our parliamentary democracy by increasing barriers to entry. I'm particularly concerned that this change will make it difficult for parties in smaller states and territories to organise and form a party. Take the example of Kim Rubenstein in the ACT. She's an acclaimed constitutional lawyer and advocate for women's rights. She is the exact type of person that we need in parliament, and I'm pleased to see her announcement last week that she's running for the Senate seat in the ACT. She wants to challenge the duopoly of the major parties, who both assume that each of them will take one seat. What a comfortable arrangement that is. In her efforts to be on an equal footing with the parties, she's looking to form a party to ensure she can be above the line, but potential signatories are limited because it's a smaller jurisdiction. That job of gaining equality with the major parties will now be made that much harder by the introduction of this party registrations bill. I don't hear the members of the opposition, of Labor, talking about those aspects. It's always very convenient to talk about the importance of upholding democracy and improving our democratic system, but only when it also is convenient to them. In the House of Representatives, for individuals focused on a particular electorate only, rather than a broader support base across a state or even the nation, if they want to form a party and benefit from the advantages that would bring, this amendment makes it that much harder. Essentially, if we're saying that a party can only be a party if it's aiming at national representation, you take away that opportunity for more regionally based party systems. It's alarming that the parliament and the government is choosing to crack down in this way. I can only describe it as a naked attempt to consolidate power for the major parties, and Labor is only talking up the virtues of it being 'such a bipartisan approach' because it will also benefit them. In effect, these bills reduce political competition. Anyone who believes in a strong crossbench in either chamber should be [inaudible] about these changes. I have no doubt this is an attempt to muzzle the influence of minor parties and the crossbench. It's an unduly restrictive change and it should be opposed. In relation to the names, it's again an attempt to reduce political competition and neutralise new threats. I don't believe in the ideologies of parties like the New Liberals or the Liberal Democrats, but I do believe in competition. In response to this perceived threat to government members from these parties, there is now an idea that you can monopolise the word 'liberal'. They don't own the liberal concept. The government and the Liberal Party do not own the liberal concept, just like the concept of 'democrat'. It is equivalent to giving political entities intellectual property rights over words. That is a minefield for potential legal challenges. There will be extensive disagreement of what each word means and if they are linked to another registered entity. The word 'liberal' means something very different in different countries around the world and in different contexts. This amendment is, I would argue, an entirely antiliberal push, and by 'liberal' I mean small-l liberal, liberalism being a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. These changers are antiliberal, anticompetitive and antidemocratic. Regarding the political campaigners bill, this bill will lower the expenditure threshold for political campaigners from $500,000 to $100,000. This is, again, an attempt to control smaller actors by forcing them to jump through bureaucratic hoops. It will increase the barriers to participate in the federal election for many individuals and organisations. It will particularly affect charities and smaller NGOs, exactly the kinds of actors who are central to a functioning and healthy democracy and to challenging the views and the spin that is churned out at election time by the major parties. The government is pursuing these antidemocratic laws whilst ignoring the reforms that actually could have a positive effect on our political discourse. What we really need to be doing is tightening up truth in political advertising rules. Major parties shamelessly weaponise mistruths and lies to win elections. We saw it with the death tax campaign in 2019, and we saw it with the 'Mediscare' campaign in 2016. The community is fed up with it. According to polling by the Australia Institute, 87 per cent of people support truth in political advertising laws. Where is that legislation? Where is that legislation introduced? Nowhere. That's why I will be introducing a private members' bill to introduce truth in political advertising. Just one in four Australians have confidence in their political representatives. By 2025, if the trend continues, only 10 per cent of the public will trust politicians. We must reverse this trend. It's not a big ask. Managing truth in advertising is not unusual. There is corporations law that prevents misleading and deceptive advertising by businesses, and there are enforcement bodies in place to keep an eye on it. There's no law or body to stop politicians or third parties from lying about a candidate or their opponent during an election campaign. That is outrageous. This year we have seen a number of examples of misleading and deceptive advertising, including from members of parliament and from political parties without current representation in the Australian parliament. We can look to other jurisdictions for successful examples. Truth-in-advertising laws have been in place in South Australia for over 20 years. They were adopted in the ACT last year. We can and should progress this reform, and I look forward to having a debate on the bill to be introduced by me as a private members' bill later in the year. Overall I'm concerned these changes ultimately undermine our democracy. Minor parties, charities and NGOs are essential at maintaining a healthy democracy, and they bring different elements of discourse, different priorities and scrutiny. Who else will hold the major parties to account, if not them? These bills are a shameless attempt to consolidate power and should be rejected. If the government is serious about electoral reform, it must consider meaningful reforms like tidying up political advertising and donation laws. Only then will our public regain, again, some hope of trust in politics and politicians. 11:56 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth [by video link] It is good to be joining you here from my cave in Western Australia! I'm speaking on behalf of the Croods of WA, the 2.7 million people who the Prime Minister continues to insult and attack. Our cave has all the modern conveniences, including an internet link to the federal parliament. Elections should be about raising the standard. Instead, the Prime Minister uses cartoon analogies to speak down to voters and to lower the standard. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 and associated bills are about democracy. Democracy is a value we make every new Australian citizen affirm their belief in. Democracy means that politicians can say whatever they want but are held accountable at election time. So, when the Prime Minister says that Western Australians are 'cave people', we will hold him to account for that. When the member for Pearce says he agrees with Clive Palmer rather than with the people of Western Australia, we will hold him to account for that. When Liberal backbenchers roll out this standard line that's clearly in their talking points, that Western Australia is 'a hermit kingdom', we will hold them accountable for that, too. It might be worth the Prime Minister watching The Flintstones. Bamm-Bamm, in The Flintstones, had a baseball bat. So, too, do Western Australian voters. The fact that not one Liberal politician dared speak against the Prime Minister's insult, not one of the 16 Liberal members from Western Australia, shows how gutless they are. Silence. Weak. What happened to the party of free speech? It's just another attack day on day from this Prime Minister, who has failed in the jobs he was given—failed on vaccines, failed on quarantine. When it comes to the main bill, Labor supports the bill and the changes that it makes to our electoral system. It's important; improving our democracy always is. We must constantly improve our democracy. But we can't fool ourselves that democracy is certain or stable; events this year in the United States, Myanmar and Afghanistan have reminded us it can be very blunt, in very brutal ways. Currently in Australia some 17 million Australians are registered to vote. The AEC estimates that 96.2 per cent of eligible Australians are enrolled to vote. Democracy is important, and Australians know it. It's important not just for those who can vote but for all 25 million Australians who live here. Democracy is important to me. I remember handing out cards with my parents at Bicton Primary School in the 1990s for the local member for Fremantle, Carmen Lawrence, and for Prime Minister Paul Keating. I have spent most of my life—as has the member for Franklin, sitting at the table—in the business of democracy building and democratic participation. It has highs and it has lows, but you always need to respect the rules. These bills are about the integrity of our democracy. Increasing the membership requirements of registered parties from 500 to 1,500 members will increase integrity. In Western Australia we recently saw the perverse electoral results that occur when political parties with very few members manage to harvest preferences. It resulted in the Daylight Savings Party electing a member to the Western Australian parliament with just 98 votes. By strengthening membership requirements, parties will require a genuine base of community support. That's what members want when they join a political party: a genuine democratic party, not one that hides their constitutional platform. I'm a proud member of the Australian Labor Party, the most open and democratic party in Australia. Our platform and our constitution are publicly available. Our conferences are open. We don't hide from the media like the Greens political party do. We make sure that we see being an open democratic party as part of educating the people of Australia about democracy. This bill kind of does half the job. We also need to increase voter education and reduce voter confusion. Reducing the similarities between the names of political parties will help to ensure voters' intentions are accurately captured. We've heard the stories about novelty names making improvements to electoral outcomes, the claims that adding words like 'marijuana' or 'sex' can deliver as much as an extra two per cent to the vote. That's is democracy. But having microparties using counterfeit names and false branding is wrong. No party should be proud of electing people as a result of trying to fool voters. I believe that we also need to do more on voter education. We have unacceptably high unenrolment and we have unacceptable results when it comes to informal voting. We know that we have unacceptably high unenrolment when it comes to Indigenous communities and amongst younger Australians. That's why I support the member for Scullin's amendment. It is unacceptable that the Northern Territory's enrolment rate lags behind the rest of the country, with only 85.6 per cent of eligible electors enrolled to vote. Unenrolment in the north of Western Australia is also unacceptable. In Western Australia we just have 67.6 per cent of Indigenous voters enrolled to vote, the worst Indigenous enrolment anywhere in the country. That's 22,087 Aboriginal Western Australians with no voice. It's gerrymander; it's undemocratic. The electorate of Durack has an enrolment of less than 80 per cent, along with Lingiari, the lowest in the nation. It's another gap we must urgently close. The opposition amendment also calls on the government to close the gap by providing more resources to the Electoral Commission so that people living in disadvantaged and remote and regional communities can exercise their democratic rights. This problem also extends to WA mining and resource projects. With just 12 days of prepoll, those on longer swings of more than four weeks on remote worksites, where they may not have regular mail deliveries, risk not having their voice not heard. I've been a longstanding advocate to the Electoral Commission saying they need to do more remote polling at remote mining sites where we have hundreds of workers who deserve to have their vote heard. One of the challenges that the Election Commission, election on election, has failed to solve has been Barrow Island, where long swings combined with no remote voting has left voters without a voice in elections. We sadly also have too many informal votes—voices wasted. We need to do more about reducing informal voting. One of the areas where I know we need to do something about reducing informal voting is the confusion that's caused by local governments and, indeed, local governments here in Western Australia using imperfect and inaccurate systems of voting. Where local governments advocate for people to tick or just number a 1 or use first-past-the-post voting, it leads to informal voting at other levels of government, including the federal government. I call on local governments to stop using these 19th century forms of voting, because it doesn't do anything for our democracy at large. The more consistent we can make voting for Australians across the levels of government the better for our democracy in the long-term. I've been lucky to see democracy in action all over Australia and I've always believed that we can do more to strengthen our democracy in the parliament, in our electoral systems and in our political parties. I was proud to work with Kevin Rudd when we introduced reforms to democracy in the Australian Labor Party, for the first time giving party members a say in who leads their party. These rules have been adopted by Labor Party branches across the country, including here in Western Australia. It leads to more vibrant and democratic political parties and it means that members have more say. But, when it comes to vibrant democracies, when it comes to actually listening to the people of Australia and their views expressed at elections, I find it interesting that the assistant minister who introduced these bills spoke at length about the importance of electoral integrity. But this seems completely inconsistent with his position on the unnecessary Roe 8 road. At the last two state elections, Western Australians have overwhelmingly rejected the Liberal Party's Roe 8 proposal, yet the member for Tangney continues to push for an old 2000 Colin Barnett project. He's got $1.2 billion locked up— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 53517 Order! I call the member for Tangney, on a point of order. Mr Morton 265931 The contribution is hardly relevant to the bills before the House, and I ask you to draw the member back to the bills before us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 53517 Member for Perth, I bring you back to the bills. Mr GORMAN 74519 Thank you. I was just saying that it's important that we respect democratic mandates and that, if we're looking to improve our democracy and make sure that we have integrity in our political parties, we also need to listen to the voices of the states and decisions that voters make at a state level, including the message they very clearly sent about the $1.2 billion locked up in the budget—taxpayer money held hostage for the member for Tangney. But he's asked me to move on, so I will. These bills are about increasing integrity in our electoral system, but they have nothing to do with one of the most important integrity issues in our electoral system: political donations. One of the many important reforms introduced by the Hawke Labor government was to bring transparency into political donations. That bill was introduced by the Special Minister of State, now the Governor of Western Australia, Kim Beazley. Since 1983 we've seen the details of many political donations made in Australia. The vast majority of political funding in Australia comes from private donations. But let's look at the big donations. It was in 2010 that the Greens political party accepted the then biggest ever single political donation in Australian political history. The Greens political party accepted a single $1.6 million cheque, and what happened? At the next election, the member for Melbourne became the first of the Greens elected to the House of Representatives, off the back of a $1.6 million donation to the Greens political party. We then saw the then leader of the Liberal Party, the then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull—never one who likes to be outdone—choosing to dig into his own wallet with a $1.75 million donation. Then we get to the 2019 election campaign and along comes the biggest political donor of all, Clive Palmer, chipping in some $89 million into his own election campaign. We know the help that was provided by Clive Palmer to the government. They're sitting on the government benches today in part because of the contributions that Clive Palmer made to that election in 2019. We saw them pay that back in a pretty ridiculous and radical way when the Prime Minister decided, along with the member for Pearce, to back Clive Palmer in the High Court. They take direct donations as well from Mr Palmer. We know that Mr Palmer donated $75,000 directly to the National Party. That was revealed earlier this year. When it comes to confidence in our democracy, which these bills seek to address, there's no doubt that Clive Palmer has done a lot of damage to confidence in our democracy. We had his $89 million ego trip, but you used to be able to say that at least Clive Palmer was upfront about it. He always put his name to everything he did, but now he won't even do that. Now he's going to hide his involvement from Australians, trying to sneak his way back into politics. In June the Australian Electoral Commission provided public notice of the proposed name change for the Palmer party. The Clive Palmer's United Australia Party was to become the United Australia Party. This was an attempt by Palmer to hide from Western Australia. Palmer knows that Western Australians will never forget that in the middle of a pandemic he tried to rip open WA's borders. Fortunately, Western Australians stood up to Clive Palmer, which is something that those on the government benches did not have the integrity to do. Instead, they supported him. I stood in this chamber while I was heckled by members of the WA Liberal Party, backing Clive Palmer, even though not only was Clive Palmer morally wrong; he was wrong in law. His case was legally unsound. Clive Palmer should not be allowed to hide. I have tried to stop him. I have written to the Electoral Commission, opposing his attempts to hide his name from the political party which he owns and funds. But, if he's going to continue to try and manipulate state and federal elections, I'll continue to fight against him. What we've got now is, not only does Clive Palmer have a strong supporter in the Lodge—we have the so-called modern Liberals, and now we have the Palmer Liberals. Craig Kelly is the newest recruit, having jumped out of the Liberal Party party room straight into Clive Palmer's heavily funded political machine designed to drive preferences to the Liberal Party. They drove preferences to the Liberal Party in the electorate of Perth, where they preferenced the Liberals. They drove preferences and helped elect Liberal Party senators, where they preferenced the Liberals in the Senate. This government needs to give up on its addiction to Clive Palmer. Only then will they be serious about their commitment to democracy. (Time expired) 12:11 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Today we're debating the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021, the first of three bills of a suite of electoral reforms. These bills, for the most part, implement some of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from its recent election inquiries. I'm relieved when bills have origins in a committee report. At least I know they've benefited from some process of evidence collection, scrutiny, analysis and consideration. It's not perfect and it's regularly politicised, as I know all too well, but it's better than legislation made on the fly simply to make a ministerial pronouncement legal or driven in response to a shadowy interest that can't be properly investigated. Committee scrutiny is even more important when parliament is asked to change the fundamentals of the most important democratic event on the calendar. I will always closely review changes that affect people outside the tent who do not have a seat in this House and who are trying to get in. I will support these bills today, but with some reservation, and I will watch closely any amendments to the bills which occur in the Senate. I'll also have more to say when the next set of bills are debated. I met the Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters yesterday and put him on notice that I do not think this suite of electoral reforms actually goes far enough. There are some simple changes, widely supported, that could go much further to increase the transparency and integrity of our elections. The question for me is: does the government actually have the backbone to live up to the standards that we rightly demand of it and not just to legislate to overall maintain the status quo? To me, the most concerning change in the set of bills before us today is increasing the party membership from 500 to 1,500. This ostensibly comes from recommendation 4 of the joint standing committee's 2016 report, yet this threshold is a full 500 members higher and double the increase recommended, and I ask: why is this really necessary? There is a suggestion, because states and territories have membership thresholds from 500 to 750, that 1,500 is a sensible number in a nationwide aggregate for a party that wishes to run a candidate in a federal election. But that's a very major-party-centric view from a party with national reach. Minor parties can, and do, represent one geographical area and give voice to regional issues that are lost in mainstream politics. They put a local voice front and centre in their decisions and give that voice nuance across national issues too. That's the reason why they're elected by their communities—communities who feel like they've been ignored by the major parties for decades and suffer neglect as a result. A party may have 1,000 members from one state, but that doesn't make it an any less valid voice in the national parliament. These bills don't affect me, as an Independent politician, but that's beside the point because I actually really care about democracy. The rationale for this reform is to ensure that registered political parties are built on a genuine foundation of community support. This is a curious position from a government which has seen the Liberal Party membership plummet over the last few decades to between 50,000 to 60,000 in 2020. This is dwarfed by my mighty Richmond Football Club, which has 135,358 members, mostly in one state. How times have changed! For the size of the major parties, one asks, 'Can they still claim to have a genuine foundation of community support like the standard this bill will now apply to newcomers on the political scene?' The beauty of minor parties is that they represent issues that may fall outside the mainstream, but which are no less valid. They give a strong voice to those who our political system silences and marginalises. One in four Australians cast a primary vote for a candidate other than a major party in the last election. Our democracy is simply not a two-sided competition, and nor should it be. Minor parties and Independents broaden our discourse beyond the zero-sum game of an adversarial opposition and government. Independents and minor parties don't see this place as purely a forum to trash the other side. Minor parties and Independents form the crossbench in the Senate and the House. From here, we shape legislation and secure amendments to bills. We push for action on climate change when the government resists meaningful action. We lead the call for an integrity commission when the government's unworkable and unamendable model has been roundly rubbished by everyone, from pillar to post, and will not be in place before the next election—that's a broken promise that the Independents and crossbench minor-party people call out for what it is. Minor parties and Independents are indeed the conscience of this place. Increasingly, we have the brains and the brawn too. By being here, we are creating better policy and better laws. We are working with people across the aisles. Any changes that would limit the ability to get diverse voices into this place should be solidly justified and closely scrutinised, as I know they will be when they reach the other place—which is effective due to, and because of, the influence of minor parties. Electoral reforms must be supported too by an integrity commission which can investigate and act on noncompliance. This is why we need to legislate bills such as my Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 without delay and before the next election. That's what integrity is about. My integrity commission would have the power to investigate corrupt conduct, which includes election bribery, election funding offences and election fraud—including breaches of lobbying codes of conduct or existing electoral funding laws. AFIC would also require the government to create a whole-of-government national integrity plan which would focus on preventing corruption in high-risk settings, including elections. The case is clear and the need is pressing. We need a robust integrity commission now; we need it for electoral reform, as much as anything. I will support these bills, but I put this challenge to the government: go the next step and leave us with a real legacy of electoral reform to donations and election spending which will, ultimately and importantly—more importantly than anything we're seeing today—truly strengthen our democracy. 12:18 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 and related bills. Firstly, I'm pleased to see that the prepoll time has been reduced to 12 days, although I would personally like to see it reduced to even slightly less than that. In recent elections we have seen many Australians voting well out from election day—a long time out before the election day—when policies of the parties are still being announced. I think that's a threat to open, fair and free elections. I'm also disappointed that there have been no requirements in these amendments for people to show ID before they vote. I think that is an important integrity measure that has been overlooked. I find with great surprise that those who are most vocal about the need for people to show some type of vaccine passport or health papers to go to the pub or to cross a state border are the ones who are most vocal against simply showing a form of ID before you vote. However, I am greatly concerned with the specific bill dealing with the party register integrity measure, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021. This bill increases from 500 to 1,500 the number of party members a party needs to have to be recognised at an election. Now is not the time in our nation's history to try and narrow the field, to reduce the competition, to make it more difficult for independent and alternate voices to have their say. Now is not the time for a concentration of power between the minor parties—which this legislation will bring about. You just need to have a look at what is happening around our nation at the moment to realise that this is not the time to limit the voices of independents. I no longer recognise the country that I grew up in. I look out and I see endless lockdowns across the nation. I see the greatest assault on our small business community since Federation. How is a small business person meant to survive when they are ordered out of their business by government for months but yet they are left with obligations for rent, and for which they may have personal guarantees signed for and underwritten by their own family home? That is the assault that we are perpetrating on small business. We are seeing the emergence of a police state, I saw scenes last weekend that I thought I would never, ever see in my country. We saw Victorian police pointing firearms at unarmed citizens and firing projectiles at high velocity at close range. This is not Australia. This is what you would expect in some Third World nation in South America where the police force was out of control. I've seen our police in Victoria arrest and handcuff pregnant mothers in front of their children in their own home. And their offence? For posting a protest on Facebook against the government. And against this background we want to restrict and make it more difficult for individuals and alternate voices to come to this place and have their say? What about the censorship that is going on? We have got AHPRA, a health regulator, clamping down on any doctor or nurse that has an alternate opinion. There are many of them that have an alternate opinion to what our health bureaucrats are saying, but they are silenced and censored with a threat of losing their licence. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will return to the bills before the House. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Deputy Speaker, it is important to understand what is happening in our country in order to understand the reasons why these bills should be rejected. It is because of the concentration of power that is going on in our nation. We even see in this parliament the trashing of the principles of the Bill of Rights 1688. For four centuries, this parliament has had a tradition, as have all Westminster parliaments around the world, that the proceedings and debates of this parliament should not be questioned or impeached by anyone. Yet last week the member for Dawson gave a speech, which he posted to his Facebook page, through the official links on the Australian parliamentary website, and he had to actually censor the words that were said on the floor of this parliament in order to comply with the regulations of a tech giant. When what is said on the floor of this parliament is censored, we have a serious problem. That is why it is so wrong to reduce the number of and make it difficult for independent voices in this country. We also now have a net Commonwealth debt of over one trillion dollars. That is a million millions. Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have run up a debt of a trillion dollars. When I first came to this place, we were concerned that the debt had been over $100 billion. A $100 billion debt had been run up, and we expressed our concern that that was leaving a debt for future generations of Australians. Both parties have run that up to a trillion dollars while I've been in this place. And we bring a bill before parliament to limit independent voices and give more concentration of power to the major parties. How does this make any sense? I've also seen in this parliament the freedoms that were once the birthright of every single Australian and the freedoms that were the contract we made with those migrants that decided to become Australian citizens and took an oath of citizenship. They were freedoms that were underwritten by being Australian. But we are seeing those freedoms suspended, not by the parliament but by unelected health bureaucrats, with the vague promise that those freedoms that have been stolen will only be returned to us, at some time in the future, if we submit to some mandatory vaccination program. This is not the time to narrow the power in this place by concentrating the power in the major parties. That's what this does. We need more independent voices. I strongly disagree with the member for Indi on many things. I strongly disagree with the member for Warringah on many things. But we sit here and we argue it out with each other, and that, I believe, makes our democracy a stronger place. Anything that weakens the opportunity for independent and alternative voices makes our democracy weaker, and that's what the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021, the second of these three bills, does, and I cannot support it. I foreshadow that, during the consideration in detail stage, I will be moving an amendment to reduce the threshold back to 1,000 members—rather than it being increased from 500 to 1,500. We need independent voices. We need alternative opinions. We do not need more power in the hands of both major parties. I therefore oppose, and I will vote against, the second bill in this cognate debate. But I will support the other two bills and, as I said, I will be moving an amendment to that second bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by Mr Giles be disagreed to. 12:27 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I will be supporting the legislation and making some other comments, as my comrade from the Northern Territory, the member for Lingiari, has done. There are things that we need to continue to bring to the notice of this House and its members when it comes to the AEC's performance and the effect that is having on democracy in our Northern Territory. I do want to support the elements of this bill that were articulated extremely well by you, if I can say so, Deputy Speaker. The member for Oxley pointed out that the changes in the legislation, when it comes to the naming of parties or the increase to the number of people that are required in parties before they're taken seriously, are good changes, as is the 12 days of pre-polling. I support those elements, and there's no need for me to go over that ground again. There are other elements of the AEC's performance and this legislation that I want to bring to the House's attention. I also want to emphasise the importance of the role of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the work that it does. It's incredibly important. As the member for Indi and many others have said, we're all here because we believe very much in democracy, so I thank that committee for its important work. However, I do also need to bring to the House's attention the contribution from the member for Perth and, in particular, the comment that he made about Clive Palmer being supported by the WA Libs. I'm not saying that every member of the WA Liberal Party in this place needs their head read, but a lot of what I've heard from them over the last couple of days makes me incredibly disappointed. Yesterday, a member of that political organisation from the west tried to politicise paedophilia and claim that those on this side were not for the kids but for the paedophiles. It's just disgusting, and it's unbecoming of people in this place. They had best leave. They had best resign. If they're not going to uphold the high standards of integrity that should be demanded of people in this place then they should resign. They should likewise resign if they are going to mislead the media as part of a protection racket to make excuses for those whose incompetence or worse led to our interpreters from Afghanistan being left at the airport and not allowed to get onto flights. Members of the WA Liberals, veterans themselves, say that that's not happening. They say that every combat interpreter has been able to get onto a plane. They're the people from that organisation who, instead of backing the WA people, backed a bloke like Clive Palmer. Wake up to yourselves! It's noted. To return to the bill, the government's proposed changes to the Electoral Act have many glaring omissions. Members would remember me highlighting the unconscionable behaviour of those opposite, the federal government, in relation to the AEC office in the Northern Territory. The AEC office in the Northern Territory had 15 employees, and part of the job of that group of Australian public servants was to go out into the communities of the Northern Territory—where, as all honourable members know, we've got the lowest enrolment in the country by far—and do electoral education and enrolment. There were 15 employees in total in that team, which was going out into the communities in the Northern Territory, signing people up to the roll and educating them about the electoral process and how to have their voices heard—voices which have been largely ignored by those opposite forever. The government cut the staffing of the Australian Electoral Commission office from 15 employees to three. They moved the team that does the electoral education and enrolment in the Northern Territory—a big place, bigger than Texas—to Brisbane. They said, 'No, they can do that job from over there.' Even before COVID, how was a team of people in Brisbane going to enrol people in the remote communities in the Northern Territory and educate them about our electoral process—about our democracy? How was that going to happen? It was another deliberate attempt by those opposite, the coalition federal government, to deliberately disenfranchise the First Nations voters in this country more broadly and in the Northern Territory specifically. The member for Lingiari well pointed that out, and the evidence shows that that is exactly what is occurring. As the member for Lingiari pointed out, it took until 1962 to give First Nations people the right to vote. But, as we've seen from the actions of those opposite, they're not happy with that. They want as few people as possible in the Northern Territory, particularly in the seat of Lingiari but also in my seat of Solomon, to be enrolled. They're making it as hard as they possibly can. The member for Hughes mentioned the need for ID. A lot of First Nations people don't have identification, but when they do have identification—because they're involved in government services such as Medicare, or Centrelink if there's no work—then there's direct enrolment which connects that First Nations person, through direct enrolment, to the ability to vote. But the coalition—which the member for Hughes was part of until very recently—have deliberately, through the AEC, started to stop that from happening, again deliberately disenfranchising First Nations people. And, in a second, I'll tell you exactly why they're doing that. In several substantial ways, the AEC is using its discretion, prompted by the federal government and those opposite, to prevent enrolment and voting by First Nations people. As a result, in 2021, we have an effective gerrymander against First Nations people as the member for Lingiari said, , and also voter suppression of First Nations people. That's disgraceful, isn't it? It's Australia in 2021! But that's what this tired eight-year-old government is trying to do to win federal seats, to win NT seats and to win local government seats. We know that the government has failed to sufficiently close many gaps. Three out of 17 Closing the Gap targets are on track, we heard recently in this place. But the government is also willing to not close the gap, and is actively working towards not closing the gap, with regard to First Nations voting opportunities—that is, participation in our democracy. And the government is, obviously, doing this because it sees an electoral advantage for itself. We saw it in the NT elections last year. In several of the electorates in the Northern Territory at the NT election last year, the result came down to a handful of votes. Do you know what happens when you've got the lowest enrolment of First Nations people in the country—disgustingly low rates? You win by a handful of votes instead of losing by a handful of votes. So the deliberate attempts of those opposite, through the Australian Electoral Commission, are achieving the outcome of deliberately disenfranchising First Nations people, and they're just picking up seats where they wouldn't normally if the First Nations people had a vote. We're coming up to a by-election in the Northern Territory in a place called Daly. I won't get into politicking around who's a better candidate; I know them both. I think what the people of that electorate deserve is the best possible candidate that the majority of the people in that seat think will represent them well. We've got some big Aboriginal communities in that electorate, and we've got some big non-Aboriginal communities in that electorate. And we know that, because of deliberate—and successful—attempts to disenfranchise the First Nations vote, the voter turnout will be a lot higher in the non-Aboriginal areas. So let's see the outcome of that election. We hope that every single eligible voter in that electoral area has a vote, because the person representing them in the NT parliament should have the confidence of all the people who are eligible to vote in that electoral area. Let's see what the results are. But we know that there are about 50,000 people in the Northern Territory who aren't enrolled to vote. I don't know what that team in Brisbane are doing, but they're not effectively getting people on the roll in the Northern Territory. As the member for Lingiari said, the AEC is cooperating with the government to suppress that First Nations vote, and, in the process, it is discriminating against them in a way that may very likely break federal laws. That's one of the reasons why some Territorians have made complaints to the Human Rights Commission, and we hope that their complaints are taken seriously. I congratulate those Territorians for taking that step and giving voice to their concerns. If the AEC were prepared to stop discriminating and just get on with direct enrolment, which facilitates eligible Territorians being enrolled and able to vote, then we would be doing a lot better. It would be very quick and easy to correct the huge electoral injustice that has now been going on for almost a decade. It's imperative that these complaints, that've been made regarding this AEC policy about direct enrolment and update inactions, are resolved well prior to the upcoming federal election, because Territorians—no matter whether they're First Nations or non-Indigenous—deserve an electoral voice and a voice that is not suppressed by this government, those opposite and their accomplices. First Nations people will be able to work with us to close all these gaps so that they can join in determining their own futures. I think what you'll find is when that respect of being an Australian citizen is honoured by making sure that they've got the ability to have a voice we will see all sorts of gaps starting to close, because we will be doing things, as the government likes to say, with Aboriginal people rather than to Aboriginal people. These Electoral Act changes that're needed need to happen right now, because these oversights—in large parts of Australia, including my electorate of Solomon—see large amounts of First Nations people underenrolled, and it's simply not good enough. The existing Electoral Act does not sufficiently provide machinery that could not be rigged by bureaucrats, who conveniently back the government that appoints them. It is a serious issue. These loopholes that the AEC, with the support of the federal government, continue to exploit need to be fixed. We clearly must expect a lot better out of the AEC. I want to thank the shadow special minister for state, Senator Don Farrell, and encourage the work that he's doing to assist the AEC to get back on the path to honour direct enrolment for First Nations Australians. 12:42 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney Ordinarily I would thank those in the chamber who have contributed to this debate, and, of course, I do that overall. But I do want to reflect on some of the comments that've made against the Australian Electoral Commission and the hard-working members of the Australian Electoral Commission, and ask that members of this House do reflect on their words used in this chamber when talking about hardworking members of the Australian Public Service that serve the Australian people appropriately, as they should. I do thank those opposite for their support. I thank the member for Indi for her support for these bills. I acknowledge that she has put me on notice in relation to matters that are important to her moving forward. These bills have come about as a result of the hard work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I thank them for their consideration of electoral laws and practices. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Australia and it requires continual review to harmonise electoral law and administration of the evolving environment. The reforms in these bills are important and are necessary to modernise Australia's electoral system and strengthen the integrity of our electoral framework. They will benefit the Australian voting public through enhanced service delivery and enhanced voter confidence in election processes. The bills recognise the changing electoral environment and safeguard Australia's electoral system by responding to public expectations regarding access to prepoll and postal voting; modernising the Electoral Act to provide the AEC with flexibility on how it delivers elections; providing the AEC with the ability to commence the opening and sorting, but not counting, of prepoll and postal votes prior to the close of polls on election day; supporting the AEC to deliver a timely election outcome while maintaining electoral integrity; enhancing party registration requirements to ensure that parties are built on a genuine foundation of community support; mitigating the risk of voter confusion in an election due to political parties being registered or continuing to be registered with very similar names; providing additional options for the AEC to combat and prevent the rare instances of multiple voting in Australia; and ensuring that voters can participate in the electoral process free from harassment and intimidation, while strengthening our electoral system's defence against instances of multiple voting. Not only will these reforms assist the AEC to deliver effective and timely electoral events; they will promote public confidence in the democratic process and the resulting outcomes of electoral events. The Australian electoral roll is in the greatest shape it has ever been in, largely due to the ongoing efforts of the AEC and its hardworking staff. We have the best roll since Federation. Every area of the roll has increased, including for Indigenous Australians. It is therefore odd, against this backdrop, to see such criticism raised by some participants, particularly in the way they have done so. It is incredibly important that Australians from remote and Indigenous communities can exercise their franchise. Electoral participation is of vital importance. The issue of Indigenous underenrolment is not new but rather an enduring challenge. Improving electoral participation among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has been a long-term focus for the AEC and our Indigenous Electoral Participation Program. The AEC is working to build engagement with the electoral processes and enrolment of Indigenous Australians. This includes through partnerships with organisations already operating in Indigenous communities, the extension of the AEC's digital footprint into more remote areas, locally targeted activities, and building on the success of the FDEU program. This change in strategy is directly attributable to the increases that I am about to outline. It is important that what hasn't been noted is that the government announced in the 2020-21 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook a further $5.6 million to expand the AEC's presence in the Northern Territory to ensure that we can enhance electoral enrolment and participation, particularly for Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory. While the enrolment rate among Indigenous Australians still needs improvement—and I accept that—the enrolment rates are increasing at a steady pace, and in some jurisdictions faster than the national estimate. The estimated Indigenous enrolment rate has been increasing year on year, with an encouraging, positive trend, increasing in the years 2018-19 to 2019-20. The latest estimate of the Indigenous enrolment rate as at 30 June 2021 is in the final stages of analysis, and early indications are that Indigenous enrolment continues to rise, as has been the case for the last few years since the AEC changed its strategy to focus on partnerships. Early analysis also shows the Indigenous roll continues to rise at a faster rate than the non-Indigenous roll. The current strategies implemented by the AEC and their staff over the last few years are working. Where they need to do more, they will have my support, they will have this parliament's support, they will have the support of the shadow minister for electoral matters and they will have the support of all Australians. We should support the AEC in this important work. We should support them and encourage them to do more and not call into question their motivations. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their contribution and I commend this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 34 12:49 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 34

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021

Second Reading 34 Consideration in Detail 34 12:50 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (6) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "1,500", substitute "1,000". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 10), omit "1,500", substitute "1,000". (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), omit "1,500", substitute "1,000". (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 24), omit "1,500", substitute "1,000". (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 7 (line 9), omit "1,500", substitute "1,000". (6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (line 12), omit "1,500", substitute "1,000". What the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill seeks to do is to move the threshold slightly back, to move the dial back, to give more Australians the opportunity to participate in our democracy. This bill lifts the threshold for party registration from 500 members to 1,500. That risks concentrating the power in the hands of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. That is contrary to a good democracy. I've experienced it myself here. Since coming to the crossbench, I've had the opportunity to discuss issues with the members for Indi and Warringah, with whom I have many differing views. I believe that being able to sit down and discuss things strengthens our democracy. We should not be doing anything in this parliament that limits alternative views or limits what may be minority views; therefore, the amendments that I propose are to move that dial from 1,500 to only 1,000. I believe that if a group of a thousand Australian citizens are prepared to form a political party they should be allowed to do so and they should be allowed to stand at an election under that party. This is what these amendments will do, and I hope they have the support of other members of the House. 12:53 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I'd like to put on the Hansard my agreement with the member for Hughes. There are many, many things that we disagree on, but on this occasion I agree with him. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that the party membership threshold should be raised to 1,000, not to 1,500. I'm a great champion of participating in our democracy, and I agree with the member for Hughes: we need greater diversity in our parliament, not less. I've been a vocal spokeswoman for gender equality in this parliament and for greater diversity—for people of colour and people from different backgrounds—and I think that these amendments from the member for Hughes are, indeed, reasonable and moderate and in line with the committee's findings. I'm pleased to support these amendments. I think they are sensible and good. As I said, democracy is what we're trying to improve. There is nothing as important to this parliament as a solid and diverse representation in the House, and I support these amendments. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Dr Haines and Mr Kelly voting no. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 35 12:59 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021 35

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021

Second Reading 35 Third Reading 35 13:00) Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney ( by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 35 COMMITTEES Road Safety Joint Select Committee (2019), Communications and the Arts Committee 35 Membership 35 13:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees. 13:01 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Conaghan be discharged from the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety and that, in his place, Mr D. J. Chester be appointed a member of the committee; (2) Dr Webster be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts; Question agreed to. BILLS 36 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 36

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021

Second Reading 36 13:02 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I will make my comments in continuation of my speech on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, which had to be interrupted with the adjournment last night. Last night, I raised the case of 18-year-old Shelby from Jesmond. Today, I'd like to speak about another case which I want to bring to the attention of the House—the case of Rodney Fisher. Rodney was contacted by the NDIS in August of last year and was informed that they would be reassessing his eligibility. Rodney attended the NDIS office numerous times—in September, October and again in January of this year—seeking an update on the assessment of his eligibility and whether there was anything he could do to try to resolve the matter. He was told that it would be fine, but nobody provided him with any information about the progress of the assessment. Rodney has psychosocial issues, and the increased anxiety and stress of waiting for a response were really taking a very significant toll on his health. In April this year, after intervention from my office, Rodney was finally informed that he could remain as an NDIS participant. That was six months later. When my office made further inquiries as to why it took so long, I was told, 'Every time Rodney Fisher contacted the NDIS they referred his engagement to the delivery team, which is not the team responsible, so it never went anywhere.' Without intervention from my office, Rodney's concerns were never going to be addressed. Similar to Rodney's story is that of 11-year-old Tayla Porter, who has been waiting far too long for the help she needs. Tayla was assessed and assigned a power-assisted wheelchair that was inappropriate to her needs and is now already too small for her. Because of this, Tayla was unable to enter her home independently. Tayla's parents, Matthew and Courtney, now have to lift her in and out and around the home, causing great physical and mental strain on both of them. Tayla's mother, Courtney, has advised me that this wrongly-scripted chair has greatly limited Tayla's lifestyle, her mental and physical health and her independence. Tayla requires a new chair that is fully powered and is capable of moving across multiple terrains. But, despite every effort, Tayla and her family are still waiting for a response from the NDIS. Will Tayla ever receive the correct chair she needs? What sort of government treats families so poorly? Australians with disability and the families who love and care for them deserve so much better than this. People with disability already face so many obstacles that they don't need any more. That's why I was devastated to hear the news last Friday that the only dedicated vaccination hub for NDIS participants in our region was going to shut up shop. If you ever had any doubts about how bad the vaccine rollout was going, you need look no further than that case. By close of business on Friday, people had no idea where they would be able to go in order to get the vaccine or whether the appointments they had already made were going to be honoured at any potential new site. That left vulnerable people in my community feeling distressed and anxious about where they would be able to get a COVID vaccine in a safe, accessible and secure location. After scrambling all weekend to find answers for my constituents, I understand that, under the direction of the Commonwealth government, the contracted company is now setting up a co-located clinic for not just people with disability anymore; this is a clinic that's also going to have to cater for aged-care workers. Of course, these are the two cohorts that this government has utterly failed, on each and every occasion, to ensure are vaccinated. These are the people who were in categories 1a and 1b, who were all meant to have been vaccinated by Easter but who are not vaccinated. It also means that the disability sector in Newcastle have lost their dedicated disability vaccination site, which was meeting their specific needs, and will need to share it now with aged-care workers. I am truly hopeful that that model of co-location will work, but I do question it, because the dedicated disability vaccination centre was a phenomenal success, vaccinating 5,000 people in a period of 10 weeks. It's an absolutely stand-out model that probably should be rolled out across the state. In light of recent reports of the very poor vaccination rates amongst NDIS participants, I think the decision to close the disability dedicated site was reckless. Indeed, as I said, it should be rolled out across New South Wales. There were many questions that I put to the contractor, but, as I said, they told me that it was done under the direction of this government, which I think hit the panic button when it realised how poor its vaccination rates were for people with disability and, indeed, aged-care workers. Unfortunately, the contractors are now having to mop up the mess of the Prime Minister's botched vaccine rollout, and they've been sent out to do the PM's dirty work on the messaging front. As I said, they've had to transition to a co-location model and pick up the government slack on the vaccine rollout for aged-care workers, and there is now no disability-specific vaccination clinic in my community. This is typical behaviour for the Prime Minister. We know his track record of ducking, weaving and denying any responsibility every time that something goes wrong. In times of crisis, our communities need leadership. We have known for some time now that the situation for vaccination rates in both the disability sector—that's people with disability, their carers and their disability support workers—is appalling. We also know, given what the government has now directed the new contractor to do, that the vaccination rates in our aged-care facilities are diabolical. I have mentioned in this House before that I'm aware of one not-for-profit facility that has phenomenally good vaccination coverage across its staff but only because the CEO made it her business to ensure that all her staff were vaccinated. She hired a bus and drove everybody to Sydney, which is more than a two-hour drive, to ensure that her workers were protected. That has not been the case for every aged-care facility in my electorate. When I looked on the government's health website, I saw reports of some facilities with less than 10 per cent of their staff having received even one does. That is completely unacceptable. That is a matter of grave concern for my community, and it should be for this government. So, I'm not surprised that the government has asked the people who knew and who were doing so well in the disability sector to now go and mop up their mess over in aged care. Having promised aged-care workers, firstly, that they were going to do these programs onsite, at their workplaces, they backpedalled a thousand miles an hour away from that promise. Then they promised they'd be vaccinated by Easter—a massive retreat from that one. Here we are in August, and still some places have less than 10 per cent of staff having been vaccinated according to the government's own website. That is not okay. This is a big, big problem, and this Prime Minister cannot just keep blaming other people. Too many people are falling through the cracks. There's no point in just announcing vaccine rates; you've got to drill down to the detail. It's about time the Prime Minister did his job. (Time expired) 13:11 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Labor supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, which implements some of the recommendations of the Robertson review affecting the quality and safeguards around the NDIS. But it has taken 12 months for the government to respond to the report handed down by Judge Alan Robertson, and it comes 16 months after the death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith, whose tragic death was the reason we have looked into this—where this bill had its beginnings. Labor also notes the lack of consultation and the continuing failure of the Morrison government to consult people with disability on changes that impact them directly. We believe that everything possible should be done to protect people with disability from neglect and abuse. But this bill doesn't go far enough, and it is just another reflection of the Morrison government's approach to the NDIS—too little, too late; not enough consultation and, frankly, not enough priority put on this incredibly important scheme for people with disability; not enough trust put in those people to know what's right for them; and not enough priority to deliver those services, those supports, as they should be delivered and as was promised when the NDIS was created. Ann-Marie Smith was a 54-year-old woman living in Adelaide with cerebral palsy. She died last year in absolutely tragic, unthinkable and unforgiveable circumstances of neglect. She was failed by a system that she trusted to care for her, failed by a system that her loved ones trusted would keep her safe and healthy. She has lost her life because of a lack of care, because of a system that hasn't provided the necessary protections to ensure that the care she was given was appropriate and sufficient. Many questions remain about this. That is why Labor called, at the time, for an independent inquiry into that situation. We're pleased that an inquiry happened, but, again, it didn't go far enough into that situation, and the response has not been strong enough. This bill seeks to make a range of changes to the NDIS Act in response to recommendations 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Independent review of the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith. The independent review of the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services, the Robertson review, was handed to the government on 31 August 2020. It made a number of recommendations for legislative change to improve the protections for participants at risk of harm. These recommendations included facilitating better exchange of information between the agency and the commission and the disclosure of information to relevant state and territory bodies. They also included clarification around the scope of reportable incidents and the strengthening of banning orders, which was addressed in a legislative change in November 2020. The bill amends provisions in the NDIS Act to support the implementation of changes in response to these recommendations and improves supports and protections provided to NDIS participants. It also includes amendments to clarify the commissioner's powers to support the effective operations of the commission based on the early implementation experience of the commission. This followed pressure from Labor's shadow minister, Bill Shorten. I want to acknowledge his great work on the NDIS and his drawing attention to these issues. If he had not, would this government have done anything to even investigate what happened in this absolutely tragic and unacceptable situation? Labor's calls were for an independent inquiry into NDIS safeguarding, but the NDIS commission tasked former Federal Court Justice Alan Robertson specifically with reviewing the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith. It's important to point out that Ms Smith's tragic death is not the only death that we have seen of an NDIS participant that raises serious questions about the scheme and about safeguarding. Tim Rubenach from Tasmania, who had severe epilepsy, died while waiting for a wheelchair from the NDIS. David Harris from New South Wales was dead in his Parramatta unit for two months before his body was discovered by police. And Liam Danher, who was only 23 years old, died in his sleep waiting for a seizure mat that would have alerted his parents to his seizure in his sleep. These tragic events need a deep and thorough investigation and a strong response to prevent this ever happening again to anyone who is an NDIS participant. Unfortunately, this response does not go far enough to ensure that at all, and it's indicative of this government's approach to the NDIS more broadly. The Morrison government have so far presided over $4.6 billion being ripped out of the NDIS, and 1,200 Australians with disability died while waiting to be funded by the scheme. We've also just seen the complete shambles as the government tried to ram through their plan for independent assessments, and their complete lack of consultation, or it was sham consultation, leading up to that. I'm really pleased that, because of the disability community's strong and tireless advocacy yet again to get this scheme right, eventually that was overturned. That is a win, but people are incredibly nervous. There is incredible lack of trust from the disability community that has been created by this government about what it might try to do next. You certainly don't get the impression that this government is doing the work that should be done to get the NDIS right and actually ensure that people live lives of choice and control that are better than the lives that they had before the NDIS was introduced. I should say as well that many people say that the NDIS has been a success story for them. It has improved people's lives. That is why Labor introduced this scheme. That is what it's supposed to do. But for so many people it has not delivered that. It is absolutely infuriating and heartbreaking to hear the stories again and again as a local member and as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, hearing about the battles that people have to get access to the seemingly most obvious and basic of supports that they need and seeing the absolutely dehumanising treatment of these people just seeking the supports that they need. When the NDIS was introduced, it was supposed to be about thinking of a better future for people with disability, allowing them to think about the goals that they want to achieve and the lives that they want to live and enabling them to do that. It was supposed to be centred on the choice and control of each individual participant in that way. That was supposed to generate lots of innovative approaches in the market for provision of supports that would enable that. But too often we're seeing that failing to happen. I have a constituent who has battled for years and years simply to live in accessible accommodation with their partner and child. This is not the only example of that that I've heard. It is just, as I say, completely dehumanising that that question is even raised. That's just one example, and I won't go into more of them, but the lack of importance that this government is putting on getting this right is just astounding. The fact that we have people dying in the most shocking—absolutely shocking—and disturbing situations of neglect and all that came out of them is a review that didn't look into the broader system but only into that particular case, having now waited 16 months since Ann-Marie Smith's tragic death and a year since the report was handed down to see any response from this government, is simply not good enough. It's simply not good enough at all. Shortly after his appointment in 2018, the inaugural CEO of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Graeme Head, gave a speech in which he said: We're able to take a range of actions including deregistration, banning orders or seeking the application of civil penalties so we really do have a comprehensive tool kit. We have comprehensive regulatory powers and functions, and real regulatory teeth. Incidents that must be reported to the commission include the death of a participant, serious injury, abuse or neglect and importantly also the unauthorised use of a restrictive practice in relation to a participant. …   …   … It does represent a significant step change in how we approach the delivery of quality services to people with disability and how we protect and prevent neglect and abuse of people with disability. …   …   … It represents a significant raising of the bar, in terms of how we think about quality and safeguards, in this sector. While that sounds really good, these comments have not aged well. If this commission has real teeth, why then did Ann-Marie Smith's service provider only receive a fine of $12,600 after allowing her carer to neglect her so severely that she lost her life? She not only lost her life but suffered; she suffered dreadfully in the lead-up to that. If this commission has real regulatory powers, why wasn't it overseeing the care that she was supposed to be receiving? The government really needs to provide answers to these questions and, better than that, a plan to prevent this abuse and neglect happening in future. The NDIS is a vital national service, but after eight years of this government it has been mismanaged and allowed to be really struggling to provide the most basic things to people. I also have constituents who have simply given up on trying to access the NDIS after the battles that they've had with it. This is a fundamental issue. We are talking about the safety of some of the most vulnerable people who are in the care of a government scheme and, in some of the most tragic of cases, have lost their lives, with little recourse or just a fine to providers who let it happen. You wonder what the response would be like if that had happened in some of our other sectors. We see the absolute neglect for people in aged care, and the government also fails to address this properly. We saw an announcement from them that failed to address in full the royal commission's recommendations on that sector or to provide the necessary funding linked to staffing and ratios, and things like that. This is a government that simply does not care enough about Australians. We're not seeing the care, the seriousness, the urgency. Why is it that people with disability haven't been vaccinated as the absolute priority that they should have been? We are now seeing in my community here in Canberra an outbreak centred around people with disability and their support workers. It's simply not good enough, and I call on this government to get their act together and show respect, seriousness and care for people with disability and the management of the NDIS. 13:26 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley [by video link] As we have heard, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 responds to five recommendations of the Robertson review into the adequacy of the regulation of supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, an NDIS participant who died last year in truly horrific circumstances. In the course of his review, Mr Robertson took the opportunity to consider wider issues of safeguarding of people with disability who are particularly vulnerable. It's almost inconceivable, then, that the Morrison government has utterly failed people with disability who are particularly vulnerable to the COVID pandemic. Professor Anne Kavanagh was right when she said just three days ago that the vaccine rollout for disabled Australians was 'negligent' and 'a failure', and the consequences could be dire amid a surging delta outbreak. If we ever needed proof of the consequence of the Prime Minister's botched vaccine rollout, it was the news delivered to the disability sector last week by the Minister for the NDIS that only around a quarter of Australians in the scheme are fully vaccinated. The federal government's highest priority group is behind the national average. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people with disability who have not had their jabs. Days ago we heard that only about 26.9 per cent of the 260,000-odd NDIS participants aged over 16 in phase 1a or 1b of the rollout were fully vaccinated. As for the workforce, with 164,000-odd people helping care for people with disability, 55.6 per cent have had their first jab and 36.7 per cent have had two doses. It is not good enough; it is not nearly good enough. Having just over a quarter of all Australians with disability vaccinated is a national shame. That fewer than 50 per cent of people with disability who are living in group homes are vaccinated is a crisis. The Prime Minister is insisting this week on trying to treat Australians as if we're all goldfish—that we'll do one lap around the goldfish bowl and forget everything that he's previously said and everything that he's failed to do when it comes to the two huge priorities of this year: the vaccine rollout and fit-for-purpose quarantine. We're not goldfish though, are we? We will remember the failures, because they're failures for people with vulnerabilities, like people who are on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, like our First Nations Australians, for whom vaccine rates are far too low, and like many of the pockets of disadvantaged communities where the vaccination rates are much lower than the state and national averages. There is a lot of work to be done to get all Australians in this country vaccinated. But if we can't get this priority group of people with disability vaccinated then we will continue to suffer from a national shame. As we all watch and celebrate the Paralympics and cheer on our local heroes and people from across this country who are absolute testaments to resilience and success, let's remember that people with disability need to be vaccinated and that the NDIS needs to reach all the potential of its introduction. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 40 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS COVID-19 40 13:29 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara [by video link] We must come out of lockdown, but we must do it safely, and the frustrating thing in the situation that we are presented with today is: had the Prime Minister stuck with the original vaccination targets, had he stuck with his original plan, we would already have between 70 and 80 per cent of our country fully vaccinated. The Prime Minister threw his hands in the air; he said it was all too hard and that no-one could talk about targets and no-one could talk about the targets that he had set for his own government. But now we are paying the price for that failure of leadership and we are paying the price because we didn't stick to the original plan of getting people vaccinated as quickly as possible. The way out of our lockdowns is through leadership and not blame-shifting. We need leadership to vaccinate as many people as possible, not to shift the blame and create political fights as the Prime Minister is doing right now. Cutting corners, as the Prime Minister did, is not going to work; it will only mean people end up in hospital, very, very sick. We must do everything we can on all of the mitigating factors. We must do everything we can to protect children so that, when we do come out of lockdown, we do it with purpose and we do it without the risk of going back into lockdown, and we do it in a way that is going to save as many lives as possible. Finally, I want to say thank you to all of the locals in my electorate who got tested and are lining up to get vaccinated. Thank you for showing the leadership that our Prime Minister has failed to show. (Time expired) Army Recruit Training Centre Kapooka 40 13:31 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Almost all of the more than 39,000 Australian Defence Force personnel who served in Afghanistan marched out of Kapooka at Wagga Wagga in my Riverina electorate. On 12 July, an important and historic event took place at Kapooka when helicopter pilot and Brigadier Stephen Jobson, who had been commandant at the base and had been in Afghanistan, was promoted to Major General, and this is what he had to say about Kapooka: Since 1951, soldiers—young men and women—have been coming here to this institution to become soldiers and serve their nation. They've come here out of families, from communities all over our great nation. And I often say to people they don't just come here to learn marksmanship and navigation and first aid and go out in the bush. They come here to learn values. They come here to be soldiers. They leave here as Australian citizens. It's an incredible place. But there is one aspect about Kapooka for me, the Army Recruit Training Centre for me, that is extraordinary. And that is the absolute faith and trust and confidence that those young men and women place in the leadership of the Army. They come here having made an unlimited liability to our nation. And they come here relying on the leadership, the competence, the ability of those who will lead them in those circumstances. And that is not lost on me because that is not just their expectation, that is not just their family's expectation—that is the Australian community's expectation that their young men and women that are serving their interests in the Australian Army will be well led, will be well led by the leaders at all levels and in particular well led by their generals. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 41 13:33 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith [by video link] Locals in Kingsford Smith want to get vaccinated, and many in the Bayside Local Government Area now need to get their shot to go to work. The New South Wales government announced [inaudible] vaccination bookings for people aged between 16 and 39 who live or work in the Bayside LGA area of concern. But many of the locals from the old Botany Council area in Bayside are finding it difficult to get an appointment. That's because the appointment booking system hasn't been recognising their suburb postcode as being an area of concern. Instead, it has been those over in the old Rockdale council area who have been able to secure appointments for their jabs. Residents in Bayside who live on the Botany side of the electorate should not be locked out of the vaccine website. Bayside LGA is an area of concern mainly because of the high number of cases in the former Rockdale council area, but the Botany and Rockdale areas are clearly separated by an airport and share few common activities. It's yet another reason our community continues to voice its frustration with the local council mergers forced on them by the New South Wales Liberal government. Our community in the old Botany government area should be able to book a vaccine appointment. It's not good enough, and it's a great example of this government's appalling muddling of the vaccination system. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Order. The honourable member's time has expired. And he might like to turn the light on next time he appears. Fairfax Electorate: Infrastructure 41 13:34 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax COVID-19, Afghanistan, relations with China—Australia faces no shortage of challenges, but let me assure you that, despite our focus on some of these very big global issues, we are not taking our eye off the ball when it comes to progressing local things. On the Sunshine Coast, in particular, that includes infrastructure, for which our region has never been the recipient of so much federal funding than it is today. But there's no room for complacency, far from it. That's why we're delivering even more. Only two weeks ago we announced a major milestone with the awarding of a contract for early works construction on stage 1 of the Beerburrum to Nambour works on the north coast rail line—to a local business, no less. This week we hit a major milestone again, but this one on the Bruce Highway, on the Mons Road and Maroochydore Road interchange, with a service road bridge on the eastern side going over Eudlo Creek being delivered and completed. We continue to deliver locally because it means local jobs, it means creating opportunities, and it means helping the very people we come here to serve. COVID-19: Morrison Government 41 13:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt () (): [by video link] I'm over it; Australians are over it. We're all sick of the divisive spin. Why can't the Prime Minister just get on with the job—all of them? He literally tore down a prime minister to get this job. It's time he did it properly. His refusal to secure diverse vaccine supplies early enough has left Australians dangerously exposed. His refusal to condemn his own government MPs for comments contrary to health advice is simply horrifying. We have hundreds of new cases of COVID-19 every day across the nation. After three years of being Prime Minister, maybe the PM could have a crack at trying to lead, and not just leading New South Wales. He's supposed to be the Prime Minister for the nation, but all he does is divide and undermine. Yesterday the PM implied that Western Australians were cave people. Before that he allowed his Treasurer to hold WA and other states to ransom, threatening to pull the economic rug from under us if lockdowns or restrictions are imposed after reaching 80 per cent vaccinations for only those aged 16 and above. We won't forget that the Morrison government didn't provide financial support for our last lockdowns in WA, either. Everyone wants us to come out of this pandemic situation as soon as possible, but we don't forget that the Morrison government's handling of vaccines and quarantine, as well as being anti lockdown, is why we're not coming out of this yet as a nation. The PM needs to stop responding after the fact. These are real people's lives that are being lost or irreparably damaged, yet he's still working out— (Time expired) COVID-19: Queensland 41 13:37 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk is walking away from the national cabinet's plan to avoid snap lockdowns. The Premier boasts that the state remains open—that's a fact—with the cafes and restaurants trading and the state still hosting spectator sports. But businesses are crying out. They need help and they need help now. They have no choice but to close their doors. Without a pathway out of this pandemic, families remain separated due to border closures, and businesses and holiday-makers are in limbo and are too afraid to make decisions. Every time the state warns of a potential snap lockdown, trade is restricted. Businesses in the economy take a hit. The Queensland Premier needs to stick to the vaccination targets that were agreed to with the national cabinet. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and we are currently on the way out of this pandemic, hopefully. Labor needs to stop locking down the state. Let us get our kids back to school, our workers back on the job and industry up again. COVID-19: Education 42 13:39 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler This year, 2021, has been an incredibly difficult year for Australians but particularly so for year 12 students, who have seen their final year of secondary education thrown into turmoil. Their mental health and wellbeing has suffered due to the lack of face-to-face contact with their peers and their teachers. They are facing the very real prospect of their school achievements passing without formal recognition or graduation. My granddaughter Charlie is in year 12. She loves school, but remote learning has taken a toll on her as she tries to navigate learning in an isolated environment. These students know what the pandemic has robbed them of, while the New South Wales government still insists they sit a formal period of exams. The pandemic has changed the government's response to almost everything in our community, but not this year's HSC and the stress and the uncertainty this is causing students. It's time to rethink the validity of the HSC, particularly for this year, and its relevance to university entry. Given the absence of overseas students, our universities are not waiting for the HSC results but are offering more places through early entry provisions. I don't believe this year's HSC is a valid tool of the assessment, but the current level of uncertainty is certainly affecting the welfare of our students. It's time that the New South Wales government listened to our young people, their teachers and, indeed, nearly the entire education sector of New South Wales. (Time expired) Mero, Axel: London Royal Ballet School 42 13:40 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise in the House today to congratulate Axel Mero, from Mount Beauty, in my electorate of Indi. Axel has been accepted into the Royal Ballet School in London and will jet off in just two weeks time. Through hard work, passion and perseverance Axel has secured this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity at just 15 years of age and from the tiny village of Mount Beauty. He has been dancing since he was two years old, starting classes in Mount Beauty, and, since he was 11, at the Projection Dance company in Wodonga. His mum Lena, dad Andy and sister Saskia have supported him in his dedication to dance. It's an amazing feat to be offered a place in such a prestigious international dance school, but the work to get there is so much harder if you are a young man living in rural Australia. Outside of lockdown, Axel travels hours each way to attend his dance school four or five days a week, and now in lockdown he's training all day under Zoom. The Mount Beauty Lions Club and Mount Beauty District Community Bank have also contributed funds to help Axel on his journey. I was on the phone to him earlier today, and he is so excited. He is an extraordinary young man with talent and commitment. He has overcome all of the challenges that have come his way. Everyone in Indi wishes you all the best, Axel, and we cannot wait to see you performing on stage. Congratulations. Barker Electorate: Exports 42 13:42 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My electorate of Barker produces some of Australia's highest quality food and fibre and we have an international reputation for it. From the premium reds of the Barossa and Coonawarra to wagyu beef in the south east to rock lobster from Barker's southern ports, the electorate of Barker is every foodie's dream. This amazing produce employs thousands of people across Barker, right across the supply chain, supporting local communities and making our region a great place to live, work and raise a family. Unfortunately, for many local producers, COVID-19 has disrupted some of our key export routes. Since April 2020 our government's $575 million International Freight Assistance Mechanism Program has assisted over 300,000 tons of premium produce to reach customers across 58 international destinations. Local produce such as southern rock lobster has been given a lifeline through this program following devastating market interruptions with key trading partners. While the current program is set to end next month, I'm here to say that I am lobbying my federal colleagues in this place to continue and indeed expand the program to ensure our local farmers and fishers have access to the key markets around the world that they rely on. By supporting our exporters through this tough time we are making it easier for us to achieve our $100 billion plan by 2030. (Time expired) Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research 42 13:44 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur The Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research has rapidly become an iconic organisation in south-west Sydney. I recently met with some board members, including CEO, Darryl Harkness; board president, Terry Goldacre; Jim Marsden; and Professor Les Bokey. The Ingham institute has recently been granted some wonderful research grants, with my friend Professor Valsamma Eapen receiving a grant to look at the effect of COVID-19 on children and families and Dr Deepak Bhonagiri receiving a grant to look at virtual ICUs for the smaller hospitals in south-west Sydney. The Ingham institute provides wonderful services from Bankstown through to the Southern Highlands. It supports our wonderful research scientists and medicos, and a whole range of services in conjunction with Western Sydney university. It's a great organisation. It only started in 2013, with support from the Ingham family—from Bob Ingham in particular—and also from Lady Mary Fairfax. It's also supported by local businessman Arnold Vitocco and the Perich family. It's providing great services to a whole range of people from Bankstown to Bowral. It's a great organisation and deserves the support of the state and federal governments. Braddon Electorate: Daffodil Day Appeal 43 13:45 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon This Friday, 27 August, is Daffodil Day. One in two Australians are diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes and I'm just one of the millions across Australia who have been forever impacted by the scourge of this disease: my beautiful wife, Amanda Jane, died of lymphoma in her early 30s. But because of the great work of organisations like the Cancer Council, every day I'm hopeful that we're another day closer to finding a cure. Over the past three decades survival rates for many types of cancers have improved by more than 20 per cent, but there's more to be done. So if you're like me and live on the north-west or west coast of Tasmania, visit one of these great local businesses who are hosting Daffodil Day: the Railway supermarket—the IGA Everyday—in Queenstown; Woolworths in Smithton, Wynyard and Upper Burnie; the Somerset Newsagency; North-West Regional and Mersey community hospitals; Burnie Plaza; Bunnings in Devonport and Burnie; TerryWhite Chemmart in the Four Ways; the Penguin Newsagency & Tattslotto; Coles in Devonport; SUPA IGA in Shearwater; Banjo's Devonport; and Hill Street Grocery in Latrobe. This Friday I encourage everyone across Australia to 'Show your Flower Power', donate to the Cancer Council and join the fight against cancer, to eliminate it from the world. Macquarie Electorate: Mental Health 43 13:46 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It's been 12 months since Katoomba's headspace opened, for the first time providing easier access for young people in the upper mountains to ask for help. But its establishment has come at a time when record numbers of people, young and old, are reaching out. The team has worked incredibly hard. They won't say it, but I can say that the initial funding for the satellite service simply couldn't cater to the need—especially when a very high proportion of kids reported suicidal ideation and self-harm. Headspace worked closely with other local services to try to meet the need. As a senior clinician said, 'We knew there was a high demand for a service,' yet it still took seven years for the Liberals to provide it. Headspace is primarily an early intervention service, but by the time kids turn up their needs are often much greater. Until we have initiatives from the government to increase the affordability and availability of psychology, counselling and psychiatry services it's going to be an uphill battle. And we still don't have a headspace in the Hawkesbury, where we also know there is a very high demand for a service. As more than a thousand people have said to me, it's hard to get help at the best of times let alone in these times. I'm not alone in begging the minister for health: please announce a headspace for the Hawkesbury. White, Mr Samuel 'Sam' 43 13:48 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey In 2010, young Sam White was living with his parents, Jim and Andrea, in Whyalla. Jim was a senior manager at Arrium. Sadly, he has passed since. But Sam had a motorbike accident at Port Lowly, about 15 kilometres out of the city and, sadly, he was rendered a paraplegic as a result of that accident. Whyalla was shocked, and rallied around a popular young man and his family. But you can't keep a good man down and, after a shift to Adelaide, Sam, then confined to a wheelchair, started playing social night-time basketball. It turns out he was okay—before long he was playing for the Adelaide Thunder. With a bit of encouragement he decided to relocate to the US, where he studied and played wheelchair basketball for the University of Wisconsin. They went back to back in 2014-15, and Sam made his way onto the Rollers team, which is the Australian wheelchair basketball team—our national team—as it went to the Rio Olympics. Two years later he was part of our team at the world championships and tomorrow he will take the boards for the Rollers at the Tokyo Paralympics. Go Sam! I often say the challenge of life is to focus on what we can do rather than what we cannot do. That's certainly Sam's attitude. He is a great example of what you can do to turn your life around and make the most of it—(Time expired) JobKeeper Payment 43 13:49 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner JobKeeper was the biggest one-off program in Australian history, costing the average Australian household $9,000. It wasn't Liberal Party money; it was taxpayer money, and taxpayers have a right to know how it was spent. In Britain taxpayers know every firm that got their job retention scheme. In New Zealand taxpayers know every firm that got the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Order! The member for Fenner, I will sit you down if you keep using a prop. Dr LEIGH BU8 In the United States taxpayers know every firm that got money through the Paycheck Protection Program. There's nothing left wing about accountability. Two out of these three programs were set up by conservative governments. In Britain, New Zealand and the United States they're honest with their taxpayers. In Australia: zip, zilch, nada. That's why Labor moved an amendment in the Senate requiring the tax office to publish the names of every firm with a turnover above $10 million that got JobKeeper. Australians know that giving JobKeeper to Brett Blundy, Harvey Norman and Solomon Lew didn't save a single job. Dividends to billionaire shareholders and bonuses to millionaire CEOs might help the offshore superyacht industry but it doesn't lower the Australian jobless rate. What is the Morrison government hiding? Why are they so scared of Australians knowing who got money through the JobKeeper program? Why have they allowed $13 billion to go to firms with rising earnings? (Time expired) COVID-19: Arts 44 13:51 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth [by video link] Creative arts and the industries are a mainstay of my electorate of Wentworth. They are part of the local culture, they support careers and businesses, they nurture talent and they make our eastern suburbs a vibrant and exciting place to live. And that's why continued support of the arts is crucial for the cultural and social vitality of my community and why I'm fighting so hard to make sure that these sectors are not overlooked for assistance as we go through these difficult pandemic times. I'm really pleased to announce that an additional $20 million is now going to be going to Support Act to enable Support Act to extend its support beyond the music sector, so it can offer support to artists, creative production and technical crews right across the arts sector. We have also got a further $15 million in assistance going to the sustainability fund, which will help significant Australian arts organisations continue to operate during this period of severe disruption. The National Institute of Dramatic Arts and Opera Australia are just some of the 10 leading organisations that've already benefited from the over $20 million already allocated. I'm also pleased to announce that under the RISE Fund an additional $1.45 million has been awarded to four organisations in my home electorate: the Australian World Orchestra, Love Police Touring, TEDxSydney Limited and Imagination Workshop—four locally based arts and entertainment sector organisations. Finally, we're supporting independent cinemas, particularly the Ritz Cinema in Randwick and the Chauvel and Verona cinemas in Paddington. We must not only support our arts, but support our artists, and I'm pleased the government is doing just that. Tasmania: Aviation Industry 44 13:53 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to talk about the aviation workers in my electorate. I did raise this issue in here just a week or so ago. The airport job cuts in Tasmania have now reached over 100—100 people who no longer have the jobs that they had just a few months ago. Indeed, it has climbed from 30 to 100 due to border and flight cancellations around the country. The thing that we know though is that these workers are not eligible for any support. I want to read from one of my constituents who is one of those workers: 'Just an update, we're now looking at 80 to 90 staff that have been stood down in Hobart with no pay and no support from anyone. My understanding is that this is because they are on standdown. They're not able to get any support at all as they've not been terminated. I'm sort of lucky at the moment and have 15 hours this week, instead of around 30 to 40 hours. But with all the late cancellations I won't receive our next roster until possibly Friday with a chance of being stood down like the others. I've been working at Hobart Airport for nearly 20 years. I have never felt so unsure as to how I'm going to survive this with no help.' My constituents and constituents around Tasmania are feeling like this today because the government and the Prime Minister did not do their jobs. If the Prime Minister had done his job on vaccine and if the Prime Minister had done his job on fit-for-purpose quarantine my constituents would not be in this position. Ryan Electorate: Roads 44 13:54 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan [by video link] I made an important commitment to the people of Ryan at the last election to fix local roads, and, with the help of the Brisbane City Council and Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner, we are getting on with the job. This week has been all about roads in the Ryan electorate. I've been out this morning with Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner to the Gresham Street bridge in Ashgrove, where we are lowering a temporary bridge into place so that we can replace an older-style 90-year-old wooden bridge. This is going to help residents for whom this bridge is their only way in and out. It's part of a jointly funded—federally funded with Brisbane City Council support—project to upgrade this bridge, improve flood immunity, upgrade the vehicle load limit and improve this intersection's safety for all residents in Ashgrove and The Gap. We've got the Indooroopilly roundabout project as well—again, a project funded fifty-fifty between the Morrison federal government and the Brisbane City Council—which is already well underway. Thanks to the support of the Brisbane City Council, we've now enlarged the project to include a full corridor improvement for Moggill Road, one of the most congested road corridors in Brisbane. We've already seen demolition works underway at the current Indooroopilly roundabout site so that work on the new intersection can begin. The expanded project scope is going to include not only the intersection upgrade but new indented bus stops, bus priority measures, safety measures and selected road widening along the Moggill Road corridor. It's all about how our two LNP governments are working together to fix local roads. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 45 13:56 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The Prime Minister is treating us like mugs again. In a few moments, he's going to stand at that dispatch box and say that Australians have to make a choice between hope and holding him to account for the debacle that we find ourselves in. Of course there's hope. Australians are getting vaccinated in record numbers. They're ignoring the lunatic ranting from his mates, like the member for Dawson and Senator Canavan from Queensland. Australians are doing their job, but we cannot ignore that in New South Wales today alone nearly 1,000 people have been infected with this horrible virus. Since the last outbreak, 132 people have died. Our kids are the forgotten ones. They're shut out of school and locked away from their friends. They're climbing their walls, and they're at the back of the queue when it comes to getting a vaccine. How do I tell my 14-year-old son that his 17-year-old sister can get a vaccine, but he cannot? How do I tell him that? Thousands and thousands of Australians are in exactly the same position. The Prime Minister wants us to forget how we got here, but we simply are not going to do that, because if we forget how we got here we will make the same mistakes again. He didn't hold a hose, he didn't sign a contract and he ignored the fact that the virus was bleeding out of hotel quarantine and leading us to the situation we're in today. (Time expired) Sturt Electorate: Kensington Gardens Reserve 45 13:57 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to update the House on the imminent completion of an excellent project we've jointly funded in my electorate, that being the Kensington Gardens Reserve upgrade. The Morrison government has committed $3 million towards this in partnership with the Burnside Council and the South Australian state government. It's an excellent investment in a local project in my electorate that's going to give an outcome of improved sporting amenities and a significant environmental upgrade. The project involves realigning of the hardcourt tennis courts, bringing them up to Tennis Australia's standard for competition purposes, and also re-engineering of wastewater treatment through the creek system into the Torrens, which sees us getting rid of an old, environmentally poor duck pond and instead replacing it with a wetland, including an Aboriginal interpretative trail through that precinct. This is a great example of us working with state and local governments to deliver for the local community. In my area, there are a number of projects just like the Kensington Gardens Reserve project that are seeing us invest to bring excellent outcomes for local families. When I return to Adelaide, after my isolation, I look forward to going to inspect the finished product of this project and working with my local community to achieve funding for more projects like this well into the future. COVID-19 45 13:59 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher We're living through difficult times, and no-one doubts that. There are, throughout all of our 151 electorates across this country, people who are suffering the effects of this pandemic, particularly from a mental health perspective. I want to send a message out to those people who are struggling, right here, this afternoon, that there is hope. We will get through this. We will get through this together. This government has a plan. Based on the research of the Doherty institute, once 70 to 80 per cent of people are double vaccinated in this country, we will start to open up. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Afghanistan 46 14:00 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Prime Minister. According to a report, Afghans with valid Australian visas who protected the Australian embassy and their families, up to 1,200 people, were left to wait outside Kabul airport, some standing in sewage, before being turned away. Is that report true? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook What I can confirm is last night 950 people were evacuated from one of the most dangerous places on earth. They were done by the brave men and women serving in our defence forces, supported by our officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Home Affairs, dealing with one of the most difficult situations anyone in this place could imagine—950 people in one night on five very dangerous flights. Some 2,650 people, in the course of the last 22 flights, have now been evacuated from Kabul back to AMAB. They are already returning home now to Australia, where so many of those Afghan nationals and their families who have served and supported Australians over many years join the 1,900 who have already come to Australia before this most recent series of events commenced. They will make their home here and they will become Australians, and they will be very, very welcome. COVID-19: Morrison Government 46 14:01 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House how the national plan, backed by expert advice, will enable Australians to live with the virus and will help create a stronger nation on the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Stirling for his question. He will particularly welcome the news that I just conveyed to the House about just how many people we are managing to evacuate from Afghanistan, from Kabul, at this present time, and I thank the member for his service. The national plan is the clear path Australia needs to live with the virus in the future. That is what we must do. We must face that future and we must live with the virus into the future. It is a plan that is for safe reopening. It's a safe plan that focuses on protecting the most vulnerable throughout the many stages of that plan. It's a safe plan that parents can have confidence in, that employers can have confidence in, that workers can have confidence in and that communities can have confidence in, because it is evidence based. It is an evidence based, scientific plan that is supported by the best medical advice but also the best economic advice, which says that when you get to 70 per cent and 80 per cent of your population over the age of 16 that is vaccinated then you can live without the lockdowns into the future. That is what is incredibly important. It's an honest plan because it understands and acknowledges that once we get into phase B and, indeed, into phase C there will be additional cases and we will be living with COVID within our communities. We'll be doing it safely and we'll be working with states and territories to ensure that our public health systems are there and able to support the community in the same way that they do that with all other infectious diseases. It's a necessary plan because it means children will be able to go back to school. It's a necessary plan because it means businesses will be able to plan for their future. It'll ensure that Australians will be able to get those hours back and go back to work. It means that our tourism and travel sectors will be able to get back onto their feet. And our aviation sector—and not just domestic but international as well. It means that artists will be able to go back on stage and perform at live venues. It means that agricultural producers will be able to get the workers they need to ensure that they can provide the food and fibre that our country needs and that we export to the rest of the world. It means that universities and colleges will be able to welcome those students back and they'll be able to return to our country. It's a plan that ensures that financiers and investors in Australia can have confidence and they can be reassured and reinforced, and our credit rating will be able to be reinforced as well. This is a plan that, above all, will bring Australians back safely together. It's a plan that has been supported by Australians by going out there and getting vaccinated—307,000 doses yesterday; 1.9 million a week; nine million AstraZeneca doses, and more, have been administered. There are more places you can get vaccinated now than there are petrol stations to get petrol in your car. The plan is coming together. COVID-19: Quarantine 46 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. On the day that Queensland's hotel quarantine system reaches capacity, the Morrison government asked the parliament to agree to the construction of dedicated quarantine facilities in Queensland and Western Australia. Why has it taken a lockdown affecting half of the Australian population, at least 27 breaches in hotel quarantine and a system at breaking point for the Prime Minister to accept fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities have been needed all along? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Leader of the Opposition, in framing that question in that way, I think discourages the great work that has been done by states and territories around the clock for the last 18 months, because, when we came together in March last year and we were faced with one of the most urgent crises, with people returning to this country who could potentially be COVID-infected, all of us together—states, territories and the Commonwealth—agreed that the most effective way to deal with this crisis was to ensure we put in place a system of hotel quarantine which all the states and territories signed up for, and that has had a success rate which the rest of the world has envied. I know that because I have discussed it with those leaders. Those opposite may wish to pretend that any system of quarantine can operate with 100 per cent effectiveness, but that would be foolish, that would be unrealistic and that would be seeking to simply undermine the efforts that have been put in place, have saved 30,000 lives and got a million people back to work. Our national plan is going to ensure that we can open this country up again when we do reach those 70 and 80 per cent vaccination rates and that we can live with the virus into the future—something about which those opposite have cast doubt. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. The question was about fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities that were considered by this parliament, this House, earlier today, without the usual inquiries through the Public Works Committee, and the fact that the government brought it forward as a matter of urgency, 18 months after what the Prime Minister just referenced— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition won't debate the matter. The Prime Minister has been relevant to this point, but the question was about quarantine, not the broader opening up and other policies associated with the challenge that we have. I'll call the Prime Minister and ask him to— Mr MORRISON E3L In addition, as part of this broad program that we have embarked upon over the last 18 months and the highly effective nature of the arrangements that states and territories elected to enter into— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L They did elect. I was at the meeting; the Leader of the Opposition was not. He was too busy bagging the national cabinet for existing in the first place. That's what he was doing in the first place. He may have had a road to Maribyrnong conversion this day about the national plan, but I don't think anyone believes him. COVID-19: Economic Recovery 47 14:09 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-Joyce government support for sticking to the national plan will support the aviation sector, protect jobs and industry, and guarantee essential services, providing a safe pathway through the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:09 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'd like to commend the question asked by the honourable member for Flynn. The honourable member for Flynn has asked a question about services and regional areas—and he would know about services, because the honourable member for Flynn ran a hardware business providing services and hardware, and he ran a fuel business providing fuel services to the people of his community, and he also owned O'Dowd's Irish pub—who woulda thunk it!—providing all sorts of services and beverages and other things to half the city of Rockhampton. So he also understands how important it is and how vital it is to make sure that people arrive in Rockhampton, and that is why he had to rely on a coalition government for the Domestic Aviation Network Support scheme, the Regional Airline Network Support scheme and the Tourism and Aviation Network Support scheme, and why he understood quite clearly that under the Domestic Aviation Network Support scheme was support for the accreditation of people who worked at airports, also vitally important. He understood quite clearly the $750 that was paid to people in hotspots and how that kept them in their jobs. And I tell you what, Mr Speaker, the member for Flynn also understands that the Australian people want their freedoms and liberties back and that the safe plan to do that is with the coalition, as we do it as quickly as possible. The Australian people want their lives back. The Australian people want to live like they did before. They want to get back to O'Dowd's Irish pub, because that is part of our culture. It's part of our fabric. And I apologise for all the advertising I'm doing for O'Dowd's Irish pub, but it's worth it! Through the process of these aviation packages, we have moved nearly two million people, and that is a great sense of the efficacy of a coalition policy to deliver back to regional areas. In delivering back to regional areas and delivering services—like the member would know, we have to have people who work in regional areas. And I commend the work done by the minister for agriculture, David Littleproud, and others. We have brought forward the ag visa, which is also vitally important in providing the services so we get the food out of the paddock, and so we can get it to Rockhampton, so we can cook it in the kitchen, so we can serve the people who go to O'Dowd's Irish pub! Because we are the people who understand regional Australia. We run businesses, we understand businesses, and we know what needs to be done. We're going to give the Australian people their lives back and their liberties back as quickly as possible, and we have the safe plan to do it. COVID-19: Aged Care 48 14:12 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh [by video link] My question is for the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Nearly 600 aged-care centres across Australia, less than half the workforce, have had their first vaccine dose. Given the government's announced mandate for workforce vaccination starts in just over three weeks, can the government guarantee that there will be enough vaccinated aged-care workers to care for vulnerable older Australians? 14:13 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Yes is the simple answer, and the reason is that, at this stage, what we are seeing is a dramatic increase in aged-care worker vaccinations as a result of the national cabinet decision. It was a difficult and challenging decision, and I'm pleased that all of the premiers and chief ministers supported the initiative of the Prime Minister and the AHPPC to support and encourage aged-care workers to take up the vaccine. I'm actually very pleased to be able to say that that number has increased significantly—almost five per cent in one day—and 76.1 per cent of aged-care workers now have had a vaccination. That is as a result of inreach programs and outreach programs. The programs that we've put in place include general practice visits, the state vaccine clinics, the Commonwealth vaccine clinics, the roving clinics, the inreach clinics—and these clinics are being provided through self-vaccination, which has been a highly effective mechanism I've mentioned before. TLC and Lou Pascuzzi and his team in Victoria have done an extraordinary job. They've created and provided a national model which is being rolled out. We have vaccination service providers which are providing those vaccines around the country, and we also have, in relation to that, the inreach work of general practices and primary health networks that are assisting. So there are multiple pathways for those vaccinations. Indeed, we have had over 670 onsite clinics organised recently by residential aged-care providers themselves, as I mentioned. There have been dedicated aged-care clinics recently for 585 RACFs—residential aged-care facilities. So all of these things are occurring. There is another thing that is happening at the same time, and I think this is very important and pleasing. There were those residents for whom consent was not given either by the resident or their family, even though we had visited all facilities. Through these programs on inreach we've seen the number of residents increase successively from 85 to 86, 87, 88 and, now, 88.4 per cent of residents. Many of them have had their doubts, or their families have not been supportive, so all of these things— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Yes, on direct relevance. I absolutely respect the information that the health minister is offering the House. The question is quite specifically about the aged-care workforce. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, that's true. The question is whether he is being relevant to the question—and I think he is being relevant to it—and whether he has answered the question. He did it in one word at the beginning of his answer. So I'll keep listening. While he's on the policy topic, I think he's fine. I have, of course, sat him down before, but that was for a different reason! The minister has the call. Mr HUNT 00AMV Thank you for the guidance, Mr Speaker. But, on that point, the fact is that we have now reached 88.4 per cent of residents. It is a voluntary vaccination for residents and it is a voluntary vaccination for workers, but it is a workplace requirement if they wish to work in that situation. What we've seen through the work of Operation COVID Shield is an extraordinary uplift. The public health orders—six states and territories have now implemented them—have also made a difference. And the publication of the vaccination rates, which we did consciously, has also driven action. All of these things are coming together to protect our elderly Australians. (Time expired) Superannuation 48 14:17 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy [by video link] Slithering suits out of Sydney universities contaminate trade unions and now invest all superannuation moneys, with 51 per cent of super going into the stock market—what Maynard Keynes called a roulette wheel. For 70 years, 60 per cent of super, by law, went into government securities. Respected, strong union voices advocate an authority to invest 25 per cent into government secured make-money projects: dams, factories, mining ports—better, surely, than vote-grabbing self-indulgence, ring-roads and Olympic Games? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I will just call the Treasurer, if members could stop interjecting. Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No. You can leave in a second, if you want. I'm not sure what the question was, but I call the Treasurer. 14:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. His question was obviously about superannuation and the investment in domestic assets, and particularly infrastructure. I think the member for Kennedy was referring colloquially to what was known as the 30/20 rule. It was a rule when we had superannuation schemes, otherwise known then as retirement schemes, that were run by life insurance companies, and they were required to invest a certain proportion of their assets in government securities. Thirty per cent of their assets was required to be invested in government securities, and 20 per cent of that needed to be in Commonwealth securities. Following the Campbell inquiry, they brought to an end that requirement, because they'd found that it was actually distortionary and it was inefficient and ineffective. We as a government, as part of broader superannuation reforms, are going to be requiring superannuation funds to disclose what they are investing in—the assets that they are investing in. I share the member for Kennedy's enthusiasm for our superannuation sector, now $3 trillion strong, to invest in Australian infrastructure assets. It's really important. And our reforms will help do that. Along with those reforms there have been broader reforms to superannuation, designed to support members—whether that is banning exit fees, whether that is capping fees on low-balance accounts, whether that is consolidating inactive accounts or whether that is what we've done, more recently, with respect to transparency and accountability of superannuation and giving members the ability to see the fees and the returns of their superannuation funds and to ensure that there aren't duplicate accounts. So I'd say to the honourable member for Kennedy: we are focused on ensuring that our superannuation funds are delivering the best returns for their members, because at the end of the day the money belongs to the members. It's not the fund managers' money. It's not the unions' money. It belongs to the members, and we want to see more of that money invested in Australia, including in infrastructure. COVID-19: Economy 49 14:20 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of what the Morrison government is doing to support our economic recovery and why every Australian state and territory needs to stay committed to the national plan that has been agreed to so that we can live with COVID into the future? 14:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the honourable member for Bass for her question and acknowledge her strong advocacy and involvement in her local community, formerly as a councillor and indeed as a mayor, and as a beef farmer as well, over the course of her career before coming to this place. She's a strong advocate for small business, and it was really pleasing that the Morrison government joined with the Gutwein government recently in providing support for small businesses, with grants ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 in the state of Tasmania. Small business is doing it really tough right now—in and out of lockdown, and the uncertainty that that creates. That's why we've been providing grants to small business. But today we've gone further by expanding our small and medium-size business loan scheme. This scheme has already delivered more than 70,000 loans worth more than $6 billion. To be eligible for that scheme you needed to be on JobKeeper in the March quarter. We're now removing that requirement, and small and medium-size businesses—whether they're in the tourism industry, whether they're in the hospitality industry or whether they're in the construction sector—will be able to apply for loans of up to $5 million, of up to 10 years duration and with up to the first two years being repayment-free. This money can be used as working capital; this money can be used to expand the business through investment in machinery and equipment; or this money can be used for refinancing. But the long-term sustainable future of small business is not with government loans or in government grants; it's by actually sticking to the plan agreed by national cabinet, which will see restrictions eased at 70 and 80 per cent vaccination rates. We know from the Doherty institute that zero COVID forever is unrealistic, which means we must learn to live with the virus—as we have done with influenza, with just 200,000 cases a year here in Australia, and 600 deaths. So, we're seeking to learn to live with the virus, and our support for small business is based on how integral we believe they are to our community and to our economy, and when we ease the restrictions we can start to see them reopen and get their customers back. I say to the House, and I say to the honourable member: if we don't ease restrictions at 70 and 80 per cent, when do we? When do we see our kids go back to school? When do we see businesses reopen? When can we join with loved ones at funerals or at weddings? And when can we travel more freely across our own country? We need to give people hope, and the plan led by the Prime Minister and agreed at national cabinet gives that hope. (Time expired) COVID-19: New South Wales 50 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Eight days into the Sydney outbreak the Prime Minister congratulated the New South Wales Premier for not locking down. Two months later, the whole of New South Wales is in extended lockdown, with a record 919 new cases today, and the outbreak has spread to Victoria, the ACT and even New Zealand. New South Wales hospitals are at breaking point. Will the Prime Minister accept that his complacency contributed to the current circumstances? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook On 23 August the Leader of the Opposition was opposing the national plan and he pretends today he was supporting it. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the Prime Minister that the question wasn't about the national plan. The Prime Minister has the call and needs to be relevant— Ms Collins interjecting— Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting, as will the member for Franklin. The Prime Minister needs to be relevant to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L The situation in New South Wales is of course intensely serious. It is incredibly serious. That situation is a function of one thing— Mr Stephen Jones A9B You! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Whitlam! Mr MORRISON E3L It is a function of the delta variant of the COVID-19 virus. Those opposite might like to think that Australia is somehow immune to a global pandemic. Perhaps they think that the fault of there being a lockdown in New Zealand is the fault of the New Zealand Prime Minister or that the outbreaks in the United Kingdom, in the Netherlands or in other parts of the world are the function of those leaders. But what sensible people understand is that what we are going through is a global pandemic. In this country, the actions of the government, together with governments around the country, have saved 30,000 lives, and a million people are back in work. What I note this year, because I remember last year very vividly when Melbourne was going through the lockdown— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. It was a specific question about whether the Prime Minister accepted any responsibility— The SPEAKER 00APG No. The point of order is on relevance, I presume? Mr Dutton interjecting— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House will cease their conversation. The point of order is on relevance, I take it? Mr Albanese R36 It is on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question went to whether there was any responsibility for the fact that the Prime Minister encouraged and congratulated the New South Wales Premier for not taking action against the pandemic. The SPEAKER 00APG I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition that he doesn't need to restate the question. An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, he doesn't need to restate it. That's the last thing he needs to do. When the Leader of the Opposition says it was a very specific question, it was a very specific question at the end of a very long preamble. That doesn't open the question up entirely, but I'm listening to the Prime Minister to ensure he is being relevant to the question. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L All premiers, all chief ministers, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others have had to make many decisions over the course of this pandemic, and collectively those decisions have saved 30,000 lives in this country—something envied by countries all around the world—and we have an economy that remains incredibly resilient and a million people coming back into work after the COVID-19 recession last year. Those are the decisions that governments have been taking and they are the results that are being achieved. The delta variant, as we know, completely changed everything in terms of our COVID response, and the New South Wales government made decisions, and they have been making decisions over the course of this pandemic. On previous occasions they have made decisions where they haven't locked down, which enabled children to still go to school and enabled businesses to remain open and avoid the great hardship of the lockdowns which cause terrible ruin on people. These lockdowns are hard to endure. They are necessary at this time, but only as long as they need to be. The New South Wales government have sought to avoid those lockdowns over the course of this pandemic. Those opposite may want to charge in and attack the New South Wales government for their efforts. They may seek to do that. I am not going to do that. What I know is that last year over 800 lives were lost in Victoria. This year, in New South Wales, 76 have been lost. We're making great progress in fighting this pandemic, and I thank all the premiers for their efforts. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 51 14:24 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and how sticking to the national plan will provide both hope and safety for Australians? 14:29 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Lindsay for her support and advocacy for her community in a challenging time. Last night I had the privilege of representing Australia at an online meeting of APEC health ministers. The Canadian convener made the point that 64,000 people had been lost in the last week, on official figures. We were aware that 4½ million people in the global pandemic—as the Prime Minister has said—have lost their lives, on official figures. It's probably closer to 10 million on the advice of the World Health Organization. Every country which spoke last night had hardship and had challenges. The New Zealand minister, Andrew Little, gave a very impassioned and powerful speech about a nation in full lockdown right now—New Zealand, which has done so well. We are so proud of our Kiwi cousins and of what they've done but right now they are in a full national lockdown— An honourable member interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV Don't do it, Anthony—don't do it. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister for health will just answer the question. Mr HUNT 00AMV Right now, New Zealand faces its own lockdown as part of a global pandemic. The message which all shared, though, was that through this we need hope and safety. These are the paths to recovery. These two things are the way forward. In that context, what we've seen over the last 24 hours is 307,000 vaccinations, 43,000 higher than on the same day last week. That's a 15 per cent increase in one week on that day's results. There have been 6½ million vaccinations over 30 days—that is the population of Melbourne, Adelaide and Townsville together, over 30 days, and almost five times the population of Adelaide being vaccinated in that period of time. That's what Australians are doing and that's what does give us hope. Yes, the national plan does set some challenging targets. Some would say that it's too conservative. But 70 and 80 per cent are real milestones that will provide significant protection and safety and fundamentally change the equation. These vaccinations are bringing us closer to those marks every day. So I say to Australians, thank you for coming forward. But to those who have not taken the opportunity, please do so. And to those who become eligible: this is your chance, your time and your capacity to help protect every Australian. COVID-19: New South Wales 51 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Sydney's health system is under real pressure. At Westmead Hospital in Sydney, two-thirds of intensive care beds are occupied by COVID-positive patients, and patients are being sent to other hospitals to free up space. There's ramping of ambulances with patients, which have been waiting to get into Westmead and Nepean hospitals. Now, what extra resources, will the federal government allocate to New South Wales to ensure that its health system is not overwhelmed? 14:33 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will ask the minister for health, who may wish to add to this answer. Over the course of this pandemic, the federal government has committed and provided some $27 billion in direct health support right across this country to support the very types of measures and challenges that the member refers to. Right from the start we entered into a fifty-fifty, dollar-for-dollar arrangement to support the costs that were being borne by states and territories because of the additional COVID-related pressures that they were facing in providing COVID-related medical support through their hospital systems. That is not the normal deal. The normal deal is 45-55—with 55 done by the states. It's a longstanding arrangement. We made that dollar for dollar because we knew that we would have to walk each step of the way with the states and territories when it came to backing them in on the medical and health support that they would need to provide during this pandemic. I send a big shout-out to all those nurses, to all those doctors and to all those paramedics and ambulance workers. I know a bit about that: my brother is one of them. They're doing an amazing job with great sacrifice and under intense pressure. They're often prevented from being with their families because of the nature of the work that they're doing. We are backing them in, and we've been backing them in each and every day of the pandemic. And it's not just health workers; it's not just the hospitals. We've been backing in the men and women who are unable to get work during the course of this pandemic. Some $4 billion worth of COVID disaster payments are being made even now in the course of these most recent lockdowns to provide them with the help and the support that they need. Every single week, as has been done now for many months, the Department of Health led by the secretary, Professor Murphy, working with the states and territories, makes a full assessment of the pressures across the public health systems of all the states and territories, and that report is provided to the national cabinet. At our most recent meeting, it was a topic of real discussion, as it should be. We discussed the various contingencies we would have to put in place with movement of workforces. One of the most inspiring things I've seen over the course of this last 18 months as we've worked together as a team of premiers, chief ministers and myself, is ensuring that we respond to each other's needs. So there are Western Australian contact tracers working on the outbreak in New South Wales, and contact tracers from Tasmania are supporting other states, just as New South Wales, with its world-class systems, was supporting other states when they were in difficulty. There isn't time for the health minister to add to this answer, but the government is standing with the states and territories to help them address this very real burden, but we must proceed with the plan. (Time expired) Afghanistan 52 14:36 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Can the defence minister outline to the House how the men and women of the Australian Defence Force are continuing to bring back Australians and Australian visa holders from Afghanistan? 14:36 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question and I thank him too for his time as defence minister and his contribution to supporting our Australian Defence Force personnel. That has been a long-term pursuit of his, and it's a great credit to him. All Australians should be incredibly proud of the work that is being done in Kabul at the moment by Australian Defence Force personnel. They're joined, of course, by DFAT staff, home affairs staff and people from other agencies. I also want to pay tribute, and say thank you most sincerely, to the United Kingdom and the United States, New Zealand and our other partners who are working seamlessly to get our nationals off the ground and also to provide support to uplift those Afghan nationals and people who are deserving of our support. There are many in that category. The work of the Australian Defence Force, of course, has continued over a long period of time, and we have looked at the situation. There has been a surge of activity, in particular since April this year, but Australians would be interested to know that over the last eight years we have issued visas to 8½ thousand Afghan nationals and provided support to those people to resettle in our country. We have provided support to the interpreters and those who have helped us over the course of the campaign in Afghanistan. In particular, since April, we've been bringing people on regular commercial flights most days to resettle in Australia, and that has been a great credit to the staff at the Australian Defence Force and also at home affairs and the other agencies. I want to recognise the work of the Royal Australian Air Force—one of the most recognised and capable forces in the world. They have been exceptional in their work in Kabul in this their 100th year of service to our country. We've had five flights overnight. The KC-30A, the midair refueller, is providing support to our allied partners. That is an invaluable asset and a great credit to the men and women of the Royal Australian Air Force. I want to pay tribute also to the officers within the special forces, the commandos, the SAS—an incredible asset to our country. Those men and women who serve in the SAS and their family members should be incredibly proud, now more than ever, of the work that they are doing in Afghanistan. We have lifted now 2,650 people since Wednesday alone. This includes, as the Prime Minister pointed out earlier, 955 people on those five flights in the last 24 hours. There is more work to be done, but of course we know that the security threats on the ground continue to increase, and we take the advice of the CDF as to how long it is possible for us to stay in that country to keep our own people safe and to help those who have helped us. COVID-19: Vaccination 53 14:40 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Mount Druitt, at heart of the Chifley electorate, has been smashed by COVID. Nearly two weeks ago, Labor wrote to the Prime Minister, urging him to utilise the ADF to set up and run vaccination hubs in Western Sydney. The government said that this is unnecessary. Why won't the government do everything it can to get vulnerable people in my electorate and in Western Sydney vaccinated? 14:40 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Thank you very much to the member for Chifley. The presumption in the question is incorrect. We have 777 Commonwealth vaccination sites across Western Sydney, and there are 12 LGAs, in particular, that they cover. We have over 2½ thousand Commonwealth vaccination sites across New South Wales. For example, with regard to Blacktown, I know that there are 192 sites within 10 kilometres of the middle of Blacktown; with regard to Fairfield, I know that there are 300 sites within 10 kilometres of Fairfield. These are being run by GPs, pharmacists and Commonwealth vaccination clinics. These are fundamentally critical sites. There is no impediment to any site ordering more AstraZeneca. They have uncapped allocations. These sites are already available. There are 777 Commonwealth vaccination sites operating across Western Sydney as we speak. I want to thank those people who are doing an extraordinary job. The way they are operating is saving lives and protecting lives. They have been progressively expanding in number. We're seeing now that this has helped New South Wales achieve globally leading vaccination rates over the last month. I want to give a shout-out to Casey Briggs from the ABC. Nobody would accuse him of being anything other than robustly independent. He has been doing the analysis. He has identified the fact that Australia has been able to vaccinate at rates faster than at any time in the UK over a seven-day period, and now the US. But New South Wales has been even faster than the nation as a whole. These 777 sites across Western Sydney have been at the heart of delivering those outcomes. So I respectfully but categorically disagree with the presumption of the question. Afghanistan 53 14:43 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government continues to resettle Afghan nationals in response to the serious situation in Afghanistan and is working in the national interest to keep Australians safe as well? 14:43 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question. There have now been some very successful flights from Kabul, particularly overnight. We have now helped around about 2,650 people to be evacuated from Kabul since this operation commenced on 18 August. That includes 955 people that were evacuated overnight on five flights. That's extraordinary. It is an absolutely outstanding effort on behalf of those who have been working there, in many cases around the clock, to support Australians, permanent residents and visa holders to be able to evacuate out of Kabul. We have already brought three plane loads of those evacuees through to Australia. Those flights have landed in Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide. Those people are already in their mandatory 14-day quarantine. They're undergoing exactly the same process as anyone else who comes into this country and undertaking 14 days of quarantine. After that, we will be looking to resettle these people into the community as soon as we possibly can. So every effort is being taken to make sure that we are keeping Australians safe and secure by bringing these people into the country and putting them through hotel quarantine and then moving them to resettle within our community. Our people on the ground in Kabul are working around the clock and they are supported by people right here in Australia. We understand how extreme the situation is in Kabul, and it is deteriorating hour by hour, but we are still there and we are continuing to do all that we can to make sure that we are able to evacuate as many people as we possibly can. We're making sure that we are conducting the checks that are needed to support these people as they fly out of Kabul to safety. I think it's important for Australians to be reminded that our diligence has been demonstrated over many, many years when it comes to our national security, and that should give them the confidence that we can be open and welcome people from all nations. We do have a very rich tapestry here in Australia. Many cultures, in fact, have made Australia home. It makes us who we are. We can certainly be very proud—all of us here and everyone right across Australia—of the role that we play in the international community. We continue to work with the Afghan community here in Australia. We will look at how many people we can bring as soon as we possibly can under our humanitarian program and support those people to settle safely here in Australia. COVID-19: Vaccination 54 14:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Minister for Health. Lakemba Respiratory Clinic is run by the federal government. It's one of the sites the minister referred to in his last answer. The manager of the clinic, Dr Saleh, says he's been forced to borrow vaccines from nearby clinics because his weekly delivery didn't show up. Dr Saleh says: We don’t know which day doses will arrive, last week it was Monday, this week we have been told Thursday. Why is this happening in a COVID hotspot? 14:46 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'd be pleased to receive the details, because we have a vaccine operation centre which ensures that each week we are achieving full national distribution. There are 8,000 sites. Those are being delivered on a weekly basis. The advice that I have is that they are being achieved. If there are any issues in relation to this particular site, this has not been drawn to my attention. This is one of the issues which we manage on behalf of many members in this House and we've been able to resolve them as and when they arise. I'm not aware that the member has previously made any representations to myself or Operation COVID Shield on this. It doesn't sound like it, in which case— The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the Minister for Health— Mr Burke DYW Point of order! The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business, I'm going to deal with the matter first. Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat for a second. I say to the Minister for Health, the way question time works is that the ministers get the questions. I discourage interjections. We cannot adopt a practice where you ask a question and expect them to answer. Otherwise—and this has happened a couple of times, not just with the Minister for Health—if that is going to be the practice, I'll stop it, and I might stop it by allowing an indulgence on the matter from the target of that. The Minister for Health. Mr HUNT 00AMV I would be very pleased to receive any information in relation to this particular facility and I would be happy to provide the details of the provision of vaccines. There is no doubt that every facility is receiving vaccines around the country—as I say, over 8,000 Commonwealth facilities. As well, there is the provision of support for over 800 state facilities. And, if there is any particular evidence and material, we would be pleased to respond to that immediately, as we have done with other members who have made representations. I would also note that there is one element which may affect distribution over the coming days. There is the risk of a transport strike on Friday— Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Whitlam will cease interjecting. The Minister for Health. Mr HUNT 00AMV And we hope that there is no impact on distribution, because an impact on one part of the system does have an impact on another part of the system. We'll continue to provide the vaccines. I would be pleased to receive the advice and the material, and we'll address it immediately. COVID-19: Small Business 54 14:50 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, who is my new neighbour up here. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is providing critical support for small businesses through the pandemic and why sticking to the national plan is so important to the recovery? I have asked the wrong question. My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Can you please update the House on how the Morrison government is sticking to international plans for supporting students? The SPEAKER 00APG Sorry, you've asked the question. I am going to call the minister for small business. It's probably the clearest illustration that it's not a question without notice. But, anyway, maybe it is! 14:51 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Can I thank the member for his question and for all the support he provides to the small and family businesses in his electorate. We have seen, not just in lockdowns right across the country but in lockdowns in the member's electorate over time as well, that many small businesses are doing it very, very tough—whether it's in the member's electorate, in members' electorates in New South Wales and Victoria, or on the Gold Coast in my electorate; we are not locked down, but 80 per cent of all trade comes from interstate. Those small business operators who, as at this morning, are now locked out of the state of Queensland are doing it tough. It's one of the reasons the Morrison government has put in place the largest set of support for small business in our nation's history—$291 billion in direct economic support, and not just through last year's JobKeeper but our boosting the cash flow measures, and our small and medium enterprise guarantee schemes. We extended the instant asset write-off. We extended and accelerated income support. There was early release of superannuation. We've also reduced the company tax rate from 30 to 25 per cent. We've ensured the ATO can no longer pursue recovery action whilst matters are before the AAT. And, of course, we're ensuring that vital cash flow line for small business—that they're paid within 20 days by large business and government—because we know that is so important. But we also know, as we fight towards 70 per cent and 80 per cent vaccination rates, that that becomes the opportunity, as per the national plan, for small businesses to be open, for trading to continue and to grow. That's why the national plan is so central to what we need for the economic lifeline of our small businesses. Furthermore, we've seen the business support payments currently flowing in New South Wales, with payments of between $1½ thousand and $100,000 per week, based on the level of payroll, with a maximum turnover threshold of up to $250 million, and of course up to $1,000 per week for sole traders. Further payments have been made in conjunction with every other state and territory across the country. Today, again, the Treasurer has announced further support for the small- to medium-enterprise sector, with the expansion of eligibility for the SME Recovery Loan Scheme. As of today, under that scheme, the loans are extended to even mores SMEs. As the Treasurer said this morning, we've seen $6.2 billion of assistance on 74,000 loans. Now, with changing the criteria, we will see more and more businesses eligible. This will buy us some time. But, importantly, the best path back is sticking to the COVID national plan. The 70 per cent and 80 per cent gives certainty, and only certainly will build confidence for the small- to medium-enterprise sector of the economy to grow. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccine Manufacturing 55 14:54 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. I refer to the report in The Australian that the Morrison-Joyce government told CSL it would support mRNA manufacturing provided it meets the 'ABV test'—anywhere but Victoria. Is the report true? 14:54 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce The short answer is: it's not, and obviously I was as concerned as the member was when I read that article. Now, whether or not such a claim was made by any person to the journalist, I obviously can't say or verify, but my office and the department went to some lengths to speak directly with those people at CSL who would be in knowledge of any such statement, if it were ever made, because it is a matter of some seriousness if a Commonwealth official were to say such a thing, which they would never do and which we would never expect them to do; that would be a totally improper and wrong thing to do. So what I can say to the member is that that report, about Commonwealth officials advising CSL that the government had an 'ABV' test, is absolutely wrong. It has been verified directly, after specific inquiries by my office, to my office that it's wrong. What we are doing, with respect to our approach to market, is looking at all of the options that are in Australia's long-term best interests, in terms of health care: for mRNA manufactured vaccines, potentially, here; for COVID booster vaccines; for other therapeutics; for export markets. CSL have had a brilliant and rich history in Australia in contributing and, indeed, are manufacturing vaccines in Australia as we speak, and they have done a marvellous job. They've put in an excellent proposal, if I might say so. It's being considered seriously, alongside all of the other proposals. So I'm very pleased to say to the member: whether that was ever said to the journalist I can't say, but that was never said by any Commonwealth official to anyone at CSL and nor would it ever be. COVID-19: National Plan 55 14:56 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is sticking to the national plan and supporting students across Australia? 14:56 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She's a teacher herself—the daughter of a school principal, I think—and I know that she, like the member for Grey, knows that the national plan is important, not just to open our economy and our society but so important for our young people also, because, when we reach those 70 to 80 per cent vaccination rates, the national plan says that only low-level restrictions are required. That means that we can now open the schools, the sporting grounds and those other things as well—absent those hotspots being present. This is so important for our kids and parents, to give them that confidence and hope that we can get back to normal life, like we used to have 18 months ago. As everybody in this chamber knows, our young people have missed so much in the last 18 months, and particularly so in my home city of Melbourne. It's not just the face-to-face learning that they've missed but the school formals, the graduations, the camps which they'd so much looked forward to, the trips away, the local sport—I could go on. These were just normal parts of being a kid and of going to school, and our young people have had to endure those sacrifices over all that time. We know the mental health impacts of all of this have been devastating. Professor Patrick McGorry refers to it as the 'shadow pandemic', such is the extent of it. This national plan is so important to give that hope and confidence, to be able to address those things—to get back to normal for those kids. And we are so close to achieving those milestones that are outlined in that national plan. I've got enormous confidence and pride in our young people. The NAPLAN results released today show how resilient those kids have been, at least in their learning, because the results from May of this year when the tests were held are actually the same as they were two years ago. So no loss of learning had occurred, despite the fact that, in some cases, almost six months of face-to-face schooling had been lost. It's such a testament to the kids' resilience as well as a testament to the parents' resilience and to the teachers' expertise, to be able to adapt and ensure that those kids continued to learn. Our government's here. We are backing our students 100 per cent. We've backed them with the hope through this plan. We've backed them with record funding in schools. We're backing them with extra funding that we're putting into mental health that they can access, and, importantly, we're backing them with hope and opportunities of what they can do post school as well—with record youth unemployment—with more university opportunities than ever before and many more training opportunities than ever before as well. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 56 14:59 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Prime Minister. The New South Wales Chief Health Officer says that during this outbreak we've seen more children infected and more childcare centre outbreaks and children contributing to transmission. Does the government have enough vaccines for vaccination of all 12- to 15-year-olds to begin as soon as ATAGI recommends? 15:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We received some interim advice from ATAGI last Friday, and that was a key issue discussed at the meeting of premiers, chief ministers and me. This Friday, we'll be presented with the plan from Lieutenant General Frewen, which will follow through on our agreement last week that we need to move as soon as possible to have it completed before the end of terms this year to ensure that they are vaccinated. The short answer is that the vaccine supply continues to increase week by week and we will be able to vaccinate those aged between 12 and 15 alongside the rest of the population in the weeks and months ahead. And that is exactly what we're planning to do. I know this is very important. My own daughter is 12. I actually had this conversation with her today. They'll be going forward and getting their vaccines as soon as that can be arranged. There is a big job to do with the vaccine program across the whole country. The advice that we have received from the Doherty institute—we here in this place all know how magnificent the Doherty institute is, but I remind those who may be watching: this is the institute that was the first to reproduce the COVID-19 virus in a lab and share it with the rest of the world. This is not just any scientific institute; this is one of the world's leading institutes when it comes to these issues. Their advice has also been very clear that we must continue to maintain the pace of vaccination across the rest of the adult population. And one of the best protections there is for children—not just those aged between 12 and 15, as the member would know, given his medical experience, but also those under 12, for whom there is not a vaccine—is the broader immunisation of the community and particularly of those in the parent age groups. So we'll continue to put priorities across all of those fronts. As I'm sure the health minister would be able to tell you, we are already vaccinating those aged 12 to 15 who have particular other conditions, who are Indigenous or who are living in remote areas. That decision was taken some time ago and, to ensure that we could move on that, we have been looking carefully at what the outcomes have been of the vaccination of 12- to 15-year-olds in other parts of the world. That's why we await that advice, but the interim advice was very favourable. I'm sure that every parent of children in that age group would want to know, just like when they're getting their normal immunisations at any other time, that our appropriate regulatory authorities have given it the tick. The doses, as we continue to see, including those extra million doses we were able to get out of Poland, are adding to the great vaccination effort, which is hitting marks in this country over a seven-day period that exceed even those achieved at the height of the US's and the UK's vaccination programs. COVID-19: Tourism Industry 57 15:03 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister please update the House on how sticking to the national plan will support Australia's tourism sector and ready it for when it opens back up? 15:03 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for asking the right question! I also thank the member for his passionate advocacy on behalf of the tourism industry in Far North Queensland. I know that there's no-one waiting more than the member for southerners to be able to return to those crocodile farms in Far North Queensland in their droves and to put dollars into the local economy, local accommodation and local pubs. I know he was very grateful when the Queensland state government and the federal government were able to come together and provide a package of $600 million to support businesses in Queensland, including tourism businesses in Far North Queensland. There was an announcement today made by the Treasurer about the additional changes to the small loans guarantees for small businesses, which will also help the tourism sector right across Australia. I think there's no doubt that the national plan will be greeted by the tourism industry, probably more so than any other industry across this nation, because the impact that this pandemic has had on the domestic tourism industry and on our international tourism industry has been severe. And the fact that we now have a national plan which details a way out of this pandemic, which lays out how we can learn to live with this virus, has been extremely welcomed by the tourism industry. And why is that so? Because when we reach phase B, which is a 70 per cent vaccination rate, Australians will have more freedom—to go to see their loved ones and go to sporting events—and that means travel and that means dollars in the tourism business, and it means jobs. And then when we reach phase C, when we see 80 per cent are fully vaccinated, outbound international restrictions will be lifted and travel bubbles will be expanded. So not only will we have the travel bubble with New Zealand but the Pacific Islands, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, the US, the UK are all possibilities that we'll be able to extend our travel bubbles to. And what does that mean? It means dollars into tourism businesses and, more importantly, it means security for the 660,000 people who are employed in our tourism industry. This is why the tourism industry has got behind promoting our vaccination rollout. We've all seen the Qantas ad, which on many occasions has brought a tear to this eye. And that is why we need to— (Time expired) Afghanistan 57 15:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister and it refers to the first question asked in question time today, by the member for Solomon, when the Prime Minister failed to verify whether a report was true or not. According to that report, Afghans with valid Australian visas who protected the Australian embassy and their families, up to 1,200 people, were left to wait outside Kabul Airport, some standing in sewage, before being turned away. The Prime Minister must know whether that report is true. Will he tell the Australian people: is that report true? 15:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I am not about to go into operational reports— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L of situations occurring on the ground in Kabul, many of which are very difficult to confirm. Those opposite who may have spent time in the National Security Committee when they were in government will know that there are many reports that come from the field that can't be verified, and to seek to provide some confirmation of those when that's not available would be unwise. It would be extremely unwise. What I sought to do in answering the member for Solomon's question was point out very clearly that Australians are doing everything within their power right now to bring vulnerable people out of one of the most dangerous situations in the world—and the fact that almost 2½ thousand have been brought out in the space of a week—at great risk to themselves, acting under extreme stress, and doing that each and every day. Five flights last night, almost 1,000 people out on these five flights, and that included operations we were able to undertake which saw additional people brought to the airport that have been able to get on planes. It is a great credit to that operation and how it is being led, both by the Australian Defence Force but ultimately under the leadership of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. And I want to single out not only those who are in this chamber, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Defence, for their incredible work in leading this initiative, but also the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has done an extraordinary job in coordinating so many of these activities, and each day the National Security Committee, which I chair, has been going over the details of these operations—on a daily basis—to ensure we're not only keeping our own people safe but we're connecting up with the other partners and allies that we're working with. There are Brits, Kiwis and others getting on our planes, Afghans who have worked with them and worked with us, getting on their planes and our planes. We are working together to get this job done in one of the most extreme situations you can imagine. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I note the interjections from those opposite, and I simply say this: I would invite them to support this mission and affirm the great work that is being done by our people to get people out of there safely. Regional Australia: Employment 58 15:10 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Minister for Resources and Water. Minister, will you update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is creating jobs in regional communities by undertaking reforms to remove regulation duplication? Is the minister aware of any alternatives? 15:09 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I thank the honourable member for Dawson. We know the member for Dawson wasn't born in a crossfire hurricane, but he's got a touch of the cyclone! And, when it comes to creating jobs in the member for Dawson's electorate, we know it's alright now because it's a gas, gas, gas! We are delivering a gas-led recovery—strategic basin plans and more opportunities for jobs. We know that, around the member's electorate, as we are progressing the North Bowen and the Galilee basins, the potential for those gas basins to land a gas pipeline into Mackay and drive jobs is incredibly important. But there are restrictions. We are trying to ensure that we are streamlining regulations as part of our deregulation agenda. We are looking to ensure, particularly around the EPBC, that there is not duplication. Why should you have to have what is effectively the same level of approval at all different levels of government? So we are working closely to get that done, and I absolutely acknowledge the work of the Minister for the Environment in terms of driving this forward. But we know that there are challenges in the space. In fact, only this week, the Leader of the Opposition seems to want to have a bob each way. We've seen media reports that they have had to have another vote in caucus about supporting us for the Beetaloo basin in terms of our strategic plan and the funding we have provided to bring forward those up to 6,000 jobs—to bring forward that investment. And what do we see? We see them send out someone from the other place—the Labor Northern Territory senator—to say, 'Actually, we don't like it and we don't support it.' So they need to make a determination. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PITT 148150 And I'd say to the Leader of the Opposition that there are plenty of opportunities for a personal explanation to rule this out. The SPEAKER 00APG No; the minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. I refer to your earlier ruling, about 15 minutes ago, about members of the government standing at the equivalent of the dispatch box and asking questions of the opposition. The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the Leader of the Opposition: I chose my words carefully; I said I 'may well'. But the minister will not ask questions of the opposition. And I'm giving fair warning now that, if that happens, I will take action. It may well be that I grant an indulgence or it may well be that that's the end of your contribution. Mr PITT 148150 Those opposite—in terms of alternative policies—at the last election committed to what they called a landmark $14 million to the Environmental Defenders Office. This is an organisation who is currently out addressing, out charging down, what we are trying to do in the Beetaloo. We want to ensure that there is consistency in policy. We want confidence for the industry to invest. We want to ensure that what we are doing actually happens. The resources sector has delivered 279,000 direct jobs. We want those projects to come forward early. We want that investment to be early. The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the minister that I have been listening to him and trying to ensure that he is being relevant to the question. On my notes of the question, the question was about reducing the duplication of regulations and he was asked whether there were alternatives. So the alternatives are to that, and he needs to be relevant to the question that he has been asked. Just because the question says, 'Are there any alternatives?' the alternatives don't stretch to every alternative anyone can ever think of on any topic there or otherwise. So let me be very clear: he can discuss alternatives to the duplication of regulations but not give us a description of his belief of other policies. The minister has the call. Mr PITT 148150 Yes, Mr Speaker. We will ensure you get satisfaction. We want to make sure that when we deregulate we can bring forward these projects that create jobs in regional areas just like the member for Dawson's electorate. We know that the Australian people understand. They can't always get what they want, but the coalition government will get them what they need. In that case, it is about jobs and job creation. It is about the deregulation agenda to ensure that we can get these projects up earlier, whether they're in the member for Dawson's electorate, the member for Flynn's electorate or right across the country, and we're committed to doing just that. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 59 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Tokyo Paralympic Games 59 15:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can pleasingly announce that Australia has got their first gold medal at the Paralympics—Paige Greco in the women's C1-3 3,000 metre individual pursuit. That was quickly followed by a second gold by Emily Petricola, who won the women's C4 3,000 metre individual pursuit. Congratulations! We know there'll be many more and we wish them all the best. I'm sure that Leader of the Opposition joins me. 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I join with the Prime Minister in congratulating our gold-medal Paralympians. They do us proud as a nation and they inspire us through their efforts. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS COVID-19: Vaccination 59 15:15 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders In relation to a question from the member for Watson, I sought advice from the Vaccine Operations Centre with regard to the Lakemba Respiratory Clinic. The advice from the Vaccine Operations Centre is that all orders for that centre have been received on time or earlier. No orders have been delayed. There is one case, of which they are aware, where there was a request to bring forward to that same day the delivery that was due the next day, but, given that the day was already underway, that was not possible. But every order has been delivered on time or early. I'm also further advised by my office that we have not received any representation from the member for Watson on this issue. DOCUMENTS 59 DOCUMENTS Presentation 59 15:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 59 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Agriculture Industry 59 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Franklin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to adequately support the urgent needs of the agriculture sector. 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— 15:17 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin This week we saw more promises from the government for Australian farmers. They make so many it's hard to keep up. But of course in this case as in every case they deliver so little and always too late. What we've seen in Australia from this government is the complete dereliction of duty when it comes to the workforce shortfall for agricultural farmers and producers across Australia. We know that these people have been struggling to get workers for a very long time. There has been a real structural issue when it comes to the workforce on farms, particularly across regional Australia. We know that, during this pandemic, this government has done nothing about trying to ensure that these farmers have workers to pick the produce. What we saw last year and what we're seeing this year after the droughts and bushfires is, finally, a lot of rain, which has resulted in bumper crops. But, of course, farmers don't have the workforce to be able to get these crops off the farms. What we are seeing still are massive workforce shortages right across the country. I was talking to some farmers just last week about what's happening on farms in Australia today, and I was told that they are worried yet again that this season they are not going to be able to get their crops off the farms. This is because this government didn't do its job and this Prime Minister didn't do his two jobs when it came to hotel quarantine and vaccines. We know that there are visa programs whereby the government can bring workers into this country, but, because it didn't do its job on quarantine, it hasn't been able to get enough workers into the country. We also know, of course, that this has been a structural issue for a very long time, and the government hasn't done its job of training young Australians for and encouraging them into a career in agriculture in this country. They have done absolutely nothing about it. They've got a workforce strategy that's been sitting on the desk of the minister since October last year. They have known about this for a very long time. We should not have Australian farmers in the position where they are today, where they are still worried that this government hasn't done enough. Let's have a look at this new, great big ag visa that they've re-announced this week. It was first announced almost three years ago. Answers to questions on notice showed that the department of agriculture handed a series of briefs to the minister in 2018 but then did nothing until June this year. Absolutely nothing. That is what this government has done: sat on its hands when it should have been doing more for Australian farmers. And we know that they only announced this ag visa because of the UK trade deal, because they were doing a deal to, quite rightly, stop backpackers coming to Australia and being exploited. But what we don't know about this new ag visa is the detail. We don't know if workers are going to be protected on farms. We don't know what the conditions of these visas are going to be. What we do know is that, on some of the other visas, workers have been exploited. We've heard terrible stories of people working on farms earning next to nothing. It's not good enough, and this government needs to come clean and it needs to tell Australian farmers and Australians what the conditions of this new ag visa are. We need to know. Everybody wants to know what the detail is of this new visa. We've also seen, or course, the government derelict in its duty when it comes to biosecurity. We've heard from the National Farmers' Federation that incursions from biosecurity cost the sector billions of dollars—billions! And just last night we had another report from this government about biosecurity breaches. It doesn't relate specifically to agriculture, but it is the responsibility of the department of agriculture. This, of course, was the Inspector-General's report on the Ruby Princess. Again, when it came to the Ruby Princess, this government didn't do its job. The one boat the government didn't stop was the one that mattered. In my home state of Tasmania, on the north-west coast, last June we were in lockdown. We had to close the hospital and get the army in, because this government didn't do its job when it comes to biosecurity in Australia. We have also had the Auditor-General's report on biosecurity. I want to read some of what that report says: The department's arrangements to respond to non-compliance with biosecurity requirements are largely inappropriate … The department's compliance framework is largely inappropriate to support its response to non-compliance with biosecurity requirements. The report also says: There is no established framework for assessing and managing risk across the biosecurity system None! No framework at all! No wonder the Ruby Princess was able to come in like it did. No wonder biosecurity didn't stop people who had an infectious disease from going all over the country. That was because this government didn't do its job, and we're seeing it when it comes to the biosecurity system for plants, animals and pests. We know that farmers are worried about this. The two things farmers raise most with me when I talk to them are workforce and biosecurity. They are terrified that this government is not up to the job. They are terrified by the announcement in the budget—prior to that, biosecurity funding was going backwards, by the way—where the government said that they would put capital investment into biosecurity, because it's going into artificial intelligence and ICT. We know how good this government has been at ICT! We know that after eight years we're still getting huge failures and we know, from the Auditor-General's report, that there was no established framework for assessing and managing risk across our biosecurity network. So how do we possibly trust them to do their job? How do Australian farmers have any faith in this government? The government sit over there and pretend that they represent regional Australians and farmers. Well, they don't, and they haven't for a very long time. They really haven't. They can sit over there and pretend, and use the word 'regional' and use the word 'farmers', but they actually need to do something. They actually need to deliver for farmers, and they are not. Then we come to the mouse plague. We had a very large mouse plague in Australia this year, and now we're getting reports that the mice are back. We're getting reports in Queensland and New South Wales, and even in Western Australia, that, with spring coming, the mice are on the rise again and we're going to get mouse plagues right across the country again. Of course, what we heard from those opposite, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister, was: 'This is not our job. It's nothing to do with us. We don't want to do anything.' Even when the mouse plague got across four Australian states they still didn't want to do anything. When farmers are already struggling with workforce, have had to deal with years of drought and bushfires and have finally been able to get back on their feet, they have a workforce shortage, they have concerns about biosecurity and they're dealing with a mouse plague—and this government, again, sits on its hands and does nothing. That's all we get from this government when it comes to its responsibilities to deliver for the urgent needs for farmers in regional and rural Australia. We know from their previous history, and we know from how slow they are to act on absolutely everything, that the government are not up to the job. But we also know that some of these issues wouldn't be happening if the Prime Minister had done his two jobs, particularly when it comes to the workforce. We know that Australian farmers, with this workforce, are concerned about this new ag announcement. Will it deliver any workers on farms by the end of the year? We highly doubt it, because the government haven't done their job on vaccines and haven't done their job on fit-for-purpose quarantine. Where are these workers going to go and quarantine? The government say, 'Oh, we're doing a deal with the states.' Well, we heard previously they had 25,000 workers under the Pacific islander program and the Seasonal Worker Program ready to come into Australia. The minister's own admission in June was that about 7,000 of those workers had arrived in Australia. Now it's about 9,000—so 9,000 out of 25,000 have turned up. This is what they promised ages and ages ago. So how can we have any faith that this new announcement is going to deliver the workers the government says it will? We can't. We don't know what protections are going to be there. We don't know whether any workforce is going to arrive under the program because we still haven't seen the detail. We get promise after promise after promise, but no detail—very little from the government when it comes to delivering for farmers and regional Australia. It is a recurrent theme. I have stood at this dispatch box and raised the mouse plague issue. I have stood here and raised biosecurity. I have stood here and raised issues around the workforce. And I get no responses from the government—no proper plans, no responses to workforce questions sitting on the minister's desk for ages. I get absolutely nothing. This government likes to pretend, as I said earlier, that it is on the side of farmers and regional Australians, but we see in reality that it is not and hasn't been for such a long time—and the farmers are onto them. They know that this side of the House is on their side. If they want a government that will actually deliver for farmers and regional Australia, if they want a government that will actually help them get to $100 billion by 2030, then they need Labor in government. They need Labor, because, unlike the government, we are on their side. 15:27 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I'm very pleased to speak to this MPI, which is about agriculture, rural and regional Australia and the needs of our farming sector. I don't really know how to respond to that big muddle from the member for Franklin. I know the member for Franklin is doing her best representing the needs of farmers and rural Australians; I would never say that that was a bad thing. But I think there is a great gap where the member for Hunter is missing; unlike the member for Franklin, he actually lived in a farming area, spent a lot of time speaking to farmers and seemed to have that connection with what they needed. Ms Collins interjecting— Ms LEY 00AMN The member for Franklin is constantly sledging, and I understand that's the Labor Party way of the world at the moment. However, I sat and listened carefully to her remarks, and I would ask her to do the same for mine. It's very clear from what she said that the Labor Party hasn't got the connection with farmers that it claims to have. It's very clear from what she said that the Labor Party does not represent the interests of farmers. It's very clear from what she said that the people of rural and regional Australia are highly likely to continue voting for the Liberal and National parties—not that we ever take their vote for granted, but we live and work and raise our families and represent farms and farmers. The MPI is: The government's failure to adequately support the urgent needs of the agriculture sector. Well, if I were to say, 'What are the needs of the agriculture sector?' I know what most people would say in answer to that question: markets, confidence, free trade agreements, a plan to come out of COVID and an understanding of what the lives in rural and regional Australia that are connected with the economic reality of farming are like. That's what I would expect people to say. But do you know what I also get from rural and regional constituents? I of course represent many of them myself in my own electorate. I get, 'Please don't talk our sector down; please talk about the hope, the optimism and what we can actually contribute to the national accounts, to the national psyche and to the view of Australia in the world.' What is all this gloom and doom? What is all this sad sack stuff? I mean, it is classic Labor: where there is a good story to tell, they turn it into a bad story. Where there is hope, they turn it into something dreary, gloomy and pessimistic. I can tell you that one of the really good stories within Australia today is in fact the agriculture sector. I look at the farms around me, and the canola is ripening, the price is high, farmers are out marking their lambs and the commodity prices are good. And we are working hard—the trade minister and so many people who, again, understand the needs of rural and regional Australia—to build those markets. Yes, the member for Franklin did mention the UK free trade agreement. There are huge opportunities for farmers there, as there have been in all the free trade agreements that we have negotiated, because that's what underpins our place in the international market for agricultural goods and services. I love every opportunity I get to talk about the importance of the agriculture sector—the farming, fishing and forestry sectors, which are forecast to be valued at $71 billion in 2021—$66 billion in farm gate value and $5.3 billion from the fisheries and forestry sectors. It's one of the only industries to grow in value despite the challenges of 2020, including the bushfires, drought, COVID-19 and global trade disruptions. It's an industry that's growing. It's an industry that has a bright future. It employs over 334,000 people, and a further 243,000 in the food and beverage manufacturing sector. The whole Australian agricultural supply chain employs 1.6 million people. It is incredibly important to us, and we understand that we need to be in constant communication to hear about the needs of the farming sector. The member for Franklin talked about the agricultural visa, but I wasn't sure what point she was making. On one hand, she said we should be training young Australians. On the other hand, she said we should bring people into the country—then that we shouldn't bring people into the country, that it's got something to do with the UK trade deal. Yes, of course it has; the minister has acknowledged that. 'Are workers going to be protected?' 'No, they're not protected.' 'Where are the workers? Where is the quarantine?' It really wasn't clear. I know that the unions, who inform so much of Labor Party thinking, don't want to see the ag visa. Maybe that's why the member for Franklin asked, 'Why aren't we training young Australians?' But then she said that farmers are terrified. I wasn't sure what that was about. She wants to know what the conditions are, and she wants to be reassured that the people on the ag visa will not be exploited. But actually they're good things to say. They're things that I can reassure the member for Franklin about, and they're things that are completely implicit and built into our seasonal worker Pacific Islander scheme, where it's really important that before an employer is accepted into the scheme they demonstrate the care factor for the people who are coming from the Pacific islands—how the employer will look after them and make sure they meet all their needs, not just their employment needs. Having met some of the employers who provide that workplace, I'm really proud of how they want to work constructively and closely with the people who come here on that scheme, how they become involved with their families and how they sometimes see them year after year. So yes, those things are really important. But to suggest that there's something—well, it's not clear, from the member for Franklin, whether we want the ag visa or we don't want the ag visa, whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, or whether it's our fault because of the fact that it's needed in the first place. What this government is doing is getting on with it, getting the stuff done that we know our farmers expect of us and announcing a solution to the current workforce crisis that we're seeing all across rural and regional Australia—not everywhere, and not every month, but we certainly have identified it, we have certainly recognised it, and now we are doing something about it. So I'm really pleased that the minister for agriculture has led the charge, and other ministers, of course; it also relates to the immigration minister and the Minister for Home Affairs and indeed every member of this side of the parliament, who want to see the workforce on farms—and not just on farms for a fruit picking season, but building their lives longer term in regional Australia. You can often think of this in a simplistic way—people are out there to pick the fruit, and then that's it. But there's so much more. In the area I represent, around Griffith and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, where I know a lot of these workers are desperately needed, people offer a future—a permanent residency pathway—and welcome those people from overseas as members of their community. They enjoy the differences they bring and love what they add to the social fabric of those communities in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. It's not just there; it's across every part of Australia, where we see the workforce welcomed from overseas. So, once it gets going, it will be a really good thing. I'm not clear about whether Labor support it or not, because, on the one hand, they said they did want it and then, on the other hand, that they didn't want it, and then they said that they weren't sure about the quarantine and that we hadn't done the right thing and then asked why we were doing it at all. But, of course, we know that the AWU has said it is a disgrace, and I don't know why that is. But I think the energy that the member for Franklin is putting into her remarks today could perhaps be directed against the union movement that has such an objection to this visa and the genuine opportunities that it will bring not just for regional communities but also for the individuals who will come to Australia and make it their home. The regulatory framework for the Australian agricultural visa will be in place by the end of September, with the first workers to arrive once negotiations with partner countries are completed and quarantine arrangements can be agreed and finalised. The visa will be available to skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workers across a broad range of agricultural industries, including meat processing and the fishery and forestry sectors, and will provide a basis for the ongoing growth of our primary industries as they strive to reach $100 billion in value by 2030, because that's our aim. We're sticking to it. This is part of our plan to get there, and we know the workforce is critical to that. So I'm pleased to update the House today with some more information around the visa. The agricultural workers visa will be a fully demand-driven visa. It will consider issues such as permanent residency pathways and regional settlement. Full conditions will be developed and implemented within three years. The visa will be open to applicants from a range of countries, which will be negotiated through bilateral agreements with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and discussions will commence imminently. It will supplement the existing Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific labour scheme, which are both very popular. They'll actually remain the mainstay for meeting workforce shortages in our primary industry sector. We've brought in more than 10,000 Pacific and Timorese workers to assist with addressing critical workforce shortages since September last year. We've already announced that between now and March 2022 we'll double the number of Pacific workers in Australia under the Pacific labour scheme. Rather than the member speaking about farmers being terrified, perhaps she would like to concentrate on the opportunities that farmers bring to the whole of Australian society, the incredible value that they add, the wonderful produce that we see all around this country, both nationally and internationally, and the work that they will continue to do in innovation, in science, in biodiversity and in productivity—again, a fantastic story told every day by Australian agriculture. 15:37 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore [by video link] I want to thank the member for Franklin for bringing forward this matter of public importance today: the government's failure to adequately support the urgent needs of the agricultural sector. Take a look along the New South Wales south coast in the electorate of Gilmore. It's easy to see our farmers and farm workers there working day in, day out; night in, night out through bushfires, floods and even the howling and dangerous winds last night. Farmers work in difficult conditions outside, working to put food on the table, ensuring that our communities that we all live in have the fresh produce we need to live and survive: milk, eggs, fruit, vegetables, meat, seafood, cheese, wine and more. The truth is farmers feed cities. This has been drummed into me all my life. I have lived, breathed and felt that every day, growing up on a dairy farm myself and seeing firsthand what farmers and farm workers do at any time of the day or night in whatever conditions. It does not matter if it is Christmas Day or Easter or a Sunday or a Tuesday. The sacrifices our farmers and farm workers make to ensure there is an adequate supply of produce for people locally and across Australia should be respected. In fact, our farmers, I am sure, could teach the government opposite a thing or two about ensuring adequate supply. If the government had done its job and ensured an adequate supply of vaccines in the first place, then our local businesses, workers and communities would not be in the Morrison-Joyce lockdown mess that we are now in. As for workforce shortage and ag visas, where's the federal government 's national quarantine system? They had two jobs: the vaccine rollout and quarantine. They failed both. It's all very well having ag visas, but if you've got no national quarantine system in place it's not going to work. It's another epic failure of the Morrison-Joyce government. The National Agricultural Workforce Strategy recommendations were handed down in October 2020, and the government still has yet to respond. That says it all, really. I'll tell you what my local farmers and communities have been through during that time: drought, raging bushfires, floods and more floods after that and now the pandemic. The government can't even get its act together and actually do something to help address workforce shortages. Many people in my family went to TAFE. My husband went to TAFE; my mum went to TAFE; my son went to TAFE; and I taught at TAFE. When I talk with people in my community, people overwhelmingly get the importance of TAFE. It is an institution. It is trusted. It has trained generations of tradies who went on to create their own businesses. Many of these workers and businesses support our farmers locally and across Australia. Recently, I met with local TAFE teachers. Again, it is incomprehensible what the Morrison government is doing to TAFE. The $3 billion cut from public TAFE and vocational training is slowly killing my local TAFE campuses with cuts to courses, fewer subjects on offer, cuts to course hours, no free apprenticeships and jobs axed. What is so wrong with and why does the government just not get the importance of guaranteeing the public funding of TAFE? It's fair to say I am seething mad about this. Where are our agriculture courses? Where are our dairying courses locally? It's beyond time for the government to guarantee the public funding of TAFE and put TAFE back to where it deserves to be—that is, leading the COVID jobs and training recovery that our community so desperately needs and also helping our farmers and every business locally that depends on our farmers. The Morrison-Joyce government is so caught up in its own spin that it can't even come up with a plan to help our farmers. They've ignored the workforce shortage for far too long. They don't have a plan. Farmers feed cities. It's about time those opposite get with the program. 15:42 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia It's an absolute pleasure to have this opportunity to speak about our wonderful diverse, resilient and crucially important agriculture sector, a sector that is forecast to be worth $71.2 billion this year, which includes $66 billion in farm gate value and $5.3 billion from the fishery and forestry sectors. It's impossible to overstate the significance of agriculture within our nation. We have 334,000 Australians employed in agriculture, while a further 243,000 have jobs in the food and beverage manufacturing sector. The entire national supply chain employs 1.6 million people. Like many other industries, communities and households across Australia, agriculture has done it tough in recent times. The challenges have been immense and unrelenting. However, despite bushfires, drought, COVID-19 and global trade disruptions, agriculture is the only sector to grow in value last year. This is something to be very proud of as a nation. Agriculture is essential to our economy. It's essential to our identity as a nation and to the health and wellbeing of our regional, rural and remote communities. That's why, as a member of the federal coalition government, I am proud of what we have achieved and delivered for the sector. We are putting agriculture at the centre of our national recovery from the global pandemic. In this year's budget, we committed over $850 million to drive growth and competitiveness in the sector. It's all part of our vision to see this industry reach its goal of $100 billion in production by 2030. Just this week, we announced one of the biggest structural reforms to agriculture labour in our nation's history: the delivery of a vital agriculture visa. I'm optimistic that this agriculture visa will help secure the future of rural and regional Australia and help provide the sector with a long-term reliable workforce to help alleviate the shortages and pressures that our farmers currently face. This visa will be in place no later than 30 September of this year, with the full implementation of this demand driven visa complete within three years. It will be open to applicants from a range of countries and will be available to skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workers, including in meat processing, fisheries and forestry. Importantly, it will complement the Pacific programs we have currently got in place. We'll also be considering permanent residency options under the new ag visa. While our farmers and industries have gone about their work keeping Australians and people all over the world fed and clothed, they have done so under enormous workforce constraints. By announcing this visa we have listened and we are delivering. As the member for Capricornia in Central Queensland I live in the heart of cattle country. Rockhampton is the beef capital of Australia. Our beef week event every three years is always an opportunity to showcase and promote the importance of this industry to our country. In 2019 our government committed $3.9 million towards beef week 2021 and, despite the global pandemic, what an enormous success it was. In fact, it was more successful than ever before. More than 115,000 people attended this year's event, which is an impressive 15 per cent increase from 2018. Visitors to beef week 2021 included our Prime Minister and many of my coalition colleagues. I was also thrilled to see that it supported 795 full-time equivalent jobs in Rockhampton. It truly is a world-class event. It's wonderful to see the industry in such good shape. It's obvious to point out that water is essential to agriculture. On this front the coalition government has stepped up to support farmers and irrigators in my electorate. I'm talking about Rookwood Weir, which has the potential to transform and revitalise Central Queensland, but, unfortunately, it has been a challenge to get there. I had to drag the Queensland Labor government kicking and screaming to commit to a joint funding arrangement for the project. After years of pushback and silly political games they finally came to the table. While the capacity has dropped due to the mismanagement by the Queensland Labor government, it is going ahead with in-river construction, which started in April this year. Thanks to $7.5 million in additional funding from the coalition the weir wall will be constructed higher, securing an extra 10,000 megalitres to the total water capacity. It will also deliver at least 140 jobs for people in Central Queensland. This is what supporting agriculture looks like. Whether it's at the national level or within Capricornia we will always have the back of this sector and those who depend on it. 15:47 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons [by video link] The federal government has failed Australian agriculture on a number of fronts over its eight long years. Just overnight we were reminded of one of those failures, the biosecurity failure of the Ruby Princess fiasco. Then there is this disastrous oversight of our chronic agriculture workforce shortages and its failure to act on the National Agricultural Workforce Strategy, which was handed to the government in October 2020. Of course, there is the ongoing failure to address the impacts of climate change on Australian agriculture. Let's start with biosecurity. Australia's biosecurity system underpins more than $65 billion in agricultural production, $53 billion in agriculture exports, $42 billion in relation to the country's inbound tourism and 1.6 million Australian jobs across the supply chain, so getting biosecurity right is of critical importance. But there are currently three reports on the public record highlighting the Morrison government's comprehensive mismanagement of biosecurity. The Inspector-General of Biosecurity, in her review report of 2020-21, concluded that Australia's biosecurity system is not strong enough to cope with expected risks over the next five years—crickets from the government. Then there's the Auditor-General's report into Australia's biosecurity regime. This report highlights key areas of concern around compliance and failure to enforce penalties—crickets. And now, just this week, another report by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity in relation to the Ruby Princess cruise ship. This report details the federal government's 'crucial error' of not interviewing passengers. But the failure goes beyond human error. The Inspector-General was crystal clear that pre-existing shortcomings contributed to this biosecurity failure that unleashed COVID upon Australia. Let's be clear: the Morrison government's failure to contain the biosecurity threat of the Ruby Princess resulted in preventable deaths in my state. Tasmania's first three coronavirus fatalities were passengers aboard the Ruby Princess who were permitted to disembark in Sydney and then come home. At least 11 deaths were linked to this outbreak, which occurred upon their admission to Tasmania's North West Regional Hospital. These deaths did not need to happen. They were preventable. The Ruby Princess debacle occurred relatively early. We accept that we were all still learning how to deal with the pandemic. But it should have set off the alarm bells for the government on the importance of quarantine. It should have had the Prime Minister scrambling to establish fit-for-purpose national quarantine where the virus could be contained, instead of relying on motels and hotels. We send animals to federally controlled quarantine centres to keep our primary industries safe, yet this government thinks a lesser standard is acceptable for a virus that kills Australians. I want to come to the issue of the agricultural workforce, which ranks as one of the government's biggest blunders. Australian farmers are coming into their second summer under this pandemic. You'd have thought that after the debacle of last year the government would have sorted out workforce issues, but once again we face the prospect of workforce shortages, produce rotting on the ground and higher prices in the supermarkets. How can it be that for the second year running the government has allowed this to occur? Last year, the minister boasted of 25,000 pre-vetted Pacific workers who would help address labour shortages, but in June he had to admit that fewer than 7,000 had made it to Australia. That's the story of this government: go big on the announcement but go small on the delivery. And what about the agriculture worker visas, which have long been the Holy Grail of the Nationals' Monty Python show? Instead of getting serious about developing policies that encourage local employment, addressing working conditions, job security, wages, regional amenities and access to services, this minister and this government always go for the easy option: 'Let's just fly them in.' But they can't even get that right. Overseas workers can't come in, because the government and the Prime Minister failed to do their two jobs—to deliver national quarantine and to roll out vaccines. And the government has not explained how it intends to protect overseas workers on visas. I'd like to talk about climate change, but it looks like I'm running out of time. This government needs to get serious about climate change as an agricultural issue, because it affects farmers and regional communities much more than it affects those in the inner city. It's an issue that affects my community. 15:52 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I start by thanking the opposition for such a fruitful topic— An opposition member interjecting— Mr CONAGHAN 279991 No pun intended! It's given me the opportunity to illustrate how much this government, in particular Minister Littleproud, has done for the agricultural sector, not just in recent weeks but over the last 18 months. We've heard the last two or three speakers refer to the fact that the agricultural industry is one of the only sectors to have grown over the past 18 months, despite the challenges of droughts, bushfires, floods and the pandemic. This government has committed more than $1.2 billion in support to the agriculture industry in the last 10 months alone. Add on top of that the $5 billion through the Future Drought Fund, which is already underway with eight programs to help farmers prepare for the impacts of drought. We know that in the 2021-22 budget the government announced the next phase of FDF programs, to commence on 1 July 2021. This will help farmers and farming communities to be prepared for inevitable future droughts. We live in a sunburnt country. We have droughts. They come and go. But that will reduce the impacts so we can remain productive even in tough times. One very important initiative has been to provide, through the Regional Investment Corporation, loans with two-year interest-free periods to support the response to and recovery from drought. I know how important that is because I've spoken to Carolyn and David Duff. They're beef producers in Bellbrook, west of Kempsey. I went up there with the then Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, and I saw the devastation. They lost millions and millions of dollars worth of machinery and stock. They lost their dogs. The only thing they managed to save was the house. When they applied for, and were finally granted, the loan through the RIC, they said to me, 'Pat, this is a game changer; this is a lifesaver.' So that was a big initiative from this government. The government continues to support farmers, fishers and foresters to expand and diversify into export markets. One example is the International Freight Assistance Mechanism, which supports exports—including Australia's critical seafood trade; my electorate of Cowper has a huge seafood industry—and which has been extended until September 2021. The government has committed an additional $781.8 million to this critical support program since it commenced in March 2020. One of the most remarkable pieces of work that we have achieved—that the Nationals in government have achieved with our coalition partners—is the agriculture visa. It was announced only yesterday, and it is, again, a game changer. The visa will be open to applicants from a range of countries and will be available to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. It will include the meat processing, fisheries and forestry sectors—all in my electorate—and will provide a basis for the ongoing growth and stability of agriculture in this country. It will give confidence to farmers that they know, when they put a crop in, that they can pull a crop out. I heard Peter McPherson, the GM of Costa Group, which produces blueberries in Coffs Harbour, talking on the radio this morning about how important that was and about the certainty and security that it has given to our blueberry farmers. And of course you can take that across the nation: the avocado farmers, banana farmers—all those who previously relied on the backpackers who came into our country in droves. Locally, there are a number of examples. In my area, the sale yards received $660,000 for an upgrade; beekeepers received $317,000; Bellingen Shire received $200,000 from the Future Drought Fund. In closing, I do note that, in the half-hour of the opposition leader's address, he didn't refer once to the agriculture industry. 15:57 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Yet again, we've had patronising comments from the other side that somehow Labor members do not understand what it's like to be in the agriculture sector. You've heard from someone who grew up on a dairy farm and lives in that area. You've heard from people in Tasmania, where agriculture is part and parcel of how that economy works. You're never very far from a farm in Tassie—an oyster farm, of course, being my preferred option. But I think there's a real gap in understanding. These people opposite me seem to think they own a space. I'm sorry: when you fail to act, you vacate the space, and that's what has been happening. I'm not a farmer. I grew up in a city, but my dad grew up on a sheep farm not far from here, in Yass. His twin brother farmed that farm until his death. So, like many city people, I've been really fortunate to spend holidays on farms. But, more than that, I was fortunate to be in Old Parliament House as the rural reporter for the 2UE network back in the eighties. This was a time of great change in the sector, when technology was really just starting to come through, and I was always very happy to spend time with the National Farmers Federation, hearing from them about what they needed the then Labor government to do. Those two worked hand in hand. So this nonsense that Labor somehow can't work with farmers—you go back to that government, and you'll see great achievements and great collaboration. I was then very fortunate throughout my professional career, when I had my own business for 25 years, that much of that was spent working with rural organisations. In fact, my very first client was the former New South Wales Farmers Federation. So I have spent hours, days and weeks of my life thinking about the issues that face farmers, and that was before I became the member for Macquarie—one of the key periurban agricultural areas in New South Wales. So don't patronise us. How about you listen to the things that we see in our communities? You might learn something that's useful. We would love you to learn from our communities, because they feel that they've been abandoned by you. Over my five years as the member for Macquarie, I have really come to understand more deeply the unique environment that periurban agriculture is. I have breeders of prize cattle, which of course are showcased at the Hawkesbury show—the biggest agricultural show in New South Wales outside the Sydney show. I have uni students who are hoping to take over their families' farms and I have people who have farmed the land all their lives, like John from Enniskillen Orchard. He has fought to protect periurban agriculture for decades and decades. I have the incredible Hawkesbury Harvest, which promotes the pick-your-own agri-tourism side of the agricultural sector. I have all the Maltese vegetable farmers, who were so badly affected by the floods, and the newer arrivals, the Asian market farmers and growers. Then, of course, I have the orchardists, with the apples around Bilpin, and the flower growers. The list goes on and on. It shows that in a relatively small space we can have a bit of everything. If you're a Hawkesbury farmer or, for that matter, a Blue Mountains farmer, you have been through a lot. You've been through drought, you've been through bushfires and you've been through floods which have washed away your crops. You're still probably looking at great big holes in the riverbank where you used to grow things. That applies to the turf farmers as well. And they trusted government; they trusted government to do the right thing by them and they haven't seen that happen. That's the danger with biosecurity: the failure. They're trusting that the government will act on that. Yet the analysis that comes out from the inspector-general is that the system is not in a strong position to address the diverse and evolving biosecurity risks and the business environment expected in the next few years. Those opposite cannot sit back and do nothing, let alone take no action on climate change. It's going to exacerbate those things. Now is the time to act for the sake of our farmers. 16:02 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey To say that I'm a little surprised at this subject would be putting it mildly. Prior to coming to parliament I spent 35 years farming. I've spent 13 years here now and still have agricultural interests, it would be fair to say. I struggle to remember a time over those more than 40 years—almost 50, in fact—when the Australian agricultural sector has been treated better by government. A lot of my friends are extremely grateful for many of the things and the reforms that the government has done in this area. I'm going to go through some of those things, because I think it's worthwhile checking off on them. For instance, we've had tax concessions for water, fodder and fencing. There has been the removal of the family farm from the assets test so the kids could get independent youth allowance. We fought long and hard for that and it's been a great win. Every year we match the grower donations from the registered agricultural research organisations—$250 million a year goes into agricultural research courtesy of the Australian taxpayer as a result of those decisions. There are grants to small, smart farms—I have had quite a number of those go into my electorate. There are a whole host of grants available to the innovative farmers out there. There are water infrastructure projects. Only last week, there were two announced in my electorate, both on the Adelaide Plains. One will go to Seven Point Pork at Port Wakefield and will capture their wastewater stream and recycle some of it back through the plant, and the other will go to lucerne-growing enterprises alongside the piggery. A little further south of that, at Two Wells, the Olive Oil Project will see an extension of the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme, which will use recycled water to grow olives. It should be the biggest olive plantation in Australia by the time it is completed—great for jobs. There's accelerated depreciation. I can tell you that there are a lot of machinery agents that are pretty happy in the electorate of Grey with the accelerated depreciation at the moment. But that's not the only thing that farmers can get depreciation on at the moment. There was an article in the press only in the last few days saying, 'If you haven't got any silos ordered for harvest, don't waste your time.' It is too late to order paddock bins, because they're all booked out. The producers are absolutely flat out, knocking up the new equipment for farmers on the back of the support that comes from the government. There's support for education and training. We've installed a number of uni hubs in my electorate where not only farmers but others can get tertiary-level education. There's the drought. It's raining at the moment and it's easy to forget what the drought is like sometimes. The Australian taxpayer injected more than $3 billion into the agricultural sector through the drought. Farm household assistance was one of the backbones, and there were concessional loans. And we have established a $5 billion Future Drought Fund, which is contributing $100 million a year into agricultural resilience to deal with future droughts. There are free trade agreements. Just to name some of them: Japan, Korea, the US—there's been a bit of criticism of the US; that was done back in the Howard years; you were here, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews; it's reached maturity now, so those beef quotas have come to fruition—Indonesia, Chile and even China, where we have a few issues at the moment. But free trade agreements have given Australian farmers access to new markets. As I said, I struggle to remember a time when we've done better. There's the dog fence in South Australia—a 100-year investment. It's 100 years old. We put $10 million in, the state government put $10 million in, and the producers put $5 million in. People thought it would never be done, but it has been done under this government. The Pacific workers program has been a great program to get labour into Australia, and now the agricultural workers program is coming down the pipeline. Transport routes—we're spent over $1 billion in Grey rebuilding the highway network so that farmers and others can get their produce to market. There's $400 million in the budget for biosecurity. We continue to support the diesel fuel rebate. I often wonder what our colleagues on the other side of the House want to do with the diesel fuel rebate. And new mobile phones stations—over 1,200 across Australia, with 15 in Grey. We never saw a cent from the other side of politics. (Time expired) 16:08 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo [by video link] There's a lot in this MPI on the government's failure to adequately support the needs of the agricultural sector that I could talk about. We could spend days, if not weeks, talking about this government's failures. The previous speaker had a shopping list of things that they claim are good outcomes for the sector. Many of these programs are riddled with failures. I can't believe anyone is still saying that the Mobile Black Spot Program is a success when all the data suggests that it's not. But today I'm going to keep my remarks around the workforce. It's an issue that has plagued this government for many years and has only been made worse by the pandemic. The government's latest announcement around the agricultural visa is just more spin and more promise, with very little chance of delivery, and the farmers in our regions know it. They know that this government aren't serious—that they've just worked up a set of words to try and cover up for the fact that they've failed yet again to adequately address the concerns that the farming regions have when it comes to the agricultural workforce. Over the past 12 months, we've had tens of millions of dollars in produce rotting in the ground, largely because we haven't had the workforce to deal with it. The government says that the new Australian agricultural visa will allow foreigners to work on Australian farms as well as in forestry, meat processing and fisheries. But it's not yet known which overseas countries these people will come from, who has signed up to it, how long people will come here for, what wage rates people will be paid or what conditions people will have, yet the minister is also claiming, as other speakers have, that it will happen by the end of next month. That's a lot of detail to work through in fewer than 40 days. We want to have people on farms after serving two weeks quarantine when we don't not have the places in quarantine to do so. Why would the minister go out there and make a fanciful announcement to the Australian people? Clearly it's just not capable of delivering. The previous speaker said it would be a game changer. How is it going to be a game changer if it's not going to happen? On Monday, the minister said that the availability of workers to come to work here in the summer harvest would depend upon the quarantine facilities operated by the states and territories—another example of how the minister doesn't understand that quarantine is the federal government's responsibility. It states clearly in the Constitution that the federal parliament has the power to make laws in respect of quarantine. Perhaps the federal government needs to do some of the heavy lifting when it comes to quarantine. The minister also stated that the government would focus on and allow people from ASEAN countries to come and work on Australian farms. Look at the vaccination rates of these countries, another issue that this government hasn't dealt with. Vietnam has fully vaccinated two per cent of their population; Thailand, 7.5 per cent; Indonesia, 10.5 per cent; and the Philippines, 11.6 per cent. So not only do we have a problem with having quarantine space for these foreign nationals who work here; we also have a vaccination problem, with the people in these countries not having access to vaccines. Why won't the government be clear about where this issue has come from and the deal that was done? The UK is one of the first countries to say to Australia: 'How our nationals are being treated in your country, how our backpackers are being treated in Australia, on Australian farms, has to end. We do not want our young people being exploited on your farms, so that rule about 60 days working on a farm to get the extension in the backpacker visa has to go.' Because of the free trade agreement, a deal was done, and that's where this visa has come from. But that hasn't dealt with the underlying issue of exploitation on our farms that is not being dealt with. Review after review by this government, by this parliament, by universities and by the sector has demonstrated that there is widespread systemic exploitation of farmworkers in our country, yet we don't have a solution for those issues. What we have is a half-baked promise of an agricultural visa, which is supposed to be the Holy Grail to solve all agricultural workforce issues that we have. The government is not being serious here with Australian farmers and the Australian people. It is not fair. It's time that the government got real and implemented the reports it already has on the table as opposed to writing more fairytales with visas like— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Order. I call the honourable member for Braddon. 16:13 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon As the federal member for Braddon, I represent the agricultural powerhouse, in Tasmania. It's the epicentre of agricultural excellence. But I also stand here as a farmer. I run a co-owned agribusiness operation where we breed black cattle on the north-west coast of Tasmania. We grow crops, including potatoes, and my family has been farming in that region since 1852. So I know a little bit about agriculture, and I've got quite a network involved when it comes to agriculture. As a farmer, I can say that what I've had to listen to over the last 10 minutes or so has been quite the metric truck ton of excrement. However, when you talk to our farmers, it's a far more positive situation that they paint. When a farmer is faced with an issue, a farmer rolls his or her sleeves up and they farm around it. They find a solution, they find an outcome, and they get about their business. They don't whinge, they don't bleat, and they don't carry on like headless chickens. I think there's something in that for all of us here today. The ABS commodity figures out for Tasmania for 2019 and 2020 indicate that Tasmania's agricultural production was up by 14.7 per cent compared to a national figure of just 0.4 per cent—quite a staggering difference. I would suggest that the reason for that is that we've made a significant investment into the agri sector in the state, and, together with the Gutwein government—which has been in for quite some time and has established protocols around supporting our industry—in conjunction with the federal government, we are producing results and we're giving that agribusiness sector the confidence it needs to grow, to thrive and to better itself. If we look at our investment in agricultural irrigation in Tasmania, we seem to be the only state or territory in the nation to be serious about building dams. Irrigation water is liquid gold, and that's the message I have for everybody out there today. If you're not building dams then you're not in the race. We've invested $100 million into tranche 3 of Pipeline to Prosperity, delivering 10 irrigation schemes—78,000 megalitres; thousands of jobs. And $114 million has been projected in increases in agricultural outputs, in the ag sector alone, due to that $100 million. But it's not just that. We've backed that in with a further $80 million, just in the last budget. We're going to back this in even further. We're going to augment it, because our farmers can see that this is turning marginal country into good country. That's my message for the nation today. When it comes to supporting the fiscal situation around our farming operations, I know, with COVID, we've done it hard—I know our farmers have done it tough. They've had to cut corners and they've had to make adjustments. But they've done it with the federal government's and the Tasmanian state government's support. We've stood by them, right by their side, the whole time. Just recently, we've spent $1.2 billion in the agriculture sector, supporting them, as the member for Cowper just alluded to. As to that money, when we start looking at JobKeeper, and JobSeeker, and the instant asset write-off—I mean, the amount of machinery that's coming into the great state of Tasmania is incredible. There's more machinery than we can get on the ships. A mate of mine runs the local John Deere dealership down there, Midland Tractors—a bloke by the name of James Darcey, a terrific fellow. He can't get stock, because farmers are making the investment in capital equipment, sponsored by the federal government. But what that does is to add to their bottom line; it improves their processes; it makes it easier for their farming operation to survive. As well as that, we're making great progress with free trade agreements and diversifying our trade commodity markets throughout the world, as we see shifts in the international commodity market, particularly for our dairy industry. Our dairy industry in Tasmania had a record year, with 960 million litres—that's 11.2 per cent of the national milk production, right in Tasmania, right in my backyard. The electorate of Braddon punches well above its weight. When it comes to the beef industry, the lamb industry, the pork industry and the seafood industry, again, the figures that we're seeing from the ABS data are incredible increases. The only ones not doing any good are the poor old poppy farmers—and a big shout-out to all our poppy growers out there today; the bottom has dropped out of that market, due to the lack of operations being done throughout the world during these COVID times. So, again, our poppy farmers will have to diversify. But they will, because they're 'can do' people and they get the job done. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Order. The time for this debate has come to a conclusion. BILLS 69 BILLS Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021 69

Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021

Returned from Senate 69 COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 69 Report 69 16:18 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's Advisory report on the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr TIM WILSON IMW by leave—I am privileged to be able to present this report on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I understand that it is sought to be tabled in the Senate by the chair, Senator James Paterson, from the great state of Victoria, but I understand that, due to factors outside of his control, it has been slightly delayed, so I am privileged to be able to present it on behalf the committee at this time. The Advisory report on the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 is one that the PJCIS considered appropriately and with sufficient speed to make sure that the issues that arose out of the proposed amendments were addressed. The committee has considered the proposed legislation and the importance of foreign communications warrants in section 11C of the TIA Act to overcome the difficulty intelligence agencies face in distinguishing between foreign and domestic communications in the modern technological environment. Under the reforms, the Director-General of Security will be able to apply for a warrant authorising interception of communication for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence from foreign communications. Currently the interception of any domestic communications is strictly prohibited. The essential purpose of this bill is to provide a pathway for intelligence agencies to make sure that those who act on behalf of a foreign power are able to be appropriately observed for their activities if they seek to undermine Australian national interest and national security. In terms of the proposed legislation, the recommendations from the committee were that the legislation be amended, that the committee be notified if a mandatory written procedure, as asserted by subsection 11C(6), has been issued or varied and that the committee be provided with a briefing on the procedure as soon as practicable once it has been issued. The committee also recommended that the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 be amended so the committee may conduct a review of the amendments made by, if not less than, five years from when the bill receives royal assent. Subject to these amendments, it recommends the passage of said legislation because of the bill's critical role in assisting our agencies and our national intelligence community in doing their role in defending the national interests of the Commonwealth. BILLS 70 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 70

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021

Second Reading 70 16:22 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'm one of the last speakers, and much has been said in a very bipartisan way about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, but I thought it was worth adding my perspective. This bill, of course, implements recommendations of the Robertson review into the death of Adelaide NDIS participant Ann-Marie Smith, and I support it very, very strongly. But it is worth taking several steps backwards to examine the role of the NDIS, the importance of the NDIS and what it means. From my perspective as a paediatrician, I just want to take the House through a little bit of the history of the NDIS. I started as a medical student in 1972 and I had an uncle who was a paediatrician, and his name was John Davis, always known as Tubby Davis—he was a big man. I remember doing a ward round with him when I was a medical student, and we saw a little girl with Down syndrome. Her parents were very, very anxious—they were older parents—about this little girl, a sweet little girl she was. She'd been quite sick in hospital following complications from cardiac surgery and was recovering. I remember Tubby took me and a couple of other medical students and the resident and the registrar and a couple of the nursing staff into the side room of the Department of Paediatrics then at north shore hospital and he said to me, in front of everyone, 'What do you think these parents are most worried about?' Obviously, at that stage, the worry was if she would get over this cardiac surgery, if she would get over the complications, if she would go home, and that's exactly what I said. But Tubby said, 'Well, that might be the immediate worry, but what these parents are worried about is what's going to happen to their child when they pass away.' That was a very important lesson to me, and throughout my career that was the thing, in dealing with children with disability, that always worried the parents—what was going to happen to their child that they'd cared for and nurtured? It didn't matter what problem the child had, what physical disability, intellectual disability or illness the child had; those parents always worried about what would happen to their child when they could no longer look after them. I saw parents go through incredible difficulties trying to put money aside so that their child could be looked after when they either were too infirm to look after them or, in fact, had passed away. I had a conversation with Julia Gillard—it would have been around 2007-08, at a meeting that Chris Hayes, when he was the member for Werriwa, had where she was the guest speaker—where she said to me, after she heard that I was a paediatrician: 'We must do better for people with disability. We must make sure that we as a society care for them.' Indeed, she was the epicentre of the beginning of the thinking about the NDIS, and, in fact, was the prime minister that brought it in as a way of supporting people with disability. It's been a wonderful thing. I acknowledge the member for Maribyrnong and I acknowledge Prime Minister Abbott, who also supported the NDIS. It has been a wonderful thing for people with disability. For many of the patients I cared for, it has been transformative, and transformative for their families. It's been a great thing that has nurtured families and nurtured people with disability, and we now know many of them can become productive members of our society and can be supported as they age. In Australia this has been an ongoing thing in the way we care for people with disability. Many people from New South Wales may remember the Richmond report. The Richmond report was produced by David Richmond, a health bureaucrat, who was asked to inquire into health services not only for people with psychiatric illness but also for people with developmental delays and intellectual disability. When I started my paediatric career at the Children's Hospital in 1978, at that stage there were the so-called special hospitals for special services—they had interesting sounding names like Peat Island, Collaroy Annex, Grosvenor Hospital and Allowah—where people with severe intellectual and developmental disability were housed. As a registrar at the Children's Hospital I was sent there to do clinics, to attend to the health needs of some of those people with severe disability. Some of the conditions they were kept in were less than perfect. Some were good. But there was evolving evidence at that stage that many people with developmental disability could become much more functional members of our society if they were placed in home-like settings rather than special institutions. So, in the seventies and eighties, this process of moving people with developmental disability out of these special institutions into group homes began. The Richmond report very strongly recommended that that be the case. There was increasing evidence that the outcomes were much better for these people if they were kept in a more home-like situation. So the Richmond report brought that to a head, and other states followed suit. Funding which previously supported institutional care was supposed to be transferred to community care and support. Whilst that happened to a small extent, it was by no means complete. So many families were forced to care for their children and even their adult children at home without proper financial support, which meant that many of these people did not receive the intervention that would have made their lives a lot better. It placed an enormous financial burden on those families. The NDIS was brought in to improve the outcomes for those people and their families, and indeed it did. The relief of many people who had children with severe disabilities was palpable. They knew that the children they'd cared for and nurtured would be cared for for the rest of their lives. It was a way of all of us saying to families who had kids with disabilities: 'We are part of your journey. We will support you on that journey.' That was a very important thing, and it was wonderful for me as a paediatrician and for the families themselves. I saw many kids transition as adults into their own accommodation and their own care situations, group homes, and become independent members of our society. It was a great thing. Indeed, in my electorate of Macarthur there are now many group homes where these children who are now adults are living, that are providing good care for many of these kids. Prime Minister Gillard, when she introduced the NDIS, knew that whilst it was a significant cost to our society its value was immeasurable. The hope that this scheme evoked in so many families and my patients was wonderful. Many of the families that I'd cared for over the years had their lives changed so much for the better when the scheme was introduced. They were no longer walking the journey alone. They would no longer have to battle for every bit of access to even small amounts of support from the rest of society. It would be provided because that was their right and their due, and it was a wonderful thing to see. As a doctor, I saw many kids with very high needs. This scheme also revolutionised the way we went about providing supports for them and the interventions that they needed. It took an unbelievable financial burden off these families. I don't know how many of these families had afforded the care for these kids. Some of these kids required multiple medications and special transport. People had to buy special cars to transport kids with wheelchair needs. Kids with cerebral palsy required multiple surgeries. It really removed a financial burden from many of these families. Much like Medicare, the NDIS will go down as one of the greatest social reforms we've seen in this nation. Ultimately it will be one of Labor's greatest achievements and legacies, one for which I'll be forever grateful to Prime Minister Gillard and others, as I've mentioned. We cannot ever forget why the NDIS was established and what the scheme aimed to do. So many participants in the scheme have now seen their access to supports limited by the limitations put on the scheme by this government. The latest idea of having independent assessments was just another bureaucratic step to try and reduce access to the scheme for people with disabilities. I acknowledge, however, that many on the other side do understand the value of this scheme and I'm very glad that the government finally stopped the process of independent assessments. It would have been a disaster for many of the families that I look after, and I'm very glad that the government finally saw at least some light. There are, however, still concerns about the oversight of the scheme, and the terrible situation of Ann-Marie Smith—may she rest in peace—was a sign that we still need to have significant oversight of how the scheme is administered and the supports that we are providing to people with severe disabilities. I'm very pleased that the Morrison government has finally taken action to address the recommendations of the Robertson review. However, as is typical for this Prime Minister and this government, it's a little bit too late. The report was handed down over 10 or 11 months ago and it has been over a year since Ann-Marie Smith passed away. However, her legacy will be that we make sure that correct oversight is given to the NDIS and that people are provided with the supports that they need. To me, this scheme is of enormous value to our society, and I hope that this government does not continue its attacks on the NDIS. I think that it generally has bipartisan support but that many on the other side, whilst they appreciate the cost of everything, don't appreciate the value of anything—particularly the NDIS. I'm so grateful for all my patients and I will continue to do my best to make sure that they get the best possible access to the NDIS that they can get. I still think there are parts of the scheme that need to be fully supported by this government, such as it being patient centred and making sure that the people who require extra supports get them. In particular, I believe that people with severe disabilities should be supported as far as they possibly can be to lead independent lives. I think there are many issues with the NDIS which need to be supported more—in particular, areas such as housing; access for people in rural and regional areas; and early intervention support for very young children with severe disabilities, prior to them starting school. We know one thing that supports them is early intervention programs; the sooner they can get access to early intervention, the better. I have been working particularly and very strongly with the Shepherd Centre, which provides support to children with severe and profound hearing loss, to get early intervention support from birth. That is very important for their ultimate outcomes in terms of speech, learning and development. So I commend this bill to the House. I think this government needs to understand what enormous value this scheme has to the Australian people and I will continue to support it. 16:37 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. Today we debate and discuss vital support for disabled Australians. I thank the member for Macarthur for his very wise words. I know of his deep compassion for and also his knowledge of some of these issues that we're facing. I want to start today by acknowledging the sacrifice of so many people who are living with, dealing with or supporting those with disabilities in this country. While we are debating this important piece of legislation today we'll also be looking at and supporting our Aussie Paralympic heroes who are representing our nation in Tokyo. At the end of question time today, the Prime Minister mentioned the successes of our Paralympians so far, and I know we're going to have plenty more of those to come. Nowhere are the values of courage and determination on better display than at the Paralympics—there is nowhere a better example of the extraordinary things that people with disabilities are capable of, if they receive the opportunities and support they need to thrive. With your indulgence, Deputy Speaker Vasta, I want to acknowledge one Australian who I'll be cheering on of all the Paralympians: a local called Taymon Kenton-Smith, a Paralympic archer and a terrific guy. After being given a bow and arrow set in childhood, Taymon began shooting back in 2001 when he was only six years of age. At 14 he made a promise to his Nan to make it to the Paralympic Games. That year he received his first sponsorship, and in 2016 Taymon began to focus solely on his dream: being selected for the 2020 Paralympic Games in Tokyo. He did it. I want to give my best wishes to Taymon and to all of the Aussie Paralympic athletes who are in Tokyo, doing us proud, as I give this speech in the parliament. The incredible achievements and resilience of these athletes and all our disabled community is a testament to the importance of ensuring that we are fulfilling our responsibility to support and nurture Australians living with disabilities. We should all keep these Paralympians in mind as we debate this bill. They have achieved and will achieve incredible feats of athleticism, and they've done this while facing barriers that many of us could not even imagine. Disabled Australians deserve our support, and they deserve the dignity of quality care. That's why I am speaking on the bill tonight and that's why I am in strong favour of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Ballarat, which is that the House today calls on the government to: (1) take responsibility for all 'deaths by neglect' within the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is a Federal Government program; and (2) commit to genuine consultation with people with disability, disability rights organisations and disability representatives on all major changes to the NDIS Act". I don't think that's too much to ask for, and I think it's the least that this parliament should be doing. Sadly, Ann-Marie Smith did not receive this support or care. Many speakers have indicated the tragic and harrowing circumstances of Ms Smith, and I'm sad to have to report to the House her chronic neglect, which I can only describe as appalling and ultimately led to her death. On 6 April, Ms Smith died of neglect after a series of failures in the NDIS system, which was built to protect her. Ann-Marie had cerebral palsy, and she lived alone with the support of the NDIS system which entitled her to six hours of support each day. We still don't know all the details about her tragic death, but we know she'd been confined to a single cane chair for more than 12 months. We know that on 5 April her carer found her unresponsive and called an ambulance. She had to undergo surgery to remove the pressure sores—the rotting flesh—from her body. She was placed in palliative care, where she passed away the very next day. Her lack of care killed her. She died of severe septic shock, multiorgan failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy. The police referred to her death as occurring in 'disgusting and degrading circumstances'. It was only when she was admitted to hospital that her situation was brought to light and the attending doctors made a complaint to the health authorities. This is difficult to talk about, but it must be said. I know the shadow minister, Bill Shorten, has been fighting for justice for people like Ms Smith because their lives deserve recognition, and those responsible deserve the shame. But they need more than that. The company that was responsible for Ann-Marie's case, who so clearly failed her, was given a mere $12,600 fine by the NDIS watchdog—a $12½ thousand fine for contributing to the loss of someone's life. An inquiry was launched by the South Australian government, but sadly this was not carried through by the federal government even after an NDIS participant died by neglect in Sydney—another tragic case. Faced with extreme pressure, the member for Fadden suggested that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission should look into Ann-Marie's case. This would mean, in fact, that the commission would be investigating themselves, as their own action and neglect were contributors to Ann-Marie's situation. While this conflict should have been obvious, it was not until the opposition, through our shadow minister, Bill Shorten, publicly called it out and demanded an independent investigation that the watchdog appointed an independent judge to conduct a review. While this fell short of the national inquiry that is so clearly required here, at least it is closer. But the sense of urgency, sadly, just wasn't there for the government. As the member for Macarthur said, it was too little, too late—a hallmark of this government. Finding out exactly what went wrong in Ann-Marie's case was clearly the best way to stop it happening again and the best way that we could save lives. Following a political and public scandal and a police investigation, the provider was finally deregistered, but what is evidenced here is another example of a government being forced to act by public pressure. I would like to think that best practice is in place for when there is a tragic loss of life, but this example demonstrates the clear fact that it is only when the actual pressure is put on—perhaps when there are bad headlines or when the public start contacting government members—that we see action. That's not good enough. It should be done because it is the right thing to be done. It should be done because it's the government's job to do it, not because it's become politically too hard not to. The Robertson review was handed down with 10 recommendations, five of which the government now seek to implement. The government have had, as we have heard, over 51 weeks to deal with the recommendations of this review and to ensure that any legislation they introduced as a result went through an all-important consultation process, hence the second part of Labor's second reading amendment. The government didn't do this. They have instead rushed these measures to the chamber with zero formal consultation with disability stakeholders and the sector. Over the course of those 51 weeks, the government went through two NDIS ministers—two ministers and zero consultation. The Australian disability community deserve a say on legislation that will and should govern many aspects of their lives. Not to formally consult with them is an insult, and I really think the minister owes the sector an apology as to why there hasn't been adequate consultation. I don't say that with any glee or any joy. I just think that is a matter of best practice. Ministers, who are privileged to run departments, to stand in this place and to be responsible for good public health and social policy outcomes, should, at a minimum, be willing to listen and willing to consult, and that has not happened here. We can see the same non-consultative approach in this government's attempts to force through cuts and mandatory independent assessments explicitly against the wishes of people living with a disability. We've had eight years of the current government, and it's clear that this watchdog is not doing the job it should be doing. Disabled Australians deserve dignity, respect and quality of care. It is this watchdog's job to ensure that they get it, and above all it is this government's job to ensure that they get it. In this instance, and possibly many others that we will never know about, they've failed. The vast majority of carers and providers do the right thing, and I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of all of the people in the sector, the unsung heroes who have worked so hard during the pandemic, in stressful situations, dealing with health situations and dealing with clients that are deeply frustrated and concerned. I know my own office has been dealing with family and loved ones, particularly at the height of the pandemic and the start of the botched rollout, when we didn't have access to vaccines for the most vulnerable in the community, despite the government's promises. Despite them getting up in this chamber and talking about the plan, the plan, the plan, the plan, there wasn't a plan in place to protect vulnerable Australians. There has never been a plan under which the Prime Minister has delivered what he said he would. We were told 'by Easter'—remember that, the commitment to 'by Easter'?—and people working in the sector are still not protected. I want to acknowledge all of their work and salute them for their efforts—for the extraordinary work that they do, going beyond the call of duty. I've sat down with carers, and they've been in tears sharing with me their stories about what they've had to go through during the pandemic. We know the job of a carer, particularly in the NDIS space, is very difficult, and they deserve much, much more from this government. Ann-Marie's death calls into sharp relief the need for urgent and proper reform, based on meaningful consultation. Instead, we have a bill before us that was not formally taken to disability community consultation, and it implements just five of Mr Robertson's review team's recommendations. This bill is welcome, because something is better than nothing, but we should be aiming far higher for our disabled community and for those who work in, and support so many in, the disability sector. I know in my own community the amazing organisations that offer so much support, whether that be through respite or through daily care—the wonderful NDIS providers. It's not an easy situation to navigate. The system has had its glitches over the years. The government has bungled a number of issues, whether it be support for younger people with disabilities or being able to navigate the complex system and the hurdles that this government has put into place. Many people have triumphed and got through, and their quality of life has greatly improved. We know the NDIS was a wonderful legacy of the Labor government, implemented by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard. It has continued to operate, but perhaps not with the level of support that it once was desired to have. I'm confident that this legislation, passed tonight, will improve the situation somewhat, but there is still a long way to go. I urge the Morrison government to afford Australians living with disabilities the respect of a proper consultation process. So, if there is one takeaway for Minister Reynolds's office—I hope they and the bureaucrats are watching this debate this evening—it is that they learn the lessons of the past and not make those mistakes again. And the best way they can do that is by meaningful consultation with people who are working in, living in and dealing with the disability sector in this country, because those communities deserve nothing less than a government willing to listen and a government willing to act. 16:52 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton [by video link] I speak today on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, and I do so from Yuggera and Turrbal lands here in Brisbane. This bill implements recommendations 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Independent review of the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, an NDIS participant, who died on 6 April 2020. Her death was a tragedy. The review was conducted by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC, who made a number of recommendations for legislative change to improve the protections for participants who are at risk of harm. The recommendations which this bill implements include facilitating better exchange of information between the agency and the commission, the disclosure of information to relevant state and territory bodies, and clarification around the scope of reportable incidents. I wouldn't be sitting here debating this bill today if Labor's shadow minister for the NDIS, the member for Maribyrnong, had not pressured the Morrison government to establish the Robertson review after the horrible death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith. And I should point out that the member for Maribyrnong has been a champion of the NDIS ever since Jenny Macklin was the lead minister and it was just a policy idea in the Labor locker. So I do thank him personally for the great work he's done in this area. This report, commissioned by the coalition government, fell short of what the Australian Labor Party actually called for, which was a broad, independent inquiry into NDIS safeguarding, locking in those checks and balances. The terms of reference for the Robertson review were targeted only to review the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith. Nonetheless, the review made a number of recommendations for legislative change to improve the protections for other participants at risk of harm. I'm grateful to former Federal Court Justice Alan Robertson for the recommendations he has made and support their implementation through this bill that is currently before the chamber. In terms of what that review found specifically in relation to the death of Ms Smith, it did not find any wrongdoing by the commission, whose remit is to protect NDIS participants. Ann-Marie Smith was a 54-year-old NDIS participant—which, in my opinion, is so young. She died on 6 April 2020 from severe septic shock, multiple organ failure and a multitude of other complications after being confined to a cane chair 24 hours a day for more than a year. How could this happen in a country like Australia? The provider was issued a fine of $12,600 for failing to notify the commission of Ann-Marie's death within 24 hours. It appears that this is the only fine the commission has issued against a provider since it was set up in 2018—three years, one fine. Four months after Ann-Marie's death a banning order was issued to the provider, Integrity Care. Listen to those two words: Integrity Care. That's surely the most ironic name since I saw the credits for The Never Ending Story! I will acknowledge that Lionel Hutz actually owns that joke. Since Ann-Marie's tragic death the commission has still only issued a handful of infringements. It's clearly not good enough that this can happen in Australia. We're not talking about a one-off event. This was horrific systemic abuse that occurred over 12 months and more. The NDIS commission regulates providers, but the NDIA actually administers the scheme to participants. If you remember, it's all about giving people control over their lives. After the inaugural NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, Graeme Head, was appointed, he said in a speech: We're able to take a range of actions including deregistration, banning orders or seeking the application of civil penalties so we really do have a comprehensive tool kit. We have comprehensive regulatory powers and functions, and real regulatory teeth. Where were those regulatory teeth when Ann-Marie Smith was being neglected so severely by her carer? Why wasn't the commission overseeing the care she was receiving through NDIS funding? One of the problems highlighted by the review was the lack of information sharing and the buck-passing between the NDIA and the NDIS. I hope that the recommendations made by the review implemented by this bill will go some way to making providers more accountable and, more importantly, ensuring that this can never happen again. I'm very concerned that there's been no meaningful consultation with disability stakeholders prior to the introduction of this bill. Nothing about us without us. That's stakeholder 101—a lesson that this government needs to learn. Sadly, I'm aware that refusing to consult has become a feature of this coalition government. We've seen it time and time again. Bills are introduced but no prior consultation has occurred. On many occasions we've seen non-political stakeholders saying, 'If you'd asked us we would have told you that this won't work or we would've told you how to make it better to improve it.' The Robertson review did not have statutory powers, meetings were held over two days, and submissions were not made public. There's been no wider sector or parliamentary engagement communicated by the Morrison-Joyce government in the development of this bill. It's so important that we include lived experiences in the legislative process. Only lived experiences, especially in the disability area, can truly reflect whether these reforms will be effective in practice or whether more or other recommendations from the review should be legislated. There is some concern from disability rights organisations and advocates about the information-sharing provisions in this bill, in particular how 'vulnerable' will be defined for the purposes of identifying and protecting certain participants. Vulnerability is not actually defined in the act. There's no doubt that Ann-Marie Smith was vulnerable. Sadly Ann-Marie is not the only vulnerable person who has died because of the coalition's mismanagement, and I would suggest hardwired underspend, when it comes to the NDIS. Tim Rubenach, from Tasmania, died while waiting for a wheelchair from the NDIS. There's David Harris from New South Wales. Mr Harris's funding was cut off because he missed an annual review meeting. Cleaners and other NDIS-funded support workers stopped visiting. David was dead in his Parramatta unit for two months before, tragically, his body was discovered by the police. There's also Liam Danher from Queensland. Mr Danher was 23 years old, with a severe intellectual impairment. He lived with autism and epilepsy. His parents had applied for funding for a seizure mattress that would sound an alarm in the event of an epileptic fit. The application was met with knockbacks and requests for more documentation to justify the $2,500 to be spent on the life-saving mat. On 5 February this year Liam's parents awoke to find Liam dead in his room, having died of a seizure in his sleep. These deaths, and there are many more, are all tragic, and many of them, perhaps all of them, could have been prevented. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a proud Labor legacy—and I particularly thank former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for what is surely one of her greatest legacies—but, under the coalition, it has been gutted and mismanaged. The coalition has ripped 4.4 billion out of the NDIS. Institutionalised underspending is what we've seen, budget after budget. More than 1,200 Australians have died while waiting to be funded by the NDIS. The coalition even shamelessly tried to ram through an unpopular independent assessment scheme, before it eventually decided to scrap it altogether after community pressure. The Morrison government's neglect of the disability sector is impacting people all over the country, including right here in my electorate of Morton. I was contacted a few months ago by a constituent whose husband lives with a disability in a residential facility. She told how he had not been able to access the COVID vaccine. She explained that her husband, like many people with a disability, has a suppressed and compromised immune system, which makes going out into the community unsafe. Sadly, the staff at her husband's residential facility also had not been vaccinated. This is in Australia in 2021. The residents of this facility were told to find their own vaccinations. This would have been impossible without putting these vulnerable people at risk. The residents and staff at this facility were all in priority 1a of the vaccine rollout, or stroll-out, as it's been called. Just over a quarter of Australians in the National Disability Insurance Scheme are fully vaccinated, way behind the national average. Deputy Speaker, don't look at the coalition announcements and press releases. Look at their actual achievements. Just over half of NDIS participants in group homes have been fully vaccinated. Shame! This group was in phase 1a of the rollout. They were supposed to have priority access and to be fully vaccinated months ago. This week, Sam Connor, the president of People with Disability Australia, said it was 'unconscionable that we have not protected the people most at risk.' This is neglect by the Morrison-Joyce government on a grand scale. The coalition have completely bungled the vaccine rollout. The Prime Minister had two jobs to focus on: a speedy, effective rollout of vaccine, and quarantine. And we know that he has failed at both. He didn't order enough vaccines. He said we were at the front of the queue, yet he couldn't even find the front of the queue—or the end of the queue, in fact. He said it's not a race, but it is a race, a life-saving and important race. It always was a race. When he's called out on his failures, as happens in question time, he says 'It's not my job', or 'It's a matter for the states'—basically, 'Blame anyone but me.' Because of the Prime Minister's failures, the health of Australians living with a disability—some of the most vulnerable people in our society—has been put at risk. I welcome the bill's aim to improve the support and protections to NDIS participants who may be at risk of harm, and I acknowledge the government's implementation of the recommendations of the Robertson review in this bill, even if it has taken 12 months since the report was handed down. But I also wish to note the lack of consultation with people with disability on how these changes will impact on their lives. Consultation is a continuing failure of the Morrison government. People with disability deserve better. In fact, all Australians deserve better. 17:04 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise this evening to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. I note the introductory comments from the member for Macarthur, a paediatrician before he came to this place. A few minutes ago, he told the story of how, as a doctor, he had to tell parents of a newborn child that their child had Down syndrome and what the parents' reaction was. I don't have that experience as a doctor; I have that experience as a parent, and that's the position that I come from in this debate. We have a special obligation as a society to look after our children with disabilities and to support them as they grow into young adults and to old age. I think there are good intentions everywhere that we will do the best for those with disabilities. The New South Wales health department, only a few days ago, on 20 August, was mentioned on the NDS website, which said: Childcare workers and disability support workers who live or work in the LGAs of concern must have their first vaccination dose by 30 August Those areas of concern take up a very large chunk of Sydney: Bayside, Blacktown, Burwood, Campbelltown, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cumberland, Fairfield, Georges River, Liverpool, Parramatta, Strathfield, and also some suburbs of Penrith. Disability care workers that live or work in those areas are being ordered by the New South Wales government to have their first COVID vaccination by 30 August. I greatly fear that there will be many disability care workers that will not want to take the vaccination and will leave this sector desperately short of workers. But the question is: is this policy of the New South Wales government correct? Is it wise? Is it what the latest science says? We always must remember: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? As one of our greatest Prime Ministers, Prime Minister Menzies, said: ... today's truth is frequently tomorrow's error. If truth is to emerge in the long run and be triumphant, the process of free debate, the untrammelled clash of ideas, must go on. We should not take New South Wales's health dictate for what it is. As members of parliament, we have an obligation to question it and debate it and to look at the latest science. What does the latest science say? I have a letter written by none other than Dr Peter A McCullough of the USA. Peter McCullough MD, MPH, FACC, FACP, FAHA, FASN, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA—a gentleman; a respected medical expert with more letters after his name than are in the alphabet; someone who has written countless peer reviewed papers. He has had COVID and his family has had COVID, and he treated them. We could not listen to anyone with higher credibility. What did he write? I would like to quote this directly so it's in the Hansard and everyone in this parliament has no excuse for not understanding what Dr McCullough has written. He writes: A groundbreaking preprint paper by the prestigious Oxford University Clinical Research Group, published Aug. 10 in The Lancet, includes alarming findings devastating to the COVID vaccine rollout. …   …   … While moderating the symptoms of infection, the jab allows vaccinated individuals to carry unusually high viral loads without becoming ill at first, potentially transforming them into presymptomatic superspreaders. This phenomenon may be the source of the shocking post-vaccination surges in heavily vaccinated population globally. And that's exactly what we are seeing in New South Wales today. Dr McCullough continues: The paper's authors, Chau et al, demonstrated widespread vaccine failure and transmission under tightly controlled circumstances in a hospital lockdown … The data showed that fully vaccinated workers — about two months after injection with the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) — acquired, carried and presumably transmitted the Delta variant to their vaccinated colleagues. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! Member for Hughes, I remind you that we're debating the honourable member for Ballarat's amendment at the moment. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Absolutely. This is the NDIS, and this is the real concern that we have on the NDIS. There's been a widespread debate, and we need to debate all issues of concern with our NDIS. Dr McCullough continued: They almost certainly also passed the Delta infection to susceptible unvaccinated people— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Hughes will take his seat, and I call the honourable member of the opposition. Dr Leigh BU8 Deputy Speaker, the honourable member is defying your ruling. There are other places where he can pursue his conspiracy theories, but they are not relevant to this debate nor to the second reading amendment. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I take the strongest objection to the member— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! I give the member for Hughes the call, but I remind him that we are debating the second reading amendment, and I want to make sure that he is relevant to the bill before the House. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Deputy Speaker, just to be clear, we are debating the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This has been a lengthy and widespread debate, and many participants in this debate have talked about the importance of vaccinating NDIS participants and also their workers. This debate is about improving supports for at-risk participants. This is exactly what I am referring to, and I take great offence to the member sitting there at the desk saying that Dr Peter McCullough is some conspiracy theorist. We are talking about one of the most highly credentialed doctors in the world, and you call him a conspiracy theorist. Shame on you! Let me continue with what Dr McCullough said. I hope the member at the desk there is listening and gets the wax out of his ears. Dr McCullough said: This is consistent with the observations in the U.S. from Farinholt and colleagues, and congruent with comments by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conceding COVID-19 vaccines have failed to stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Dr McCullough continues: Thus, we have a key piece to the puzzle explaining why the Delta outbreak is so formidable — fully vaccinated are participating as COVID-19 patients and acting as powerful Typhoid Mary-style super-spreaders of the infection. Dr McCullough concluded in this letter: Vaccinated individuals are blasting out concentrated viral explosions into their communities and fueling new COVID surges. Vaccinated healthcare workers are almost certainly infecting their coworkers and patients, causing horrendous collateral damage. Continued vaccination will only make this problem worse, particularly among frontline doctors and nurses workers who are caring for vulnerable patients. Health systems— Dr Leigh interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order, member for Fenner! The member for Hughes has the call. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I hear the gentleman at the desk there. He obviously knows far better— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! Member for Hughes, you have the call. Do not engage with the member for Fenner. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Professor Peter A. McCullough concluded: Continued vaccination will only make this problem worse, particularly among frontline doctors and nurses workers who are caring for vulnerable patients. Health systems should drop vaccine mandates immediately, take stock of COVID-19 recovered workers who are robustly immune to Delta and consider the ramifications of their current vaccinated healthcare workers as potential threats to high risk patients and coworkers. I do not know if Dr Peter McCullough is correct or not, but I know that we should be listening to what he says and we should be debating it. When it comes to Australians with disabilities who are under our National Disability Insurance Scheme, we owe them the precautionary principle and we must be very careful about proceeding down a path with the NDIS, governed by New South Wales Health, that is in direct contradiction to the latest science that Dr McCullough outlines in the letter that I have just read into Hansard. As I said, I come to this debate with a special personal interest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I want to make sure that everyone under this scheme gets looked after as best as they possibly can. We owe that to them. Unlike the member for Fenner, who sits at the desk and wants everyone to be quiet and censored, I believe we owe it to them to debate the facts on the table to ensure that we are giving the most disadvantaged and people with special needs and disabilities in this country every possible chance. That is what I have done today in putting this evidence on the table. If Dr McCullough is wrong, let others debate the facts. Let others come in here and quote other peer reviewed science that shows the contrary. If not, they simply should shut up. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! I call the honourable member for Watson. Mr Burke DYW I wish to raise a point of order on relevance. I don't want to be seen to be weighing into the debate about the science back and forth as to what's being put by the member for Hughes, but I do want to refer to the importance of simply being relevant to the point of discussion. If, for example, this speech were being given during the adjournment, I would not raise a point of order. If it were being given as a motion or given as a 90 second statement, I wouldn't be raising a point of order. But relevance is no small issue, and I just want to quote from page 510 of Practice: Of fundamental importance to the conduct of debate in the House is the rule that a Member should speak only on the subject matter of a question under discussion. At the same time the standing orders and practice of the House make provision for some major exceptions to this principle when debates of a general nature may take place. It then gives examples of what those exceptions are. They're the adjournment debate, the address in reply to the Governor-General's speech, any appropriations bill, and on the question that grievances be noted. All of those opportunities are there. There is one change to a bill which is when a second reading amendment has been moved. That does broaden the debate. But the second reading amendment that's been moved deals with two issues. It deals with deaths by neglect within the National Disability Insurance Scheme as a federal government program and it deals with a commitment to genuine consultation on all major changes to the NDIS Act. I simply put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that there is no way that the comments that are being made now are relevant to what is before the House. If it was a different second reading amendment it might be different or if it were any of the exceptions it might be different. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! I thank the honourable member for Watson. I will make my ruling. The member for Hughes will be relevant to the second reading amendment debate, and I give him the call. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I'll wrap up on the issue of relevance. This bill's title is the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. It has resulted from a case of a death by neglect. I do not want to see any more deaths by neglect, no matter who they are by. That's why I wanted to make sure that that was read into Hansard today. If we are going to put restrictions upon workers in the NDIS system, we need to debate the science and we need to debate the restrictions. This subject is 100 per cent relevant to the debate. I call on other members of parliament that might disagree with me to read the science and make sure you are not falling into the trap of things that happened years ago. I thank the House. 17:19 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I circulate an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, responding to comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in Scrutiny Digest No. 10 of 2021 and comments raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in report No. 9 of 2021. I thank these committees for their consideration of the bill. The Morrison government is committed to delivering quality and safe NDIS services to participants to meet their needs and support them to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This bill makes changes to the NDIS Act 2013 in response to issues identified in various inquiries into recent cases of abuse and neglect of people with disability, including the independent review conducted by former Federal Court Judge the Hon. Alan Robertson SC into the tragic death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith. Specifically, the bill strengthens information-sharing arrangements, allows conditions to be attached to the approval of quality auditors, enables the NDIS commissioner to further specify reportable incidents, and makes a range of other technical changes designed to improve operations of the NDIS commission. In summary, these amendments will help ensure the wellbeing of NDIS participants, including those who are at a greater risk of harm, and ensure that the commissioner has clear and effective powers to regulate NDIS providers and respond to incidents of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. The government will continue to review and make adjustments to the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, the operations of the NDIS commission, and supporting legislation as required, to ensure a quality and safe market for NDIS participants. I cannot overstate this government's commitment to improving protections and safeguards for NDIS participants, especially those who are most at risk of harm. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 79 17:22 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021 79

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021

Second Reading 79 17:23 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam It is my unenviable task to excite the House, at 5.20 pm on a Wednesday afternoon, about the subject matter of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021. It's a herculean task, but I think it's one that I am good for. The bill implements a number of Treasury law changes which Labor supports, most notably a new mechanism for the sharing of superannuation information through the family law system. I'll have more to say about that shortly, but first to other details of the bill that warrant some comment. Schedule 1 implements the government's commitment from 2019 to amend the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges. These measures will apply to all such refunds from 1 January 2019. Let me say that again: it's a 2019 commitment—that's two years ago. If anything is more symbolic of this government's utter legislative incompetence than a minor Treasury commitment being legislated nearly two years after the commitment was given, then I do not know what is. It enjoys our support. It enjoyed our support when it was last brought before the House, but, for reasons best known to the government, they didn't proceed with it. But it will enjoy our support again this evening. The measure is sensible; it will ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as was intended, rewarding companies for meeting their renewable energy commitments. Schedule 2 doubles the value of the civil penalties available under the industry code provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Again, it's worth noting that we've seen this measure before in a bill that the government has chosen not to proceed with. We supported it then. When it was last introduced, it had a few fatal flaws and the government claimed that this measure was a response to misconduct in the franchising sector—in particular, that it was a response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services' inquiry into that sector. That committee made a very clear and unequivocal bipartisan recommendation to increase penalties substantially—not just to double them, but to increase them to the greater of $10 million, or three times the benefit obtained from the contravention of the code, or 10 per cent of annual turnover. For noncorporations, natural persons, the maximum civil penalty available will be $500,000. Appropriate penalties in the franchising code are necessary to provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the code across the sector, bearing in mind that most of the people who are victims of malfeasance in this sector are small businesses. They're in a very weak position when it comes to the head franchisor, particularly large multinational franchisors. The embarrassing thing for the government when they brought it to the parliament the last time, in a previous form, was that it didn't do what they said it was going to do. And they certainly didn't do what the PJC's bipartisan committee recommended that they do. We moved amendments and the government rejected those amendments back then. I'm very pleased to say that some common sense has filtered through in the intervening period. Let's look at schedule 3, because it reduces the regulatory burdens on self-managed superannuation funds and other small funds by removing a redundant requirement for superannuation trustees to obtain an actuarial certificate when calculating exempt current pension income where all members of the fund are fully in retirement phase for the entire income year. It's a sensible measure. If we think about, it's a redundant requirement upon those self-managed superannuation funds if, indeed, everyone is already in the pension phase for the entirety of that year. It is worth noting that the government only seems interested in removing red tape measures such as this from the self-managed superannuation funds and small funds when the vast majority of Australians have their super in large funds. This government's approach, particularly over the course of last year, has been to go in the opposite direction. Once we had a Treasurer who used to celebrate, with the same enthusiasm that a group of labourers would celebrate a public holiday, something called 'Red Tape Reduction Day'. Back then, when he was the Assistant Treasurer, red-tape reduction was a cause for celebration. Now that he's the Treasurer he's piling on the red tape! He can't get enough of it—you've never found a bloke who loves red tape as much as this guy! He's an enthusiast for it. I have to say that Labor is in full support of this measure. We only wish that the Treasurer were as enthusiastic about reducing red tape in one part of the superannuation sector as he is at piling on the red tape in other parts of the superannuation sector. We wait in vain. Schedule 4 of the bill makes a number of technical and minor amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to provide what I would describe as legal certainty to industry codes of conduct established under that act. To explain to members of the House who are fascinated by these matters, the current regulation-making power does not explicitly extend to regulating the third parties that assist in the administering or regulating functions of those codes. This omission was never intended when the law was passed and these amendments will remove the unintended ambiguity by clarifying that these third-party roles are recognised and valid under the relevant industry codes. Again, a sensible measure, and we will support it. Let's go to schedule 5, because, in our view, it's the most important schedule of this bill. It deals with family law and superannuation measures. When one party is not forthcoming with their superannuation assets in a family law separation, there can be significant issues in relation to the equitable division of the assets of the marriage. This schedule amends the Family Law Act 1975 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow parties to family law proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and the Family Court of Western Australia, which has its own separate jurisdiction, to apply to the Family Court registry to request information from the Australian Tax Office that will assist them to identify their former partner's superannuation interests. These amendments also set out measures to protect this information from access by unauthorised parties outside of the specific context of permitted family law proceedings. To make that plain and simple, if the parties obtain that information, presumably through their legal representatives, that information can only be used for the subject matter of the dispute before the court or the conciliation proceedings leading up to a determination of that matter before the court. They cannot be used for some irrelevant and unrelated ancillary purpose. That is right and proper. These amendments are intended to alleviate the financial hardship and negative impact on retirement incomes from separation. It's worth noting that superannuation—because of the landmark reforms introduced by the Hawke and Keating governments in the early 1980s, and then again in the mid-1990s—is now either the first or the second largest asset of a marriage. Whether it be the house, or the house and superannuation, superannuation is now either the largest or the second largest asset of a marriage. It's absolutely critical. For a lot of low-income couples, particularly if they're in the early stages of their marriage and there's a lot of debt on the mortgage, the joint superannuation can be the largest asset of the marriage. So it's absolutely critical to ensure that there is full disclosure of these assets in order to achieve an equitable distribution of assets in the regrettable circumstances of a marriage breakdown. I should say that these provisions should not be needed. If the law was operating as it was intended, and I'll go through why, and if society was operating in the way that I'm sure every fair-thinking member of this place and this parliament would think it should operate, then these measures should not be needed. But, regrettably, they are. We already have laws which require the full disclosure of superannuation assets during family separations. The Family Law Act 1975 is unambiguous that superannuation is to be incorporated as a part of any property agreement or order of a court. It's pretty black and white. There's no ambiguity. Powers are granted to courts for how superannuation is to be assessed, and the law allows separating spouses to apply to a court to split super in much the same way as they can with respect to any other trust fund. It even provides for a maximum 12-month prison sentence for those who provide false or misleading information regarding their superannuation assets during those separation proceedings. Yet, clearly, this regime is not working. Multiple inquiries before this parliament have been told a similar story by all those who are working in the family law area—by representatives, by women's legal centres around the country—which is that the current provisions are not working. Indeed, not only is the current regime failing to bring full transparency to separation proceedings; advocates tell me it is in fact allowing unscrupulous operators to make life even harder for their ex-partners. An ex-spouse can be sent on a costly and time-consuming wild-goose chase that can delay a family law matter for many months, if not years, and add thousands and thousands of dollars to the legal and administrative costs associated with that separation. In relation to tracking down hidden super assets—despite the clear, unambiguous legal obligation to disclose—as of now, the only way to put test to the information or to provide the respondent or the applicant with some capacity to get access to information not provided is to go on a wild-goose chase. The only means to track down hidden super assets is to write to individual funds, one by one, and ask them to divulge the relevant information. Sometimes they require directions or orders from the court to assist them in this process. Needless to say, this is a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack, given that there are literally hundreds of funds where savings could be. Whether they be funds regulated by APRA or funds regulated by the ATO, there can be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of these funds to which inquiries would need to be made. Spouses in search of super are faced with a choice of either going to mediation or court without a complete picture of their ex's assets, or spending lots of time and money trying to track the information down, with no guarantee of success. The truth is that, right now, if you wanted to do the wrong thing by your ex-partner, it's almost laughably easy to do. That is not fair, and that is not right. In the main, as evidence has been adduced before this place, it's the men who have the most to gain and therefore are more active in this space, because their superannuation balances are going to be larger than those of their ex-partners. If you look at the data, the best available data on this shows that a woman's average superannuation balance at retirement is about $118,000—I should say the median is $118,000. For a male, the equivalent is about $188,000 at retirement. There's a big gap, a significant gap. Another job of work needs to be done is to close that gap. But you can see there is a very strong interest in the male party to the separation proceedings not to be forthcoming in the disclosure. I should interrupt myself to say that the overwhelming majority of men do the right thing. The overwhelming majority of parties to these separation proceedings do the right thing and want to do the right thing. But there are a significant number who don't, and therefore remedial legislation is needed. We've spoken many times about the superannuation gap and how that impacts on women's retirement incomes. But, if you want a real and practical example of how it manifests in the undermining of economic security for women who separate later in life, you only need look at how this rolls out in separation proceedings. They have less money in their own superannuation account, and they are in a much weaker position when it comes to getting fair access to the assets of the marriage in their partner's superannuation account. This bill has a long, long history in finding its way before this House. When the history of this government is written, this bill will not be a central matter to that story. But it is emblematic of a lot things, particularly in respect of this Prime Minister. It's worth saying a few things about that history. Back in 2017, the then financial services minister and former member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, announced the government was going to make the ATO super data available to family law proceedings on 24 July 2017. I'll say that again: on 24 July 2017. In fact, if you accessed a copy of the press release that the minister released in July 2017, you could've been forgiven for thinking that the law had already been changed and it had been done retrospectively. If you read the text of the press release, it reads as if the change had already been made in 2017. Clearly, the then minister for financial services was fighting an uphill battle to get the support of her own cabinet and her own party room to make this bill a priority and move it through the House. If you like, it became the subject of a whole heap of goings on that the previous parliament was subject to and the instability within their party room, and it's perhaps emblematic of the way that the coalition parties dealt with these matters of women's equity, on which a great deal has been said. I think it's emblematic of what's been going on from the time that the then member for Cook, the then Treasurer, who was in a very influential position to prioritise this matter, put his arm around the then Prime Minister and said he was ambitious for him but the very next day was undermining him in his own party room and deposing him. Mr Morton interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B The minister at the table asks how it's relevant. It's relevant to this point. There have been many women from the minister's own party who've said it is almost impossible for female members of the coalition parties to get their voices heard and to get their issues treated seriously. It is almost impossible. It is so difficult, indeed, that you've had female members of the coalition parties resign and join the crossbench or believe that it was so difficult indeed that they— Mr Morton interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Are you seeking a point of order? Mr Morton 265931 Yes, a point of order in relation to relevance to the bill that's before us. We've just had a very good explanation from the Manager of Opposition Business as to this very point, and very soon after we're seeing members of the opposition breaching those points that were made. I would like the member to be drawn back to the relevance of this bill. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B To the point of order? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm happy to give you the call to speak to the point of order. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I have just finished advising members of the House that this matter was first announced by the former minister for financial services in July 2017 and announced in such a way that it gave anybody who read that press release the impression that this initiative had already been legislated or it was the intention of that government, in the last parliament, to legislate it in a way that it was made retrospective. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Okay. Let's get back into the bill. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Several weeks later, there was an explosion in their party room and the minister was deposed, and this matter has somehow laid fallow for four years. Such is the priority that this government and this Prime Minister have attached to dealing with the issues around women's access to superannuation and equitable access to superannuation through a Family Court proceeding. So it's entirely relevant that the members of this House understand the background and the history to this piece of legislation and how it sits in the priority list of this government. If I could, I will go on to make this point: the very reason that this bill is before the House—this bill which we support and which we supported, saying, 'Let's get on with it,' back in 2017—is that the government had found themselves with a diabolical problem with women, had announced a bunch of measures which were absolutely crazy and had realised they had to make up ground. I'll remind members of this House of some of those measures. For example, a thought bubble that was floated by the minister for superannuation and financial services was that women be granted access to their superannuation in domestic violence circumstances. I remember very well, and you'll remember very well, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that the member for Dunkley gave a very impassioned speech in this House, as indeed did you and as indeed did Senator McAllister in the other place. That idea was shot down, because it was made quite clear that that was a proposition that was going to hurt women twice. If ever there were a proposition that was designed to ensure an abuser could get access to their partner's superannuation, it would have been that measure there. It was roundly shot down. And then this measure was dusted off, and they said: 'Here we go. We've got another one.' The minister at the table asks: why is this history relevant? I think members in this House deserve to know why it has taken in excess of four years for a bill for a measure that was announced and was supposed to be retrospective back in July 2017 to find its way on to the Notice Paper. We wish it had been done earlier. We'd been calling on the government to do it earlier, but here we are, in excess of four years later. I think it speaks to the priorities that the government attach to these sorts of issues. They will only do it after they've exhausted every other option. They do the right thing after it becomes the only available option to them because of political pressure that has been brought upon them. We'll be supporting the bill. I formally move the second reading amendment, which has been circulated in my name: 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 notes that the Government: (1)announced that it would deliver a mechanism to provide for the visibility of superannuation in family law proceedings in 2016; (2)has disadvantaged women in family law proceedings by: (a)delaying the implementation of this measure; (b)failing to properly resource the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court; and (c)abolishing the stand alone, specialist Family Court; and I understand that it is the desire of the member for Fenner, who's been enthusiastically listening to my contribution in this debate, to second the second reading amendment. Dr Leigh BU8 Absolutely. I can't think of anything I'd rather be doing! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I thank the member for Whitlam— Mr Morton interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There's a lot of chatter going on. I thank the member for Whitlam for the contribution and ask if the amendment is seconded. Dr Leigh BU8 I second the amendment and in doing so also thank the member for Whitlam for waking up the House and inspiring us on this important topic this afternoon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you— Mr Wallace interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Perhaps the member for Goldstein might just let me do my job before he interrupts. Mr Tim Wilson IMW It was Fisher! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Fisher got off lightly, then. 17:48 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I'm sorry to burst people's bubble, but I am actually not quite fully awake after that speech. In fact, quite the reverse: the contribution from the member for Whitlam instead became a diatribe of repeated and rehearsed lines that I've no doubt he does in front of the mirror each morning. The other day, in another debate, he referred to the expression in the context of my good self of 'one who drinks their own bathwater'. As anyone would see who's had to go and look up something on Urban Dictionary when they hear that hip new youth speak, as I have from time to time—it's ridiculous to think that might apply to the member for Whitlam, but let's accept it as it is—on face value, the reference means basically that someone believes their own spin. I could use a more crude, unparliamentary term to refer to how the member for Whitlam, I'm sure, intended it— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Let's not. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Let's not. No, I'm upholding standards, Deputy Speaker, but the member for Whitlam just gave a speech which amounted to definitely not just drinking one's own bathwater but drowning in it. It offers a continuing insight into what the objective of this opposition is, which is, of course, when the government does something constructive, which this relatively straightforward administrative legislation does, not to recognise that we're focusing on the job, as the head of the Australian people, and that we have to support the government to do its role. Instead the Labor Party's focus, as the member for Fenner would be well aware, is to tacitly support while delivering a backhanded compliment, because it's only intention really is to play petty politics in any conversation, and there's no topic that gets it more energised in this chamber. Once upon a time, it was if they felt that workers were under attack, because they were the party that represented organised labour. But today there is no topic that gets Labor members more exercise than anything else, nothing that gets them faster to their feet, nothing that gets them as energised and impassioned with their speeches than if anyone dares to criticise or raise concern about parts of organised capital under the superannuation system. We on this side of the chamber see the success of the nation through the success of the Australian people. The success of our party is when the Australian people do well. The modern Australian Labor Party has never seen the success of the nation through the success of mums and dads, everything in between, families, communities. They see it through the success of themselves, and, when in doubt, they have to write a constant narrative to delude themselves into the pursuit of continuing on with their cause, because they think that they are the only ones who have the answers for the future of this country. Particularly with the discussion around superannuation, which, of course, comes up in the context of this bill around making sure the system works equitably and fairly in the particular context of relationships that have ended, their only contribution is: how does it fit within the narrative of the Australian Labor Party and our vision for the country. It can't actually be: how is this good for mums and dads or couples who are going through divorce? It's: What's the impact on the Labor Party? How is this advancing our narrative and our cause? And that's why in the end they always struggle when talking about legislation or with proposals they put up before elections to ever get resonance with the Australian people, because it's actually about themselves. There's a reason you've successfully stayed on that side of the chamber for most of the history of the Commonwealth of Australia—and don't get me wrong, may it continue! It's because you think governing for Australia is actually about governing for the Labor Party and its pursuits and its objectives, and superannuation, of course, is a classic example of that. As I said, the party for organised capital is how I would refer to the modern Labor Party. Its tentacles get into all the pursuits and the various avenues and the operations and the judgement calls of the Labor Party today, and it affects every decision that it makes. I know there will be members on the other side who will take exception to that, but they won't deny it. They won't argue it's wrong. They'll just take exception to somebody pointing it out. But let's get explicitly to the legislation we're discussing. The member for Whitlam did go through the various practical effects of the legislation and what it is seeking to entail. As I said, there are issues around the amendment of the Competition and Consumer Act regarding the franchising code—most people seem to think that these are good ideas—and there are some issues around deregulation of actuarial certificates for self-managed super funds. I love that we get to return to this topic once more! One of the reasons why the Labor Party are reluctantly supporting this bill is because it applies to self-managed super funds, but the Labor Party want it to apply to larger funds, the ones with larger overheads where you actually hand over money to other people to take responsibility, where you lose control of it and where they and their mates, particularly their fund manager mates, get to harvest it as fees and insurance premiums to boost their own profits. There's a reason why we give self-managed super funds lesser regulatory burden in some contexts, and it's because it's people controlling their own money. And you have higher regulations where they're not in control of their own money. This should not become a particularly innovative process. When you hold your money, Member for Fenner or Deputy Speaker Claydon, in your own pocket, we don't normally demand oversight of how it's being spent, if you've earnt it as part of the process of salary and income outside your taxation obligations. But if you start handing it over to other entities to control then we want to make sure they are doing the right thing with it and that they're doing it on the basis of honesty and without deception and we want to make sure that decisions are being made in your best interests. So, while I agree with the member for Whitlam, I would love to see a bonfire of red tape right at the heart of this chamber. The reality is that, just because some super funds are in charge of other people's money and they wilfully and wishfully spend it as they see fit, it doesn't mean they're always doing the right thing. We found this in the Standing Committee on Economics, which I am very privileged to chair on behalf of this House, during our current inquiry, which the member for Fenner can attest to, despite attempts by some Labor members to run interference in the inquiry and certain aspects of it. For instance, we had low-balance inactive accounts that were deliberately and maliciously being reactivated by industry super funds so that they could harvest the retirement savings of low-income Australians for fees and insurance premiums to boost their own profits and bonuses for fund managers. There was some very questionable conduct that emerged out of the Hayne royal commission, particularly with banks, with the insurance industry and with retail super funds, and all of that behaviour was rightly called out. But some behaviour that was almost poetic in its corruption was where we had fees being charged for no service. Sadly, we have found in the Economics Committee that, while Commissioner Hayne found some misconduct, there were stones unturned, and we are making a very deliberate effort to make sure we find where they are and to expose them to the cleansing light of day. When we found fees for no service, it wasn't because of an administrative error or because money happened to be sitting there and there was automation; it was the deliberate, malicious and conscious harvesting of low-income Australians' superannuation savings to boost the profits and bonuses of fund managers and entities—which, funnily enough, seem to give an awful lot of money to organisations like the ACTU, which raises questions about their intent and nefarious agenda too. Yes, we put higher obligations when other people are watching your money, because the retail funds have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and the industry funds have done so as well. To be fair, at least the retail funds have admitted their behaviour. The industry funds continue to perpetuate a lie that they have nothing to answer for and that they do no wrong, because during the royal commission the stones that covered their misdeeds were unturned. Make no mistake: we will continue in the Economics Committee, right to the end of this term, to find every single stone we can in the retail space, in the industry space and in any other financial institution and hold them to account for their conduct. But I will say that this in the context where we had the large banks before the committee recently and the member for Fenner was complaining about how they were making the argument that perhaps constantly turning up before the committee was unjustified or unnecessary. It's their choice. He's more than entitled to make that argument. Then he listed off a whole series of allegations of misconduct against them, and then the chair of the ABA—I can't believe I'm quoting Anna Bligh, but this is where we all are; this is the parallel universe we operate in—had to make the point that not a single allegation of misconduct was highlighted by the members of the committee, particularly members of the Labor Party. It was what we call in modern parlance, if we go back to our urban dictionary, the equivalent of drinking your own bathwater: an epic slap down. So we should focus on where there is misconduct and where there are misdeeds, and that's what this legislation seeks to do. But another part of the legislation which is important is around visibility when there's a divorce or separation and superannuation comes into that context. The member for Whitlam is right: there is a disparity around the amount of superannuation that women have at retirement compared with men. We all know that that's because of a number of factors, some of which we find very challenging. We're constantly working on how we can correct some of those fundamental injustices that occur. But, critically, when people get divorced—and we hope that doesn't occur, because of course marriage is one of the foundational bedrock institutions of our society and a fundamental good—it should be done in a way where assets are divided in an appropriate context so that people can't hide their superannuation, which undermines the capacity for an equitable division. It's also for another reason: when people get divorced it can often end up in the situation where assets are traded between the couple about 'who gets what'. More often than not, women are left with less of their share, and that is wrong. But, more critically, it's wrong because, structurally, we then favour those who get a house or who are able to afford a house. We deliberately make it harder for women—in, say, their 40s or 50s—whose biggest conscious decision they can then go on to make for their financial security in their working life and retirement is to be able to access their superannuation to be able to buy their own home with enough time to pay it off, under the collective lie that they are somehow better off having money denied to them at that critical stage of their lives. In denying them access to that funding so that they can provide for the foundation of their security in their working life and retirement we put super above homes. I know this is a constant theme in the speeches that I give in this place and I will never back off. The biggest decision Australians can make for their economic wellbeing, and the biggest decision they can make for their personal security and the choices in their life, is to own their own home. Members of the Labor Party who come into this chamber and cry crocodile tears when talking about these issues without a proper acknowledgement that they actively seek to deny post-divorce women the opportunity to be able to own their own home, in order to feather the nests of fund managers, ought to hold themselves in shame, because they actively engage in a form of economic social engineering designed to feather the nests of those who have much at the expense of those who have little. It is disgraceful! It sacrifices women's opportunities for economic security and opportunities in their working lives and retirements. It's just as they do for young Australians when they deliberately kneecap them in their economic opportunities at earlier stages of life. It should be home first and super second. That's a pathway for economic security for all Australians. 18:03 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith [by video link] Well, there's 15 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. The member for Goldstein just spent 15 minutes—one minute on speaking about the bill and 14 minutes on his usual ideological rant—trying to sell more of his books, which obviously aren't selling enough. I love how the Liberals are all Monday experts when it comes to regulation of financial services and the wrongdoing that was perpetrated on millions of Australians through financial services. They're all Monday experts. They weren't voting with the Labor Party to hold a royal commission into the wrongdoings and rip-offs that were occurring in financial services on the 26 occasions we tried to move for a royal commission in the parliament. The member for Goldstein was one of those who voted on numerous occasions against the royal commission, and now he has the hide to come into the parliament and talk about the findings of the Economics Committee, of which he is a member, which they tried to use as a diversion to avoid a royal commission. It's blatant hypocrisy. Nonetheless, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, this is an important reform which we support. I am speaking in support of this bill. I particularly want to address schedule 5 of the bill, which deals with superannuation law and its intersection with family law matters in Australia. Labor has been calling for this reform to be implemented for many years now. Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Taxation Administration Act and the Family Law Act to provide a new mechanism for the sharing of superannuation information between participants in family law proceedings. Because women are at disproportionate risk of retiring with low superannuation balances, this is an extremely important reform. It provides an opportunity for government to provide a mechanism to ensure fairer outcomes when it comes to splitting assets in family law proceedings. Often, when there are such proceedings, it's the woman who ends up with the raw end of the bargain in terms of the splitting of those assets, because the law allows particular individuals—most notably, on most occasions, men—to hide behind the reality of their superannuation balances. It is particularly true for women who experience divorce or family breakdown that the lack of visibility of superannuation assets means that assets may not be divided equitably between partners. While the government announced this reform in 2018, it has taken three years to implement it. Sadly, it's a common theme that we've seen through this three years of this government. It's not good enough, and it shows how little this government cares about women's economic security. The pandemic has given us a real opportunity to view the worth of female dominated industries and a unique opportunity to revalue their work through our society and to make policy changes that increase job security, wages and superannuation for female workers. It's striking and remarkable when we look at the nightly news bulletins—let's face it; we're all a bit more interested in the news these days because of the pandemic—and we get the footage of the testing that is going on in testing clinics throughout the country, of the vaccinations being administered in people's arms throughout the country that are the important pathway back to normality for our economy, of the early childhood educators who are continuing to look after our kids and of the people who are doing Zoom classrooms with our kids in primary and secondary school. Unfortunately, in many circumstances, the people carrying the burden of doing home schooling in most households are, overwhelmingly, women. And the heroes of Australia, in terms of the working population who have continued to work, have predominantly been women. It's women who have kept our country going during this difficult time. It's important we recognise that in the policies we develop in the parliament into the future, to value the work of women more highly and to appreciate the contribution they make—particularly in service sectors, because it's services that have continued to run during this pandemic. If you look at the break-up of gender within services, overwhelmingly the people who work in that industry are women. Unfortunately, because of that, it's in services, particularly in health and education services, that we have the highest gender pay gaps. Recently the Workplace Gender Equality Agency again indicated that gender inequality is on the rise in Australia because of the pandemic, after a period in which the gender pay gap was reducing. It's important for us to recognise that there are opportunities to make changes in policy that will make a big difference to the equality of women in the workforce—in particular the money they take home for the work that they perform and the funds that they retire with in their superannuation accounts. This is one area where we can make a positive adjustment. There are other areas we should look at to make a difference as well. One of those could be the introduction of paid domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards. But don't hold your breath waiting for the Morrison government to be proactive in implementing women-friendly policies to reduce the gender pay gap and improve the economic wellbeing of women. We need not to forget that they opposed vehemently, over time, a paid parental leave scheme in Australia. Australia was one of the last nations in the OECD to implement a paid parental leave scheme for new parents. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to approve a wage subsidy, JobKeeper, for workers throughout the country. Compulsory superannuation—they opposed that as well. These are all important reforms that support the work of women in our society and make a big difference to gender inequality in our country. Hopefully, the skilled and valuable work of women during the COVID-19 crisis will force this government to see the importance of the contribution of female workers to Australia and to support measures to increase their participation in work and their remuneration. The remaining parts of this bill are technical amendments. Schedule 1 clarifies the operation of the income tax law in relation to the Renewable Energy Target, ensuring that generators are not taxed when they later rectify a failure to meet a target in a given year. Schedule 2 allows for increased penalties to be applied to breaches of industry codes prescribed by the Competition and Consumer Act. It increases penalties for breaches of the franchising code, something expressly recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and we of course support franchisees being protected by industry codes, as recommended. Schedule 3 removes some minor red tape for self-managed superannuation funds and other small super funds. I want to reiterate the importance of this reform for gender equality around women's role in the workplace. And in removing some of the barriers to getting greater transparency when it comes to splitting assets in family law matters, particularly the amounts that are superannuation funds, hopefully we can reduce the terrible inequality that still exists in our country, where women retire with a third less in their superannuation account than men do. 18:13 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021. This bill implements a number of streamlining and integrity measures across a range of areas. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges. This will clarify the operation of the tax treatment of such charges and ensure the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers. Schedule 2 to the bill will establish a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with industry codes of conduct. In recent times especially we have seen instances of really bad behaviour from a range of large multinational franchisors. Appropriate penalties in the franchising code are necessary to provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the code across the franchising sector, and this bill will increase the maximum civil pecuniary penalty amount from 300 to 600 penalty units. Schedule 3 will remove a redundant requirement for superannuation trustees to obtain an actuarial certificate when calculating exempt current pension income, where all members of the fund are fully in retirement phase for the entire income year. This delivers on the Morrison government's commitment in the 2019 budget to reduce red tape and cost for affected funds in this way. Schedule 4 of the bill will amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to strengthen the industry codes framework and provide legal certainty that industry codes of conduct can confer powers and functions on third parties to the commercial relationship between industry participants. This will reduce legal risks for the Commonwealth and will address unintended ambiguity. All of these measures are important; however, schedule 5 of this bill really caught my attention. Should it pass the parliament, this part of the bill will have the effect of improving the visibility of superannuation assets during family law proceedings. This measure was announced as part of the government's Women's Economic Security Statement in 2018 and will provide the legislative basis for an information-sharing mechanism to allow separated couples undergoing family law proceedings to apply to the Family Court registries to request the superannuation information of the other party held by the ATO. This amendment will make it harder for parties to hide or underdisclose their superannuation assets in family law proceedings. Divorce is a traumatic time for many Australians. I know this personally and all too well. Separation is hard enough without even taking into account the financial aspects of it. When the issues of money and family become intertwined, it can be unbearable and have wide-reaching and unintended consequences, including on children. It is a truly awful time in one's life, and this measure will make it just a little bit easier by reducing the time, cost and complexity for parties seeking information about their former partner's superannuation and by helping separated couples to divide their property on a just and equitable basis. I believe it is a significant step forward in alleviating the financial hardship and negative impact on retirement incomes that women, in particular, can experience after separation. This government has promised to deliver for Australian women, and this is a sensible move in the right direction. So I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 87

Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading 87 18:19 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to speak to the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. The Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to address critical gaps in Australia's foreign intelligence warrant framework arising from technical change. These gaps were considered closely by the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, conducted by Dennis Richardson AC. The bill before us has been considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which tabled a report very recently—and I will touch on that briefly. These changes address and fix these gaps and would bring Australia into alignment with our Five Eyes partner countries, with stronger safeguards here, including maintaining the prohibition on collecting domestic communications, and so this is a bill that Labor supports. The bill will improve intelligence agencies' ability to collect intelligence about foreign threats to Australia, and so keep Australia safe, while putting in place appropriate safeguards on the exercise of the relevant powers. The bill consists of two schedules. Schedule 1 amends the foreign communications warrant in section 11C of the TIA Act to overcome the difficulty intelligence agencies face in distinguishing between foreign and domestic communications in the modern technological environment. I note it does not grant any new powers or alter the prohibition on the collection of domestic communications. Schedule 2 enables the Attorney-General to issue foreign intelligence warrants to collect foreign intelligence on Australians in Australia who are acting for or on behalf of a foreign power. Originally, the foreign intelligence warrant framework contained two warrants: a warrant under the TIA Act, authorising interception of a single service, such as a phone number; and a warrant under the ASIO Act, authorising the use of ASIO's pre-existing special powers. In response to technological changes, in particular the uptake of mobile phones, the warrant regime was updated in 2000 by introducing an amendment that permitted foreign communication warrants for a more expansive definition of telecommunication technologies and where it was not possible to identify a particular service or individual. The amendments still confined warrants to foreign communication only. The foreign communication warrants allow intelligence agencies to identify threats to Australia's national security, including malicious cyberactivity, terrorist communications and indications of foreign intelligence services threatening Australia's interests. The foreign communication warrants prohibit the interception of domestic communications that both start and end in Australia, even where the interception is inadvertent or unavoidable. With the use of internet based communications and mobile applications it's now not always possible to know at the point of interception if a communication is foreign or domestic. Currently, with the increasing use of internet based communications and mobile applications, I understand that, to avoid breaching the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, intelligence agencies do not intercept foreign communications where there is even the smallest risk of incidentally intercepting domestic communications, and that this places a considerable constraint on the collection of foreign intelligence. This bill would amend that act to overcome this difficulty that agencies face in being able to distinguish between a foreign communication and a domestic communication at that point of interception. The bill also allows the Director-General of ASIO to apply for a warrant authorising the interception of a communication for the purpose of collecting foreign communication, including where the geographic locators of the sender and the recipient cannot be determined prior to the point of interception. The bill would enable the Attorney-General to issue foreign intelligence warrants to collect foreign intelligence on Australians in Australia acting for on or behalf of a foreign power. Currently ASIO can collect foreign intelligence offshore on an Australian working for a foreign power, but that same intelligence cannot be collected inside Australia on that Australian under a warrant. The Richardson review identified this gap in warrant powers and recommended this change, noting: An Australian serving the interests of a foreign government … remains an agent of a foreign power whether they are onshore or offshore— and it's pretty hard to argue with that assessment. This bill introduces and maintains strict safeguards to protect domestic communication if it has been inadvertently collected. These safeguards protect domestic communication in a manner consistent with the original prohibition so that the warrants can only be issued for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence from foreign communications. The Attorney-General must issue a mandatory written procedure to screen for domestic communications that they may have been intercepted, destroy all records of any domestic communications so identified—unless the communication relates to, or appears to relate to, activities that present a significant risk to a person's life—and notify the inspector-general of any identified domestic communication that relates to, or appears to relate to, activities that present a significant risk to a person's life. Before issuing or varying the mandatory procedure, the Attorney-General must consult with the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the IGIS and the ASIO Director-General of Security. The Attorney-General must also review the mandatory procedure as soon as practicable within one year of it being issued and then every three years. The existing safeguards for foreign communications warrants will continue to apply—that is, the Attorney-General must be satisfied on the advice of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the collection of foreign intelligence is in the interests of Australia's national security, Australia's foreign relations or Australia's economic wellbeing. The IGIS will continue to have oversight of agencies' activities under these warrants and will oversee compliance with mandatory procedures issued by the Attorney-General. The IGIS has extensive powers, akin to those of a standing royal commission. Safeguards that will accompany the issue of foreign intelligence warrants to collect foreign intelligence on Australians in Australia are also provided, in that the law will continue to prevent the request of a foreign intelligence warrant on Australian persons who are not acting for or on behalf of a foreign power. The ASIO director-general must include in the warrant the details about the grounds on which he or she suspects that the person is acting for or on behalf of a foreign power. The Attorney-General must not issue the warrant unless he or she is satisfied that the person is acting for or on behalf of a foreign power. Most importantly, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will continue to have oversight of agencies' activities under these warrants, noting of course the very significant powers that the Inspector-General has. This bill, the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill, responds to a real and a pressing need. Without addressing the gap in our capacity to collect foreign intelligence, our capacity to identify possible threats to Australia and to Australians is constrained, as is the capacity of our agencies to undertake their functions. This bill amends existing legislation in accordance with the recommendations of the comprehensive Richardson review. Of course, it is vital that any such reform maintain in place suitable safeguards over the exercise of these powers. This bill does so. Indeed, they are consistent with and replicate those safeguards currently in place. I understand the passage of this bill is a matter of some urgency. I note it was only introduced this morning. These are uncertain times. Many members and senators are unable to be present here now. We cannot be confident of returning here in a hurry, and it follows that the circumstances warrant dealing with this matter expeditiously. In matters of this nature, going to very important national security considerations, Labor has always been constructive and responsible. Finally, very recently the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security tabled its advisory report on this bill, which I've had an opportunity to glance through. I note that it recommends passage of the bill subject to two amendments. I note that two amendments have been circulated which appear on their face to reflect the recommendations of the committee. Noting that, and the capacity of my colleagues in the other place to have regard to that issue, I commend the bill to the House. 18:28 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I would like to thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate. These urgent reforms will address critical challenges facing Australia's intelligence agencies. As a result, Australia will have greater visibility of foreign threats, such as malicious cyberactivity, terrorist communications and foreign interference. Ensuring the safety and protection of the Australian community is a key priority for this government. The Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 contains two distinct reforms that will modernise foreign intelligence laws. First, the bill updates the foreign communications warrant in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the TIA Act, to reflect 20 years of technological change, particularly the widespread use of messaging applications over the internet. Second, the bill amends the TIA Act and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to allow foreign intelligence warrants to be issued with respect to Australians acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power. This resolves a gap in existing laws where intelligence can be collected on an Australian acting for a foreign power overseas but not inside Australia. The bill contains a number of important safeguards, including oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The bill has been reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, with a report tabled by the committee on 25 August 2021. The government thanks the committee for its review of these important reforms. The government accepts all of the committee's recommendations. I foreshadow that I will shortly move amendments to implement these recommendations which will enhance the committee's oversight over the foreign intelligence framework. In conclusion, the bill ensures that our intelligence agencies are adequately equipped to combat foreign threats to Australia and Australians. This bill demonstrates that the government is committed to ensuring intelligence agencies have effective tools to protect Australia, its people and its interests. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 89 18:31 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mrs MARINO HWP I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ZC107 together: (1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may, after the fifth anniversary of the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, commence a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by this Act. (2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (after line 34), after subsection 11C(10), insert: (10A) The Attorney-General must, as soon as practicable, cause the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to be notified about the issuing or varying of the mandatory procedure. (10B) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request a briefing on the mandatory procedure and on any variations to it. I thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its review of the bill. The government has accepted all of the committee's recommendations and prepared amendments in response to those recommendations. I moved two amendments to enhance the committee's oversight over the powers contained in the bill, in line with the committee's recommendations. The first amendment ensures the committee must be notified of making or varying the mandatory procedure made by the Attorney-General. The committee may request a briefing on the mandatory procedure or any variations to it. The second amendment provides for the committee to commence a review of the amendments made by the bill five years from the date of royal assent. This bill will ensure that intelligence agencies have the tools needed to deal with current and emerging threats. These amendments will strengthen the oversight arrangements in line with the government's unwavering commitment to ensuring Australia's national security framework is and continues to be as robust and responsible as possible. I commend these amendments to the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 90 18:33 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021 90

Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021

First Reading 90 Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 90

Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

18:35 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi on indulgence—I just want to make a brief comment on the bill that has just passed the House, the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. This bill was introduced this morning. It has just gone through the House this evening. Members of the crossbench were not given any briefing on this bill. We did not get an explanatory memorandum. I note that the minister has just tabled one. I just want to put on Hansard that we've had no opportunity to consider this. Clearly, the opposition has. This is an urgent bill, according to the speeches that I've just heard, late into the evening, just now, and I want to make it very clear that, as a member of this parliament, I've had no opportunity to consider it at all. Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021 90

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021

Second Reading 90 18:37 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt [by video link] I won't make a lengthy contribution on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, and partly that's because, out of the five schedules that this bill contains, two have been featured in previous legislation brought forward by this government and have to be now brought forward again. It is getting just a tad repetitive, I have to say—seeing the government's bumbling of its own legislative agenda over the course of this parliament. But there are two major parts of this legislation that I do want to address my comments to. The first is schedule 2. Schedule 2 does some very important work, though it's probably not abundantly clear on the face of the legislation that it does. It increases the maximum possible penalties that can be set out in a prescribed industry code under the Competition and Consumer Act. This, in practice, will affect the franchising code, and this is being done in response to inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which I was a member during the last parliament, into franchising. The government's previous attempts to increase these penalties hit the rocks because the penalty increase was nowhere near substantial enough. Labor applied pressure to the government, and I'm glad to see that it has now put forward these amendments in a way that reflects the seriousness of the recommendations and the need to increase the penalties available under codes like the franchising code. The previous Morrison government proposal proposed only a defined maximum of $133,000 for a fine—otherwise known as a slap on the wrist—for those franchisors that were found to be breaching the code. Despite a bipartisan committee report, the report of the inquiry that I referred to earlier, emphasising the need for a significant increase in penalties to be made available under the franchising code, the government's previous position was not going to deliver that. At the time, James Voortman, the CEO of the Australian Automotive Dealer Association, said that the government's proposed $133,200 penalty wouldn't even cop a mention in the annual report of a large multinational car manufacturer, and that is why they needed a penalty with teeth. Meanwhile, the CEO of the Australian Association of Franchisees, Mike Sullivan, agreed, saying that the proposed fines put forward by the Morrison government in that legislation were barely a slap on the wrist. The punishment now will be fines of up to $10 million, and that will have a real impact on the massive scale of operations that can be covered by the franchising code. It's about time that this government actually got around to standing up for the mum and dad franchisee business owners and operators who have been doing it hard with an imbalance of power for far too long. That's why we're very happy to support this component of the bill. I also wanted to address schedule 5 of the bill because it is vitally important, and it is well overdue. Schedule 5 amends the Taxation Administration Act and the Family Law Act to create a new mechanism for sharing superannuation information in family law proceedings. Labor has been calling for this reform for many, many years, as have the family law sector and the domestic violence sector. The government announced this measure way back in November 2018 as part of its Women's Economic Security Statement, which means, clearly, for the last three years the government's been quite content with economic insecurity for the women of Australia. Typically, it's been too little, too late from this government, being delayed by nearly three years. It's simply not good enough. However, it gives a very good indication of this government's level of care. The lack of visibility of superannuation accounts when it comes to family law proceedings is particularly damaging to the interests of divorced women, but, really, it's damaging to any former partner who will get the rough end of the financial stick. It's a well-known fact that women are at disproportionate risk of retiring with low superannuation balances, and this is particularly true for people who experience divorce or family breakdown. The lack of visibility of superannuation assets means that those assets may not be divided equally between the partners, as the current system allows assets—usually, but not always, the man's—to be hidden from the other spouse and, indeed, from the court. This legislation will go a long way towards supporting people who are often at their wits' end in dealing with divorce proceedings. This will help level the playing field. Fundamentally, these provisions are about fairness and transparency. Anyone who opposes these measures is quite literally trying to hide something. I think it is important for people to understand the real, practical effect of making these changes by thinking about what had to happen before. While courts have had the power to deal with these superannuation accounts—though, frankly, in Western Australia only very recently have we passed legislation to enable the dealing of superannuation accounts between de facto couples, and that took way too long—when it comes with dealing with this, the courts need to be aware of the existence of those superannuation accounts. Far too often, and quite understandably, the spouse in the divorce proceedings is not aware of the superannuation account situation for the partner that they are divorcing. In fact, sometimes people aren't even aware of their own superannuation circumstances, having ghost accounts that are still living on, that haven't been closed from employment many years ago, or having funds held by the ATO that were insufficient to end up in a superannuation account. That all means that even a partner who is trying to disclose everything may not know, and may not think about doing the full searches to find out, their full superannuation circumstances. For the other partner, where they believe, or even if they're not aware, that there are superannuation assets that are not being disclosed to them and to the court, to chase that down, to obtain subpoenas from the court and to make inquiries of every possible superannuation fund is time consuming, hugely expensive and, frankly, can be a complete waste of time. It's especially a waste of time when all of that information is already known to the ATO. These changes allowing requests for information to go via a court registry to the ATO to provide that matched information, the information that's required for the court to make a determination about a fair, equitable and just split of assets between the divorcing couple, will make this process a lot simpler and will make sure that assets are not missed or overlooked. Crucially, in those small number of circumstances, it will mean that, where a partner has decided deliberately to dispose of assets into a superannuation account that is not disclosed and that their former partner would have no way of ever knowing about, it will be found and brought to the court's attention so that there can be a just result when it comes to the separation and division of assets between the separating couple through divorce. When we boil it down, who suffers, ultimately, when this is not done fairly or justly? Not just is it the former partner but it's the children. We must always ask these questions: What is in the best interests of the kids? What is the fairest outcome? The changes in this schedule of this legislation are about fairness and about justice, and they are long overdue. I commend this bill to the House. 18:45 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson [by video link] I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021. I will just make a couple of brief comments. This bill is part of the Morrison government's economic plan to deliver for Australians right across the country. It has five key schedules which address a broad range of issues, including large-scale energy generation shortfall changes, industry codes under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, requirements for superannuation funds and, importantly, measures to improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. Schedule 1 of the bill addresses the large-scale generation shortfall charge. Currently, energy retailers and other liable entities must relinquish large-scale generation or pay a shortfall charge. If businesses later surrender outstanding certificates within the allowable time frame, they receive a refund of this charge. The establishment of this process was intended to provide flexibility to assist businesses to manage the cost of compliance. These amendments make it clear that energy businesses will not be taxed on the amount of shortfall charges refunded. The bill will also ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers. There are no changes to renewable energy targets and no decrease in penalties for noncompliance. The Morrison government's plan for our energy markets will continue to help drive down power prices and reduce emissions. Our focus remains on bringing the cost of new technology down, rather than raising the cost of traditional sources, such as coal and gas, that continue to play an important role in our energy mix. It's our 'technology not taxes' approach that will continue to help guarantee access to affordable and reliable power for Australian households and businesses, including in my electorate of Robertson. I really do hear regularly from Central Coast business owners, like Anthony from Clarke Dowdle & Associates, about how important lower electricity prices are to his business. Anthony told me that lower power bills reduce his overall business expenses, meaning that he can continue to employ local residents in his small business at Umina Beach. I know that the government will continue to work to deliver for hardworking households and businesspeople like Anthony right around Australia. Schedule 2 of the bill addresses industry code penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This includes establishing a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with industry codes of conduct. Penalties will be increased across a range of areas. For industry codes generally the maximum civil monetary penalty will be increased from 300 to 600 penalty units, while for a breach of the franchising code by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit obtained or 10 per cent of annual turnover. For noncorporations, the maximum civil penalty available will be $500,000. These changes are important to limit the significant harm that can be caused to the lives and livelihoods of small business franchisees, many of whom are based in my electorate of Robertson, right across the Central Coast and, indeed, around Australia. So appropriate penalties will provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the code and allow the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to help protect prospective or vulnerable franchisees against exploitative behaviour. Schedule 3 of the bill addresses a requirement for actuarial certificates for certain superannuation funds. It delivers on the government's commitment to reduce red tape and costs for affected superannuation funds by removing a redundant requirement for trustees to obtain an actuarial certificate in certain circumstances. This measure benefits self-managed superannuation funds and small APRA regulated funds and will apply to assessments from the 2021-22 income year. The Morrison government will continue its focus on reducing bureaucracy and red tape, including in the superannuation sector, ensuring that hardworking people can continue to save for their future. Schedule 4 of the bill will strengthen industry codes under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It will do this by clarifying the industry codes can validly confer powers and functions on third parties for commercial relationships between industry participants. These roles have been established over time as industry codes are regularly reviewed and amended to improve their operation. Industry participants recognise the important role that third parties play in assisting with the administration or regulation of such codes. These amendments will reduce legal risks for the Commonwealth and address unintended ambiguity, promoting confidence and a clearer understanding of the industry codes. Schedule 5 of the bill will improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. This is an important reform, and the schedule implements measures announced as part of the government's Women's Economic Security Statement 2018, and provides a legislative basis for an information-sharing mechanism. This will allow separated couples undergoing family law proceedings to apply to registries requesting superannuation information of the other party held by the Australian Taxation Office. Parties will then be able to use this to seek up-to-date information from their former partner's fund. We know that superannuation is often one of the most significant assets in a separated couple's asset pool. So with the passage of this legislation, separating couples will have access to faster and fairer family law property settlements, which will make it easier to identify lost or undisclosed superannuation assets and harder for parties to hide or underdisclose assets. This measure will also assist individuals, particularly women, who are often disproportionately impacted in divorce settlements, to avoid the costs and complexity involved in seeking superannuation information from multiple superannuation funds. The proposed changes will come into effect from 1 April next year. I do hear from a lot of locals residents in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast of New South Wales, just about every week, about their struggles with the family law system. We know that relationship breakdowns can have a significant impact on not just former partners but their children, family members and loved ones. Property disputes add further stress at a very, very difficult time, so I do welcome anything that provides greater transparency and clarity for both partners. I commend this bill to the House. 18:53 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, particularly schedule 1, which improves the operation of the large-scale Renewable Energy Target scheme, otherwise known as the RET. Established under the Howard government in 2001, the RET is designed to fast-track the reduction of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector. The RET allows large-scale renewable power stations and the owners of small-scale solar and wind systems to create tradeable certificates for every megawatt hour of power they generate and sell them to electricity retailers who cannot meet their annual renewable targets. Schemes like the RET are complex to administer and need close supervision to ensure that they work as intended. For example, the certificates need expert accreditation to make sure we accurately count renewable generation. We can write down whatever numbers we want on a spreadsheet, but the real CO2 emissions in the atmosphere do not lie. We must be as close to reality as possible. Certificate supply also needs monitoring to ensure the price is high enough to incentivise electricity retailers to transition faster to renewables in the medium term. The annual reporting deadlines also need flexibility to ensure well-intentioned energy retailers who meet their targets, on average over several years, can have any penalty fees appropriately reimbursed. Schedule 1 of this bill does just that. We should be thankful the RET has survived, though. It was, after all, the coalition government who tried to gut the RET in 2013 and subsequently dialled back ambition. The RET has been key to ushering in the renewable energy boom in this nation, but there is definitely more room to achieve greater penetration through more ambitious targets. Without this we risk jeopardising our share in the profits of these historic levels of investment, particularly in the regions, the home of large-scale renewables. Every year, regional Australians have to see billions of energy dollars draining out of their towns offshore or into the cities. Imagine, just imagine, the difference it would make if that money stayed local and was reinvested into our regional communities. That's why I introduced the Australian Local Power Agency Bill, which would require any new large-scale renewable energy project in Australia to make the offer to local communities for a chance to co-invest up to 20 per cent in the project. That's not ideology. It's just common sense and really good regional Australian policy. In Germany, farmers own 10 per cent of all renewable energy, and everyday people own another 30 per cent. Imagine what that kind of local reinvestment would mean for farmers in a drought, having a substantial income stream that pays off year after year, rain, hail or shine, or for skills development and jobs for local people. We can't let this golden opportunity slip through our fingers. The regions are also leading the way in small-scale renewable energy generation, especially in the community energy space. Data published by the Clean Energy Regulator shows that an outsized proportion of the 4.2 million small-scale solar and wind installations that have claimed certificates under the RET since its inception in2001 has been in the regions. This wouldn't surprise anyone who lives in the regions. It sure as heck doesn't surprise me. In my electorate of Indi, this transformation is happening everywhere you look, from Yackandandah to Euroa. That's why the ALPA Bill I introduced would provide funding and technical support for everyday communities just like them to fast-track the development of their own small-scale renewable energy projects. Regional Australians, right now, are rolling up their sleeves and making up for lost time, and we should be backing them in. I can't tell you how many people contact my office about exactly this—residential aged-care facilities, sporting clubs, schools, fire stations, councils. Everyday people are asking for advice on how they can put solar on their rooftop or add a battery out the back. They're looking to save money or make sure they can keep the lights on in a crisis, and right now there's nowhere I can point them. Grant schemes are piecemeal, and there's never enough to go around, and these grassroots community organisations often lack the technical expertise to even know where to start. With the right backing, local renewables could skyrocket, and imagine then what we could achieve under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme if we truly invested in local communities doing local renewable energy. We wouldn't have to hide behind accounting tricks and targets so we could set them and try to meet them in any old canter. We wouldn't need to do that. Like the gold rush before it, renewable energy could drive a real economic renaissance in the region. This Friday, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy will hold a public inquiry into my Australian Local Power Agency Bill, and I invite all MPs listening to this debate on the Renewable Energy Target to tune in and hear from everyone, from local community energy groups to town mayors and the National Farmers Federation, who see this untapped economic potential I'm talking about and are going to talk about it too. Schemes like the RET are a solid start, but we cannot lose sight of the golden opportunities right before us. 18:58 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I'm pleased to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill. I'm just going to pick out three key areas: firstly, the Renewable Energy Target, or, as the member for Indi said, the RET; industry codes of conduct; and also—no surprises—superannuation transparency, where women's economic security will be improved. The Renewable Energy Target or the RET is a scheme that's designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector and encourage the additional generation of electricity from sustainable and renewable sources. The target is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator under two schemes. The first is the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, which encourages investment in renewable power stations to achieve 33,000 gigawatt hours of additional renewable electricity generation by 2020. The second is the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, which supports small-scale installations like household solar panels and solar hot water systems. According to CSIRO, Australia has the highest uptake of rooftop solar globally. The Clean Energy Regulator data shows that more than 2.68 million rooftop solar power systems in total have been installed in Australia as of 31 December 2020. That means that one in four homes across our country have solar panels on their roofs—including my own! The Renewable Energy Target works by allowing both large-scale power stations and the owners of small-scale systems to create large-scale generation certificates and small-scale technology certificates for every megawatt hour of power they generate. The certificates are then purchased by electricity retailers, who supply the electricity to households and businesses and submit it to the Clean Energy Regulator to meet the retailer's legal obligations under the Renewable Energy Target. This creates a market which provides financial incentives to both large-scale renewable energy power stations and the owners of small-scale renewable energy systems. It's always been the case with the RET scheme that energy retailers and other liable entities are required to surrender large-scale generation or pay a shortfall charge. Should businesses later surrender outstanding certificates within the allowable time frame, they receive a refund of the shortfall charge. This was intended to provide flexibility to help these businesses manage the costs of their compliance. This schedule provides certainty that energy businesses will not be taxed on the amount of shortfall charges refunded to them. This will clarify the operation of the tax treatment and ensure the market for large-scale generation certificates works as is intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers. That's something that we all want in Australia. So this measure will apply to refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges paid since 1 January 2019, and it's estimated to cost $70 million over the forward estimates. Schedule 2 in the bill is the industry code penalties under part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Industry codes of conduct can provide the necessary regulatory support and environment for industry. They can guard against misconduct and opportunistic behaviour while fostering long-term changes to business culture. They can be described as a set of rules or standards of conduct for an industry, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. Codes of conduct can be mandatory or voluntary. Voluntary codes are a form of industry self-regulation. Voluntary industry codes are usually flexible and can change in response to industry or consumer needs. They set out specific standards of conduct for an industry, including how to deal with its members and its customers. An example of a voluntary industry code, for those listening, is currently the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, which was introduced to improve standards of business conduct in the food and grocery sector. I once worked in this sector as a food merchandiser, filling the freezers in Woolworths and Coles with frozen peas. I also worked as a food sales representative. So I've experienced this code in action, and a very important voluntary code it is as well. Mandatory codes provide a set of rules or minimum standards for an industry—again, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. An example of a mandatory code is the Franchising Code of Conduct, and, now, the new car dealership agreements which fall under that code; I will talk about those as well. The government recently announced a suite of reforms to the automotive industry. The reforms transformed the voluntary principles into mandatory obligations under the Franchising Code of Conduct. The guidance was developed in consultation with industry to improve fairness and transparency in dealership arrangements, and the amendments to the code follow the government's response to the Fairness in franchising report and also reflect further automotive franchising reforms that the government announced on 12 March 2021. This schedule is about the establishment of a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with industry codes of conduct. For industry codes generally, the maximum civil penalty amount will be increased from 300 to 600 penalty units or $133,200. For a breach of the franchising code by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit obtained from contravention of the code or 10 per cent of annual turnover. For non-corporations, the maximum civil penalty available will be half a million dollars. This increase in penalties in the franchising code is necessary and appropriate, given the significant harm that can be caused to the lives and livelihoods of small and family business—music to my ears. I know a little bit about this in terms of conditions that existed some years ago before this code became mandatory for franchisees and franchisors. In some industries, franchisors, unfairly, did have the upper hand. Before coming to this place, I worked as a national development management for a national buying group with over 100 stores. That particular buying group had an excellent deal in place for its members with minimal fees and a raft of value measures in place that enhanced the retailer's business model. If I may say, the store owners and staff were supported well with business coaching and national and local marketing campaigns at virtually no cost to them. Often mums and dads owned those small and family businesses; in fact, 100 per cent were owned by mums and dads. That is not the business environment that I encountered when I spent a short time working for a franchisor not long after that—a franchisor, whose members were, unfortunately, in minus four per cent growth. It was a very high stress environment for me as the national BDM, trying desperately to turn their businesses around, but the franchisees themselves, of course, were in great distress, and even the most successful of them did not enjoy a sustainable retail business model. Mums and dads who owned these franchise stores couldn't pay their bills or meet their commitments, which, ultimately, meant losing their business and, often, their homes. Large shopping centres where they were located charged exorbitant fees to fit out stores, and they forced retailers to pay the union costs associated with accessing their sites to fit out new stores, which, at the time, I found unconscionable. In addition, they then charged defit costs to the retailer when they either broke their lease or walked away from their failed businesses. I experienced one instance where the shopping centre, shamefully, charged $30,000 to the retailer for a defit of their store and then leased the store fully fitted out to the next retailer at a higher rate because it was fitted out. That is known as double dipping. It's taking advantage of mum-and-dad retailers and it's not fair business practice. So I say to the Australian public: this is why we have mandatory codes of conduct. It is to stop this sort of practice going on. One contributing factor to failures of small and family businesses was the fees payable to franchisors that were not reasonable when compared to a percentage of these small businesses' turnover, and another was the lease agreements with large shopping centres that were tied to franchise agreement terms—often five years or five years plus five years. I've also worked to assist those struggling mums and dads who were locked into franchise contracts. I've been with them when they have had to let go of staff and default on their mortgage payments. These are not good times. Therefore, it's necessary to have these mandatory codes of conduct. I have seen it from all perspectives, and I stand up for the mums and dads and the small businesses, of which there are many across Moncrieff. There are 32,000 small businesses in Moncrieff. Many of them are franchisees, and many of them are also good franchisors, I must say. I want to move forward now to schedule 5, which relates to improving the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. This schedule implements the improving the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings measure which was announced as part of the government's Women's economic security statement in 2018. These amendments provide the legislative basis for an information-sharing mechanism to allow separated couples undergoing family law proceedings to apply to the Family Court registries to request superannuation information of the other party held by the Australian tax office. Parties will then be able to use this information from the ATO to seek up-to-date superannuation information from their former partner's superannuation fund. With the divorce rate at over 50 per cent, we know that many women find themselves at a distinct economic disadvantage later in life, for a couple of reasons. What often happens is that women leave the workforce early in their career to take care of their young family while their spouse continues in the workforce to support the family. Once the children are grown up it is often difficult for women to retrain or to re-enter the workforce, and, of course, all those years have passed and their superannuation balances have not compounded over a long period of time. They simply cannot catch up, although there are concessions for women to be able to deposit larger sums if they earn enough to be able to do so. So, during divorce, women often get a raw deal when it comes to the superannuation that their spouses have accumulated. I have some experience in that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the Minister for Women's Economic Security, Senator Hume, for the work that she has done to improve the economic conditions for women through this bill. These amendments will make it harder for parties to hide or underdisclose their superannuation assets in family law proceedings by reducing the time, cost and complexity for parties seeking information about their former partner's superannuation. Improving accessibility to superannuation information will support more separated couples to divide their property on a just and equitable basis and will help alleviate the financial hardship and negative impact on retirement incomes that women can experience after their separation. It will give women the opportunity for clarity and transparency in their divorce settlement with their spouse when it comes to dividing the real assets of the marriage. Parties to family law proceedings will be able to apply to the courts for access to superannuation information from 1 April 2022. To close, this is good news for Australian women, delivered by Senator Hume and delivered by this government, the Morrison government. 19:12 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins The Treasury, as Australia's authoritative body responsible for economic policy, market regulation and federal budgeting, holds an immensely important role in the wider economy for our country. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, before us today, seeks to amend the Treasury laws with respect to how to manage the Australian economy more efficiently and more strongly. The five schedules within this bill each act with intent to carefully regulate the economy so as to ensure fairness and consistency while maintaining our strong Liberal economic values. The first schedule concerns the refund of large-scale generation shortfall charges under the Renewable Energy Target scheme. This scheme stands to encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. This scheme encourages the use of renewably generated energy sources by energy retailers and is crucial to Australia's adoption of renewables. Renewable energy power stations issue a certificate for every megawatt hour of power they generate. Energy retailers then purchase these certificates to meet the government's guidelines for renewable energy use. Each year the Clean Energy Regulator requires these retailers to surrender their certificates in order to ensure compliance with this ever-important policy. If the retailers fail to surrender sufficient certificates, they are required to pay a hefty shortfall fee. However, if these retailers later surrender the certificates, they are refunded this shortfall fee. This amendment simply acts to ensure that businesses are not taxed on the shortfall charge refunds received. By unmuddying the water concerning this issue, the Morrison government ensures this anomalous situation does not occur. Ensuring energy retailers are not being incorrectly taxed, these savings will be passed directly on to consumers, ensuring that Australians are able to access clean, renewable energy at lower prices. Let me emphasise that the targets for renewable energy use are unchanged, and there will be no decreased penalties for noncompliance. The Morrison government is proud to maintain a hardline stance on this issue, recognising that renewable energy is crucial in Australia's action on climate change and a clean and renewable future. The Morrison government is passionate about small business and within that the ongoing success of franchisees. We all know the local mums and dads who are dealing with franchisees and how important it is as a small business in a small community. This government is aware of the significant harm that can be caused to the lives and livelihoods of small business franchisees when acted upon unfairly and is enacting this legislation change to protect them. The amendment before us today allows for greater protection for franchisees against potential exploitative behaviour by franchisors. Schedule 2 increases penalties under part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, enacting a strong deterrent against breaches of code. This ensures that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be able to help protect prospective or vulnerable franchisees against exploitative behaviour. This bill is just one part of the Morrison government's greater commitment to the strength and stability of small businesses in Australia, a core tenet of liberalism and this government's action in the area. Schedule 4 simply acts to strengthen the industry codes under this same act. Both corporations and individuals will still be regulated under the same codes. The amendment stands to provide additional legal certainly to all entities involved by validating pre-existing regulations. This amendment acts to ensure that both corporations and individuals can validly confer powers on third parties to a commercial relationship between industry participants. In doing so the Morrison government decreases legal risks to the Commonwealth as well as ensuring our industry codes are free from ambiguity, again strengthening the codes that the corporations need to follow. In continued action by the Morrison government to support small businesses, schedule 3 of this bill acts to remove unnecessary red tape barring small APRA regulated superannuation funds, as well as self-managed superannuation funds, from operating efficiently. Self-managed super funds—and we know self-funded retirees have worked hard in order to make sure that they're able to live well in their later lives and not be dependent on government handouts—have previously been required to possess a costly actuarial certificate in order to calculate exempt current pensions incomes, even in the retirement period where the participants are merely drawing down on the value of their hard-earned superannuation portfolios. The Morrison government wishes to remove the red tape that forces trustees to acquire certificates. That investment of hard-earned money can be better used in the enjoyment of retirement after a long working life. By permitting funds to use the segregated method to calculate exempt current pension income, the redundant regulation requiring certificates is removed and these small and self-managed super funds are left to operate more freely and efficiently to the benefit of older Australians enjoying the fruits of a lifetime of labour. Schedule 5 of this bill also surrounds superannuation and is of particular importance as it acts to improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. First announced in 2018 by the Morrison government as part of the Women's Economic Security Statement, this schedule makes it harder for individuals to underdisclose assets during separation proceedings. I'd like to acknowledge the great work of the Minister for Women's Economic Security, the Hon. Senator Jane Hume, for her work on this bill. Separated couples will be able to apply to the Family Court registries to request superannuation information of the other party held by the Australian Taxation Office. This legislation allows separated couples to justly divide assets, alleviating the financial hardship that is often felt more by the female side of the partnership because, as we know, women are less likely to have superannuation nest eggs because of their caring duties in the home. We know that Australian women currently receive a third of the superannuation payout that men do, sitting at $37,000 compared to men's $110,000. Moreover, women tend to work fewer full-time hours than men, as they so often carry much of the burden of raising children. I'm pleased to say that in the modern world that is changing, but at the end of the day even in full-time positions women still earn less on average than men, with many losing crucial career developing years because they're raising children. Of course, that is their choice, but they are building their family and it's important that we support the economic security of women in Australia. As it stands, these women, and for that matter anyone having to go through separation, are not facing a fair battle throughout the proceedings, with it commonplace for individuals to hide their assets in an unfair attempt to unjustly split assets. The Morrison government views this as inappropriate and, as such, is acting with this amendment to protect all individuals going through separation so that there is a just and economically fair way of going through the proceedings. If someone is already coping with the emotional battle of separation then the least we can do is to provide peace of mind that one party will not be hung out to dry in the harsh winds of financial hardship that may disproportionately affect one member of that separation. At the time of the announcement of this measure as part of the Women's Economic Security Package, it was estimated to have a cost of $120 million. We believe that to rectify this situation is important for family law disputes. Where individuals may have had to rely on long and costly legal action, including subpoenas and court orders, to receive this information in the past, this amendment acts to clear up the proceedings—not only to place a focus on the fairness in the division of assets but also on the timeliness of proceedings. In closing, the schedules under the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021 will allow the Australian economy to flow more freely and more fairly. With protections for small franchisee businesses under schedule 2 and the fair taxation of energy providers under schedule 1, through to helping people with their super, the Morrison government is enacting promises made under past budgets as a commitment to the Australian people for a brighter economic future. I commend this bill to the House. 19:21 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Deputy Speaker Freelander, I know what you're thinking! What an opportunity to be in the chair while we're debating another TLAB bill! I know that there's just a sense of excitement which befalls this building whenever we're into TLAB— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 You get the vibe—it's very good! Mr PASIN 240756 As much as my good friend the Assistant Treasurer tries to make out that these bills are the best thing since sliced bread, they're often very perfunctory. Of course, this Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021 is the sixth such bill this year. But there are two schedules in this bill that I want to make a brief contribution about, noting in particular the hour and the impending adjournment speeches—which I'm sure will be much more exciting than the contributions that have been made in relation to TLAB No. 6. The schedules that I'm particularly interested in are, unsurprisingly, those schedules which have garnered some attention during this debate: schedule 2 and schedule 5. Schedule 2, of course, has the industry code penalties under part 4B of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. We've heard other speakers who have made contributions about the fact that, effectively, this schedule takes penalty provisions and ramps them right up. This is important because penalties are important for two principal reasons. The first is to operate as specific deterrents but, equally importantly—and I'd suggest to those who may be listening to this contribution, more importantly—they provide a general deterrent. We know from the member for Higgins and from other contributors how important small and family businesses are. We also understand and know how many of those small and family businesses operate under the franchise model. It's an incredibly successful model and it has worked well across very many industries. But there's an inherent danger in it, and that inherent danger is the inequity of bargaining power as it relates to entering into that agreement at the get-go. It's very much a 'take it or leave it' approach in relation to very large corporates with offices full of franchising law experts versus mum-and-dad operators who just want to have a go. This schedule has penalty provisions which will ensure that that inequity in bargaining power is balanced more appropriately. When I say 'penalties' I mean that it's fair enough the penalty units have gone from 300 to 600. But, for a breach of the franchising codes by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million or three times the benefit obtained from the contravention or 10 per cent of the annual turnover. There are circumstances in which this penalty will be bigger or higher than you could fly a rocket ship over. So that specific and general deterrent will operate very, very effectively. I only wish that we'd had these provisions in place when we saw the outrageous behaviour of General Motors as it related to Australian franchisees in and around our communities. My electorate has some very large employers, but many of those large employers happen to be the large car dealerships. To drive past the once proud Holden dealerships in my electorate, to see them denuded and to know that the hardworking men and women in my electorate in small business have provided the capital effectively to establish those facilities, and to think that General Motors has benefited from that investment and to see them skulk away from this nation—a nation that embraced their brand—quite frankly was disgusting. I'm pleased to see that this particular provision will go a very long way to preventing that kind of behaviour in the future. I did say there were two schedules of importance. I'm not going to rank them. Equally important, I think, is schedule 5 and our approach to improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. The pool of assets in a family law matter traditionally was the home and perhaps some effects and chattels, like a car. But, of course, as superannuation balances have grown, so has the importance of that superannuation asset in the pool to be determined, settled or distributed in the course of a family law proceeding. Before coming to this place I was a practitioner, but I'm pleased to tell you, Deputy Speaker, I was much happier dealing with defendants facing criminal proceedings than I would have been working for jilted lovers, so I stayed very much away; I never acted in relation to family law matters. But within the practice, particularly the one I was employed in before establishing my own practice, there were family law practitioners. I've got to tell you; the stories about trying to get basic information about a spouse's superannuation balance would beggar belief. They would involve rifling through filing cabinets and producing a document that might be four or five years old. Quite frankly, if a request were made formally from practitioner to practitioner for disclosure of that information, there was no legal requirement for that to be provided, and often clients would instruct practitioners not to provide that information. This meant that the parties were entering into negotiations, mediations, settlements et cetera effectively blind to the balance of the pool. That's unacceptable. It's particularly unacceptable, as we've heard from others making contributions this evening, that on average women have lower balances in their superannuation than men and that there are very many occasions in which that asset in the pool was hidden from the wife seeking a fair distribution of that pool. Schedule 5 seeks to correct that. It seeks to make it permissible, on application to the court, from 1 April 2022, that the parties to Family Court proceedings may seek an order for disclosure of superannuation material. It stands to reason. In a way, it's surprising that we've gotten to 2021. Forget about arguments from those opposite that this was announced in 2018 or otherwise. I'm quite frankly surprised that we've come into this century having to establish this particular requirement. It should have been done in the last one, and it should have perhaps been done upon the establishment of superannuation itself. I can't reiterate enough how gobsmacked I was as a young practitioner to learn that there was no requirement on a party to disclose this information in effectively what amounts to a civil proceeding—that is, a family law settlement matter. I'm very pleased to have been part of a government and—given the support of those opposite—part of a parliament that is righting what is a very obvious wrong. With that, I'll conclude my contribution. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 99 ADJOURNMENT Morrison Government 99 19:30 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga [by video link] Last week, I held a community forum, together with the member for Isaacs, about the need for a federal anticorruption commission and Labor's commitment to establish a genuinely independent commission. Despite members of my community being way beyond the point of jumping on a Zoom meeting just for idle curiosity during our sixth lockdown, more than 70 locals participated in our forum. They engaged in questions about how a national anticorruption commission should be set up so that it genuinely helps to end corruption. Above all, they expressed the desire for a government without the rorts and for a government that wasn't just governing in its own interests and in the interests of the powerful people close to it—in other words, a government doing precisely the opposite of what this Morrison-Joyce government does every day. A fish rots from the head down, and that describes this Morrison-Joyce government. Let's start with the sports rorts and the colour-coded spreadsheet—the $100 million Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, where the Auditor-General found the Morrison government gave out grants with a focus on marginal electorates held by the coalition, and money was pumped into projects in the seats the government needed to win at the 2019 election, instead of allocating grants to clubs based on merit. That meant clubs that were rated by the department as deserving support, including the Greensborough Hockey Club, right here in Jagajaga, missed out. My community is still angry about this. Then there were the Safer Communities rorts where the member for Dickson directed 91 per cent of the funds from the Safer Communities Fund to coalition and marginal seats. Freedom-of-information documents show the member for Dickson announced the grants for two councils in the Braddon electorate in July 2018, a month before the rules for the third round of Safer Communities were published and applications opened, and against the expressed advice of community safety experts in his own department. And there was the Leppington Triangle, where the government managed a $26.7 million overspend on a piece of land valued at only $3 million. Coincidentally, the Leppington Pastoral Company had previously donated to the Liberal Party. Most recently, there were the car park rorts, where the Morrison government manipulated the $660 million Commuter Car Park Fund. The Prime Minister approved 81 per cent of the car park projects. Almost 90 per cent of car parks approved were to be built in Liberal seats or seats they wanted to win at the 2019 election. Rorting and corruption are so endemic in this government. I'm not sure they even notice they're doing it. Certainly the response from ministers in this place makes it clear that they don't intend to change their behaviour. When asked about these rorts at question time after question time, the response of every minister is essentially: 'Well, everyone does it, and I'm the minister, so I get to do what I want.' It's not good enough. That is not how good government works and it is not how the government in this country should work. There are obvious real-world consequences of the Morrison government's rorts and corruption. There are economic costs. The Australia Institute has estimated that the rising perception of corruption in Australia could have reduced Australia's GDP by $72.3 billion, or four per cent, since 2012. And there are costs to our health and to our community cohesion. In the middle of a global pandemic, when our communities are suffering so much, this is particularly concerning. There are costs to public trust. We already know that people lack trust in government. Corruption and rorts feed that lack of trust, and that lack of trust contributes to the environment where dangerous conspiracy theories flourish—conspiracy theories that are convincing people to not get vaccinated or not wear a mask; conspiracy theories similar to those being put by the member for Hughes and the member for Dawson, which the Prime Minister has still failed to shut down. It's real-world, dangerous behaviour. It's appalling conduct by the Morrison government, and the Prime Minister fails to do anything to address it. The role of government should be taken seriously. The Australian people rightly deserve a Prime Minister who takes responsibility for the direction of the country. We can't have another three years of corrupt behaviour, rorts and spin. Murray-Darling Basin Plan 100 19:35 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's been an interesting 18 months where we have been learning—I suppose collaterally to the other grave challenges we face through this once-in-a-century pandemic—a lot more about the Federation of this nation and how our levels of government are structured. When Australia federated in 1901, bringing together existing colonies, in many ways our Constitution was first and foremost designed to replace a lot of the things that the mother parliament in the United Kingdom was doing on behalf of the colonies at the time—those important national priorities of defence and of an economy, such as a reserve bank and currency, and standardisation. We all know the stories of inconsistent railway gauges et cetera as you reach the boundaries of the different colonial states of Australia. Largely, the national government was established with defined powers in our Constitution and, effectively, an added right or statement of anything else is not the responsibility of the federal government; it resides with the colonies—which would become states. We are learning a lot at the moment. Things have changed so much since 1901, particularly with the two world wars that saw the need for so much power to move to Canberra. And now, of course, a health pandemic is showing us just what the jurisdiction of the states has been. But one thing that I perhaps regret was not enumerated as a power of the Commonwealth at Federation was jurisdiction over interstate waterways. In recent decades we have had to confront the challenge of managing the Murray-Darling Basin. The millennium drought led the Howard government to pass the Water Act in 2007—one of the last acts of the parliament under the Howard government. Then it was ultimately the Gillard government that adopted or introduced the plan that was envisaged within that act. Since then we have been working towards implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Ideally, that will be achieved by 30 June 2024. I'm a great defender of and advocate for the plan, and it disappoints me when various interests from all sides of the ideological spectrum talk it down. It's something that is held in very high regard. Frankly, people come from around the world to see how we've dealt with the very difficult challenges of managing very complex interests that are all worthy in their own way but, of course, are competing for a share of a very finite resource. I think Mark Twain said that whisky is for drinking and water is for fighting over. There are many parts of the world that are seeing these acute challenges. The river Nile has been dammed in Ethiopia, which of course is a very strategic flashpoint for that system. The Colorado River is in very dire straits in the western United States. There's not a system under pressure in the world that has anything like the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, authority and structure to deal with the competing interests and challenges and also, very importantly, ensure that the environmental health of the system is at the heart of managing it going forward, that we use all the water in the system to maintain the environmental integrity of it, and also support the important economic interests throughout that system and, indeed, fundamental human sustainment. As a member from the city of Adelaide, I note that the Murray-Darling Basin and river provide the water source and water security for our city of Adelaide. It has been raining in the basin, which is fantastic. We are in the basin right here in Canberra, and every time I look out the window and see that it is raining it reminds me that, hopefully, many of those drops that are falling near this building will end up flowing all the way down to the river's mouth in South Australia. But we must have pride in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We must have goodwill, and we must ensure that, if we believe in it, we say it out loud. As a member of this parliament I say that I am a huge believer in what we are achieving with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There are challenges. Some of those challenges may well have to be dealt with in this chamber and in the other legislatures around the country. But I support the plan, I stand up for the plan and I say we must work together to ensure that we are securing and guaranteeing the future of that river system for all that live in it and are sustained by it. Newcastle Electorate: Community Events 100 19:40 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle While the coronavirus has sorely tested many in our community, it has also brought out the very best of humanity. The pandemic has shown that our communities are strong, they are resilient and they can achieve almost anything with just a little support. Tonight, I want to share with the parliament some of the positive stories from my community of Newcastle. We've seen incredible acts of selflessness and sacrifice for the greater good. Again and again, people have gone out of their way to ensure the most vulnerable not just are protected but remain connected to their neighbourhoods and they're not left wanting for any of life's essentials. Coming off the back of an 18-month partnership, Walgett Aboriginal Medical Service and the University of Newcastle joined forces to help overcome workforce shortages and the spectre of the delta variant spreading throughout New South Wales. A crack team from the University of Newcastle School of Nursing and Midwifery travelled to Gamilaraay country to provide urgent vaccination and COVID testing to the people of Walgett and greater western New South Wales. Over the course of a week, Professor Amanda Johnson, Wiradjuri woman Professor Rhonda Wilson and Gamilaraay woman Associate Professor Donna Hartz set up vaccine clinics in local parks, outside supermarkets and inside shearing sheds and even went door to door knocking on households everywhere they went. No vaccines were waiting, and these amazing women also worked to address any vaccine hesitancy they found to great effect. Tonight I want to put on record my thanks and admiration for this partnership. May it continue to grow, and I look forward to the day that this partnership provides for a Bachelor of Nursing to be undertaken on country. Meanwhile, closer to home, the University of Newcastle and the University of Newcastle Students Association have been doing fantastic work caring for students living on campus. When the COVID outbreak first struck our region, hundreds of students from the university were forced into isolation, with no way of collecting groceries or any essential items. Luckily, the students association stepped up to the challenge and provided over 1.5 tons of food boxes and care packages for students in residential colleges. It's always fantastic to see our community coming together to care for each other like this. On the other side of town, I'd like to give a special shout-out to an awesome alliance of independent local businesses in my electorate: the Makers x Traders. While the pandemic has been really tough for our small businesses, the Newcastle Makers x Traders group has been hard at work creating new ways for Novocastrians to discover and fall in love with the diversity of our independent, locally owned businesses that make our city unique. The Newcastle Window Wander is a walking trail that weaves throughout the CBD, highlighting the stunning window displays that Newcastle's Makers x Traders have created to fill our daily walks with colour and joy. I want to give a big shout-out to these local legends, including Hey Jude, Love Pete; Curve art gallery; Easel Art Space; High Tea with Mrs Woo; Studio Melt; Pride Swim; Monsoon Living; UMIE; Fringe Dweller; Alie Jane; With Love Bree-Lacey; Steel & Anchor; Abicus; Boho Luxe Trader; Ramjet; the Colour Bug; Blackbird Corner; Lone Clothing Co; Pappa Sven; and Cooks Hill Parkside Apartment. Thank you for providing a much needed antidote to the everyday madness of lockdown life. I know that the Makers x Traders of Newcastle have applied for funding from the City of Newcastle for a special rate so they can keep connecting Novocastrians to the vibrant creative spaces of our city, and they have my full support. I wish them every success in securing these funds. I also wanted to wish the best of luck to fellow Novocastrian Christie Dawes, who takes to the track in wheelchair racing for her seventh Paralympic games. Finally, in the wonderful streets of Mayfield, locals have been carrying out small but potent act of kindness. In Mayfield East, an anonymous poet has been filling letterboxes with heartwarming prose to lift the neighbourhood's spirits high, and, as a token of gratitude, the awesome Onyx Espresso Bar has been shouting free coffees to all our frontline pandemic heroes, who've been working hard testing and vaccinating throughout our community. There is no doubt that this pandemic has been challenging and it has caused pain and hurt for many. But amongst this adversity I am so proud of how the Newcastle community that I call home has pulled together to make lockdown just that little bit kinder. Monash: Centenary 101 19:45 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker During the First World War, state and federal governments coordinated efforts to build farming communities for returned soldiers and their families. The South Australian government responded as early as 1915 with acts of parliament designed both to repatriate and compensate returning servicemen and to develop agriculture in the regions. Settlement schemes established during and following World War I saw properties with dairy, grapes, vegetables, grains and grazing develop, amongst other places, along the river Murray in South Australia. Three such towns celebrate their centenaries this year: Barmera, Glossop and Monash, But it is the town of Monash that I wish to acknowledge this evening. The town of Monash, originally a settlement known as Lone Gum—presumably an Australian reference to Lone Pine—was established as a collection of fruit blocks for returned soldiers, with the first allotment being made to H Berriman on 31 November 2017. Officially proclaimed as Monash on this day exactly 100 years ago, 25 August 1921, the town was named after General Sir John Monash, the renowned military commander of World War I. The town has a strong sense of community from its earliest days. The settlers club was established, and the settlers hall opened in 1920, before a new stone memorial hall was built. Many of the early families joined working bees to help soldiers whose war injuries impeded their own abilities. Social and sporting clubs in the town grew, including tennis, football and cricket as well as the Girl Guides and a literary society. For a period, in the 1960s and 1970s, Monash drew as many as 300,000 people each year from around the country as the Monash playground became one of South Australia's most popular tourist attractions. At its peak, the playground included 180 pieces of play equipment over five acres. Known as Grant Park, it was established by the son of a solder-settler, Grant Telfer, who, in keeping with the Riverland's no fuss, can-do ethos, simply began placing play equipment in a local council reserve. The town has a military and civilian history to be proud of. The Monash military ceremony will be held this Sunday to celebrate the town's beginnings and to pay respects to the soldier-settlers and their families who built the town and established the community upon their return from war. It will be an opportunity to commemorate the diggers who served their country in war before coming home to be part of rebuilding the Australian economy by developing our agricultural industries. This experience gave rise to some amazing stories, stories like that of William Campbell, who, after serving in World War I in France, returned to Adelaide in 1919 before travelling on foot 250 kilometres with as many belongings as he could stack into a wheelbarrow with two sons in tow to establish himself as a fruitgrower in the district. His wife, Elizabeth, and two other children travelled later by horse and dray. The family were located on 16¾ acres at soldier-settlers block 656 at Monash just north of the main township. Here they cleared the land, built a small home and grew a selection of vines. William and Elizabeth were instrumental in the establishment of the Monash school, which was originally a corrugated iron building erected near the general store in 1920. The building served as a school until 1924, when it was replaced with a new stone building at the present school site. Then there is the story of Roy William McCreanor, who was allocated a block at Monash, where he and his wife settled in 1919. One of the first three properties allocated at Monash under the scheme, Roy's block, or block 443 on Jury Road, was a thriving fruit block with just over 400 trees, including oranges, apricots, peaches, nectarines, plums, pears, apples, almonds and figs along with 16 acres of grape vines. That must have been a utopia for Roy after the horrors he experienced at Pozieres. Roy was an active member in the Berri and Monash community, serving for a time on the board of the Co-op Dried Fruit Packaging Shed and the Berri Co-op Winery and Distillery. He helped establish the library at Monash and was a founding member of the Catholic Church in the Riverland. These are just a few of the stories of the respected veterans and hardworking families who built our local communities. While I can't join the community of Monash this Sunday, I wish them all the very best for a fantastic 100th anniversary celebration, and I'm reminded that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Education: Early Learning Matters Week, COVID-19 102 19:50 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Before we entered lockdown in the ACT, back at the end of July, I had the chance to go down and do some work experience at Wonderschool Early Learning Centre in Conder. Armed with my Working with Vulnerable People card, I arrived ready for whatever was to be thrown at me. I was there to recognise Early Learning Matters Week and to gain a deeper understanding of the role our early educators play. From the detailed induction, the centre's morning song, the early morning flag-raising, the room leadership, some tough questions at morning tea and exploring the play area with the children, right through to a fresh-baked lunch—all were excellent. And, yes, I got my hands dirty! It was great to see quality educators doing what they do well. We know that the first 1,000 days are critical in a child's development, and it's critical that we recognise the work that educators do with better support and remuneration. As an essential workforce, they should have priority access to vaccination, as should primary and secondary teachers and staff. I really encourage my colleagues to engage with a local centre and spend time in the shoes of our highly competent early learning educators. Just like other work experience opportunities, such as the excellent ADF program, it's on the ground that you get a deeper understanding of the work. Thank you to Ellen Robinson, the centre's educational leader and to its director, Heidi Clark; and thank you to Sarah Wilcox, the Wonderschool team operations manager for facilitating my visit. And thank you to all the staff and the wonderful children who taught me and made me feel so welcome. The past few months have been a challenging time. We've watched anxiously as the number of cases in Sydney and New South Wales continued to rise exponentially. We've watched with frustration as the leaders of New South Wales refused to implement sensible measures in a timely manner, and we've watched as 'gold-standard Gladys' has morphed into 'Glad-wrap Gladys'. The reality is that, for a long while now, it's been a question of when, not if, delta would come to Canberra. The consequences had already devastated our tourism and accommodation industry without federal support. It's a reality born out of the irresponsibility in handling the New South Wales outbreak, from a desire to see political views triumph over sensible scientific advice. But it would be wrong to blame the Premier and Deputy Premier alone, because, through this whole tragedy, they've been aided and abetted by the Prime Minister and his band of travelling COVID sceptics. We need to remember: the reason we're having lockdowns right now is that quarantine wasn't fixed. This current outbreak, throughout Australia and now New Zealand, arose from one limo driver taking a foreign aircrew—unvaccinated, without a mask—to hotel quarantine. Some months later, the whole of New South Wales is in lockdown, we in Canberra are in lockdown, and Melbourne and New Zealand now are also in lockdown. The reason the consequences of that failure are so great, of course, is because of the failure on vaccines—the failure to get that supply that was needed earlier this year. The Prime Minister can crudely complain about the premiers and chief ministers all he wants, but they have continued to have one hand tied behind their back because of the government's failure on quarantine and the vaccine rollout. As Malcolm Turnbull said, 'I can't think of a bigger black and white failure of public administration than this.' Further to this failure, we've seen a series of irresponsible protests and marches, egged on by individuals such as the member for Dawson, with no genuine rebuke or condemnation of such irresponsibility. There's been a vacuum of leadership. But, whilst one can't find that leadership upon the government benches, one need only step outside this building and into the community of Canberra to find some of the greatest displays of leadership. To the hundreds of trainee and retired nurses who answered the call when our health system was under pressure: I thank you. To our contact tracers and our Services Australia staff, including those who have moved from other jobs: I thank you. To the members of our community who have cooked meals for those isolating, out of their own pocket: I thank you. To all Canberrans who have followed the necessary lockdown requirements to protect themselves and the community, I thank you as well. It's easy to be disheartened by looking at those who are supposed to be leading the country, but by taking a step back and looking at those who continue to support their communities through some of the toughest of circumstances we find the true Australian spirit. It is these Australians in our communities who will get us through this pandemic and they deserve to be recognised in this chamber. Afghanistan 103 19:55 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Much has been said, and will continue to be said, about Afghanistan. There will continue to be analysis on what led us as a country to become involved; why and how we have left; and the impact our presence over the last 20 years has had on our Australian Defence Force personnel. But today I rise to urge ongoing support for Afghan refugees. In May I stood alongside the president of Launceston's Hazara community, Yousef Mohammadi, in solidarity with the community as we mourned the devastating loss of life of schoolgirls killed when their school was bombed. The Hazara are one of the most persecuted under the Taliban, and for family and friends who now reside in the northern Tasmanian region the stress of wondering what will happen to them is taking its toll. Over the past 10 days my office has met with many members of our local Afghan migrant community, including many Hazara families, to hear their stories and to help however we can now, and so I can bring their voices here, to advocate for their needs. To listen to their anxieties about family members, young and old, is immensely confronting, and I thank my staff, who have responded with such kindness and care. I would also like to thank and acknowledge Yousef and Fatima for their assistance in communicating with the community, and Ella Dixon and Jeff McKinnon for their ongoing advice and support. Those who have assisted our efforts should not be abandoned. They shouldn't lose their lives for that service. Last month I was contacted by a member of my community who was concerned for the safety of his brother in Afghanistan. He had undertaken work as an interpreter. Aziz immigrated from Afghanistan a few years ago himself after having worked with Australian forces, and he's all too aware of the dangers faced by his brother. I talked to Aziz again today and he tells me that his brother is hiding and trying desperately to find a way out. Aziz knows that the Taliban will seek vengeance. He told me of his friend who had worked as an interpreter but resigned after threats from the Taliban. He was tracked down several years later by the Taliban and beheaded in the street. These stories must be told. This is a reality so many in that country are in fear of right now. There are so many stories. A local family's sister, a doctor in Kabul, has already received a direct message from the Taliban, telling her that they will kill her. Another member of my community is begging for help for his friend who flew helicopters in the Afghan army and now lives in terror of what might happen next. Whether it be the men who assisted coalition forces or women and girls who have had their freedoms taken away after 20 years of relative progress, we can't look away from what the future now looks like for so many. Nor can we shy away from our responsibility to help now and into the future. Though increasingly dire over the past few weeks, the situation is not a new one. While we are of course urgently evacuating people directly from Afghanistan, and should continue efforts to do so while possible, it's important to realise that there are already Afghans who are displaced. Afghan members of my community have told me story after story of family members who have been displaced for years, fleeing to Pakistan and Iran, where their circumstances are not much better and are likely to deteriorate with the Taliban resurgence. They tell of keeping their young sons in hiding for fear that they will be caught and sent back to Afghanistan, where they will be imprisoned or killed, and of keeping their young daughters indoors to avoid them being taken and married off to Taliban fighters. A number of these families have humanitarian visas in process, and I urge that these applications are processed as quickly as possible. We can see 3,000 places are not enough, and I am of the firm view that we must do more, as we did in 2015 when we increased our intake of Syrian and Iraqi refugees. We have the capacity to increase our intake of Afghan refugees and we should, particularly as the situation continues to deteriorate. I know the great contribution that Afghan migrants have made in my own community and settling their family members with them makes good sense. I believe we must also consider providing a pathway to permanency for temporary visa holders. This can and should be done without compromising existing border security policies, and it is simply the right thing to do. We mustn't just wish that the situation were different before we have exhausted all efforts to change it. House adjourned at 20 : 00 NOTICES 104 NOTICES