2021-11-29 1 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 29 November 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Andrew Wallace ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker 1 10:01 The SPEAKER 265967 I report that I presented myself to His Excellency the Governor-General as the choice of the House as its Speaker and that His Excellency was kind enough to congratulate me. His Excellency also presented to me an authority to administer members the oath or affirmation of allegiance. I now lay the authority on the table. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:02 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the 34th report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament, together with 21 petitions and 32 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Presentation 1 10:02 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions: COVID-19: Vaccination 1 COVID-19: Vaccination 1 Housing Affordability 1 Waste Management and Recycling 2 Animal Welfare 2 Australian Defence Force 2 First Nations People 2 Assange, Mr Julian 2 Naloxone 3 Health Care 3 Broadband 3 Climate Change 3 Electoral Roll 3 Autism 4 Media 4 COVID-19: Vaccination 4 Employment 4 Australian Broadcasting Corporation 5 Australian Federal Police 5 Afghanistan 5 Kashmir 5 PETITIONS 6 PETITIONS Responses 6 10:02 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Department of Veterans' Affairs 6 Broadband 7 Australian Broadcasting Corporation 7 Afghanistan 7 Asylum Seekers 8 Japan 9 International Relations 9 Skilled Migration Program 10 Myanmar 10 National Missing Persons Week 11 COVIDSafe 11 COVID-19: Vaccination 11 Foreign Investment 13 Foreign Investment 13 Medical Workforce 13 COVID-19: Domestic Travel 15 COVID-19: Statistics 15 COVID-19: Vaccination 16 E-Cigarettes 16 COVID-19: Vaccination 17 Medicinal Cannabis 17 COVID-19: Statistics 18 COVID-19: Vaccination 19 Environmental Conservation 19 COVID-19: Vaccination 20 Tobacco 20 Nuclear Energy 21 Nurses 21 Environment 21 Petitions 22 Census 23 School Nutrition Program 24 PETITIONS 24 PETITIONS Statements 24 0:02 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn This is my last presentation of petitions and ministerial responses for the year, so I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the committee's achievements and the outstanding support that petitioning has had from the public, who have been significantly engaged despite the challenges that this year has provided. This year, the committee has: supported an upgrade to the e-petitioning system and a redesign of the public petitioning website tabled its report on the inquiry into aspects of petitioning security and accessibility considered 2,690 petitions presented 1,572 certified petitions that collected over 2½ million signatures, and processed and presented 585 ministerial responses to petitions. It is no surprise that, while petition topics varied, we received a large number regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and related matters. These are obviously very important issues that concern us all, but I sincerely hope that next year sees significant issues coming to the forefront as the pandemic impacts our lives less and less. I'd like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their work this year, and I look forward to continuing our important work together when we meet again after the break. Mr Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on your recent appointment. On behalf of the committee, we look forward to your support of the petitioning process and will provide you with regular updates on petitioning matters. I wish you and all members of the House a safe and enjoyable festive period.   COMMITTEES 24 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 24 Report 24 10:04 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Annual Reports 2019 and 2020, together with the minutes of proceedings. The ACCC and the Australian Energy Regulator appeared in virtual hearings before the Economics Committee on 23 October 2020 and 24 February 2021. The committee hearings were both well attended. I thank the regulators for their involvement and their eagerness to answer some of the inquiries from committee members, which were reflecting much of the concern that we found in the Australian community. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the economy and prompted significant changes to the regulatory work and priorities of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The challenges presented by the pandemic and the subsequent economic crisis forced the ACCC to authorise behaviour that would normally be considered anticompetitive. For example, the ACCC temporary market authorisations have allowed companies both to cooperate and to coordinate their responses, which includes banks coordinating on deferring mortgage repayments in the interests of consumers and the broader economy. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the fact that Australia's inflation is relatively muted, generally speaking. In comparable economies, specifically the United States, inflation is running at above six per cent at the moment, whereas in Australia it is within the target band of two to three per cent. It is possibly the case that the reason for this has been the problems with the supply chain management in the United States, which Australia, despite the behaviour of the unions, has managed to avoid. It is of great concern that, when we look at some of the economic headwinds that Australia faces at this point in time, we see that the union movement, instead of helping their fellow Australians, are instead taking advantage by running rolling strikes, whether it's the New South Wales Teachers Federation, who represent some of the best paid teachers in the world, or the MUA, which is now part of the CFMMEU—the union whose letters keep growing; soon the CFMMEU will have taken over the entire alphabet, if we're not careful, and then we will need a competition policy issued on protecting the alphabet from takeover by the union movement. When their fellow Australians are finding strains, when the economy is under pressure, this is the moment that the CFMMEU have decided to have a bunch of rolling strikes to put pressure on the Australian economy. Opposition members interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 Now those on the other side wake up! They're not concerned when their fellow Australians are facing inflationary pressure, they're not concerned when they're facing cost-of-living pressure and they're not concerned when the economy is under pressure, but they are concerned when you criticise the union movement. It's 'Come in spinner' on that side. The only people they care about are organised labour and their mates in industry super. Anyway, I will return to the ACCC annual report. Additionally, Australia's international and domestic borders have been impacted by the pandemic, with the travel industry having to issue refunds on an unprecedented scale. I would like to pause at this point and say if there is any one sector of our economy that has been put under more pressure than any other it is the one with those people involved in helping others enjoy holidays and have again and again tried to provide overseas travel with certainty, only to see health issues intervene. They have tried to keep their businesses afloat. They have tried to keep Australians involved— (Time expired) Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). 10:10 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Australia has a competition problem. Work by the Treasury authored by Jonathan Hambur and others has shown that we've seen an increase in mark-ups over recent years. Work by the industry department led by Sasan Bakhtiari has shown we have seen a rise in market concentration. The ACCC told the House economics committee: We agree the economy is too concentrated. Under the Liberals' watch, large firms have gotten larger and the start-up rate has fallen. The Australian economy is becoming too concentrated by a small number of large firms. Indeed, you can play the dinner party game: 'Name us a handful of Australian industries that are not dominated by a handful of big firms.' This isn't just an issue of supermarkets and banks. It's not just an issue of telecommunications. It's an issue that goes as far as baby food, beer, internet service providers and department stores. As the ACCC told the House economics committee, it has not won a contested merger for a quarter of a century. That's why you've had the ACCC head, Rod Sims, calling on the government to engage in a sensible conversation about Australia's merger laws and whether they're fit for purpose. But, instead, the government has ruled out that conversation entirely. It's not interested. It's not interested in having a conversation with the competition regulator and the Australian people about making sure that our markets are more competitive. Competitive markets aren't just critical for customers. Of course, customers benefit through lower prices and greater variety, but competitive markets matter for those of us who care about dynamism, because so much of productivity growth comes through new firms and new ideas. If you are a large, cosseted monopoly, you don't have to invest in research and development; you can just sit back and dig your moat and keep the competitors out or, if they get too big, buy them. So the Australian economy suffers when monopolies become too large. Workers are hurt as well. The naughty cousin of monopoly is monopsony. That's the phenomenon that happens when workers don't have a choice of employers. The worst of this is the one-company towns, places like Pullman in the United States. In Australia, I can think of a number of mining towns. When workers don't have outside options, their wages are lower and they're more vulnerable to mistreatment. So this rise that we have seen in monopolies across Australia has been bad for wage growth as well. Increasingly, economists are recognising that one of the reasons the labour share of national income has fallen is the rise in monopsony hiring power. So it's good to hear the competition regulator speaking about these issues, as it did in the report that we're discussing today. But the problem is that the government isn't serious about tackling these issues, whether they occur at the high level of mergers or at a specific industry level. Labor went to the last election promising a 'your car, your choice' policy through which independent mechanics would get the data they need to fix modern cars. Because modern cars are computers on wheels, denying independent mechanics that data effectively denies them the ability to fix modern cars. The government always says that it's committed in principle, but, in practice, it never gets around to doing it. The scheme is only now up and running, many years after the ACCC first warned about it. It's a long time after the government was first warned about it. How many independent mechanics have gone to the wall because of the government's inability to speak out for this critical sector? We're seeing the same with the car dealers industry as well, and we're seeing the same in the area of scams. In the report that the member for Mackellar has referred to, the ACCC's Scamwatch has received almost 5,000 reports mentioning COVID-19. Labor will fight online scams by establishing a national antiscam centre and doubling funding for identification recovery services. Only Labor can be trusted to protect Australians from scams. I want to acknowledge the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics secretariat, particularly Nicolette Cilia, who I understand was the key person responsible for drafting this important report. The SPEAKER 265967 The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Mackellar wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? 10:15 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I do. I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 265967 In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 26 10:15 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 26 BILLS Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021 26

Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021

First Reading 26 Second Reading 26 10:17 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In moving the Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021 to the House, I note that it seeks to enshrine an offence of seven years imprisonment for a head of a foreign government if the head of state detains an Australian journalist or requests another foreign government to detain an Australian journalist in the course of undertaking legitimate journalistic activity. Mr Speaker, I have to tell you, it gives me no pleasure in having to put this bill before the House today, because by introducing this bill it is a recognition that we are failing to protect the rights and freedoms of our own citizens. And I, for one, think this is an absolute disgrace. Regardless of what you think of Julian Assange, who this bill focuses on, the bottom line is that he is an Australian journalist being detained—there are those people who dispute that; you could say 100 per cent that he is an Australian publisher—and punished for exposing the corruption of the powerful. The Biden administration, which has continued on the case against Julian Assange, is using one of our own to intimidate other journalists who even think about exposing secrets and war crimes. They don't care about an Australian citizen—in this case—he is dispensable. But at the end of the day, this is not about him. I am not asking anyone in this chamber to like Assange—you don't have to put him on your Christmas card list—and no one has to agree with what he says or the way he carries out his business. But you don't have to like someone to stand up and say that the way they are being treated is plain wrong. An Australian journalist is potentially facing 175 years in jail—an effective death sentence—for exposing crimes against humanity, corruption and shedding a light on the plight of the weak and vulnerable. As the Editor in Chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange did not commit a crime, he simply reported the truth. Now, I understand you and many others may have heard things about Assange, so before I outline the substantive parts of the bill let's get a few facts straight. None of the WikiLeaks publications resulted in Defence Force deaths. In August 2010, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed: 'There was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks.' Another Pentagon official had confirmed: 'The military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths.' In 2010 our own Australian defence department task force concluded, in the words of the then minister, John Faulkner: 'Overall, the content published by WikiLeaks does not reveal any significant details about operational incidents involving Australians beyond that already publicly released.' So there we have the first myth busted. Secondly, Assange did not hack anything—it was Chelsea Manning who accessed the information in question and passed it on to Assange. The Biden administration, in continuing with the appeal to extradite Julian Assange, is now in effect prosecuting Assange for carrying out regular journalistic activity such as passively receiving information. Not hacking—journalism. He should not be in prison. He was not even on US soil when he published the cables in question. If the Biden administration is successful, it will establish a dangerous precedent of extraterritorial prosecutions for the alleged crime of journalism. That means that any Australian journalist in any part of the world can be prosecuted for their work. We need to seriously think about the implications of this. Extraterritorial prosecutions are dangerous. We should not allow one of our own citizens to become the Biden administration's test case. But Assange has never been treated as a regular accused. When he was detained in the Ecuadorian embassy, he and his lawyers were spied upon by Spanish firm UC Global, violating basic due process rights. It was revealed after his arrest that two of his manuscripts, as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment, were handed to US officials by Ecuadorian embassy staff. This is not the weekend newspaper we're talking about here—they stole his legal papers, medical records and personal notes, and handed them straight to those prosecuting him. It is an affront to the principles of natural justice that the Australian government has raised zero concerns about this clear violation of his privacy, as far as I'm aware. If this goes without condemnation, the implication is that any foreign country can do the same. Could you imagine if an Australian journalist was detained and spied upon by the then KGB, and the then Kremlin sought to use evidence against them? Would we have stayed silent, back in Cold War times? I don't think so. That's why we need legislation like this. Another fact that is overlooked is that a fair trial for Julian Assange is in effect impossible. If the Biden administration is successful in appealing the extradition he will not be taken to a normal court where evidence is open, like we have here in Australia. He will be tried in the east district court of Virginia, otherwise known as 'the spy court'. The judge handling the case will be Leonie Brinkema. She is known for her hard-line stance on issues of national security, and the use of secret evidence, that we don't know about, will be allowed. No defendant has ever won in that court. This is an affront to justice. This is not a fair go. This is un-Australian. And that's if he even makes it to that court. If Assange is extradited, he will be subject to 'special administrative measures' and detained in the Alexandria facility. If convicted, the notorious ADX Colorado, where people were buried alive—they have no contact with the outside world, and they go slowly insane. There is a significant and grave risk of serious human rights violations if Assange is transferred to US custody. UK courts have recognised this. They blocked the extradition earlier this year because they know he is at risk of suicide if he ends up in the US. He is one of our own, and the implications of his prosecution are serious. The precedent it will set will open the floodgates. And that's why we need to remember the broader global context in which this is happening and the urgent need for this bill. The fourth estate is under sustained attack globally. Democracy and freedom are on the line. In an increasingly volatile world, the role of the media in holding authorities to account has never been more vital. A world devoid of freedom of speech and freedom of the press creates a democratic abyss and undermines the liberal democratic values Australia holds dear. Journalists and publishers play a crucial role in shining a light on human rights abuses, holding oppressive authorities to account and independently reporting facts, including allegations of corruption, civil unrest, conflict and war. That's when they're doing their job properly rather than focusing on sideline issues, as some do. The rise of authoritarianism and the inclination of oppressive regimes to censor, harass, detain, torture and engage in the extrajudicial assassination of journalists under the guise of national security or espionage offences has become an increasingly troubling phenomenon. The brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi exemplifies this dangerous reality for journalists in all parts of the world. The Committee to Protect Journalists estimates that between 1992 and 2021, 1,418 journalists were killed in the course of undertaking regular journalistic activity. In 2021 alone, 274 journalists have been imprisoned globally, and a further 66 are confirmed as missing. Censorship and methods of intimidation are also commonly used, such as threats of prosecution and detaining family members. This bill therefore seeks to protect Australian journalists from politically motivated detention and prosecution by foreign powers, such as those which engage in hostage diplomacy and/or political persecutions in order to impede transparency, hide potential misconduct and/or human rights abuses, and engage in prosecutions that subsequently result in a chilling effect for freedom of the press, thereby threatening undermining democratic values. It seeks to act as a deterrent. The bill seeks to clearly define 'journalism' to include conduct engaged in the regular course of legitimate journalism, such as publishing and passively receiving information. Not conduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution, but journalistic activity. The core of this bill is section 4, which seeks to enshrine an offence of seven years imprisonment for a head of a foreign government if the head of that government detains an Australian journalist, or requests another foreign government to detain an Australian journalist, in the course of undertaking legitimate journalistic activity. Section 5 of the bill addresses conduct engaged in by agents of a foreign government. For example, if the head of a foreign government has contracted out the detention of the Australian citizen undertaking journalism, they would still be liable still for prosecution. This would include security contractors and intelligence agencies. The bill also covers journalistic conduct that is alleged to have occurred in any jurisdiction, due to the recent move of the Biden administration seeking the extraterritorial prosecution of Assange. Numerous reports suggest foreign governments charge journalists with offences such as sedition, national security and espionage related breaches of respective criminal codes in an attempt to cloak and 'legitimise' politically motivated prosecutions. This is the current situation faced by several Australian journalists, including Assange but also Cheng Lei, who is being held at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party. That's why section 4 provides a clause pertaining to the real and underlying cause of the detention, such as politically motivated persecutions. I present the bill. I note there may not be a seconder, Mr Speaker. That is fine. The bill is there for all to see, as is Assange's plight. The SPEAKER 265967 Is the motion seconded? There being no seconder, the motion lapses. Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021 28

Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021

Second Reading 28 10:28 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise today to stand up for the workers of the Hunter, who the Morrison government has left behind. I'm pleased to be supporting the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021, because this bill goes to the heart of the issue. Labor has a plan to help deliver secure work and fair pay. We know workers who are shoulder to shoulder deserve the same pay for the same job. We on this side know just how hard Australians work. We really do. You need to look no further than my electorate of Paterson for endless examples of hardworking people making a profound difference every day. Indeed the Hunter region is home to so many hardworking men and women who want to provide a good life for their families and do their bit for our nation and our economy. I want to speak a bit more about the miners in my region. They are proud people who take so much pride in their work, and they do because they understand that their contribution makes such an incredible difference to our national economy. They know that their industry builds our hospitals, our schools, our roads, just to name a few. But these workers, like many, are being exploited because of the failings of this Morrison government. These workers often go to the very same worksite and work shoulder to shoulder with other people doing exactly the same job yet get paid thousands of dollars less per year—exactly the same job but not the same pay. Why? Because the Morrison government has bastardised the labour-hire system. This government is allowing the exploitation of workers. Let's be clear about this: this government doesn't want to legislate and regulate. It wants to turn a blind eye to the issues for working Australians, and this is one of the biggest ones: getting the same pay for the same job. This government allows cowboy operators—and that's all they are—to exploit workers, allows them to be anticompetitive, and continues to stand by while Australian workers are cheated out of a fair go. That's the bottom line. Labour hire is an important system and it plays a vital role, particularly in periods of high demand and supporting that high demand. You might need to hire some workers in, but it's not meant to be a perennial, perpetual situation where people's wages are lower day in, day out, year in, year out. It wasn't designed to enable workers to be exploited; it just wasn't. The definition of 'casual worker' shouldn't be used to take away people's pay and their entitlements—or, frankly, their job security, which is the other big problem. When you're a labour-hire worker you can lose your job just like that. That's why Labor will legislate to create a fair test to determine when a worker can be classified as casual. That's why Labor will restore the Fair Work Commission to the centre of our workplace relations system by abolishing the discredited and highly politicised Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That's why Labor will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission so that it can create minimum standards for gig economy workers as well. Voters in the next election will have two very stark choices: they can support a Labor government to deliver job security and ensure that you and your family take home more pay; or they can support the Morrison government, after eight years, who allow penalty rates to continue to be cut, launch an attack on super and won't even add the words 'job security' to the Fair Work Act. That's what this government has done. Like Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese said, Labor is determined to shape Australia's recovery in the same spirit by which we got through this pandemic: together—and that's what we need. The intention of the bill is to bring Australians together with, in this case, a very straightforward concept: same job, same pay. And we know that life can be better with Labor; it is the choice for same job, same pay. 10:33 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt There are two very simple reasons why we won't support the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. The first is that it is simply a reheated concept Labor already took to the last election which was comprehensively rejected by the people of Australia—in particular, the people of the member for Paterson's electorate. Five per cent of people in that electorate swung towards the Liberal Party despite this policy being what the member proposed. The people of her community rejected it with a five per cent swing. Her continuing to prosecute this policy warms the cockles of my heart, knowing that Labor will take to the next election the same approach they took to the last election. It's good to see the Albanese opposition adopting more and more of the Bill Shorten positions as we come closer to an election. The definition of insanity is 'doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result'. No doubt Labor will prove that time-honoured phrase incorrect and show that taking to the next election the same policies they took to the last election will miraculously result in a different outcome for them! The second reason to not support this bill is that it is, of course, on instruction from the union movement that the Labor Party are bringing this forward. As union membership is collapsing around the country, the union movement will do all they can to seek to rehabilitate their falling numbers. No doubt they hope that removing flexibility in the workplace, such as what labour-hire firms provide in surge industry capacity et cetera, will result in higher membership for the union movement. Just because it's good for the union movement does not mean it is good for the people or workers of Australia, hence my opposition to the bill. The purported problem that we are suggesting would be solved by this doesn't even exist. The ABS statistics are very clear. They break down average earnings across different types of employment, including those in labour hire, at an economy-wide level. We can see that people in labour hire earn more than the average economy-wide, particularly in casual; and we can see that labour hire average earnings within the mining sector are higher than the overall average. So this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Instead, what it will do is cost jobs. The modelling is very clear that this will cost thousands of jobs and potentially even more jobs indirectly. Effectively, the Labor Party are trying to remove the flexible solution which labour hire provides. It helps in the mining sector in particular, where periods of surge demand can be met by surge capacity. When you remove that, or seek to remove that, which is what their objective is here—clearly, they don't like labour hire; they don't like these businesses and don't want them to exist. That was the contribution that was made by the previous member: 'We don't want to see people working in labour hire firms instead of working directly for mining companies.' That means the jobs—which you'd think the Labor Party would care about—will simply no longer exist. The whole point of the labour hire firms is that they provide something that the mines themselves can't provide within their business model: surge capacity. If, and when, global commodity prices et cetera put the mining companies in a position where they can increase their operations and expand what they're doing at a dramatic, quick rate, which labour hire as a solution provides, then they will do so. If that solution isn't there, they won't, which means the jobs in labour hire, particularly in the mining sector, purely will not exist. We on this side of the House don't think that now is the time to introduce any more complexity, confusion, red tape or bureaucracy for businesses that are employing Australians. That's the last thing we need with the challenges that we have had over the last few years and equally the challenges that will continue into the future. The last thing we need to be doing is putting any handbrakes on our economy and making changes to legislation that the Labor Party themselves put in place. The model that we operate under is Labor's model, and now they're saying that it needs to be changed. By their admission that's a reflection on their own failure when they legislated, if that is their contention. But we believe that the current system should not be changed. It is not the time to introduce confusion or complexity into a system that is working well, employing thousands of Australians and growing our economy, creating jobs both in the sector and indirectly. 10:38 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise to address the House about this very important private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. This legislation would ensure that workers employed through labour hire companies receive no less than workers employed directly. I do not understand what is so offensive about that to those opposite. It will also remove barriers to career paths and secure employment opportunities for on-hire work. Insecure work is a scourge in this country. If the member for Sturt doesn't think it's a problem maybe he needs to get off his shiny pants and go out and talk to the workers and actually ask them about this. I have four children. They are grown up now and have children of their own. As a parent I did many things to prepare them for the adult world of work and responsibilities, but I can tell you one thing I never did: I never gave one of my twin girls $5 a week for doing the dishes and the other $10 for doing the same chore. No siree! Same job, same pay. As you may already know from experience, children are innately wired to recognise fairness and unfairness. They can be excellent little arbitrators and witnesses for unfairness and injustice. If I had paid one of my children more, or less, than the other, they would've been on top of me as fast as any union I've worked with. The unfairness of the labour hire schemes is absurdly obvious. It defies the logic of any reasonable adult and the optimistic and observant logic of a child. I bring up my own household because this issue is not only a workplace one but also a household one. Underpayment at work is felt in the home. It is felt in the family. It is felt in the way these workers are short-changed by a system that doesn't value their needs, their financial responsibilities or their skills. It's felt in the stomach and the spine of workers who know they are being underpaid while working next to co-workers who are treated better. The unfairness of the system is also felt by others in the industry as the impact of labour hire workers destabilises the whole workplace and sector. There is growing uncertainty about pay and conditions and an increase in sometimes less trained, cheaper workers replacing the permanent workers. There are very real occupational health and safety concerns when there's a high turnover of staff through labour hire who do not have long to get to know the safety regulations and requirements for their position. Any workplace that operates like this can be incredibly corrosive and bad for morale. Peter should not be working next to Paul knowing that their workmate in the mine is taking home hundreds of dollars more per week. Saleema should not be frustrated that she's being short-changed by the aged-care facility she's placed at knowing that her permanent employed colleagues are taking home more money and benefitting from better conditions. Those who are being underpaid are still facing the same rental and mortgage stress. They are facing the same bills, paying the same for groceries and reeling at the same high petrol costs. Their work is the same, their costs of living are the same, but their salaries vary dramatically. When workplaces have embraced the labour hire model, they've made it more difficult for workers to stand up for themselves. While there are some labour hire firms that operate ethically, there are many that are inherently exploitive. Our legislation targets them. Some employers use cheaper labour hire workers as an opportunistic way of increasing profit while paying workers less, and it undermines the workplace enterprise bargaining system by creating two streams of workers. Put simply: it returns all power to employers while exploiting workers. Labor has always fought against the exploitation of workers. We've always fought for equality and fairness in the way workers are treated, from Labor's role decades ago passing legislation granting women equal pay for work of equal value to work by men to the crucial role of unions in fighting for equality and fairness for Australian workers. We know that labour hire has expanded as a practice far beyond its initial purpose of providing short-term or temporary labour to get through surge periods. The lack of regulation has allowed labour hire to expand, and its significant presence in the market is putting workers and their hard-fought rights at risk. Labour hire has contributed to the increase in casualisation in Australia, which we know makes it hard for people to get the security they are looking for. Imagine if I'd invited a neighbour or cousin into my home some 20 years ago and paid them a paltry $4 for a week's worth of dishes. My children would have staged a coup. Those opposite need to tap into the sense of fairness that all eight-year-olds seem to have. We need to call a spade a spade: workers working side-by-side doing the same job deserve the same pay. Only Labor wants to do something. 10:43 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Those opposite have to stop telling untruths. Yes, that's right, Ged. That's what you want to do to all Australians everywhere you go. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! The member will address people by their proper title. Mr FALINSKI G86 The member opposite wants to point her finger at ordinary and average Australians and tell them who to work for and what to work for and where to go and how to go there. What she hates the most about this is the fact that Australians don't need unions, that Australians want to get out of your industry super rort which you have created and which you forced them into. You talk about fairness. You talk about casualisation. Why don't you look at your own figures. Why don't you look at the Productivity Commission figures that show there has been no increase in casualisation since your failed Fair Work Act came into place. There is one thing that we can agree on in this chamber: Labor's Fair Work Act is a failure. It has failed. Everyone at the Fair Work Commission you appointed has failed to increase real wages for working Australians. Guess what? It's centralised control that you want to bring in. You will not be satisfied until you literally have control over everyone's lives. You think you're the smartest people in every room you walk into. That's right—she's nodding! She acknowledges that Australians should not be allowed to decide how to spend their money, where to spend it, where to work and what to do. You think you're the smartest people in the room and Australians are idiots. I'm here to tell you they're not. They see through all your front groups. They see through all the carry-on. They see through the camera crews out the front asking all the questions. They know what you're really up to. If there been a more dehumanising motion before this House, this is it. The whole idea is that all Australians are the same Australians and must be told what to do by those opposite. Until the union movement has control of our alphabet—as we've seen with the CFMMEU—and until they have controlled everything they possibly can, those opposite will not be satisfied. We on this side believe in Australians. We on this side believe that they have the capacity to choose and to know what to do. I agree with those opposite; they haven't seen a pay rise under the Fair Work Act, they haven't seen a pay rise under the Fair Work Commission, and they haven't seen real wage increases under your law. That's why half of them are trying to get out of all the enterprise agreements that you have forced upon them. Shake your head as much as you want; it doesn't change the fact that what you have done to workplace law in this country is a disgrace. You have condemned average Australians to lower wages and less interesting jobs, and you have made sure that they have to suffer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lalor on a point of order. Ms Ryan 249224 The point of order is: could you please ask the member to make his comments through the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The member for Mackellar will make his comment through the chair, and they will be polite to the chair. Mr FALINSKI G86 Seriously, this is what Labor has lowered itself to: 'Now we are going to make technical points of order because we don't want to hear the truth.' The truth is obvious to any Australian with two ears and a brain, and that is that under your Fair Work Act their wages have gone down, they haven't been able to find new jobs, and companies have been hampered and constrained by red tape. The whole idea is that four wise men—I notice those opposite appointed all men—in Melbourne doing the best they possibly can, though they are not artificial intelligence yet, can design work that applies equally to someone working in a cafe in Broome and someone working in an aged-care centre in the southern suburbs of Hobart. These are discussions best left to those working at those sites and their employers. The whole idea is that all Australians are the same according to those opposite and their industry super mates who are now enforcing enterprise agreements—which, by the way, is unlawful under their laws that they operate. I call on APRA to enforce the law that they are meant to be regulating, not just look after their mates in industry super. I urge them to actually start enforcing the law and to allow Australians to get better jobs and better pay. But there is one thing they know: it's never going to happen under those opposite. (Time expired) 10:48 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. I think it might be a moment to take the temperature down in this place. The member for Mackellar, on a Monday morning, likes to come into the House and yell and scream across the chamber. We are here this morning to debate a very simple proposition before the House, and that is that if you do the same job you deserve the same pay. It really is simple, and it goes to the very founding of this country. We were founded with an egalitarian spirit. We were founded by workers coming together across the colonies and determining what a fair and just society would look like. The proposition before the House today speaks to exactly that. It speaks to the egalitarian nature of the society that we have striven to build: that people who do the same job should be given the same pay and conditions. It is not too much to ask. I imagine that members opposite want to see the same pay for the same job in this place. Individuals within this chamber, when given the opportunity to negotiate their way to a lower pay deal, might find that difficult to stomach, but it's okay for everybody out there. I've got some things to say about labour hire and the impacts it's having on communities like mine, in Lalor. The notion of same job, same pay has absolutely gone out the window for lots and lots of people, particularly young people, in my electorate. I speak to young people of 27, 28, up to 33, who have not yet had a permanent job, who have gone from labour hire to labour hire, from site to site through various labour hire companies, and they are unable to plan for their future. They find themselves working on the same job site as someone else and earning considerably less. On top of that, they have no job security. This is a travesty for the young people in my electorate, an absolute travesty. They can't plan. If this continues and these young people start families then their children will live in what I know, from my experience working in schools in the western suburbs of Melbourne, is a chaotic household where people can't plan for next week, can't financially plan to ensure that they can meet commitments. They are put into anxious states when a bill comes in because they don't know if they are going to be able to pay it next week. There are families in my electorate for whom, because parents working in labour hire don't have permanency, it is difficult to commit to children playing sport, because they don't know, week to week, whether they're going to be able to allow that to happen. This is not some big conspiracy on our side, unlike what is being purported on the other side. This is simply about fairness. It is simply about ensuring that we build a society where everybody feels that they are making a contribution that is valued, that is valued by their government. Young people in my electorate are asked to make a contribution, pay their taxes, but what do they get in return from this government? This government has been in power for eight years and it has ignored this rise. We hear a lot about the surge workforce and we hear a lot about flexibility—but at what price to the families and young people in my electorate? The electorate's onto this government. They're figuring this out. They know that, under this government, the notion of flexibility has become a con job. They know that they will pay the price for the flexibility those opposite think suits them. They know they will spend their days waiting for a text message to say they've got work tomorrow, waiting for a text message to find out where they'll be working tomorrow. You've got to understand that, when you're working for labour hire, you might be working in Corangamite one day and Bendigo the next. The text message can come through at 11 o'clock and you've got to try and plan your life around that. This is not a way to build a fair society. It is not a way to build a society where workers feel valued and where people can plan for their future. Those opposite should support this legislation. They should support a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. (Time expired) 10:53 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I won't try to match the lofty heights of the contribution from the member for Mackellar, who said it so well. I understand his passion. It is jarring to sit here and listen to Labor members opposite try to justify how they want to put more red tape and more bureaucracy on, in particular, the small businesses of our nation. As somebody who grew up in their mum and dad's small business and saw the efforts that it took to keep that afloat and make it successful, I understand that what we need to do as a government is, as much as we can, stop telling small businesses what to do and how to run their businesses and make sure that we entrust them to make the best decisions that they can make to keep their businesses successful, which will in turn lead to them employing more people. But it's the same old Labor Party, who can't be trusted when it comes to creating jobs. They can't be trusted when it comes to the economy. They simply want to tie up our economy with as much red tape and bureaucracy as possible. At the end of the day, that will only cost jobs. It will see fewer new jobs being created and it will mean businesses reassess the jobs that they are currently creating. Not content with creating the Fair Work Act, which, as the member for Mackellar has said, is essentially the framework that is operating at the moment, they are here railing against their own act. Well, they're right. We'll join them in saying it could use some sensible changes. If they ever want to join us in passing some legislation that would create some sensible changes, we would be very happy to deal with it. But sitting in here and raising their own bills and their own motions to rail against their own legislation that's been operating for some time just smacks of total hypocrisy and a fair bit of playing politics. The previous opposition leader tried this at the last election. Just because it's a new opposition leader now doesn't mean that Australians will cop it any more than they did at the last election. The Australian people didn't buy it then, and they are not going to buy it now just because it's a new leader. It's the same old Labor Party. The last time Labor proposed this, analysis by Deloitte showed that Labor's 'same job, same pay' policy would cost 6,400 jobs every year and $15.3 billion in lost economic activity. The so-called party of workers has fallen so far that they are willing to sacrifice 6,400 jobs a year if it means they can dance to the tune created by their masters in the unions. This is all this is. When Sally McManus calls those opposite and says, 'Jump,' they simply say, 'How high?' The bar that she set this time is 6,400 jobs out of the Australian economy every year and to repeat the failed Labor policies that the people of Australia rejected at the last election. Labor has conveniently forgotten to mention that union membership fell from 40 per cent in 1992 to just 14.3 per cent in August 2020. What do we put that down to? I put it down to Australian workers wanting choice. Australian workers want the choice to negotiate with their employers, they want the choice to make the decisions that are best for their families and they want the choice to talk to their employers about the job conditions that best suit their own circumstances. They don't need the unions coming in and telling them what circumstances are best for their families. They don't need the unions coming in and pretending like they can negotiate better for those workers' families and the workers themselves. They are just not buying it anymore. They are not buying what the Labor Party are selling. They are not buying what the unions are selling. They are leaving in droves, just to hammer home that point. The amendments Labor are talking about in their bill will effectively strip the rights of labour hire workers to negotiate their own pay and conditions directly with their employers and cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the economy. Why? Because Labor think they know best. The member for Mackellar was exactly right: Labor members opposite, just like they want to tell Australians how to live their lives in so many other aspects, want to tell Australian workers how to negotiate with their employers and what terms and conditions are best suited for their families. This one-size-fits-all approach doesn't actually work in the real world. The only place it works is in the boardroom very high up on Macquarie Street where all the unions hang out and have their executive meetings. That's the only place, theoretically, where it works. Those workers working in different jobs around the nation know that they need to have the power in their own hands to negotiate the best conditions for their families. 10:58 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I am proud to stand and support Labor's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021, before the House. I suggest to the government members who are speaking on this bill that they read the bill before coming in here to make a contribution. If they had actually read the bill they would realise that it doesn't actually apply to small businesses, businesses with 15 employees or fewer, as defined by the Fair Work Act. This applies to those bigger than that. I know they kind of think that any business is a small business, but it's not. This bill applies to the big businesses and the medium businesses in our country that are misusing labour hire. Another myth that the government's trying to suggest is that this will just get rid of labour hire. It will not. This bill is about redefining the original relationship that we all thought existed with labour hire. A while ago—many years ago—labour hire was used as the surge workforce, and employers and businesses paid a premium. So some people who would choose to be labour hire workers knew that they didn't have fixed working conditions—they didn't have a fixed time or secure employment—but they traded it off for higher pay, and for some workers that worked well. But what we've seen explode under this government is the misuse of labour hire, and it's completely legal. That's what this bill tries to clean up. We here know of workers working for big businesses—working in manufacturing facilities, including food manufacturing facilities and large heavy-metal-manufacturing facilities—where they're doing the same job as a person on the union collective agreement, but, because they work for a labour hire company, they're paid much less. The government is saying that those labour hire workers can go and negotiate their own pay and conditions. They can just front up to the boss, who determines which hours they get, and say, 'Pay me the same as the union worker.' It doesn't happen. The moment workers on labour hire raise an issue, many of them are told, 'Your services are no longer required,' and they don't have access to unfair dismissal arrangements, because they're casual, because they're labour hire. They are 'transferred offsite', as it's called. During this government's time, it has turned a blind eye to what's happening in labour hire. It isn't just happening in large manufacturing sites; it's happening in our mines. In our mines, what's happening is that some of the workers are called 'full-time equivalent'. They do the same job as a full-time worker who is working on the union collective agreement, and they wear the same uniform, but they're called a full-time equivalent because they're actually employed by a labour hire company and paid much less. In some cases it's hundreds of dollars a week less. The government says, 'Don't get involved in the lives of individual workers; let them bargain on their own.' The moment a worker puts their hand up and says something about it, that worker is transferred offsite. This government, by not supporting this bill, is all about big business. It is not about the workers in any way whatsoever. It is not about correcting the mistakes. Yes, Labor introduced the Fair Work Act, but we acknowledge that, as time has gone on, amendments are needed. If the government were genuine about supporting workers and returning to the Fair Work Act—the original definition of what we thought labour hire was about and not this manipulation that we've seen—they would support Labor's bill. It is happening across the Australian economy. It is happening in manufacturing. It is happening in mining. It is happening in cleaning and in security. Here at Parliament House, we have contract cleaners, outsourced many years ago. Sometimes the contractor in the contract cleaning industry will then subsubcontract. Sometimes you will meet a cleaner—not necessarily here at Parliament House but cleaning big office towers—who is so far down the line when it comes to outsourcing that they are paid almost in cash, below the award conditions. That cleaner then has to fight to get what they're entitled to. They have to individually pursue it. The problem is that, if every individual labour hire worker lodged a case with the Fair Work Commission, we would still be here in 100 years trying to clean it up. When you have a systemic problem such as we have, widespread across the economy, with the underpaying of labour hire workers, reform is needed. That is what is in this bill. It inserts a new division 11A, 'Same job, same pay,' it defines the host in the labour hire business, and it says to all those workers who are working side by side with workers who are usually on a union collective agreement and being paid more: 'You will get paid the same. You will have the same rights and the same opportunities.' (Time expired) 11:04 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I've learnt in this place that there are rarely simple solutions to complex problem. The other great red flag for me when I hear those opposite making contributions is that, whenever I see a solution in search of a problem, I know the motivation for the actions of those opposite lies somewhere else. The reality here is that this so-called same job, same pay proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Why do I say that? I say that because we know that the incessant claims of those opposite of secure work don't stack up. They don't stack up because, according to ABS data, the average hourly earnings for casual employees paid by labour hire firms was a full 12 per cent higher than the average hourly earnings for all casuals generally. The reality is that this proposal isn't about same job, same pay. What this proposal will ultimately end up creating is 'no job, no pay'. Because, of course, what will occur here is that this will be a disincentive to create these jobs. We heard from Deloitte Access Economics on this. When this proposal was put to the Australian people at the last election, it was considered by Deloitte and assessed. It was said that it would cost 6,400 jobs and $15.3 billion. Or, breaking it down to these large employer sectors, picking up the member for Bendigo's point, in the mineral resource sector it was 4,900 jobs, or $6 billion in lost economic activity. In the construction sector it was 4,000 jobs. Like I said, this isn't same job, same pay; it's no job, no pay for labour hire workers. Why is that materially significant? I'd suggest that it's preselection season. Whenever it's preselection season for those opposite, they need to come in here and beat their chests on behalf of the union movement, because, of course, the union movement has a disproportionate say about who gets to sit on the benches in this place for the ALP. Thankfully, for more than three-quarters of the last three decades, they've sat on the opposition benches. But why is this significant? It's significant because those opposite want to drive people, on behalf of their union movements, into the union movement itself. They haven't been very successful in recent times; they should come in here and be honest that their business model is failing. We've seen a decline in union membership from 40 per cent in 1992 to 14.3 per cent in August 2022. The member for Cowan, in the interjection earlier, said, 'What's happening to Liberal Party membership?' I'm here to tell you, Member for Cowan, that memberships in the South Australian division of the Liberal Party are booming. It's boom time. It's boom season. The member for Cowan doesn't want to hear this, so she leaves. The reality is that those opposite are simply having their strings pulled by the union movement, a business model that's failing. I'll tell you why it's failing. It's failing because the union movement of the 1980s no longer operates in this country, just like those opposite are a pale shade of the Hawke-Keating era. Former Prime Minister Hawke would look at those opposite and say: 'You need to take up the fight on behalf of all Australians, not just those in the union movement, because the people of Australia have worked you out. You no longer represent labour in this country; you represent just those people who sign up to unionised labour. You just represent organised labour in this place.' The people of Australia, equally, have worked out unions, quite frankly. The ABS data makes it clear that Australians have a higher opinion of themselves than you have of them, because the Australian people are confident that they can negotiate on behalf of themselves. They value things like flexibility, and the ABS data bears out that they are much more successful in negotiating pay and conditions than the union movement. That's why those who sit with the labour hire firms are 12 per cent higher paid than the average worker on casual arrangements. The unions have failed the workers of this country, and they've worked you out. 11:09 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Today I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. At its core, this amendment is all about fairness and decency for workers—workers who are our sons, daughters, friends and families. What we all want for these people, and for workers across our nation, is equal pay, a reasonable wage and secure work. These are the values of the Labor Party. It's about a fair go for all Australians. The Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 will update the Fair Work Act to ensure workers employed through labour hire companies will receive the same pay as workers employed directly by the host company. It's grossly unfair that in Australia today there are workers doing the same job as other employees in the same big companies who are paid up to $500 less a week and do not have the same rights as the workers standing right next to them, alongside them, in the workplace. These workers have the same skills and the same experience and work the same hours. The only difference is that they are employed through labour hire contracts instead of being employed directly by the company. Labor will not stand for this exploitation, which undermines our wage structure and the ability of a worker to earn a decent wage, put food on the table, pay for the school shoes and get ahead in life. We've worked hard for decent wages and conditions—rights that have been fought for for generations and are being eroded by the Morrison government. All workers should have fair wages for work of equal value, equal opportunity to be promoted and holidays with pay, as well as pay for public holidays. Under this amendment, those workers employed by labour hire companies will be treated as equals to workers they work alongside, who perform exactly the same duties. This bill is about protecting the human rights of workers and giving everyone a fair go. While most labour hire and host companies do the right thing, we've seen labour hire being used by large companies to cut costs and increase profits. The Fair Work Act in its current form allows big companies to avoid legitimate regulatory standards and undermine workers' rights. The objective of this amendment is to protect all workers. It will benefit workers in the meat processing industry, construction, coalmining, the maritime industry and the retail and hospitality sectors. Currently, as I said earlier, many workers in these industries, employed by labour hire firms, are being paid up to $500 less per week. These workers don't get paid if they're sick or if their children are sick. They don't get paid if they need to take a day of leave. Many labour hire workers can barely afford to pay rent, and it's impossible to apply for a mortgage if you're a casual worker. The pandemic has also shed a light on the terrible challenges that insecure workers face when they are forced to choose between working in different places of employment—potentially spreading the virus—and not paying the bills. We need to do better—so much better. The Morrison government has shown it doesn't care about Australian workers. This government doesn't care about their insecure work and low wages. Casual work in its place is good, but we do not want the majority of people across our nation in insecure work earning low wages. Labor cares about workers because we know that workers are the engine room of our economy. Paying people fair wages and ensuring they have secure work brings economic benefit to our nation. Not only is it right and fair that workers receive the same pay for the same job; this amendment will make our economy more robust, resilient and strong. We know that people in secure work earning a decent wage will inject money back into the economy. We know that the decline in real wages and the increase in a casualised workforce have affected workers across the country, causing them stress and a lack of confidence in the future. The Morrison government is big on rorts. Labour hire rips off workers across multiple industries. It's a government that thinks it's just a made-up issue; it's red tape; there's nothing to see here. This government refuses to listen to Australian workers and refuses to give them a fair go. Enough is enough for this government which seeks to exploit casual workers, undermine job security and undercut wages. It's time for the same pay for the same job for all Australian workers. Workers want the security, pay and conditions of the permanent workers who are doing exactly the same job as them. The Morrison government has shown they don't care about them. Only a Labor government will deliver better pay, secure work and a fairer system for all Australian workers. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 35 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Visa Holders 35 11:14 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I move: That this House: (1) recognises the vital contribution that temporary visa holders, including skilled workers and international students, make to both Australia's economy and our local communities; (2) notes that since March 2020, due to the international border restrictions that helped keep us safe during the pandemic, many visa holders, both onshore and offshore, have faced uncertainty and difficulty; (3) commends the Government for reopening the international border to a range of economic and humanitarian visa holders from 1 December 2021; and (4) welcomes the further carefully managed opening of our border to other visa holders, including visitors, when it is safe to do so. If there is anything we've learnt over the 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic it is that the virus presents more twists and turns than an Agatha Christie mystery. Since lodging this motion a week ago, the world has learnt of a new variant, omicron, which has already reached our own shores. It's early days, and scientists around the world are working quickly to learn what its impacts could be, its likely spread and consequences for health, and how vaccines and treatments will respond. We need to be prudent and prepared, but it is too early to know definitively answers to some of these questions. However, with the incredible success of our vaccination program and our strong health system, we must aim to ensure there is no reversal in the progress we have been making to reopen and reconnect Australia with the rest of the world. Our international border arrangements have been important, if not the most important aspect of our response to COVID-19 since they were instituted on 20 March last year. Restricting movements across our international borders has kept Australians safer by helping shield us from the worst impacts and dangers of the virus and has helped to protect the lives and livelihoods of thousands upon thousands of our fellow citizens. Nonetheless, the reality of the border closures has carried with it an extraordinary emotional toll for many Australian citizens, permanent residents and visa holders. My own partner comes from Mexico, and I have therefore seen firsthand the impact of separation from families. In a country as multicultural as Australia, we've been affected perhaps more than most. Many have been prevented from sharing in those moments with their loved ones that are at the core of our family lives and human experience—travelling for births, watching the marriage of a loved one, and, in some cases, even the opportunity to say goodbye to a family member. As a local MP, I've worked with so many residents wanting to travel to be with their loved ones during these times of need or celebration. I've heard the jubilation when an exemption for travel was approved. Similarly, I've witnessed the heartbreak from residents that didn't have the opportunity to get where they needed to be. We also know that these border restrictions have had a profound impact on the economic life of the nation. We do rely on the skills and experience of those coming to work here and the contribution made by international students. The consequences were perhaps masked by the decline in economic activity that lockdowns entailed, but they have been exposed as they have ended and business has resumed with gusto. That is why I do commend the actions taken by the Morrison government to safely reopen the borders to vaccinated travellers as part of the national plan. I have been a strong advocate for our safe reopening and was thrilled when the government recently announced that fully vaccinated Australians, permanent residents and their families, including their parents, could return to Australia and to New South Wales and other states from the first of this month without the pandemic restrictions that were previously in place. And I welcome the further easing of border restrictions that will happen from 1 December, in just two days time, with fully vaccinated international student, skilled migrant, refugee, humanitarian and temporary provisional, family visa holders able to travel to Australia again. This reopening is a result of the success Australia has achieved through the vaccination rollout and the implementation of the national plan. Australia has managed this pandemic better than almost any other nation. Of the 38 OECD countries, Australia had the second-lowest number of COVID-19 cases per capita. In fact, at 0.04 per cent of Australians, that is something significantly less than a nation like the United States which has had 12 per cent of its population infected. Economically Australia was also the first advanced economy to have more people in work than prior to COVID, and we have seen the economy and employment rebound so quickly after lockdowns. And now our economy is set to receive another boost as we welcome back temporary visa holders, including skilled workers and international students, who are so vital to the success of our country and its economy. For example, prior to the pandemic, international education contributed $37.6 billion to our economy and delivered something like 250,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Moreover, as Australia transitions through to the final phase of the national plan, skilled visa holders will help relieve temporary and skilled labour shortages and further support critical export industry to drive Australia's economic recovery to new heights. These visa holders, including skilled workers and international students, contribute enormously to our economy and our local community. So, in two days time, we will be able to say with enthusiasm, 'Welcome back.' We will all be the beneficiaries of being able to do just that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Is the motion seconded? Mr Pa 240756 It is, and I reserve my right to speak. 11:20 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm pleased to make a contribution to this motion. As the member for North Sydney noted in his contribution, since this motion was placed on the Notice Paper things have changed quite a bit. That is of course a reminder that we cannot assume that the circumstances we are in today will continue and that we need to be continually vigilant as we navigate the circumstances of a world in which COVID continues to be endemic. I acknowledge the contribution of the member for North Sydney and recognise his personal circumstances as having been affected by border closures that were a consequence of the pandemic. That is an experience common to many Australians who have felt the pain of separation and the pain of uncertainty through this period. We are a nation in which half of us were born overseas or have parents who were born overseas. That is something I recognise in this debate, as well as the particular challenges faced by visa holders, which is what the motion particularly addresses. I thank the member for North Sydney for putting these issues before the House, because they are significant questions. In debating this motion, we can't ignore some hard realities and, indeed, some responsibilities. We need to recognise that we have seen in this country a very significant and concerning drift away from pathways to permanency when it comes to temporary forms of migration, and this presents some very significant questions that really find their pointiest expression in the Intergenerational report released by the government. We've also got to think about the things that exacerbate the uncertainties and difficulties that this motion recognises—in particular, the call by a minister in this government for stranded international students to go home, when they could not go home—and the failure to really support people who were not in a position to return to their home countries, because of a variety of restrictions imposed during the pandemic, which led to many people being reliant on charity. There were queues at food banks in my electorate. We recognise that the Australian government was perhaps the least generous of all OECD nations in supporting the circumstances of stranded temporary migrants. This matters because of who we are as a country that has been open to the world as a modern nation built on engagement with the world; and the economic significance, which the member for North Sydney was right to touch on, of our third-biggest export earner can't be neglected. When we think about the dimensions of the international student question, we've already seen the neglect with which this government has treated the university sector over nearly the last decade. That has had consequences not only for the reliance of these institutions on international students but also on the experience of international students, and it remains concerning that there is no vision for this. Of course, while our competitors in this global marketplace are on the front foot, we have to deal with the concerns that were evident throughout this period: lack of support; lack of empathy; lack of understanding; and, frankly, also a failure to deal with an outbreak of racism that came with the pandemic, a failure to recognise its significance to individuals and a failure to recognise its cost to us as a community and as a society. These are issues that cannot be ignored when we think about the reopening of our border. They are matters that need to be dealt with, as indeed do our broader settings when it comes to migration policy. This is a question that Labor is up for but the government is not. At every level the government has failed the test. We've heard so much talk about the ag visa, yet no-one seems to know exactly what it will do or, critically, what protections will come with it for individual visa holders, for other workers impacted by it and for the relevant labour markets. While we think about how we respond to this latest challenge when it comes to the new variant, and when we think about the wider challenges of our policy settings that apply to people coming here on visas, their pathways to permanency and our obligations to them and to building a skills system that is fit for purpose, these are questions that have all been ignored under this government. So, while we welcome the return of each and every one of them, and while we welcome the prospect of families being reunited and people having the opportunity to gather together, these are issues that cannot continue to be ignored. 11:25 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker More than 85 per cent of Australians are now fully vaccinated. As we approach the end of the year, we do so poised to reach 90 per cent fully vaccinated before 2022 begins. Had anyone in this place suggested such an ambitious target 12 months ago they perhaps would have been doubted for good reason. Australians have banded together, supported each other and done the right thing to stop the spread and minimise the impact of COVID-19 on our health and our economy. As a result of Australians stepping up and getting vaccinated to reach almost 90 per cent, Australia is now reopening its international borders to vaccinated travellers as part of our step-by-step and safe reopening to the world. Fully vaccinated Australians, permanent residents and their families have been able to return home since 1 November. On 21 November, Australians welcomed back fully vaccinated Singaporean travellers. From Wednesday this week, fully vaccinated international students, skilled migrants and refugee, humanitarian, temporary and provisional family visa holders will be able to travel to Australia without exemption. This is obviously music to my ears, particularly in my electorate of Barker, where employers rely so heavily on migration to fill labour shortages. The strict border settings and travel restrictions have successfully shielded us from COVID-19 but have also prevented many critical offshore workers from travelling to Australia. Critical skills shortages and workforce gaps have emerged, hampering Australia's economic recovery. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of vacant jobs in my electorate. Employers are tearing their hair out, having to cut shifts and scale back the supply of goods and services as a result. There are jobs in industries and for roles such as aged care, disability care, child care, engineering, tradespeople, food processing, chefs and of course agriculture. Unfortunately, the domestic workforce alone is not enough to address these skills shortages, because of mobility and geographic mismatches amongst, of course, other factors. Targeted migration is needed to fill the critical skills and labour gap shortages. Migration programs are secondary sources of labour. Employers in my electorate and indeed throughout Australia take an Australian-worker-first policy before filling gaps with backpackers, seasonal workers, skilled migrants or otherwise, all flown in from overseas. Last summer a COVID-induced shortfall of well over 20,000 seasonal workers saw many growers in the horticultural sector turn off irrigation to crops, knowing full well they simply wouldn't have the workers needed to harvest their produce. Not only was that devastating for farmers; it threatened the entire supply chain. Without pickers, there's no need for truck drivers and wholesalers, and, ultimately, the decrease in supply pushed produce prices up at the check-out for consumers. Thankfully for the Riverland in my electorate of Barker, one of the nation's horticultural hotbeds, the South Australia government established a regional quarantine facility at Paringa, which enabled the arrival of seasonal and Pacific labour workers under the Seasonal Worker Program and Pacific Labour Scheme ahead of the 2021 citrus harvest. This initiative saw around 1,000 people enter the country and support the state's $277 million citrus industry to get the fruit off the trees and into our supermarkets. While the horticultural sector was particularly vulnerable when international and domestic borders shut, so too were many other industries. The meat processing centre, the bumper grain harvest this year, the wool industry and regional hospitality and tourism businesses have all been hurting from the workforce challenges of our borders being shut. Our care sector in the regions also greatly benefited from skilled migration to fill staffing shortfalls in our hospitals, our aged-care settings and the disability support sector. Our rural and regional communities will welcome the opening of international borders. The return of skilled workers and international students to Australia will further cement our economic recovery, providing the valuable workers our economy needs. As Australia transitions through the phases of the national plan, to transition Australia's national COVID-19 response economic migrants will fill urgent, temporary and skilled labour shortages, fulfil our international trade obligations and further support critical export industries to drive Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19. 11:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to speak on the motion moved by the member for North Sydney. In March 2020, with the emergence of COVID-19, Prime Minister Morrison closed Australia's borders to all non-citizens and non-residents. Australian citizens could still theoretically travel to Australia, but the lack of flights available made it all but impossible for many Australian citizens to return home. In September last year, after Scott Morrison promised all stranded Australians would be home by Christmas his bureaucrats then promised to do whatever it took to support the states to safely increase quarantine capacity to bring stranded Australians home. Both those promises have been broken. In October 2021 there were about 47,000 Australians still stranded overseas—people who still call Australia home. The Prime Minister recently announced that on 1 December 2021 the international borders will reopen to a range of economic and humanitarian visa holders, including international students who are fully vaccinated. That was good news for universities and other educational facilities who have seen many international students locked out. For two years the universities and the wider economy have suffered from the international student lockout. Phil Honeywood, the CEO of the International Education Association of Australia, has said publicly that we are down from $40 billion in 2019 to just on $30 billion, which includes tuition fees, accommodation costs, entertainment and all the wonderful ways in which these young people spend money in our economy. On top of that, hundreds of former students who hold a valid temporary graduate visa were caught off-guard overseas once our borders were closed. I know the Indian community have been lobbying the government for many months on behalf of the many former international students on subclass 485 visas. Many of those former students had returned to visit family after graduating and were making plans to return to Australia to work to upgrade their qualifications before applying for permanent residency. In some cases the subclass 485 visa is only valid for 18 months, and Australia's borders have been closed to these visa holders for close to 18 months. Many other visa holders have been locked out as well. One of my local manufacturers has been waiting for months for Janelle, an industrial chemist who was granted a temporary work visa, to arrive in Australia. He had also sponsored Saeed, who arrived in Australia in March 2020. However, Saeed's wife remained in their home country waiting for Saeed to settle before making arrangements for herself and her son to travel here. However, once the borders closed she was not granted a travel exemption despite numerous requests to be reunited with her husband in Australia. The announcement by the Prime Minister to open Australia's borders to certain vaccinated visa holders has been welcome. Of course, as we have all come to know very well over the past two years, planning anything while we have COVID-19 and its variants swirling around the globe is difficult—almost impossible. We now have this new strain of COVID-19, the omicron strain, that we so far know very little about. This may again impact on our international borders. We know we are not out of this pandemic yet. Quarantine is our first line of defence, and the Morrison government still has not built quarantine facilities for returning Australians, returning students and returning travellers, despite our Constitution expressly making quarantine a federal government responsibility. The Queensland government are on track to have the Wellcamp purpose-built quarantine centre, near Toowoomba, up and running by the end of December. Wellcamp will eventually be a 1,000-bed facility situated just outside Toowoomba. By the end of December 500 beds will be in operation, and the whole facility will be completed by the end of March—quite an achievement. This facility will ensure we have quarantine capacity for travellers returning to Queensland, a state that relies heavily on international travellers. Even as restrictions change there will still be a need for a variety of quarantine options to provide appropriate quarantine settings for a range of individual circumstances and public health requirements. The emergence of the omicron strain—and I know I'm talking about something on which information is unfolding almost by the hour—has highlighted the pressing need for purpose-built quarantine facilities in Australia. Why didn't the Morrison government start building quarantine facilities earlier? The answer is the same as the reason we were at the end of the queue when it came to getting vaccines—not at the start, as claimed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister thinks every problem is actually someone else's fault, something for someone else to find the solution to. Every crisis is someone else's responsibility. COVID-19 is a crisis. It has been since March last year. We need a prime minister who will do what's needed to keep Australia safe and to lead us out of this pandemic: Prime Minister Albanese. 11:35 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As much as I like my good friend the member for Moreton, I won't necessarily agree with everything he had to say. He might find that rather unsurprising, I might add. I'm delighted to rise and speak on this motion from the member for North Sydney. We have seen over the past few days how quickly things have changed with the advent of the omicron variant of COVID-19. But the advent of this new variant, and some of the restrictions that have been put in place as a result for people who are coming from high-risk countries—and I won't go through them all—are important. We have stopped direct flights from those countries for the time being, but Australian citizens, permanent residents and immediate family members who have been in those countries will still be able to return home. They'll be required to undertake 14 days of quarantine in a managed facility, and they'll have to make the appropriate declarations. More broadly, I've had discussions across my electorate of Forde with a variety of businesses and other organisations. I know that there are members in this place who have very significant agricultural communities, like the member for Barker, who spoke previously on the impact on his workforce in the agricultural sector. I've seen the impact on the workforce at the Teys abattoir in Beenleigh, with the issues of the borders being closed and not being able to access migrant workers to fill job vacancies at the largest employer in my electorate. I've had discussions with many businesses who have, say, put in place or been building a new factory, had a new production line that needed to be commissioned and haven't been able to get the appropriate technicians into the country to properly commission and test the production lines to get those up and running. I know from speaking to those businesses the frustration that has gone with that. The necessity to have closed the borders in the first place to limit the risk and spread of COVID-19 is also critically important. I know that that has created issues for skilled workers, international students and even Australian residents wanting to come back home to Australia. I saw the difficulty of that with family members who were seeking to get back to Australia. We recognise the importance of international education to our economy, and, with Griffith University just outside of my electorate, next door in the electorate of Rankin, I know the importance of international students to our university sector. It's not just the revenue they generate for the universities but also the places they fill in our workforce while they're here. Talking to many of our cafes and restaurants, I know the struggles they have had getting staff during this period of border closures. As we look across the economy and start to open up, I know that starting to see people being able to come back into Australia, particularly our international students, lifts the confidence of our business community and the community more generally. As I said already on the importance of skilled workers, I know many of my manufacturing businesses are struggling to find Australians. I know several businesses that have given people in their employ significant pay rises to ensure that they keep those employees they've got because of the inability to source other skilled workers and the competition there is for those skilled tradespeople in our economy. So the opening of our international borders is critically important, but we must always review that—as we have seen in the last couple of days now with this new variant of coronavirus—in the context of ensuring we maintain as much as possible our public health to prevent a continued outbreak. (Time expired) 11:40 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce It's a strange coincidence, isn't it, that, after nearly two years of ignoring temporary visa holders, the day before the border restrictions are eased this motion suddenly appears in the parliament for debate? The Prime Minister's loyal lemmings have lined up to spout this self-congratulatory prattle. I will just read two sentences from the motion indicating what we are apparently supposed to do. It moves that the House: (3) commends the Government for reopening the international border to a range of economic and humanitarian visa holders from 1 December 2021; and (4) welcomes the further carefully managed opening of our border to other visa holders, including visitors, when it is safe to do so. Whatever that means! A more honest motion would go something like this: 'We condemn the government for failing to order enough vaccines or to build safe national quarantine last year. And this failure, your government's failure, has led to unnecessary lockdowns and months of delay in opening the borders.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! I remind the member for Bruce it's not my government. Pointing to me is unparliamentary. Mr HILL 86256 Sure. Yes. I've got that. It's ruined the relationships of thousands of Australians. It's the failure of the government to do its job and the failure of the bloke who sits over there, occupying the Prime Minister's chair, that fraud, that fake of a man, who did not do his job for Australians when it mattered. He didn't order the vaccines. He still hasn't built safe national quarantine. That ruined the relationships of thousands of Australians separated from their loved ones. More than 40,000 stranded Australians were stuck overseas, vulnerable, losing their life savings and risking their health. It separated grandparents from their grandkids for far longer than necessary. There's the mounting economic damage that we hear about due to a shortage of critical workers. The government were telling international students to bugger off and go home. That was the Prime Minister, actually. There's been incalculable human misery completely ignored by the government. Families have been separated because of their visa status. I have heard from dozens of people—it might sound like an exaggeration, but it's not—who have not met their own children because one partner who might have been in this country for 10 years but still happened to be on a temporary visa happened to be overseas when the borders were closed and the other parent was here in Australia. It's been nearly two years and they've still never met their own children. There's no compassion from the government. There have been desperate calls from parents, separated from their children because of the border closures. It's been nearly two years of the government ignoring hundreds of thousands of people with a stake in this country. Many of these people have been here for more than a decade. They have jobs, commitments, leases, lives and loves in this country. They pay tax and they work critical jobs, and the government's shown no compassion, no discernment and no nuance, just a blunt discrimination against them because of their visa status. It's been nearly two years of the chaotic administration of the travel authorisation system. We had the ridiculous situation where young backpackers who could claim to the government they had lived together for one year and one day could get their partner into the country but numerous people who had been in a committed relationship for five, 10 or 15 years but simply happened to live between two countries because of their life circumstances have been separated. What does the government say to the women who I've spoken to who've lost their chance in this life to ever have a child as they are now too old to do IVF because the government has kept the borders closed with no compassion, no nuance and no exceptions? I've seen those people in my office. Australia's a nation of migrants, and there is no argument that citizens should be the priority for return, but the government's incompetence and its callousness have hurt far more than just the stranded Australians. I represent the most multicultural council area in the whole of Australia. More than 80 per cent of the work of my office is on visas and citizenship and the black hole of the Department of Home Affairs. There are millions of Australians with their lives and their loves split across two continents and two time zones. The human impact is horrendous. Of course some pain and destruction cannot be avoided in a global pandemic, but so much of what has happened has been because the Prime Minister failed to do his job—didn't order vaccines, didn't build safe quarantine. So it's not just the millions of Australians who have suffered through the Prime Minister's lockdowns; it's not just the border closures, which has impacted on our economy, and temporary migration; it's the tens of billions of dollars that the next generation are going to be asked to repay on the national debt because they had to hand out tens of billions of dollars in economic assistance because the government couldn't order enough vaccines or build safe quarantine. Shame on the government and shame on whoever introduced this motion full of spin and self-congratulatory prattle! 11:45 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee March 2020 saw Australian life as we know it change in so many ways. But when our international borders closed, many more aspects were impacted—tourism, education, trade—and, for many, family life changed dramatically throughout this time. The closing of our border has protected Australia from widespread COVID outbreaks unlike many countries across the world. As a nation we have successfully been able to manoeuvre and navigate the risks this pandemic has presented. We have successfully avoided severe health and economic outcomes of the pandemic and we are now in a position where we are global leaders in vaccination rates and, importantly, economic recovery. When we closed our international border we positioned the nation to be able to successfully suppress the virus and provide a layer of protection to enable the vaccine rollout. 1 November was an exciting day, when we were able to reopen our borders to fully vaccinated Australians, permanent residents and their families. In a couple of days, on 1 December, we will celebrate the milestone of being able to welcome international students, skilled workers and temporary visa holders back to Australia. In my electorate of Mallee, the return of desperately needed workforce will be a welcome relief for the agriculture industry. Growers and farmers have endured the challenge and loss of sufficient workforce to keep their businesses going and get their harvests done. I've spoken to many farmers who are unable to get product from their paddock to market, simply because there aren't enough hands to do the work. This is an industry that is dependent on migrant workers, and COVID has exacerbated an already existing challenge. In October this year the Morrison-Joyce government announced the delivery of the agriculture worker visa. This is a landmark moment in Australia's history and for the agriculture sector. This visa will serve to rectify labour shortage, providing a long-term reliable workforce for our critical industries. The ag visa will be able to bring in low-skilled through to skilled workers across a broad range of industries. One key barrier that remained, however, was the quarantine facility available in each state and territory. I am proud to say that this decision from the Morrison-Joyce government to open the borders to vaccinated visa holders brings resolve to this quarantine problem. Australia is setting itself up for success and a sustainable future. The federal government have been preparing for this day through the national transition plan, and now we are following through with that plan to the benefit of all Australians. This government can be trusted at its word. When we signalled the gradual reopening of inward and outward international travel with proportionate health measures for vaccinated people, we stood by that word. This is just another example of how a government with a measured, calculated and nuanced approach can lead this nation through its toughest time in recent history. 11:49 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise to speak in support of the member for North Sydney's motion recognising the vital contribution temporary visa holders have made to this country. But I think it's a bit rich coming from the Morrison government. Let's not forget that they have abandoned temporary visa holders and workers and international students at every stage of this pandemic. It was this Morrison government that told temporary visa holders to go home when the pandemic hit, it was this Morrison government that left temporary visa holders out of the financial support packages during the many lockdowns we have all experienced, and it was this Morrison government that ignored their pleas for help—and now they have the gall to move this motion! The government must think Australians have the memories of goldfish. It was this Morrison government that left temporary visa holders out of the financial support packages during the many lockdowns we've all experienced. And it was this Morrison government that ignored their pleas for help. And now they have the gall to move this motion. The government must think Australians have the memories of goldfish. But I can speak, and I will speak, for the many temporary visa holders in my electorate who reached out to me. Trust me: they won't forget. They won't forget missing meals to survive. They won't forget being out of work. They won't forget not being able to pay their rent. They won't forget the pleas for help that they made that fell on deaf ears, the support that they asked for from this government. They won't forget that they were ignored by the Morrison government. What this motion and this Morrison government also hide is the disingenuous nature of the migration policy, which is increasing temporary work visas at the cost of permanent migration, which has effectively built this country post World War II. As a nation we have a history of welcoming migrants and asking them to join us—not just temporarily but as new Australian citizens. Yet for eight years the Morrison government have moved by stealth to a guest worker model. While they ensure that we reap the benefits of economic growth that are a result of migration, they haven't given the migrants the other end of the equation—the long-term settlement and citizenship that come with permanent migration. This government needs to be called out for its policy, which is at best confused but at worst deliberately misleading the public. Temporary migration has, and will have, its place if we have a genuine skills shortage, as we have had in the past. But it's also plagued by wage theft, breaches of workplace rights and poor conditions for workers. Pre COVID, a government report suggested as many as 50 per cent of temporary migrant workers were being underpaid in their employment. That is unacceptable. Every worker in Australia, no matter their circumstance—Australian citizen or international student—deserves the same rights at work. They deserve the same conditions and to be paid fairly at award rates. Increasing temporary visas by offsetting drops in permanent migration has been the policy of this government, breaking the immigration model at the heart of our success as a nation post World War II. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister announced a congestion-busting reduction in our net migration, from 190,000 to 160,000. But, while he reduced permanent migration, he increased temporary work visas, and the estimates are that some 87 per cent of those temporary work visas are held by people who live in Melbourne and Sydney. So much for congestion busting. These temporary work visa holders are not brought here under the permanent migration policy, which has the primary goal of adding new citizens to our nation, with all that commitment entails. What this Morrison government is doing is appealing to those who still hold fears that migrants will steal our jobs. I have long called for us to again embrace permanent skilled migration. It's Australia's history of permanent skilled migration that has made us one of the most economically prosperous and successful multicultural nations in the world. Immigrants like my parents from Egypt, and millions just like them, built the social and cultural capital that we have drawn from to become a successful nation. These are migrants who became new Aussies not just for a few years but to start new lives, for the rest of their lives. If the Prime Minister wants more citizens contributing to our nation's success, he should increase permanent skilled migration rather than reduce it. The road out of COVID-19 gives us a chance to rethink as a nation. We have the chance to show vision and leadership. We have the chance to renew our commitment to permanent skilled migration and the welcoming of new Australians to this country to help rebuild and reconstruct this nation after what we've been through in the past two years. That's something that we have a vision for on this side of the House. 11:54 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls I appreciate the previous member's contribution. However, if he wants to sit in on hearings of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, where we talk about bringing new Australians in to work in Australia, bringing people in from overseas, he will see that it's the Labor Party that opposes it every time. It's the Labor Party that says, 'These workers who are going to come into Australia are going to steal our jobs.' It's the Labor Party, driven by the unions, that oppose all of this. It's a bit rich to have someone all of a sudden saying this is a coalition fear. I think what we really have to understand is that the overseas workforce is such an important, critical component of not just agriculture but so many other industries. We need to embrace overseas workers—temporary, seasonal and also permanent. Greater Shepparton City, Moira Shire and Campaspe Shire councils have fought hard to create a Designated Area Migration Agreement for Goulburn Valley. These DAMAs are going to be critically important, as is the ag visa that Minister Littleproud has put together. They're going to be critically important for so many areas that need overseas workers. It's been put by people opposed to these types of labour schemes that they're rife with people being exploited. It's not good enough if one per cent of one per cent is exploited. We have to do everything we can to ensure that overseas workers here in Australia are fairly paid and that exploitation is wiped out, but we also have to be careful that we don't let these people make this issue bigger than it actually is. They are simply weaponising this underpayment and wage theft issue to try and scuttle these programs. This is neither honest nor truthful. It is an incredibly minute number of people who have been exploited. We need to make sure that never happens so that the credibility of these overseas labour schemes is 100 per cent. That's something that is critically important for my electorate and critically important for many other regional and rural electorates. It's not just some of these lower-paid dirty jobs where we're looking at labour shortages now; it's many of the trades. Trades that have been highly regarded for many years are struggling to find the workers that they need. In plumbing, tiling, roof tiling, plastering, painting and decorating, diesel mechanics, motor mechanics and many more the vacancies and availability of work that exists throughout regional Australia now are absolutely rife. The question we have to ask is: where are these workers going to come from? COVID has made it incredibly difficult, especially in hospitality. Nearly everywhere you go in Australia the hospitality offerings have got a little sign on the window saying 'jobs available' for waiters, waitresses, chefs, front of house, back of house. These are opportunities that possibly would have normally got picked up by overseas students who are no longer here in Australia because of COVID. So this is a very, very important issue. I would just make sure that we don't attempt to rewrite history about the Labor Party. This is something that the Labor Party argue against point blank every time we get an opportunity to talk about migration policy. They've always been against bringing in overseas workers. They've always been against filling these vacancies with a ready-made workforce, because they have this inherent fear that somehow or other overseas workers are going to take Australian jobs. Well, the jobs that we're talking about are not being picked up by Australians at the moment. Australians are not putting their hand forward at the moment, as they haven't done historically and are probably not going to do so into the future. What we need to do is to look after our Australian businesses and give them the labour offerings they need so they can take their businesses forward. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. MOTIONS 43 MOTIONS Safe and Respectful Workplaces Training Program 43 11:59 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright by leave—I move: That the House notes the Safe and Respectful Workplace Training Program administered by the Department of Finance and requires all members to provide statements in relation to the training program in accordance with the following terms: (1) each member who has undertaken the training program shall provide to the Registrar of Members' Interests a statement declaring that the member has undertaken the training program either: (a) within 28 days of this resolution, where the member has already undertaken the training program; or (b) within 28 days of undertaking the training program. (2) statements shall be made in accordance with this resolution and in a form determined by the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. (3) the Registrar shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the committee, maintain a members' training program register comprising statements provided under this resolution and publish all statements by members online. Other than as specifically provided for in this resolution, the committee has the same powers and functions in relation to the training program register as it does in relation to the Register of Members' Interests. (4) any member who knowingly provides false or misleading information in a statement to the Registrar shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly. (5) a question of whether any member has committed such a serious contempt shall first be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests for inquiry and report. Question agreed to. BILLS 43 BILLS National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 43

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Returned from Senate 43 Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021 43

Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021

First Reading 43 COMMITTEES 43 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade 43 Report 43 12:02 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the human rights of women and girls in the Pacific. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—Australia's relationship with the nations of the Pacific is a very significant one. It goes back more than a century, and there's a great deal of warmth in the relationship we have with the nations in our immediate Pacific environment. For many decades, Australians have reached out to our Pacific Island neighbours through a range of both government and non-government programs. The Australian government has sought to enhance and expand this engagement through its Pacific step-up, which was announced in September 2016. I think it's fair to observe that, whilst we've had a warm engagement with the islands of the Pacific, there have been occasions on which that engagement has been much more active than on other occasions. I believe that the announcement of the Pacific step-up in September 2016 was an acknowledgement that there was more that Australia could do in relation to building upon those relationships with Pacific neighbours. This report examines Australia's important ongoing role in the Pacific in the light of that step-up. In particular, it focuses on the role of civil society, the advancement of the human rights of women and girls and the effectiveness of Australia's overseas development assistance program in supporting those rights. The committee has made 14 recommendations. They build upon the work which is already being undertaken by many government and non-government programs with our Pacific neighbours. The committee acknowledges the considerable efforts of national governments in the Pacific islands, and it's important that we do that—that we acknowledge the great work which has been undertaken by governments in the Pacific for their own people within their own territorial boundaries. Our recommendations acknowledge that and seek to build on the strength of these efforts and propose means whereby Australia can further assist these local efforts. We acknowledge the invaluable work undertaken by many civil society organisations and the people-to-people assistance that they render. Women and girls are continuing to shape their societies for the better. We trust that our recommendations will encourage their continuing commitment to supporting peaceful, resilient and happy communities throughout the Pacific. I commend the report to the House. Public Works Joint Committee 44 Report 44 12:05 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: Report 9/2021: referrals made August 2021, and Report 10/2021: referral made October 2021. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr RICK WILSON 198084 by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's ninth and 10th reports of 2021. Report 9 of 2021 considers two proposals referred to the committee in August 2021. The first project is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's transformation of Reef HQ Aquarium in Townsville, Queensland, with an estimated cost of $40 million excluding GST. Home to the world's largest living coral aquarium, Reef HQ has operated in Townsville since 1987, educating thousands of people within Australia and internationally. The transformation of Reef HQ is the second stage in a two-stage program of works intended to revitalise this invaluable facility. Works will directly support enhanced education programs, onsite diving programs and the use of interactive technology to facilitate expanded remote learning capabilities. The second project is the Department of Defence's facilities to support Land 19 phase 7B, short-range ground base air defence, at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia. The project has an estimated cost of $266.1 million excluding GST. In line with the recommendations of the 2016 Defence white paper, the Department of Defence is seeking to modernise and upgrade its air defence capabilities. This will see the 16th Regiment of the Royal Australian Artillery relocate from Woodside Barracks to RAAF Base Edinburgh to utilise this improved capability. These works are critical to the delivery of a more capable vehicle based air defence system, which will provide Australian forces with greater flexibility in responding to threats independently or as part of coalition operations. Report 10 of 2021 considers one proposal referred to the committee in October 2021. The project is the Department of Health fit-out of the Sirius Building, with approval sought from the committee to carry out works on the Woden office accommodation in Canberra, ACT. The project has an estimated cost of $64.25 million excluding GST. The project aims to consolidate the Department of Health's office accommodation in Woden, Canberra, from two sites to the Sirius Building, Canberra. The consolidation will reduce the leased office space from 62,466 square metres to 45,967 square metres and will deliver around $7 million per year in savings. The fit-out will see a partial refit of level 1 and a complete refit of levels 2 to 8 of the Sirius Building. These works draw on lessons learnt from the Department of Health's New Ways of Working program. This program will deliver a more flexible and accessible and healthier working environment which supports staff to work in ways that best suit their individual needs. I'd like to thank the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Department of Defence and the Department of Health for their comprehensive presentations. Although the committee was only able to travel to the Sirius Building to inspect proposed works, all entities provided sufficient detail in their presentations and briefings to ensure the committee was able to appreciate the importance and scope of the works. In considering the projects examined in reports 9 and 10 of 2021, the committee recommended that it is expedient that all works be carried out. On a final note, on behalf of the committee, I would like to extend thanks to Brigadier Matt Galton. After over three years liaising with the committee on numerous medium-works projects and inquiries in the role of Director-General, Capital Facilities and Infrastructure Branch, Brigadier Galton will be moving on to a new role within the Department of Defence. The quality of works put forward, candid discussions of projects and professionalism that Brigadier Galton brought to his role have been invaluable, and the committee extends its thanks to Brigadier Galton and wishes him all the best for the future. I commend this report to the House. DELEGATION REPORTS 45 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 41st General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Ha Long, Vietnam 45 12:10 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 41st General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, held virtually from 8 to 10 September 2020, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr VASTA E0D I am pleased to present the report of the delegation to the 41st ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, or AIPA, in September last year. Australia and ASEAN have a long history together, with Australia becoming the first of ASEAN's 10 dialogue partners in 1974. For the first time in its history, the general assembly was held in hybrid format; while the event was hosted by Vietnam, many of the participants attended virtually. Each member of our delegation—the member for Wills, the member for Dawson, Senator Walsh and I—attended from our own home states. I was pleased to make a statement on behalf of the Australian delegation by video link. The overarching theme of the assembly was parliamentary diplomacy for a cohesive and responsive ASEAN community. The impact of the pandemic and the need for member nations to work together was a natural focus throughout. Senator Walsh attended the meeting of Women Parliamentarians of AIPA, which considered the role of women parliamentarians in securing jobs and income for women workers, and heard of the significant and disproportionate impact that the COVID-19 pandemic was having on women's employment and incomes and the actions many member countries are taking to address this. An inaugural unofficial meeting of young parliamentarians was also held during the assembly. The delegation was interested to learn that there are almost 220 million young people across ASEAN countries—that is, a third of the population. The delegation had been looking forward to continuing the program of visits to other ASEAN countries in addition to the AIPA host nation. However, the pandemic meant that this was not possible. The delegation considers these country visits to be an important part of the parliament's international program and looks forward to them resuming. Meeting and sharing experiences with our colleagues and other parliaments in person is something that we all value. Finally, the delegation wishes to thank Vietnam for hosting and organising the event and ensuring the important work of the assembly continues, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic. BILLS 45 BILLS Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 45

Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading 45 12:14 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It's worth remembering that it was about a decade ago or so that the Liberal-National coalition sold off one of the largest public assets in the nation, one of the biggest telecommunications companies in the country, Telstra. This was part of their ideological bent that they always want to sell off public assets that make a difference to the Australian public, particularly to members of the public regardless of where they live. In cities or in regional Australia, telecommunications are very important and something that people rely upon hugely. We've seen that exceedingly so through the course of the pandemic as well. I remember when the Liberals, under John Howard, sold off Telstra. What a huge impact that had. It cut jobs in their tens of thousands. Telstra went from something like 90,000 employees to 35,000. It wasn't that those employees disappeared; it's that their jobs were reshaped. They were called contractors instead of employees. Their working conditions were slashed, because the Telstra management team, at that point in time, when they were loosened from government accountability, were in the vanguard of industrial relations changes that really put pressure on working Australians and were mimicked in other parts of the business. The privatisation of Telstra at that point in time was not only bad for jobs but bad for conditions. I say this in all honesty and to be up-front: I was a union official in the union that covered Telstra workers at the time and was deeply concerned about the fate of Telstra workers. We saw this happen. The coalition cheered on this sale and cheered on the agenda that was taken on by the steadily privatised Telstra, until it came back to bite them. The management team, led by Sol Trujillo, refused to consider the heritage of Telstra—previously Telecom and before that Postmaster General's—that had helped to connect the nation and bring in a modern network. It went from the coalition and the conservatives cheering that agenda on to when the management of Telstra stood up to the former Howard government. They knew pressure was on to deliver broadband and they knew what would be coming in the future. That mob in Telstra refused to play ball with the coalition, embarrassed then minister Helen Coonan and refused to acknowledge what was needed for the regions. This is what happens when you sell off a public asset like Telstra that still has huge power the market and cannot be reined in—they just do what they want. It's one of the reasons we had to bring in the NBN: the plans for a broadband network rollout by the then Telstra, prior to the election of the Rudd government, were so woeful. I think about 19 different plans had been put forward or knocked back. So we had to see the NBN created, which, ironically, was then resisted by the coalition in opposition and bagged out. The way that they've gone on about the NBN is shameful. Some conditions were attached to that sale, which this bill reflects in part. I must say, Telstra management has evolved, going from that very aggressive management team that was there to seeing people like David Thodey become the CEO, and then Andy Penn. These are people I hold in high regard. They moderated that position and were a lot more mindful of their responsibility to the nation and, in particular, communities that were reliant on telecommunications. I would like to say that it's very good that someone like Andy Penn makes himself available to members of this chamber to talk through issues. Andy Penn has done great work in thinking of the cyberthreats presenting themselves to the nation and what we can do to prepare for that. I don't agree with everything that they do, but at least you can talk to them. They're not ideologues, like former generations of managers in that company were. As I said, Telstra are now a private entity. They're seeking to restructure their company into different legal entities. That has been reflected on throughout the course of the debate. It is in line with the management and operational strategy that they're putting in place. While Telstra doesn't need legislative change or government approval for the restructure, there are key obligations in there that would become ineffective or not apply to successor entities in the way that they currently apply. As was observed through the course of this debate, there are restrictions on foreign ownership and the way the universal service obligation operates. There are some other consumer safeguards like emergency call services, which we're hugely dependent upon, and there are requirements to provide other carriers with access to transmission towers and parts of the network to ensure we have a competitive telecommunications network. The bill generally takes a suitable approach, in terms of what Labor support. We have spoken up on things that we think don't work in this sector at the hand of the government, in respect of some of the policy and regulations they've sought to introduce. We will maintain our position to call things out as we see them. I make the point again: we introduced the NBN because of market failure as a result of the way Telstra was running—the way it was snubbing its nose at conservative masters, who cheered it on after its sale as a public asset, and then, effectively, bit the hand that fed it. We needed to put in the National Broadband Network. When the Liberal-National government took over, they abandoned fibre and backed a second-rate copper NBN to try to save a few bucks, saying it would cost $29.5 billion. This cost blew out to $41 billion, then to $49 billion, and now it's costing $57 billion. It's the result of things not working that we told them wouldn't work. We now rank 59th in the world for average broadband speed and 32nd out of 37 nations in the OECD. Australians know they deserve better. It's why the federal opposition has said it will keep the NBN in public ownership and expand fibre access for more places—up to 1.5 million homes and small businesses—which is terrific and will create jobs for workers in the sector as well. The COVID pandemic and the lockdowns it has triggered have shown us how important it is to have reliable, high-speed internet. It's not a luxury—unlike what the coalition said when they were in opposition, bagging out the need for higher speed and suggesting it only would be used for gaming and that it wasn't vital. That is a very backward view that has been totally shredded, along with the credibility of the coalition in opposition when they argued against this and tried to downplay the role of a modern communications network. We know how important it is. It's not just important for the online ordering of goods and services, or video streaming—as much as that helped take the edge off these terrible and divisive lockdowns. Affordable internet access is something we just don't talk about enough in public. It's about being able to access enough data for our needs. It's about accessing affordable hardware. It's about a network that meets the needs of people in that area. It's also about skills, and, in reality, about bridging the digital divide. In terms of network quality, I'm still surprised that in this day and age—when we look at the rollout of 5G, a fifth-generation mobile network, with the sixth-generation one due to hit us in about eight years time—we still have people concerned about the quality of mobile networks. In my part of outer suburban Sydney, in the Chifley electorate, people in Colebee, Marsden Park and Schofields still comment to me that the network doesn't work in the way they want. They are still frustrated with it, and it shouldn't be that way. I think we should ensure the network works in outer suburban areas. As a federal parliamentarian I am still concerned, when I look at communities in my electorate, about the affordability of data, the ability to find a good plan among the multitude of plans, the accessibility of hardware, and the know-how to navigate all this. I wish the government would push for better access for average Australians concerned about being left at the bottom of the digital divide. Should we expect better out of this government? I don't think so. They seem to fight more about what Facebook is doing, as opposed to fighting for fairer fuel prices or telecommunications services for average Australians. But we need access to better communications. I'll give an example. During the pandemic, Rooty Hill High School told me that when the lockdowns hit last year they provided year 12 students with laptops and access to mobile networks, and those year 12 students recorded some of the best outcomes in generations of students. When the network is there and the hardware is available, they can do well. But the year 10 students did not do so well, because they didn't have access to that stuff. Modern communications and access to hardware means a lot, particularly to future Australian students. We should be doing better on that. I mentioned earlier, in terms of modern networks, that Telstra is a big giant. The other giants I worry about in this space that lever off the network are companies that use online shopping quite a bit, with a platform that is available for people to use—companies like Amazon. With the whipped-up enthusiasm about Black Friday and all the shopping deals that come along with it, it's worth remembering that there are retail workers—those essential workers during the global pandemic—behind those sales. And it's worth remembering that some of these outfits that people rely upon online are the ones working behind the scenes. In the run-up to last week's Black Friday sales the SDA, the union representing those workers—in particular, warehousing workers in places like Amazon—were highlighting that behind the cheap prices at Amazon hides the reality of a major profit-making company that can do a much better job on delivering a fairer and better bargain for its workers. I have been concerned about some of the treatment of those workers in in a modern company like Amazon that obviously uses technology and modern communications networks to deliver services in a different way. Some of the stories about the way technology is being used by companies like Amazon to undertake workplace surveillance of workers, to prevent them from accessing simple things like toilet breaks, to monitor the way they engage with union officials who are trying to help them in their workplace conditions, is a poor reflection on this company. While operating in Australia through the pandemic might have been one of the better workplaces in Amazon's global network, it's worth remembering that our safety net of strong workplace health and safety laws contributed to that. The Australian push to make sure we do better and that workers in these warehouses can have access to workplace health and safety laws that protect them has made a big difference to the way in which people are protected. I'm surprised to hear that some systems equip supervisors with an augmented reality headset with facial, clothing or gate recognition; and when the supervisor's gaze falls in your direction they are fed real-time data about how you as a worker are going. Another report says there is a potential for a bracelet-like device that can vibrate and alert workers about whether they're processing materials in the right manner. When Amazon uses workplace surveillance as a basis to write to unions to complain that an organiser is standing within two metres of a worker, are they really using it for safety—given that the letter comes 10 days after the alleged incident—or was it the result of carefully reviewing workplace surveillance footage? This is stuff that a lot of people would reckon is beyond the pale and should be changed. A lot of us welcome new firms that are using technology in new ways and delivering to people in the broader public. This is a good thing. They've been enabled to do so by a network that's evolved to allow for a lot more e-commerce in a way that hadn't previously been envisaged. But we cannot use the glitzy sheen of technology to hide old ways of doing things—the Taylorist way of managing employees, of looking at how much they're doing, of putting pressure on their workplace health and safety, using their market power to get away with it. I think Amazon Retail can do a lot better and I don't think it's unreasonable to push for that message to be driven home. I certainly support the SDA in making this push and pushing for better. Coming back to the bill: again, apart from the second reading amendment put forward by the shadow minister for communications, the opposition is not standing in the way of this. We think there is a lot of common sense in this. But we need to remember, too, the history of this. The sale of a public asset, and the way it has impacted on workers and communities, should never be forgotten. Labor should always make the case that we can push for better. It's why we think the NBN can be pushed for better and it's why we've put forward positive policies to make that a reality. 12:29 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to speak briefly on the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. This bill upholds Telstra's regulatory obligations as it undertakes a corporate restructure which will be one of the most significant changes to the company since its privatisation. It ensures legislative obligations continue to apply following these reforms which promote competition, protect consumers and support Telstra's role in Australia's communications network. I was interested to speak on this bill in part because of my longstanding history as an employee of Telstra, an opportunity that gave me very great insight into the communication needs and challenges of consumers, particularly in regional and rural Australia. So I want to outline a number of the key measures in this bill that have a particular focus on the impact on regional and rural areas. The first key change relates to the universal service obligation and consumer safeguards. Despite significant changes to the telecommunications industry over recent years, Telstra continues to play a key role in connecting people across our nation and particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia. This has long been reinforced by a range of consumer safeguards, including the USO that guarantees the delivery of basic telephone and payphone services in rural and remote areas. This is in addition to the customer service guarantee, the network reliability framework and priority assistance as well as the operation of the triple 0 emergency call service. Delivery of the USO and triple 0 service is further supported by a contract with Telstra which provides for the company's ongoing use of copper to deliver telephone services in rural areas. The bill ensures these arrangements continue to operate effectively following the restructure, which will involve a new service delivery company, ServeCo, and gives the minister new directions powers to ensure longstanding universal service obligations are fulfilled. These measures reflect the Morrison government's commitment to people across Australia continuing to have access to essential communications services. The recent challenge of summer bushfires and drought in regional and remote Australia have made it pretty clear just how important connection to others via phone or internet really is. Whether it be for business, education or just to be able to connect with family or friends, people in rural and regional areas depend on a reliable telecommunications network. This of course has changed over recent years with the increase in coverage of mobile communications around Australia. The bill also implements two more minor amendments, including maintaining foreign investment obligations that have applied to Telstra since privatisation. This prevents more than 35 per cent of key Telstra subsidiaries being sold to foreign entities, ensures Telstra's headquarters remains in Australia and prevents more than five per cent of Telstra being sold to a single foreign person. This safeguards Australia's critical telecommunications assets into the future. The bill also extends the tower access framework, which supports competition in the telecommunications market by providing other carriers with access to tower infrastructure. Telstra's restructure revealed issues with the current framework which could result in the carrier limiting access to its tower assets. This bill addresses this issue and applies to all carriers, not just Telstra. These changes will ensure that our telecommunications network continues to operate efficiently and effectively into the future. The Morrison government is focused on improving telecommunications in rural and regional Australia through a variety of initiatives. For example, we committed around $300 million to the Mobile Black Spot Program, which helped to fund more than 1,200 mobile base stations around the country, with more than 900 already on air and providing much needed mobile connectivity to rural and regional areas. This is in addition to the $230.6 million for the Regional Connectivity Program and $4.5 billion in NBN network upgrades, including NBN Co's $300 million regional co-investment fund. In my own electorate of Robertson I fought really hard to be able to deliver funding for a number of mobile base stations, including in Calga, Killcare, Spencer, Wendoree Park and Wisemans Ferry Road. Particularly I think of some of the many conversations with local residents in Spencer and Wendoree Park when they told me of the frustration they had with having absolutely no mobile coverage in those areas and what that meant to them in terms of safety and the ability to connect with people when and where they needed. So I was very pleased to see this investment being delivered. The issue of improved mobile coverage has been particularly important for residents along the Hawkesbury River. There is nothing more frustrating than needing to make a phone call or access the internet and having the connection drop out or, worse, having no connection at all, which of course could become a very serious issue when you consider areas like Spencer, Marlow and Wendoree Park and the threats from devastating summer bushfires or some of the recent flooding. Residents needed a reliable phone connection in the recent flooding to reach emergency services, and many expressed to me their relief with the arrival of the new mobile base stations. I know that there's still more to do to ensure that the network is expanded even further, but I do really want to congratulate the local community for their advocacy on this issue. I assure them I'm going to continue to fight to deliver more funding for communities along the Hawkesbury River and in areas in my community that really struggle to have access to reliable mobile coverage. At this stage the Killcare mobile base station is the only outstanding project in my electorate. I look forward to seeing local residents have better experience with making phone calls and being able to stay connected. This bill upholds Telstra's regulatory obligations as it undertakes a corporate restructure, promoting competition, protecting consumers and supporting Australia's telecommunications network. I commend it to the House. 12:36 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy A gentleman called Carl Katter was managing the family store in Normanton in 1904. He'd been managing other stores for the family prior to that. He had three boys. Norman Katter was one of those boys, and he died as a result of the tyranny of distance. Bob Katter Sr was one of those boys, and he died as a result of the tyranny of distance. Bob Katter Sr was my father. He was found on all fours, delirious. We'd got bogged. Then the sun came out and he walked to try and get assistance, because we couldn't get the car out of the bog, and he suffered very severe heat stroke and was effectively hospitalised for three days. It was only the luck of having the Batt brothers that saved us, and I thank them that I'm on the planet today; otherwise, we'd have all perished in the car as well. I got my first job outside my family at Mount Isa Mines. A gentleman's car broke down outside Mount Isa on a very lonely road, and he attempted to walk to Mount Isa and perished. That's the tyranny of distance. And it's the famous title of a book by Geoffrey Blainey. The story of Australia could well be our determination to conquer the tyranny of distance. Mareeba is the biggest town on the Atherton Tablelands. Some 60,000 people are connected to Cairns by a highway, and it's about an hour's drive from Mareeba to Cairns. On most of that drive there is no coverage. We're talking here about a highway that would carry maybe a hundred thousand cars a week. If you have an accident there, let's say in the middle of that highway, then, by the time the vehicle gets to a range and communicates to the ambulance and then gets the ambulance to come from Mareeba or Cairns, you're looking at an hour's downtime. If it's an hour's downtime, you almost double the number of people that die. Victoria has a much lower road death toll than Queensland for no other reason than you're always much closer to a major base hospital in Victoria than you are in Queensland. Cyclones are very frequent on the Far North Queensland coastline. During Cyclone Larry a person riding a motorbike came over a crest, there was a big tree across the road and he hit it. He had a very serious head injury. He had a mobile telephone, but there was no coverage in that area. By the time someone discovered him and got the ambulance out it was too late. He had died. Two very good friends of mine were in a plane that went down near the cattle station I've owned for most of my adult life. There was a mess-up in communications. If there hadn't been that mess-up, I think one of those people would have been alive today. It was, again, the tyranny of distance. Having said that, we thank the government, because I think there has been a very real, continuous and strenuous effort made to provide service to black spots. We appreciate that we've got more than our fair share, I suppose. Forrest Beach, Fishery Falls and numerous other black spots in the Kennedy electorate—Boulia, Dajarra, Julia Creek and, to some degree, Cloncurry—have got upgraded services directly or indirectly from the government. That brings me to this bill. The Australian people own nothing. This parliament, this House, the people who sit here, have sold off every single asset of this country. The much-maligned Kevin Rudd—the only things we own are the NBN and the Australian postal service. There is not the slightest doubt in anyone's mind that Christine Holgate was sacked because she wouldn't allow privatisation. The ports in Australia have been sold. The biggest coal port in the world, Newcastle, has been sold to China. The only Panamax port in the northern half of Australia, Darwin, has been sold to China. Five of the six major mining companies in Australia have been sold to foreign interests. Five out of six were Australian owned 30 years ago; now five out of six are foreign owned. God bless Twiggy Forrest, the last of the stand-outs and hold-ons. We're breaking up Telstra. Everyone knows why we're breaking it up. It's because the government are going to have a lot of trouble selling it off and getting permission. The people rose up, almost in revolution, against the sale of the Snowy Mountains—God bless John Laws, Alan Jones and all those people who fought against the sale. This is a break-up with a view to selling it off piece by piece. If they attempt to sell the whole lot they're not going to get away with it, because the people of Australia have had enough. Even if you don't care about anything but your own miserable political hide, even if you don't care about the people of Australia, even if you haven't got a scintilla of patriotic sentiment in the whole of your body, even if all that's true, look at Queensland, where a Labor government effectively sold the railways and the electricity industry. They were annihilated in the subsequent election. My memory tells me they were down to five seats, but correct me if I'm wrong. They went from being the government of Queensland to having five seats. The incredible stupidity, or obsession with ideology—believe me, people have voted for communists; they had an obsession with communism. Believe me, people have voted for fascism; they had an obsession with fascism. In this place we've had an obsession with free markets. What a disaster they have been! I'll quote one quick example. Our third biggest export, and one of only three significant exports this country has, is gas. It was sold for six cents a unit and we're buying it back for $16 a unit from the foreign corporations that own it. Qatar produces the same amount of gas that we do. They get $39 billion a year from their gas and we get $3 billion a year from our gas. And here it is happening yet again, and you think that we crossbenchers are stupid enough to go along with what is clearly a sell-off of one of the remaining assets. To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, the only things left in the cupboard now are Telstra, Australia Post, the Snowy Mountains Scheme and the NBN. And it's thanks to the much maligned Kevin Rudd that we've got the NBN. They're the only four assets the Australian people own—and you're going to try to sell one of them off. When the Liberal Party got in they reduced the ALP to five seats. When they then proposed to sell the rest of the assets they were similarly annihilated. They were reduced to six or seven seats—I can't remember what it was now. It was a most extraordinary phenomenon. A lady who in normal circumstances could never become a premier of a state ended up a premier of a state. But you people don't learn. The people of Australia cry out in their pain as they watch every single asset that their forebears put together as pioneers living nowhere and dying, as I've just described some of my own family dying, as a result of the tyranny of distance and other tyrannies—tyrannies of wage structure—which have slowly been deregulated and undermined and white anted. They see it all go—and you think they don't notice? It's been intriguing for me because for people it's the little things. Forced immunisation—the reports are that there were 14,000 or 15,000 people out in Cairns. And they knew what they were doing. I'd say one in 50 of them was walking around with a Eureka flag; and I'd say one in 50 of those flags had on it what was written at Eureka. When oppression becomes law then resistance becomes duty. Yet you thieve the assets of the people and sell them when you've got no right to sell them. They don't belong to you, the government; they belong to the people of Australia. One brave little soul, who's not in this place anymore, whose daddy worked for Telstra, got up in here and moved that you can't sell the asset unless it is the will of the Australian people by way of a vote. Needless to say, she's not with us anymore. No surprise. You get paid for standing up for your principles in this place! We tenaciously oppose the break-up of Telstra. And we know what it's about: at the present moment, there is cross-subsidisation occurring. When the decision to sell Telstra was brought into the party room John Howard was the prime minister. I think he's one of the most genuine and good Australians we've ever seen in the prime ministership. Unfortunately, and sadly, the history books will be very cruel to his government, and deservedly so, but he himself was an outstandingly good person. When he dies he will go to heaven, I'm sure. I was still in the party room then—which demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the party room. I stood up and said: 'Prime Minister, you've got to be joking. Everything's being done by cross-subsidisation. I've had four changes of telecommunications delivery system on my cattle station, but it'd be the same for most small communities in the Gulf Country and Cape York and these places. You've got to be joking.' He said, 'No Bob, we will have universal service obligations.' I said: 'Oh come on, Mr Prime Minister! Mary Murgatroyd in Julia Creek is going to take on a legal battle to enforce the UFOs. She's going to take on Telstra, arguably the biggest company in Australia? There's no way the universal service obligation will be worth two bob.' And, of course, they're not. I could give you 100 cases. We tenaciously oppose this bill and we know what's going on. We know what sneakiness is going on, with exactly the same argument as the sacking of the head of Australia Post. We know why she was sacked: because she wouldn't sell Australia Post. God bless Christine Holgate; she's a hero. I'll tell you, if you people vote for this you won't be heroes. You'll be going down in the history books all right—and it won't be nice. 12:50 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to speak on the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. Telstra has a long history of service within Australia, and, as Telstra changes as a business, enacting corporate restructuring means legislation must keep up. Telstra has many obligations to the Australian people, particularly in regard to having restrictions on foreign ownership, the universal service obligation, emergency call services and priority assistance, as well as the requirement for Telstra to allow other carriers to access its transmission towers. This bill stands to ensure that, while Telstra restructures its business, it continues to be controlled under regulatory equivalence, unable to utilise any legal loopholes that may appear due to the reformation and continuing to serve the interests of Australian people in its role as the country's largest telecommunications carrier. This bill stands to ensure that Telstra's operations as a private business will not be to the detriment of the Australian consumer and the services we require. This bill has its technical complexities, but at the end of the day it is here to serve us all and support Telstra's transition and restructuring. This bill will uphold Telstra's current obligations to Australian communities, Australian businesses and, indeed, Australia's broader community by maintaining regulatory equivalence for Telstra's successor entities. I wish not to reduce this bill to its intricacies but instead to focus on what it stands for. Simply put, this bill stands for protecting consumers, promoting competition and also allowing regional Australia to flourish. Whether it's during bushfires, floods or COVID, we know how essential reliable and accessible telecommunications are to the safety and security of all Australians. The explosion of telecommunications services worldwide has provided opportunities for economic development never thought of before in human history, with services such as telehealth and Netflix and services that help people through emergencies such as bushfires and floods. Consumers want to be able to know that their telecommunications access is both stable and certain. Since Telstra finalised its privatisation in 2011, it's been required to uphold certain obligations limiting foreign ownership of the company. Telstra's critical role within the telecommunications market means that we want its ownership and headquarters to remain largely on Australian soil, and this bill speaks to that by maintaining the assurance that Telstra's restructuring does not affect its ownership and subsequently its service to the Australian people. This bill ensures Telstra will remain a maximum of 35 per cent foreign owned, with no more than five per cent owned by an individual foreign investor. Moreover, the headquarters must be on domestic soil, allowing proper government oversight mechanisms to protect Australian consumers. This policy reaffirms the government's enhancement of the Foreign Investment Review Board regime, ensuring that critical national assets, including in telecommunications, are protected. Telstra currently is under an obligation to provide many services that are core to Australia and its people. For instance, the universal service obligation guarantees the delivery of payphone services in rural and remote areas, as well as the operation of crucial emergency services lines like triple 0. As anyone who has lived in the bush knows, it's important to have these services on hand. They're key, and they cannot falter whilst Telstra restructures. Hence, this bill simply serves to ensure that they will continue to operate effectively under Telstra's renamed entity ServeCo, which will handle service delivery. This bill is just one step towards the commitment of the Morrison government to ensure that all Australians have access to reliable, essential telecom services. In fact, the government has been informed by Telstra that they are already drafting agreements ensuring the smooth continuity of these services after the restructuring. In light of this, the provisions within this bill provide an important safety net of service for the Australian consumer. It's comforting to know that, despite the telecommunications industry having changed so much over the past decades, Telstra's role has remained crucial and steadfast as the sector and the country have changed around us. The tower access framework is rooted in the motivation to increase competition within the telecommunications sector in Australia. The framework seeks to ensure businesses are running efficiently and those savings are passed on to consumers. This is achieved by providing other carriers with access to the tower infrastructure. This framework does not stop at Telstra as a carrier; indeed, all carriers will be regulated under this bill. Telstra's restructure has revealed, indeed, a loophole within the current tower access framework, in that a carrier could potentially shift its tower assets to a non-carrier subsidiary that it controls to avoid its obligation to provide access to tower assets. This bill will close this loophole and ensure Australian consumers are protected, whichever carrier they use. This bill addresses this information by rigorously defining the meaning of 'owned and operated' so that there are clear requirements in terms of share ownership and executive power. This bill designates power to the minister to direct an individual Telstra subsidiary to take on the obligations of another subsidiary if it's the case that the initial subsidiary has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to fulfil an obligation. Moreover, if Telstra is failing to comply with a given direction, it may be liable for penalty. This acts as a safeguard to ensure that any potential restructuring of Telstra will always result in the obligations to Australian consumers being satisfied, irrespective of the formation of the parent and subsidiary businesses. The government has taken significant steps in improving telecommunications across Australia, particularly in our regional and rural areas. Nearly $300 million has been committed to the Mobile Black Spot Program, which ensures that regional and remote Australia has access to the same high-quality mobile coverage available in urban areas. I will also note that, with investment in space being one of the priorities of our Manufacturing Modernisation Fund initiatives, space will continue to be a very important aspect of our strategic direction with regard to things like mobile black spots. And that is because Australia is leading the way with regard to GPS, and the GPS work that is being done under space modern manufacturing will enable black spots to become a thing of the past. I would encourage anyone who is interested in this area to look at the space inquiry of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, of which I was a member, to see some of the wonderful initiatives being enabled by government and led by industry. Nearly $300 million has been given to the Mobile Black Spot Program, and over $200 million is going towards the Regional Connectivity Program, which is developing stronger infrastructure across these same areas. And there is an extra $4.5 billion towards the NBN, with particular focus on ensuring infrastructure in regional areas is strong. Of course, there is more to do, and the Morrison government is committed to work towards this, having enlisted the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee to examine further potential reforms in the sector. The bill before us today is recognition that, as the governance of our critical telecommunications carrier sector changes, it must change in line with business changes. Since its inception, Telstra has played a critical role in Australia's history and it will continue to do so into the future. To guarantee the continuation of its key role in the delivery of things like emergency services and countrywide access to telecommunications, we should all make sure that we support this bill and that we can all be proud that this is delivering for Australians here. With Telstra upholding the universal service obligation, this bill ensures that pay phone services will continue to be available in even the most remote areas of Australia—a crucial policy in maintaining our connection as a country. We need this now more than ever as, together, we face some pretty interesting times. I commend this bill to the House. 12:59 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to support the second reading of the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, which has two fundamental components to it in response to decisions that Telstra have made to change the structure of the company to ensure the obligations that are currently on the company remain in place for any subsidiaries that they might establish—in fact, which they've indicated they plan to establish—so it's important that we pass this legislation. I note that it seems to have strong support from all members of the House, and hopefully it will equally do so in the Senate. Telstra, of course, started way back as the old Postmaster-General's Department, when we had the telegraph system. That's why when you walk around the streets of Adelaide you often see manholes—or personholes I think we call them these days—that say 'PMG', which stood for Postmaster-General way back when. When I was a boy, we called Telstra Telecom. They changed their name to Telstra and have been a listed company for the last 20 or so years. When they were privatised, it was important that legislation was put in place to preserve two fundamental responsibilities for which Telstra have an enduring responsibility. They are a universal service obligation, and competition and access for other providers to Telstra's infrastructure. That was one of the fundamental components of that business when it was privatised. Back then it was the copper wire network. Now, of course, telecommunication infrastructure and assets are much more substantial. These are two important areas, and we wouldn't like to see in either case those obligations not to continue to be met by subsidiaries or spinoffs that Telstra might establish, and that's what we're doing here. As a Liberal and a free market capitalist, I've got a very significant concern about monopolies. As much as possible we don't want to see monopolies operating in markets, but sometimes, unfortunately, they are necessary, and that's why they need specific and bespoke regulation. This is the case for other utilities. It would be ludicrous to suggest we have two different sets of water pipes or two different sets of transmission lines running down the same street so that we could have competition in the water market or in the electricity transmission market. These, of course, are monopolies. Sometimes they are held by governments. Sometimes they've been privatised. In most jurisdictions I'm aware of even when they're held in government hands they've been corporatised. In South Australia, SA Water is a good example. They are still very much a state government owned entity but they operate like a business. The way in which they charge for water is set through a market mechanism. The Essential Services Commission of South Australia makes determinations on what the costs are to run a water business and what the value of the balance sheet is—ostensibly, the water network. All those things are put together, and a fair rate of return is put determined on the value of the assets. That goes into the sausage machine and comes out as a pricing indication. That's largely the same with electricity transmission as well. There's only one transmission option to get your electrons from a power station to the socket in your wall at home. You can't change providers. There's only the one business that has those poles and wires, so what they earn for that transmission is also regulated. In the case of Telstra, it's a little bit more complex. Telstra, of course, are a retailer. They also have significant assets, some of which they compete freely in the market with. Mobile phone towers are a good example. Certainly in my electorate, Optus and other providers as well as Telstra have their mobile phone coverage that they pay to put in place, and they compete. Telstra complete with other providers. But there are some parts of Telstra's assets for which there is no competition, for which they are in fact the only holder of particular infrastructure. That's why it's important that we have competition measures in place—so that Telstra can't abuse that monopoly and that particular infrastructure by either charging exorbitant rates to their competitors for access to their infrastructure or, potentially, denying their competitors access at all. That, of course, is a very important fundamental of competition policy in this country, whether we're talking about telecommunications infrastructure, electricity transmission, water pipes or whatever it might be. Where there is a government owned business, privately owned business or a public company, as Telstra is, it's very important that we put in place measures so that they can't abuse that market monopoly where we accept that a monopoly has to be in place because of the ludicrous cost to duplicate infrastructure so unnecessarily. That, I suppose, segues into the universal service obligation. It's critically important with essential services, whether they be telecommunications or similar examples I've been referencing—electricity, water, gas et cetera—that every Australian has equal access. Telecommunications is one of those. The universal service obligation is in place in a lot of other services. The postal system is probably another good example. The postal network has to operate evenly and equally right across the country. Regardless of where you might live, everyone's got access to a local post office and there's no difference in the cost of sending a letter to your neighbour or to someone on the other side of the country. With telecommunications, it's equally the right of all Australians to have access to the telecommunications network and for that to be provided by Telstra under their universal service obligation. As we know with other infrastructure, at times they'll have a higher cost for particular types of properties, whether that be because of their remoteness or what have you. But that particular person living in that home can't be penalised particularly; it's spread amongst the costs Telstra have and get a return on through their charges in providing the total network across the nation. Those two things are fundamental. Regardless of your view and without getting into debates about Telstra's privatisation, as the amendment seeks to do in the second reading, it's very important that the fundamental principles and protections that were put in place when the Howard government privatised Telstra are maintained in any circumstance. It did slightly surprise me that this was at risk. I assumed that, no matter what, it wasn't possible for Telstra to escape the requirements that they have through legislation as part of their privatisation to provide that universal service obligation and, equally, to make sure that they're providing access to their competitors to certain parts of their infrastructure that they have a monopoly over. Evidently, it is important that we pass this legislation to ensure that there is no uncertainty, when Telstra pursue the plans that they have to change their corporate structure to split, that whatever entities are spun off or spun out of the current Telstra do not, through that process, escape the obligation that was put in place. That's a very important principle. In privatising Telstra, no-one would ever have envisaged or suggested that they would not have an enduring responsibility to do those things; quite the reverse. It's very important that, although we have a public company that is a substantial player in our telecommunications sector industry—as I've said, in some areas they do that in a very competitive market, and it's good that we have competitors to Telstra in certain segments of the market. The market, when working well, hopefully leads to consumers getting the best possible deal and value from the services that they're accessing because they have choice and can choose between a mobile phone package from Telstra, Optus, Vodafone or whoever it might happen to be. There have been other players in the market in the past and there may well be more coming into the market in the future. We encourage that. We encourage any increase in competition. Something like telecommunications services, and mobile phone services, is an area that is only going to grow enormously in size. We're seeing already a rapid transformation in just a two-year period, where something like a pandemic comes along and people have an enormous increase in their reliance on certain telecommunications services—and that, equally, is going to see more money spent in the sector for more and expanded services. That's why we absolutely want to see increasing competition as that market increases in size and value but also in the types of things we can do through the telecommunications network. As we enter the era or the internet of things and the concept that nothing in our lives is likely to be disconnected or off the grid, from a telecommunications point of view, it's never been more important to reflect on how critical it is that we get competition policy right and that we make the right decisions in this place about the future of an industry that, in many ways, will be the most significant of all of them in the years ahead. This legislation ensures that we continue to keep that faith and commitment that we made when Telstra was privatised to ensure that the community service obligation is preserved in any future ownership structure of Telstra, and to ensure that the competition and sharing of the monopoly and legacy infrastructure they have in place continues into the future. We want to see a thriving sector. I'm proud of Telstra as a company. I suppose I should draw the House's attention to the fact that on my Register of Members Interests you will find a very minor shareholding in Telstra, which I of course have appropriately declared. Nonetheless, I think it is very important that a great company like Telstra, through this legislation amending existing acts that govern it, is still held to account against the fundamental principles put in place when it was privatised. With those words, I commend the bill to the House. 13:11 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I'm no fan of Telstra. If BHP is known as the big Australian, then surely Telstra is the big un-Australian because of its appalling treatment of its own customers. Unfortunately, we can't stop Telstra restructuring its business, but we do have the ability to ensure we can maintain ownership of Telstra and that, in a restructured environment, Telstra, the Australian telecommunications company, maintains its obligations with respect to the Australian community. The Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 ensures that in any restructure, Telstra's regulatory obligations, such as the current consumer protection obligations that exist, are reapportioned to the appropriate entity. It also provides a power for the minister to respond to any future changes to Telstra's corporate structure by including or excluding Telstra entities as needed to apply the existing regulatory regime to them. The bill also includes a series of powers that would allow the minister to direct a Telstra entity to assist another Telstra entity to fulfil a regulatory obligation or certain contractual obligations. This legislation will uphold Telstra's current regulatory obligations to Australians by maintaining regulatory equivalency for Telstra's successor entities. I wish we could have prevented Telstra's restructure until such time as it had improved mobile services to customers who pay bills in communities like mine. I wish we could have prevented the restructure unless it improved its appalling customer service to all Australians. Unfortunately, Telstra doesn't need parliament's approval for restructure. However, without these legislative changes we couldn't ensure the important obligations imposed would remain in force. Let's be clear: Telstra's restructure is not about better mobile service or better customer service; it's just about shareholder windfall. Unfortunately, there are no drivers for Telstra to improve its appalling customer service. I will return to this issue later in my remarks. Telstra's restructure splits the company into three separate legal entities under a parent company to be called Telstra Group. InfraCo Fixed will own and operate their passive physical infrastructure assets: the ducts, fibre, data centres, subsea cables and exchanges that underpin their fixed telecommunications network. InfraCo Towers will own and operate the physical mobile tower assets. The corporate spin from Telstra says ServeCo will focus on how they create and innovate products and services for their customers and deliver the best possible customer service experience—whatever that means. The restructure raises issues beyond the poor performance of Telstra's mobile and customer service and their preternatural talent for spin over delivery. As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I want to say something about telecommunications and our national security. Who controls our telecommunications companies is an increasingly important question. Australia needs to have Australian owned telecommunications companies. This isn't a case of economic nationalism; it's because telecommunications infrastructure is critical infrastructure for Australia. We cannot allow malicious actors, including state actors, to access these networks and use our telecommunications infrastructure to harm our nation. Just last month, Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security, said: I remain concerned about the potential for Australia's adversaries to … preposition malicious code in critical infrastructure, particularly in areas such as telecommunications and energy. Such cyberenabled activities could be used to damage critical networks in the future— Mr Burgess said the attacks would 'undermine' Australia's 'sovereignty, democratic institutions, economy and national security' capabilities, while also warning espionage and foreign interference attempts by multiple countries remain 'unacceptably high'. It's in this context we must be very careful about who controls and owns telecommunications infrastructure. I therefore welcome Minister Fletcher's actions in preserving the foreign ownership limits on Telstra and its successor companies through this bill. The arrangements in this bill prevent more than 35 per cent of key Telstra subsidiaries being sold to a group of foreign interests. The bill maintains that the headquarter location of Telstra and its successor entities is in Australia and prevents more than five per cent of Telstra being sold to a single foreign person. This legislation is important to ensure Telstra remains in Australian hands and under Australian control. The foreign ownership arrangements for the bill align with the government's view that the appropriate oversight mechanisms must be maintained for Australia's critical telecommunications assets. This is particularly important given the role Telstra plays in the communications market in this country, essentially operating as a monopoly provider in many parts of the country. The Foreign Investment Review Board regime, which was enhanced by the Morrison government earlier this year, will also continue to protect our critical national assets, including our telecommunications networks. I want to say something about Telstra's tower business and what this legislation seeks to regulate. Nothing is more important to increasing competition in consumer choice in the telecommunications sector than providers sharing infrastructure. This is particularly when the infrastructure has been erected with public funds. It's vital, therefore, that obligations currently placed on Telstra which require them to provide other carriers with access to telecommunications transmission towers apply in the same way post restructure. A key set of obligations placed on Telstra is the facilities access regime, which requires that carriers provide other carriers with access to bottleneck infrastructure. The tower access framework is designed to support competition in the telecommunications market by providing other telecommunications carriers with access to tower infrastructure. Telstra's restructure has revealed a loophole within the current tower access framework whereby they could potentially shift their tower assets to a subsidiary that they own to avoid their obligations. And, given Telstra's history of being a monopoly provider and then as a private company continuing to behave like a monopolist, I think this issue is a real concern. Despite all the public subsidies Telstra received, it fights every opportunity to increase competition and share its infrastructure with its competitors. On so many occasions when Telstra is asked to share, it lawyers up and fights proposals. Such behaviour has led one industry participant to remark that Telstra is a law firm masquerading as a telecommunications company. I'm pleased to say, therefore, that this bill addresses this issue and extends the framework so that all entities within a carrier group that meet a 15 per cent ownership threshold must also provide access to telecommunications towers. The provisions in this bill would be dormant for the first six months following passage to allow the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to undertake a review of the 15 per cent ownership threshold and provide advice to the minister for communications. The bill seeks to ensure the current tower access framework continues to apply, which, in turn, should promote competition and better telecommunications options for all Australians. It's critical that carriers can access each other's towers to provide the best possible service to customers. Any change could impact the connectivity and services available, which are already substandard in large parts of my electorate and in regional, rural and remote areas in Australia. Earlier this year, Telstra sold 49 per cent of its tower business for $2.8 billion. The majority of the proceeds from the deal will go to shareholders, with only a very small proportion being invested into network improvements. I've condemned Telstra repeatedly for its failures to more substantially reinvest in rolling out more towers to provide services to those customers who keep paying its bills, and an increasing number of my colleagues across the country agree that this is a major problem. This bill is also important because, if we don't get the regulations right, Telstra's restructure poses a risk that services Australians rely on might not be available. We could see Telstra stop maintaining the universal service obligation. We could see Telstra no longer required to meet important consumer safeguards. And we could see Telstra not required to provide the triple 0 emergency service facility that it provides and on which all Australians depend. This is something no-one wants to see and a reason why this bill is so important. Despite significant change in the telecommunications industry over the last decade, Telstra still plays a key role in large parts of Australia. Its role has been reinforced by a range of regulated consumer service safeguards, including the universal service obligation that guarantees delivery of basic telephone and payphone services in areas across Australia as well as the operation of the triple 0 emergency call service. Delivery of the USO and the triple 0 service is further supported by a contract with Telstra, the Telstra USO performance agreement, which also provides for Telstra's ongoing use of copper to deliver telephone services. While Telstra has given clear and repeated undertakings it will continue to deliver on these obligations, this bill makes sure they continue to operate by reapportioning them to ServeCo. The bill also gives the Commonwealth visibility regarding the assets and contracts ServeCo needs to continue to deliver on these obligations, and a new ministerial directions power should the Commonwealth become concerned that Telstra may fail to fulfil these longstanding obligations. While Telstra has given undertakings it will continue to deliver these obligations, the bill makes sure it follows through with its promise. To reinforce this, the bill provides powers for the minister and, in some cases, ACMA to direct a Telstra subsidiary to meet its obligations or assist in the delivery of obligations to another Telstra subsidiary. ACMA's directions power allows it to ensure its compliance and enforcement activities continue to apply to entities within the Telstra group where satisfied that the relevant entity has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to fulfil an obligation. Similarly, the ministerial directions power allows the minister to direct an entity to assist a Telstra successor company to fulfil obligations where the minister, in this case, is of the view the entity has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to meet those obligations. The powers provide for penalty for failure to comply with a direction. In short, the purpose of the bill is to maintain the Commonwealth's policy interest in protecting customers, promoting competition and supporting Telstra's public interest roles in Australia and our communications system, and ensuring they are not diminished as a result of the restructure. It's for these reasons I support the bill. I want to talk a little bit about some other matters that Telstra and the other telecommunications companies are involved in, because telco reform is more than just this bill. As I outlined, I haven't had much good to say about Telstra, and with good reason. Telstra and the NBN's failure to serve my constituents and their inaction to rectify terrible phone and internet reception is putting people's lives at risk. This is despite all the public money on offer to support telcos investing in infrastructure. Telstra like to remind us they're just another public company, but they receive so much public money that it's a hard claim to maintain in any real sense. The campaign we ran in the Berowra electorate, highlighting the parlous state of peri-urban mobile communications, led to Minister Fletcher creating the pilot $16.4 million Peri-Urban Mobile Program, or PUMP, designed to address mobile black spots in bushfire prone communities like mine on the edge of Australia's cities. PUMP will provide grant funding to mobile network operators and infrastructure providers to deploy new mobile phone infrastructure to address mobile coverage in peri-urban areas. I want to put on the record my thanks to Minister Fletcher for his ongoing support in addressing issues faced by my constituents through programs like PUMP. Recent bushfires and floods have shown the importance of reliable mobile services during natural disasters. Shortly the PUMP guidelines will be released, and this program will be opened. PUMP is a test for the telcos. In some respects it's their last chance. Unlike the last round of the Mobile Black Spot Program, where the telcos applied for zero towers—I repeat, zero towers—in my community, PUMP is their last chance to show whether they care about Australians in communities like mine. My message to Telstra and the other telcos is: if you want to show you are serious, apply for lots of towers in my community and others under PUMP. The Morrison government has done its job by putting money on the table to support telco investment in infrastructure. It's time the telcos did their job and delivered telco services to people across the country paying their bills. The alternative future for the telco sector has been outlined in my private member's bill, the Telecommunications Reform (Telstra, NBN and Other Providers) Bill 2021. It is currently on exhibition as an exposure draft, recently released by me and supported by 18 colleagues from right across the country A growing number of colleagues are telling me they, too, support the aims of my private member's bill. It's a bill designed to create better infrastructure, better customer service and more accountability for telecommunications companies. Unfortunately, the response from the telco sector shows they just don't take these issues seriously. The telco response should surprise no-one. They effectively said two things: first, 'There's nothing to see here'—they think they're doing a great job—and, second, that the bill asks far too much of them. What the telco sector has failed to do is to recognise that there is a real problem. If there weren't a real problem, why would 18 members of parliament from across the country band together to try to achieve real change? My bill has been welcomed by consumer groups. Choice's Alan Kirkland said: 'It's unacceptable for people who live in a major city like Sydney not to have mobile coverage in their home, and even worse in a bushfire-prone area. We find it puzzling that the telco industry, particularly Telstra, has been able to get away with substandard service for so long.' Professor Alan Fels, former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, agreed that more needs to be done in the telco space. He said: 'For many years the telco industry has failed to make access to mobile phone services universally available, even in a number of suburbs. Yet such access is an essential service and vital in emergencies. After waiting for so long, it is clear that the only solution is legislation, backed by sanctions compelling it.' Those are the words of Professor Fels. Phone and internet are an essential service that Australians rely on. On a good day, connectivity problems make people seethe with anger. On a bad day, it's simply a matter of life and death. The response from the public has shown me we're on the right track, and I will continue to fight for better telco services for my community. In conclusion, I wish that Telstra would restructure their business so they actually improve service for customers who are paying their bills, not the size of their executives' pay packets. Telecommunications are more important now than ever. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we live and work, the way we study, the way we access health care and the way we stay in touch with our loved ones. Unlike Labor, the coalition has improved telecommunications in many communities across Australia by delivering the Mobile Black Spot Program, and it will soon deliver the announced Peri-Urban Mobile Program. This bill ensures that the hard-won gains and accountabilities already applying to Telstra are maintained, and I commend the bill to the House. 13:26 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I thank those members who've contributed to the debate on the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. I also thank the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for its report on the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed. This bill will amend a range of telecommunications legislation to maintain regulatory obligations that protect consumers and promote competition, in response to Telstra's proposed restructure. These obligations cover core parts of Telstra's longstanding regulatory arrangements, including its corporate obligations put in place at the time of its privatisation. Without legislative amendment, there is a risk that Telstra's obligations would become less effective or cease to apply to its successor entities following this or any future restructure. While there have been significant changes in the telecommunications industry over the past decade, Telstra continues to play a key role nationally in metropolitan, regional, rural and remote Australia. Telstra's role has long been underpinned by a range of regulated consumer safeguards, including the universal service obligation, which requires Telstra to deliver basic telephone and payphone services in rural and remote areas; the customer service guarantee; the network reliability framework; priority assistance; and the operation of the triple 0 emergency call service. The effect of this legislation is that the obligations which presently apply to Telstra under its current organisational structure will continue to apply following Telstra's restructuring. This in turn will be important to achieving the continued protection of consumers, promotion of competition and support of Telstra's public interest roles in Australia's telecommunications market. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Greenway 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. The SPEAKER 265967 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.      

The House divided. [13:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Andrew Wallace)

 67 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Evans, T. M. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Flint, N. J. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Marino, N. B. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. Morton, B O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Porter, C. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sharma, D. N. Simmonds, J. Smith, A, D. H. Steggall, Z. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Wyatt, K. G. Young, T. J. Zimmerman, T. M. 60 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Champion, N. D. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. (Teller) Shorten, W. R. Snowdon, W. E. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 58 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Blacktown City Council Local Government Elections 2021 58 13:39 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley The federal Liberals failed us with a botched vaccine rollout program. The New South Wales Liberals divided Sydney, treating Western Sydney as second class—against health advice. At this weekend's local government elections, the Liberals flee for cover. Longstanding Liberals in Blacktown are labelling themselves as a coalition of Independents. The Liberal gurus who thought this up have built up a coalition of cowards. They've never stood up for our community to get a fairer deal during lockdowns. They watched Western Sydney subjected to harsh, unfair rules. They did nothing, unlike the mayor of Blacktown, Tony Bleasdale, who I was proud to join in calling for major vax hubs to be set up around Mount Druitt. Where were these Liberals—now Independents—then? The Liberals on Blacktown council have a history of cuts to services and support. The Liberal Independents won't even say what they'll do if they win. I'm proud to support Tony Bleasdale and his Labor team, who have stopped the cuts, reopened Mount Druitt pool, pushed for better investment in the community and brought the Australian Catholic University to our city—with 5,000 students to benefit. They are rejuvenating Blacktown CBD and planning a modern Marsden Park CBD. They kept council workers employed when the federal Liberals wouldn't provide JobKeeper support. They are building up—and standing up for—our area. They are proud of who they are and don't claim to be Independents. I respect very much the people in our area. They will make their own minds up about who they vote for, but they can send a message. These Liberal candidates dressed as Independents are disrespecting voters. They hid during lockdown. They are hiding now. See through their tricks. Lennard, Mrs Karen 58 13:41 Mr 265991 Wide Bay LLEW O'BRIEN (—) (): This is a hard one. Karen Lennard was one of Wide Bay's humble heroes, with an infectious laugh that gave her the nickname Kak. At Chatsworth school, where my family and I met Karen nearly 18 years ago, she was a busy member of the P&C, teaching kids to swim, and, through the family business, Lennard Drilling, sponsoring community events like the Gympie Show. Since being diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2013, Karen began fundraising for a cure. Karen passed away earlier this week, whilst her fundraising momentum continued to build. Karen's final gift to her community was $11,800. Some heroes help, not seeking adoration or accolades; they just help because they care. Above all, Karen loved her family and her family loves her. My abiding memory of Karen is a vision of her happily going about her life with her three beautiful girls, two with Karen's signature red hair, and always not too far behind. My condolences to Karen's husband, Andy, their daughters, Katherine, Jess and Sarah, and also her granddaughters Harper and the twins Ruby and Hazel, born five weeks ago. Karen was able to hold them for the first and only time, but their lives will be forever guided by the legacy of their beautiful grandmother. Corangamite Electorate: Barwon Heads Road 59 13:42 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I rise today with some exciting news for my electorate of Corangamite. Families in Armstrong Creek, Barwon Heads, Charlemont, Ocean Grove and across the Bellarine will be thrilled to know that the Albanese Labor government will deliver stage 2 of the Barwon Heads Road duplication thanks to the $125 million commitment we announced on the weekend. This project will end the congestion, lengthy time delays and unsafe commutes for this rapidly growing community. It will link up with stage 1 of the duplication, between Belmont Road and Reserve Road, past Armstrong Creek to lower Mount Duneed Road. By 2031, Barwon Heads Road is projected to carry up to 44,000 cars and trucks every day, and the population of Armstrong Creek will more than double to 66,000 residents. Importantly, stage 2 will also create hundreds of local construction jobs. You don't have to spend much time in Armstrong Creek or the Bellarine to know that this road needs a serious upgrade. We consulted with community, councils and local government, but what we need is the Commonwealth to get stage 2 underway. That's just what an Albanese Labor government will deliver: faster, safer commutes for local families. Unlike with so many of the Morrison government's announcements, Labor plans ahead and we will deliver this vital infrastructure. NorthConnex 59 13:44 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Earlier this month, NorthConnex marked one year of operations. NorthConnex, with was funded by the Morrison government, the New South Wales government and Transurban, completed the missing link on the National Highway between the M1 and the M2, and gives Pennant Hills Road back to our local community. Performing ahead of expectations, more than 11.1 million trips have been taken on NorthConnex since it opened, despite the COVID restrictions and lockdowns impacting movement. After NorthConnex opened, traffic flow and safety significantly improved along Pennant Hills Road, which was labelled the worst road in Australia. An average of more than 6,000 trucks a day use NorthConnex, which is 20 per cent more than was predicted before the tunnel opened. New analysis shows that the number of vehicles using Pennant Hills Road has dropped by 27 per cent sections such as the area near Mount St Benedict College in Pennant Hills Road, where traffic has been slashed from around 51,000 to 37,000 vehicles a day. There's been a 65 per cent reduction in near misses on Pennant Hills Road and surrounding streets during peak periods and a 40 per cent reduction across the day. Average speeds are now 33 per cent faster in the afternoon peak, saving motorists around six minutes per trip. The number of crashes on Pennant Hills Road between the M1 and M2 has now more than halved from 22 over a four-month period to just 10. Drivers can avoid 21 sets of traffic lights along Pennant Hills road and 40 traffic lights along the Pacific Highway, providing a traffic-light-free journey between Newcastle and Melbourne. NorthConnex has been a game changer for my community. (Time expired) Kambosos, Mr George Jr 59 13:45 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to congratulate one of our greatest sporting heroes on one of the great Australian sporting achievements. Yesterday George Kambosos shocked the world, pulling off arguably one of the biggest wins in Australian boxing history. George beat Teofimo Lopez yesterday at Madison Square Garden, becoming one of the great boxers of this nation. He will go down in the history books with Lionel Rose, Jeff Fenech, Kostya Tszyu and all the others. I think we're all proud of his achievements. He worked so hard. I've been following his career and the dedication he has shown in the last 12 months. He has a child—he continued to train on the day his child was born. His grandfather died a couple of months ago—he continued to train on the day of the funeral. He was so committed, so dedicated, and we can all be very proud of this achievement. He took the world lightweight championship off the leading champion just yesterday. He is a sportsman with true dedication and true boxing spirit. I know boxing isn't as popular as it used to be many years ago, but this person has put in dedication and hard work. He is a fantastic person from a Greek migrant background who did us proud yesterday. Chisholm Electorate: Manufacturing 59 13:47 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm I would like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to Titomic, a great local manufacturer in Chisolm. I had the pleasure of visiting the Titomic facility in Mount Waverley and meeting with CEO Herbert Koeck and head of sales Dominic Parsonson to learn more about their Titomic Kinetic Fusion technology, which allows them to work with some of the toughest metals there are. This is a real step forward for advanced manufacturing. I would like to congratulate Titomic for being awarded a $2.3 million Modern Manufacturing Initiative grant. This grant will help Titomic make cutting-edge low-emission green titanium space vehicle parts. This technology will also help us meet and beat our net zero target by 2050 and propel Australia to the forefront of space manufacturing. It is also creating high-skill, high-value and high-paying jobs right now in my electorate of Chisolm. The Morrison Liberal government is proud to have established the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy to help manufacturers across Australia just like Titomic. Diesel, Renewable Energy 60 13:48 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I ask the people in this place: are you really proud that we import all of our petrol and diesel? I hope that we crossbenchers will bury our differences and work together to move a ban on the export of oil from Australia. Twenty-seven per cent of our diesel and petrol needs can be met from our own indigenous oil. It's disgraceful that we import our oil. So we're going to ban it. As to whether this mob or that mob want to come on side doesn't matter—you can face the people. Waste from all of our major population centres is to be transformed into diesel, so 30 per cent of our diesel requirements will be met there, with 27 per cent in the first run. All government cars in metropolitan areas will be electric, made in Australia by Australian companies, along with their batteries, similarly. Finally, renewables are to provide around 40 per cent of our requirements—the same as in Brazil, and 15 per cent in America. Algae, ethanol and numerous other renewables can be put into that blend. We are not talking about 2050. We are talking about doing something good for our country now and having something that the Australian people will own. (Time expired) Reid Electorate: International Migrants Day 60 13:50 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid I rise today to acknowledge the vision, hope, bravery and hard work of our migrants. On 18 December, we will celebrate International Migrants Day, and it would be hard to find a better place in Australia to celebrate International Migrants Day than my electorate of Reid. Reid is one of the most multicultural seats in the country. Throughout human history, migration has been a courageous expression of an individual's will to overcome adversity and to live a better life. That's the story of my grandparents, who immigrated to Australia from Greece all those years ago. Migration has driven our nation's economic success. Immigrants have played an important role in small business, generating entrepreneurial business activity and contributing to greater workforce diversity, which has had a positive effect on our economy. In 2020 there were over 7.6 million migrants living in Australia—people born in India, Korea, China, Lebanon, Italy, Greece and Nepal. Reid is only a slice of multicultural Australia but a multicultural success story in its own right. On the occasion of International Migrants Day, I want to acknowledge them. (Time expired) Prime Minister 60 13:51 Mr PERR HVP Moreton ETT () (): As the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide kicks off in Brisbane, I want to mention three concepts that should be embraced by all elected representatives in this place: service, sacrifice, and honour. I do so not to conflate a politician's privileged life with the challenges our soldiers, sailors and airmen face but to revisit why we are here. Last week, the Prime Minister disingenuously stood right there at the dispatch box and suggested that serving the people of Australia in here is somehow touched with dishonour. A bloke who's halfway through his second decade in here attacked the Leader of the Opposition for serving here longer. The Prime Minister said in a tone dripping with condescension: The Leader of the Opposition has been in this place a very long time. The Leader of the Opposition is obsessed with the games that go on in Canberra. The main game that goes on in Canberra is government. That is why the Prime Minister's bank account will go up tomorrow. He will get paid. When the Prime Minister besmirches the service of one of us, he chips away at the foundations of Australian democracy. The Leader of the Opposition knows something about service. His family knows he's sacrificed time with them to serve as Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and so on. The Leader of the Opposition has served in this House with honour. He stands behind his words. My leader is more than just an announcement. The Leader of the Opposition actually believes in making this country fairer for all Australians. We can all do better, but there's little honour emanating from the bloke who says, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' Lindsay Electorate: Quiet Achiever Awards 60 13:53 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My community of Lindsay has been so resilient throughout the pandemic, including our local schools and students. That's why this year's Lindsay Quiet Achiever Awards will be so special, recognising students that have gone above and beyond to serve their school and their community and worked hard to support and help others without seeking praise. Local schools have told me of their students who have shown quiet diligence, consistent application and humility, always finding ways to get involved and always helping others without any fuss or expectation. It's this spirit and incredible effort that has epitomised how people in Western Sydney have endured and overcome the pandemic. As we draw closer to the end of the year, our local preschools will also be celebrating our youngest graduates, who are about to embark on a new and exciting chapter of their lives and education. I look forward to visiting as many of our local schools as possible, and our preschools too, over the next few weeks and, particularly with my Lindsay Quiet Achiever Awards, recognising the amazing efforts of students in Lindsay who have achieved so much this year. COVID-19: Quarantine 61 13:54 Ms 249710 Bendigo CHESTERS () (): Yes, there is a new variant and it is causing concern, as it should, but I guess that a lot of Australians were with me this morning when I was shaking my head at the Prime Minister's comments that this isn't new and was to be expected. Where are our quarantine facilities? Where are they? Instead, the Prime Minister is expecting the hotels to kick back in and for the state premiers to pick up the job, even though it says quite clearly in the Constitution that it is a federal responsibility. This Prime Minister has known about this problem since early 2020. He says that this isn't new, that it was to be expected, so why hasn't he done his job and funded purpose-built quarantine facilities, instead of relying on our hotels and our hotel workers. Hotels were not built for quarantine. They were built for tourists. They were built for travellers. Those workers in those hotels have stepped up and tried to keep the rest of us safe, to keep the virus out of our communities. We've now been hit by a new variant, which has mutated. It is more transmissible and could see all of us plunged back into semi-lockdowns, part lockdowns—maybe not, but it will see more people get sick. If only we had purpose-built, federal funded quarantine facilities! If the Prime Minister had started back at the beginning of the pandemic, we'd have them built by now. We'd be facing this summer with confidence. Instead, people are now worried about this new concern. When will the Prime Minister of this country do his job? Wyangala Dam 61 13:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It started during the height of the Great Depression and was finished in 1935: I'm talking about Wyangala Dam. It cost 1.3 million pounds. It was built with a dam wall height of 85 metres. Now there's a proposal on the table to increase that by 10 metres. The initial cost is $650 million. I appreciate that cost will now be substantially more, but we need to get on and do it. That is agreed to by Tom Green, the chair of the Lachlan Valley Water. He says: We're urging the NSW Government to get on with this project to both greatly reduce the chance of major flooding in the Lachlan Valley and improve water security for irrigators and towns like Forbes, Parkes, Cowra, Condobolin, Lake Cargelligo and Hillston. He's right, of course: increasing the dam wall by 10 metres would increase the dam's capacity by 650 gigalitres, more than the Sydney Harbour. Melissa Brown, who runs Wattle Bower, downstream of Jemalong, with her husband, Tom, is keen to see the dam wall raised, as are many others—farmers, irrigators and the people in the town of Forbes, who are now facing their second major flood in five years with the peak expected to reach 10.2 metres tonight. It's time we got on with it. Commonwealth Integrity Commission 61 13:57 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand As we approach the end of the eighth year of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, years of doublespeaking from this Prime Minister have finally caught up with him. The Prime Minister said in question time last week that he wants to give Australians a choice. Well, he's given them a choice alright: the choice of whether to believe what he said yesterday or what he's saying today, a choice between what he tells one audience and what he tells another audience. His own MPs have taken him up on this invitation, choosing for themselves which half of the Prime Minister's doublespeak to believe and then choosing to cross the floor in the Reps and the Senate in response. Well, of course not the modern Liberals. The modern Liberals will pretend to agree with both sides of the Prime Minister's argument with the truth. They'll just go on voting with the government no matter the humiliation. They're pawns of the Morrison-Joyce government, lining up side-by-side with the Deputy Prime Minister, a collection of thin smiles in search of a spine. Barely one month ago the member for Higgins told this House that the government had been 'considering feedback' on its national Integrity Commission bill. It was 'refining' the draft legislation in order to introduce it into the parliament this year. Yesterday the Attorney-General confirmed not only are there no changes to the bill, no refinements, but it won't even be introduced this year. Womp womp womp wom! Sad trombone: it's the battle cry of the modern Liberal. Even worse: this humiliation wasn't enough for any of the modern Liberals to cross the floor to debate the national Integrity Commission bill last week. (Time expired) Fairfax Electorate: Sunshine Coast 61 13:59 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Demographer Bernard Salt says that the Sunshine Coast is the entrepreneurship capital of Australia. Sociologist Hugh Mackay says that the Sunshine Coast possesses the highest levels of social capital in Australia. It should therefore be of no surprise that our region is set to be home to a truly innovative idea: a food and beverage precinct. This was the idea of the Food and Agribusiness Network, known as FAN— The SPEAKER 265967 Order! It being two o'clock: the Prime Minister. MINISTRY 62 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 62 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I inform the House that the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf in the Trade, Tourism and Investment portfolio, and I will answer questions on his behalf representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Resources and Water will also be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID-19: Quarantine 62 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Nearly two years after COVID reached Australian shores, how many new federal quarantine facilities have opened? 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Leader of the Opposition would be aware of the Centre for National Resilience at Howard Springs, which has a capacity of 2,000 people. That was indeed the facility that the most recent facilitated flights, where we've been running those flights to bring Australians home from around the world—those flights that, more recently, over the last few weeks have come in from South Africa. There were the flights that went there. The one case of omicron that has come up has been identified there. They're in quarantine at that federally supported and funded facility. COVID-19, Regional Security, Cybersafety 62 14:01 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is taking action to keep Australians safe from threats such as the omicron COVID strain at home and abroad, and how the government is protecting Australians from faceless cowards online by holding social media giants to account for appalling online behaviour? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Mallee for her question. Our government has no more important responsibility than keeping Australians safe. We face threats in the physical world, of course: threats of the instability of the region in which we live, the defence actions that we must take, the threats of terrorism—there are many threats, health threats and many others, that we face in the physical world. But we also face those threats in the digital world, whether that's the threat of cyberattacks or, indeed, those anonymous online attacks that are made on Australians every day in a cowardly way. In terms of health, we are responding to the most recent strain in relation to COVID-19, the omicron strain. We have had many of these variants that have already come to Australia. We've been able to address and deal with those. In terms of omicron, we are undertaking sensible, balanced and proportionate responses working closely together with the states and territories. Tomorrow evening, the premiers, chief ministers and I will be meeting together to update further and get the latest information on what is being brought forward on this most latest variant that has been identified. We are listening to the best possible medical advice and evidence coming forward on this new strain. The best encouragement that we can give to all Australians is that 86.7 per cent are double dosed vaccinated. This is the strong protection that Australians have built up. That continues to provide us with a strong preparedness to deal with these strains and these variants as they come. In the Solomon Islands, Australian boots are on the ground: 45 Australian Federal Police and 76 Australian Defence Force officers from the third, sixth and 17th brigades in Townsville. They are there on the ground restoring calm. They are there enabling our own Pacific family to be able to deal peacefully with the issues in their own country. I welcome in particular the broader support we've had from Fiji, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand in the response that we've made to ensure that we can provide for a peaceful environment for these issues to be resolved in the Solomon Islands. I thank all of those who are there right now, in a place that has seen very serious civil unrest. I thank all of their families as well because they are going away. Weeks out from Christmas but they're doing their duty. When it comes to online safety, this government is taking action, as we always have— The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Gellibrand is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L throughout the course of this government, against the digital companies and the social media companies to ensure that Australians can be safe online. The legislation we're bringing forward will unmask the trolls. It will also ensure the digital media companies are held to account for what is being done to young people, particularly women and girls, in this country. (Time expired) COVID-19: Quarantine 63 14:05 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Prime Minister. Why doesn't Australia have any new federal quarantine facilities to strengthen our defences against new variants? Why does the Prime Minister always go missing when he has a job to do? 14:05 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook In response to the previous question, from the Leader of the Opposition, I made it very clear that that 2,000-space facility in the Northern Territory has been serving Australia extremely well. It has enabled Australians to come home from all around the world when Australians were coming back from parts of the world particularly impacted by the previous delta strain. Now those who are coming in facilitated flights out of southern Africa have been accommodated there in those federally supported facilities. The facilities in Melbourne are under construction. There are also the facilities in Western Australia and in Queensland, which will be there not just in the near term but for the longer term, ensuring that those facilities are there to deal with other pandemics when they will inevitably come to this country. Australia has had one of the lowest fatality rates in the world in relation to COVID. Australia has also had one of the strongest economies amongst the advanced world as we have pushed through COVID. Australia also now has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. It was this government that closed the borders. It was this government that ensured that Australia was protected early on in the pandemic and that has saved more than 30,000 lives by working together with states and territories around the country to produce one of the best responses to COVID in the world. Those opposite may want to talk down the achievements of Australians in responding to COVID. We will keep leading through the COVID crisis. Cybersafety 63 14:07 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is ensuring the online safety and wellbeing of those who live in regional and rural communities, particularly young Australians? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:07 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question and I note the work that he has done as a strong advocate for mental health, especially in his advocacy for the work of Fortem, which provides first responders like police, rural fire services and SES, among others, with mental health support. We note that in regional areas, and especially in remote areas, the time that is spent online by people, especially young kids, who haven't got other activities can be more than the 14.4 hours a week which is the average that people spend online. We remember especially the tragic death of Dolly Everett, who took her own life at the age of 14 after being bullied online. The time has come for us to make sure that we do more to protect and assist people with the trials and tribulations that come—especially parents with, in many instances, daughters who are being bullied, trolled and persecuted by anonymous people online. These people go with names that protect their identity, because they know full well that what they say is completely and utterly beyond the pale. They know that what they say is tailored in such a way as to create hurt, create harm and destroy people's lives—and in many instances it does. Our nation spends billions of dollars on mental health, and some of that is caused by those who are online—because it becomes an addiction. People fight the phantoms but never win, because the phantoms never declare themselves. They make a sport of it—the disgusting mechanism of being satiated by the capacity to harm another person. This government must do something, and I hope that all governments around the world will now do their part to bring these into line. It is not a matter of shutting down free speech; it is a matter of acting appropriately. Companies that make billions of dollars have the capacity to write the code to better protect those who use their product, a product which at the same time divests the fourth estate of their advertising revenue and the process of proper investigative journalism, which is so vitally important in maintaining a democracy. Upstairs in the fourth estate, above the Senate, there is Fairfax, or Nine; there's Channel Seven; there is the ABC; and there are overseas bureaus. But there is no room from which Facebook reports. This nation is going to stand up for those who remain vulnerable. COVID-19: Vaccination 64 14:10 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley My question is to the Prime Minister. More than a year ago, industry minister No. 6, out of the eight industry ministers of this government, announced that Australia would be producing its own mRNA vaccines by now. Since then there have been several announcements promising further announcements, and yet nothing has happened. Why not? 14:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The minister for industry may wish to add to the answer. We've been progressing strongly with the discussions we've been having with both CSL and Moderna in relation to the manufacturing of mRNA vaccines here in Australia. This is not a capability that other countries have, other than those who had it prior to the commencement of this pandemic. We're looking forward to those negotiations now proceeding to the next level. I've been having constructive discussions with premiers about the support that they can provide also for this facility. This is an important capability in relation not just to COVID vaccines—with which Australia is well supplied, particularly in relation to booster shots—but to the role that mRNA vaccines can play into the future. The suggestion by those opposite that this is something that could already have been established here is simply false. We are progressing well with this initiative, working with those who have that capability, and we look forward to it being brought to Australia. 14:12 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the Prime Minister for offering me the opportunity to add to his answer. Of course, an Australian manufacturer has already delivered 25 million vaccines, and there's potential to manufacture many more. This is all about making sure we have control over our own destiny, and that's why, on top of those 25 million vaccines that have been manufactured in this country, we're also developing a pathway to develop our own onshore manufacturing capability for mRNA. That has two core benefits. First of all, of course, it insures us against future pandemics and, indeed, variants such as we're seeing now. Also, it builds an industry capability and the jobs opportunity that comes with that. We know we are well positioned to build capacity in this very high-potential area of science. To get the best deal for Australia, we— The SPEAKER 265967 The minister will resume his seat. The member for Chifley. Mr Husic 91219 Mr Speaker, with respect, we don't need the background. My point of order is on direct relevance. When is it happening? That is what I asked. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Chifley will resume his seat. The minister has the call. The minister is being relevant. Mr TAYLOR 231027 Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, we're taking a two-part approach. We're having discussions with Moderna, who manufacture one of only two approved mRNA products in the world. I've personally spoken with the head of Moderna in Australia and the chief executive globally. Secondly, we approached the market for proposals from industry and are asking what support they would need from government. We're working through that process thoroughly now. This is important for Australia, it's important for manufacturing and it's an important part of ensuring that we can control our own destiny. We're getting on with the job. National Security 64 14:14 Mr KATTE HX4 Kennedy R () (): Prime Minister, what action is being take to secure national sovereignty over the only Panamax port facility in northern Australia, Darwin? Has Australia already suffered a $39 billion punishment for expressing an opinion questioning COVID's origins? Is not China's Global Switch still holding national defence data, while China controls and/or owns 43 per cent of Australia's electricity industry and 100 per cent of our solar electricity supply, with a further 25 per cent monopoly of solar electricity? Ninety-three per cent of our petrol and diesel are imported from Singapore and South Korea, countries beholden to China. What action on national security, Prime Minister? 14:14 Mr MORRISO E3L Cook N (—) (): The Treasurer may wish to add to the answer in relation to the activities of the Foreign Investment Review Board. This government has introduced the strongest foreign investment rules of any government. This government has said no to many proposals it believes would compromise Australia's national security. The one referred to by the member, in northern Australia, is currently the subject of a further assessment being undertaken by the Department of Defence. When it comes to protecting our national security, what you have to be conscious of is that you have to be prepared to make investments in your national security that can keep Australians safe. That's why, as a government, we have overachieved when it comes to restoring our investment in our defence forces and their capability; we're investing more than two per cent of our GDP, the size of our economy, in our defence capability. In addition to that, we have restored investments in the Australian Federal Police and our other security intelligence agencies so we can keep a close watch and take action wherever we need to, to ensure that Australia is protected—whether it's from the threat of organised crime or in counterterrorism or from the emergence, as we've seen, over the last many years of right-wing extremism and other forms of extremism in this country. Just last week we took the decision to list Hezbollah as a full terrorist organisation. This goes further to our resolve to address issues of national security. We have taken strong stands against those who have sought to coerce us. We have said things and rejected decisions they would have us make. We have stood up night and day, and called out the issues that need to be called out in our part of the world. We have worked closely with our partners and our allies to ensure we have the capability to defend Australia's interests in our part of the world. The AUKUS agreement has been one of the most significant, if not the most significant, working together with the United States and the United Kingdom to ensure Australia is working with its closest partners and allies, to have the capabilities we need to defend Australia in the face of the instability we know to be present in the Indo-Pacific region. It took our government to do that. It took our government to invest in our defence capability. It took our government to stand up to those who would seek to coerce us. We didn't have an each-way bet on national security on this side of the House. We have always stood up strongly to those who would seek to coerce us. Others may wish to appease. Our government will always stand up to those who seek to coerce Australia. COVID-19: Economy 65 14:17 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House of how the Morrison government's proven commitment to cutting taxes for families and businesses will help strengthen the rebound of our economy on the other side of the COVID pandemic? Most importantly, is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question and acknowledge his experience as a crocodile farmer, as a grazier, as a welder, as somebody who spent nine years in the RAAF. He and others on this side of the House understand the Australian economy has shown remarkable resilience. There have been 350,000 new jobs created since the start of September. We've seen consumer confidence up and we've seen a strong pipeline of investment. We're achieving this rebound in our economy at the same time as we're cutting taxes. Individuals on $60,000 a year, a teacher and a tradie, are $6,480 better off as a result of tax cuts that this side of the parliament has passed. When it comes to small businesses, they're now paying the lowest taxes in 50 years. When it comes to business investment incentives, we've seen a 20-year high in the growth of machinery and equipment investment off the back of our business investment incentives. I'm asked, 'Are there any alternative approaches?' Well, we know that that weak Leader of the Opposition came up with a national drivers licence. We know that that weak Leader of the Opposition wants to remove the fuel excise on electric vehicles even though there isn't an excise on electric vehicles. The SPEAKER 265967 The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance. To have a reference at the end of the question to other policies doesn't mean you can have a complete rant like this. The SPEAKER 265967 The question was, 'Is the Treasurer aware of alternative approaches?' rather than 'policies'. The Treasurer is being relevant and the Treasurer has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL We know that this weak Labor leader also wants to splash $6 billion on people who've already had the jab. We also know that if Labor is given half a chance on the Treasury benches they will introduce higher taxes. How do we know? Because when they were last in government they gave us the mining tax and a carbon tax which doubled the electricity price. Then we know that, in opposition, they railed against our income tax cuts, which the member for Rankin called offensive, and they were against our small business tax cuts. Then, at the last election, they took to the Australian people $387 billion of higher taxes on your superannuation, on your housing, on your income, on your family businesses and on retirees. We know that this weak Leader of the Opposition will not stand up to the Greens, he will not stand up to the co-architects of $387 billion— Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to the order of the House. It is not in order for the member to go for more than half of his three minutes on a personal sledge. It's got nothing to do with the question. The SPEAKER 265967 The Treasurer was asked questions in relation to the cutting of taxes, strengthening the economy and whether he was aware of any alternative approaches. I'm not in a position to determine whether the Treasurer should allocate a certain percentage of his answer to certain aspects. Mr Burke DYW To raise a question on the point you made, if you're not in a position to deal with how much of a proportion of a question is dealt with in different areas, how on earth are there rulings about preambles? How on earth have we had rulings about where you're in the first minute, or someone's just started? It is the role of the Speaker to decide whether or not question time is used for ministers to be accountable on their portfolios. The SPEAKER 265967 The Treasurer is relevant. The Treasurer has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL These are inconvenient truths for this weak Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Treasurer, who's barely in the chamber and barely gets a question, because they only stand for one thing and that's higher taxes and that's fewer jobs. (Time expired.) Budget 66 14:23 Dr 37998 Rankin CHALMERS () (): My question is to the Treasurer. How many funds in his budget are allocated at the discretion of the minister? What's their total value? 14:23 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong There are various funds which are in the budget that provide grants across various important areas of the economy. I can tell the member for Rankin that we don't have a pink batts scheme that wasted $2.4 billion. We have important programs across the budget which provide for competitive grants processes. COVID-19: Omicron 66 12:24 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please advise the House on how the Morrison government is responding to international developments in relation to the most recent COVID-19 variant of concern, omicron, and what action is being taken to protect Australians? 14:24 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Over the weekend we know that the total number of cases around the world increased to over 261 million cases and, very sadly, now almost 5.2 million lives lost officially. I want to thank the member for Higgins for her focus in this space as somebody with a lifetime's experience in health care and health policy. What's absolutely clear is, against that background, Australia has had one of the lowest rates of loss of life in the world—one of the three lowest rates of loss of life in the OECD. We now have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, and, after Israel, we are one of the first nations to have implemented a whole-of-nation booster program. The consequence of that is we now have over 92.3 per cent of Australians who've had a first vaccine, over 86.8 per cent of Australians who've a second vaccine and 415,000 Australians that have had boosters. We know that the WHO identified on Saturday, Australian time, a new variant of concern: the omicron variant. As a response to that, the Australian government has taken the following steps. We have immediately banned flights coming from the nine southern African nations where we have seen cases of omicron and the spread. We have, sadly, had to ban the arrival of non-Australians who have been in those countries. In addition to that, we have sought to make sure that all returning Australian citizens and residents and their dependents and immediate family who have been in those nine countries in the last 14 days enter quarantine here in Australia. In addition to that, those rules have applied to those that are coming from travel bubbles. So, all of these things are occurring in Australia. Today, the Prime Minister has taken it further and has commissioned a meeting of the National Security Committee of cabinet this afternoon to review measures, to review progress. He has also commissioned a meeting of the national cabinet, comprising the first ministers of states and territories along with the Prime Minister. I have asked ATAGI, through the secretary of Health, Professor Brendan Murphy, to consider the period for boosters, both in light of emerging international evidence and in light of anything which may come from omicron. But what is important is that—as Professor Paul Kelly, the Chief Medical Officer, has pointed out on many occasions—there is some evidence that this may be a milder variant. This is still to be determined, but that is an important sign, and the message to the House is: We've got through this. We've protected Australians. We'll continue to do so. (Time expired) Budget 66 14:27 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to his previous answer. If he doesn't know how many funds in his budget are allocated at the discretion of the minister and their total value, will he provide this answer at the end of today's question time? Shouldn't the Treasurer know how much of his trillion dollars in debt he's borrowed to spray around marginal seats? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 The Treasurer doesn't have the call yet. I haven't called the Treasurer yet! The Treasurer has the call. 14:28 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong There are programs like Roads of Strategic Importance, the Bridges Renewal Program, building better regions program, the Black Spot Program, the Stronger Communities Program. I would ask that the shadow Treasurer actually go and inspect the budget papers—probably something that he hasn't read—because the reality is these various programs support the economy. Roads of Strategic Importance, the Bridges Renewal Program, the building better regions program, Stronger Communities, the Black Spot Program—what has the member for Rankin got against those programs? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 I'm sorry, I can't hear you. The SPEAKER 265967 Is the Treasurer referring to a confidential document? The member for Rankin has the call. Dr Chalmers 37998 I ask that the Treasurer table the document from which he was reading, and, if not, will he provide the answer by the end of question time? The SPEAKER 265967 Is the Treasurer referring to a confidential document? Mr Frydenberg FKL No, it's publicly available. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr DYW I think the answer to the question that was given by the Treasurer said he was quoting from a publicly available document. I think that's what he was saying. Under standing orders, unless it's a confidential document, he has to table it. You asked him if it is a confidential document. If he's answered that it's not a confidential document then he has to table it. That's what the standing orders say. The SPEAKER 265967 The Treasurer did say that he was referring to a publicly available document but it was the budget papers that he was referring to. That is what he said. He doesn't need to table it. If it's a publicly available document then it doesn't need to be tabled. Does the Manager of Opposition Business want to resume at the dispatch box? Mr Burk DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. There have been many times when a Speaker, on the request that something be tabled, has intervened and said, 'I'm not even going to ask.' But on every occasion once the Speaker asks, 'Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?' if the answer is yes then it doesn't have to be tabled. If the answer is, 'No, it's not a confidential document,' which is what the Treasurer said, then it must be tabled. That's how this parliament has always run. The SPEAKER 265967 I'm happy to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I simply refer you to the ruling of Speaker Smith in relation to these matters, which is entirely consistent with the statements you've already made. It's a publicly available document and, on that basis, it does not need to be tabled. The SPEAKER 265967 Yes. The ruling I have made already—that, if it's a publicly available document, it doesn't need to be tabled—is consistent with the rulings of previous Speaker Smith. Cybersafety 67 14:32 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, representing the Attorney-General. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's strong stance on online safety, including yesterday's announcement to combat online trolls and strengthen defamation laws? Will the minister advise on any industry feedback on our proposed new laws? 14:32 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for Reid, who has a longstanding personal and professional interest in this as a psychologist with very advanced qualifications and of course as a mum. All of us on this side of the House—and, I'd suggest, in the entire chamber—are very concerned about online safety. The Morrison government has been at the forefront of delivering measures designed to give people the protection of the rule of law online, just as they have it offline. We cannot accept a situation in which social media is a place where cowards use the shield of anonymity to bully, harass and ruin lives. That's why we have now announced the next stage, building on measures that the government has already delivered, like the world's first eSafety Commissioner and legislation to deal with abhorrent violent material online. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Whitlam on a point of order? Mr Stephen Jones A9B Mr Speaker, it goes to the operations of the House. When the Prime Minister was answering questions on online trolling before, the member for Bowman— The SPE 265967 The member for Whitlam will resume his seat. You haven't stated a point of order. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI That interjection was clearly disorderly. There was no point of order. It was rant. If there is a question to you, it should be at the end of— The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER L6B This year we passed the Online Safety Act, which will take effect in January. These are very serious issues, and it's quite disappointing to see the trivialisation we're seeing from the member opposite. We have now announced a bill which will give the victims of defamatory online comments the power to proceed against the person who made the comments, through a complaints scheme, operated by the social media platform, or through a federal court setting the power to issue an end user information disclosure order, requiring the platform to disclose details of the person who posted that comment so that defamation actually can be pursued. Central to what we are setting out is giving the social media platforms a very strong incentive to disclose this information by granting them a conditional defence against being liable in defamation if they have a complaints scheme in place and if they share the information. But, if they don't, they will be held liable as a publisher. So we've been very clear on the principles and we've got a clear mechanism to deal with this problem. The Australian people are sick of anonymous trolls online conducting themselves with impunity, and we expect the platforms to do something about this. That is why we have now come forward with this detailed and well-thought-through regulatory framework. It's been widely welcomed. For example, the managing director of publishing at Nine Entertainment, James Chessell, said: Nine welcomes the government's announcement today, which will put responsibility for third-party comments made on social media pages with the person who made the comment, or with the platforms if the platforms cannot identify the person. This government has delivered a series of effective reforms to make the online environment a safe place in which to operate, and with this very significant announcement over the weekend we are continuing our work in this area. Commonwealth Integrity Commission 68 14:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I note it has now been more than 1,000 days since the Prime Minister stood next to the member for Pearce and announced a national anticorruption commission. It is the last week of parliament for the year. Isn't the Prime Minister delaying legislation to ensure a national anticorruption commission won't be established this term? 14:37 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member will be aware there's 349 pages of legislation the government has prepared in relation to the design of our proposal for a Commonwealth integrity commission. We have committed $150 million in the budget to support it. This is the Labor Party's proposal. It's two pages. See, the government has a proposal for such a commission. The member for Indi has a proposal. The Greens have a proposal. The Labor Party have no proposal. They have absolutely no proposal on this matter. The government has a set of legislation that we have made available and that has been carefully designed and consulted upon, and the Labor Party refuse to support it. The government's position on an integrity commission is very clear. There's 349 pages of well-drafted legislation to back it up. The Labor Party has no such proposal and no integrity on this issue. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move the following motion: That the government table its legislation for a national anticorruption commission. Leave not granted. Solomon Islands 68 14:38 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is taking a strong leadership role in assisting to restore public safety and rule of law in the Solomon Islands as part of our ongoing work to ensure a secure Pacific region in Australia's national interest? 14:39 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for his question. I think we in this place would all agree that Australia is a very proud leader within the Indo-Pacific region, and we will always work to support our Pacific neighbours during times of need. Our law enforcement agencies, in particular, take a very active role in assisting and working cooperatively throughout the region, and they have been doing that for a very long time. The violence, the looting and the civil unrest that is currently taking place in Honiara has, sadly, led to a number of deaths and resulted in very extensive property damage. That is very concerning to us here. It's very important to the people of the Solomon Islands that law and public order is restored as soon as it possibly can be. We've made it very clear that our role from Australia is not to involve ourselves in domestic political situations arising in the Solomon Islands. Our mission to the Solomon Islands is in fact very clear: we are there to work with the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force, to do all we can to restore stability in the region and to protect people and critical infrastructure. This is a very serious issue, and, once again, as a government, we have taken very immediate and decisive action to support one of our closest neighbours. Yesterday, extra Australian Federal Police personnel landed at Honiara, taking the number of AFP personnel on the ground to 70. Of course, there are ADF personnel on the ground as well as DFAT officers. Our AFP are uniquely positioned, having built a very strong working relationship with the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force over a number of years. They're working very closely to assist the local police to restore order and to investigate the criminal conduct of the rioters that are there at the moment. Every Australian can be so proud of the fact that we have elite and specialist police officers who are ideally suited to help with such a complex and challenging situation as that that exists in the Solomon Islands. They contribute far more than just mere numbers on the ground; they actually contribute a wealth of experience. I would like to thank the members of the Australian Federal Police for the work they do every single day to support us here in Australia and for the work they are doing in the Solomon Islands to support the police force there. I'd also like to thank the New South Wales Police Force, who have added to our presence on the ground in Honiara. As a government, we will always do all that we can to support our neighbours in the Pacific region. I thank everyone who has participated so far in supporting the Solomon Islands. 14:42 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I join with the minister, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, in thanking the members of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Defence Force for the work they're doing, assisting in the Solomons. We hope each and every one of them is able to return safely. Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction 69 14:42 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister's model of a national anticorruption commission have the power to investigate the energy minister meeting the environment department about an investigation into illegal poisoning of endangered grasslands on land in which he had a financial interest? 14:43 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General to respond to that. I assume that is one of the nine frivolous referrals that were made by the questioner that were dismissed. Australian Defence Force 69 14:43 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House on the Australian Defence Force's contribution to regional security in the Indo-Pacific? 14:43 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. He was talking to me over the weekend about the troops who were deployed from Townsville to the Solomon Islands. I know that, like everyone in this House, he wishes them a safe trip. The work they're doing in the Solomon Islands obviously augments the work the Minister for Home Affairs has just commented on with regard to the Australian Federal Police. It provides a security overlay, and it provides the ability to airlift and for people to be safely transported on some of the roads in and out of Honiara. As you'd be aware, Mr Speaker, the ADF personnel have come from 3, 17 and 6 brigades and from 4 Squadron RAAF, and they have provided support, including air combat controllers, the RE combat team and further supporting elements. I say thank you to all of those personnel. It's a very significant effort that they're making. It follows a request from our near neighbours in the Solomon Islands, and it says very clearly that Australia will always be there in the Indo-Pacific, standing by our partners, our friends and our family in this part of the world to help them, particularly in their hour of need, and to make sure that we can see peace prevail in our region. The RAAF responded very quickly last week. We are able to deploy rapidly to incidents like this, whether it be for a humanitarian disaster or civil disorder or under the bilateral security treaty that Australia has with the Solomon Islands, through which we are able to provide them with assistance. The reason we can do that so rapidly, and the reason that we are resourced so well within the Australian Defence Force, is that we've put significant additional funds into the ADF. What would make that very difficult, as we know from what Labor did in their period in government, would be reducing the amount of money into the Australian Defence Force. They reduced it to 1.5 per cent of GDP. The fact is that it's now up over two per cent. Mr Marles HWQ A point of order, Mr Speaker. There's a certain dignity that this answer should have, but there's also a question of relevance. No alternative proposition was asked for in the question. The SPEAKER 265967 That is correct. There was no reference to alternative approaches or policies. The minister will be relevant to the question. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Mr Speaker, I'll tell you why it's essential to have strong leadership and to invest in the Australian Defence Force, which is exactly what this Prime Minister has done. We've done that because we wanted to restore the disaster that we inherited from the Labor Party. We've been able to respond to this incident and to many more because we have put the money not just into the acquisition of the equipment that the ADF needs but also into the recruitment and training of ADF personnel. Mr Marles HWQ This point of order, Mr Speaker, is on the ground that this is utter rubbish. They're the ones who stuffed the subs. They're the ones who've opened up the capability gap. This is the worst national security government in our— The SPEAKER 265967 Order! The deputy opposition leader will resume his seat. I've asked the minister to remain relevant to the question, based on my previous ruling. The minister has the call. Mr DUTTON 00AKI The fact is that this government has invested and will continue to invest record amounts into the Australian Defence Force— Mr DUTTON 00AKI because we are not weak on national security. We are strong on national security. We demonstrate that through our actions. The Labor Party, through their weakness, condemn their own actions. (Time expired). The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Moreton is warned. Commonwealth Integrity Commission 70 14:48 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister's model of a national anticorruption commission have the power to investigate the purchase of land in the Leppington Triangle for 10 times its actual value? 14:48 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the shadow minister for her question. The facts are that our government has a well-developed model for a Commonwealth integrity commission. The full exposure draft of the bill underpinning our model is in the public domain and has been there for many months. We have committed $150 million in funding for our Commonwealth Integrity Commission, and we stand ready to proceed with the legislation should the Labor Party indicate that it wants to engage seriously on this matter rather than engage in the kinds of cheap political stunts that we have heard from the shadow Attorney-General and now the shadow minister for infrastructure. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Hotham is warned. Mr FLETCHER L6B We are getting on with engaging seriously with the important question of public policy, and we stand ready to introduce this legislation as soon as the Labor Party show us that they are ready to work seriously on this and work with us. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Shortland is warned. Cybersafety 70 14:49 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for Women. Will the Minister update the House on how the Morrison government is committed to keeping Australian women and all Australians safe online? 14:50 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and commend her for her leadership in her electorate with women and young girls. The Morrison government is committed to protecting Australians from online harms. This includes protecting them from harmful, defamatory comments made by online trolls. This is such an important piece of legislative reform. It will make a difference that really counts in a challenging and fraught public policy area when you consider the demands and pressures of the online world and how profoundly they are felt by younger women. Many of us in this place who were at school or were young women before social media became such a powerful and defining force in people's lives may need to remind ourselves that it is a different landscape that now exists when it comes to relationships and social interactions, and there is real hurt and damage being done by online trolls. As I said, this is critically important if we think about how vulnerable women are in their teenage years and young 20s, how vulnerable our daughters are now, and how what your friends and your peer group think about you becomes your whole world, a world that can too easily come crashing down under the force of online trolling. To call it by its name, 'slut shaming' is one of the worst forms of cyberbullying, when young women are targeted on social media and bullied and humiliated because of the way they look, the way they dress and their presumed level of sexual activity. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for McEwen is warned. Ms LEY 00AMN How do you, as a young, vulnerable woman, begin to take action against anonymous trolls who are motivated to destroy your reputation? These reforms will permit more Australians to seek redress for online harms, because anonymity should not be weaponised to abuse, harass or bully a person or damage their state of mind. In some circumstances, social media companies will be expected to introduce mechanisms to allow those who post anonymous defamatory content to be identified with consent or with a court order. If anonymous trolls can't be identified, social media companies could be liable in defamation or as publishers of that content under our proposed legislation. This is particularly important for Australian women because we know that women are the greatest targets of online abuse, with research showing that a third of all Australian women had experienced abuse or harassment online. This needs to stop. I know that all sides of the House agree with this. The Morrison government is committed to keeping Australian women and, indeed, all Australians safe in the real world and safe online. The SPEAKER 265967 Before I call the member for Sydney, I just want to make sure that the member for Hotham heard my warning earlier over the noise. Member for Bowman 71 14:53 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. What impact would the government's proposed controls on trolls on social media have on the reported online activities of the member for Bowman? 14:53 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The question may have asked for a legal opinion, Mr Speaker, and I will leave that within your ambit and your guidance. I can tell you what our laws do, and I note the jeers and the sneers that have come against government speakers who have been speaking on this matter, including the Minister representing the Minister for Women. We believe this is a very serious issue. We believe this is an incredibly serious issue. I doubt there's a parent in this country who does not on a nightly basis have concerns about what their children are being exposed to online and the abuse and harassment that can take place. I know I feel that way as a parent, I know Jenny does, and I would think that every single parent in this place would. So this is a serious piece of legislation that the government is bringing forward. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, it's on direct relevance. The points that the Prime Minister is making now are points that the House would agree with, but they are not relevant to the question. The question goes to the behaviour of one of the members of his own government and what impact the legislation will have there. There's no objection to what the Prime Minister is saying, but it's not relevant to this question. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Mackellar is not being helpful. I'm happy to hear from the Leader of the House on this point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI On the point of order, clearly the legislation proposed by the government has equal applicability and applies to all Australians equally. For the legal opinion that is being sought by the honourable member opposite, there can be no expectation that the Prime Minister can offer an opinion on a particular matter. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I think the point of order made by the honourable member opposite is in fact not in order and the Prime Minister is relevantly answering a wideranging question and he is completely in order. The SPE 265967 The question does go to the impact of the policy in relation to specifically the member for Bowman, which in effect does call for a legal opinion. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Just to that point of order regarding a legal opinion, I'd refer you to page 558 of Practice, where it deals with legal opinions. It refers to the interpretation of a statute or an international document. It does not refer to proposed legislation. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business is quite right about that point. However, the question also calls for a matter of opinion. It may not necessarily be a legal opinion because it's not a bill, but it is still asking for an opinion as to what impact or what effect the policy would have specifically in relation to the member for Bowman. I'll allow the Prime Minister to continue his answer. Mr MORRISON E3L The legislation we'll be bringing forward means that everybody should identify themselves online when they're making statements or making posts so they can be accountable for that. It will apply right across the country. Where the social media companies do not identify that individual, they will be identified as the publisher. That is what our bill does. That is what our proposed remedy is. It builds on the world-leading Online Safety Act and the work that is being done to combat the use of the internet by terrorists. It builds on the work being done by the world's ever first eSafety Commissioner. All of the work we're doing here is to stand up for Australians who are at risk in the online environment. Those who are most at risk are our young people and our women. I would hope that this would have bipartisan support. I would call for it to have bipartisan support and not be used in the typical political game playing that we get from the opposition. This is a very serious issue, and I would have thought the Labor Party would have been only too quick to support it. But that doesn't seem to be the case by the jeers and the interjections we've had on this matter today. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business stated that a legal opinion doesn't apply unless it's a statute. Well, it goes further than that. It says: Legal opinions, such as the interpretation of a statute, or of an international document, or of a Minister's own powers, should not be sought in questions. So it is further than just that in relation to legislation. National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 72 14:59 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet. What are the next steps for implementing the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse? How will it raise awareness of child sexual abuse and help victims and survivors? 15:00 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I thank the member for her questions. Sadly, child sexual abuse in Australia is growing. Between 2014 and 2019 the number of sexual assaults against children and young people recorded by police increased by 21 per cent. Percentages can tell you part of the story, but that increase is from 13,353 to 16,140 individual reports. Online reports of child abuse from April-June 2019 compared with April-June 2020 increased by 122 per cent. In October the Prime Minister launched the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. That strategy has been endorsed by government leaders from all of the states and territories. The consultation that went into that strategy commenced in 2018 and built on the royal commission findings. The strategy is a 10-year, whole-of-government approach to preventing and better responding to child sexual abuse in all settings. The strategy will focus on education, supporting victims and survivors, enhancing national responses to children with harmful sexual behaviours, offender prevention and intervention, and additional support for evidence and research. I'm pleased that the strategy has been welcomed by those in the sector. Dr Michael Salter, who's the Scientia Associate Professor for Criminology from the University of New South Wales said that the national strategy is values driven, it's practical, incorporating cutting edge evidence and policy design to prevent abuse before it occurs and promotes the rights and wellbeing of survivors. It is the most comprehensive plan to tackle child sexual abuse in Australia's history and will set a global benchmark. Hetty Johnston, the founder of Bravehearts, said that all that knowledge gained from the royal commission is powerfully wrapped up in digestible actions for organisations and people everywhere so it never happens again. Over the coming months, the National Office for Child Safety will establish formal stakeholder consultation mechanisms in relation to the rollout of the strategy. They will have a strong focus on engaging with victims and survivors and hearing from priority groups who are disproportionately impacted by child sexual abuse. The national office will also engage with those in the not-for-profit sector and non-government stakeholders and with government stakeholders at state and territory level to develop targeted resources for all priority groups. This is important work of this government. I know it's supported by those opposite, it's supported by all the territory and state governments, and it's important that those victims survivors who provided evidence to the royal commission know that we are getting on with this important work. Climate Change 72 15:03 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The government signed up to the COP26 request for countries to strengthen their 2030 targets by the end of 2022. But just hours later, the government said its 2030 target was 'fixed'. Why did the Prime Minister tell the world one thing and then tell the Australian people the exact opposite? 15:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member's question is not telling the truth. The COP26 arrangement was that members were invited to look at these things, and that's all we agreed to do. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Members on my left, if they weren't interjecting, could probably hear the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L The member who asked the question has misrepresented what occurred at COP26. They can't just bend it to suit their political sledges and to try and pursue the political games they so much enjoy and love in this place. What was put forward by the member is just incorrect. We have a 2030 target and we have a plan to achieve that 2030 target. We have a 2050 target and we have a plan to achieve that target. Those opposite don't have a 2030 target. They don't have a plan to achieve that target. They don't have a plan to achieve even their 2050 target and, as with so many things before this next election, they are a vacant space, so all the Australian people can assume is what they did at the last election, which was to have targets. The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Unsurprisingly, it's on direct relevance. There's nothing about alternatives in the question, and the entire answer is about alternatives. The SPEAKER 265967 The question goes to the government's policy in relation to COP26—strengthening targets. I would ask the Prime Minister to remain relevant to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L The projection that we provided to COP26 is that we will have a 35 per cent reduction in emissions on our 2005 levels. We're already at 20.8 per cent below our 2005 levels, which exceeds so many other countries, like the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and many more. The Australian achievement on reducing our emissions, particularly for economies such as ours, has occurred at the same time as we've seen the largest expansion of our LNG industry. Our government is delivering on reducing emissions but at the same time ensuring that we're seeing electricity prices fall. Our policy is about technology, not taxes. Those opposite are interested in taxes; we're interested in technology. They reject our policy, which is for technology, not taxes. That's what our policy is. They're not for that. Our policy is for people to have choices, not to be told what do to do by the government when it comes to what they want to buy and what they want to drive. That's our policy. We want choices, not mandates. Those opposite are opposing our policy. Our policy is to have a portfolio of technologies, whether it's hydrogen or carbon capture, use and storage. We want to see the funds from ARENA and other important government programs that can invest in these. The Labor Party are against it because they voted against carbon capture and storage. To all of those up in the Hunter, all of those who work in the aluminium sector and all of those who work in the minerals industry, the Labor Party voted against us spending resources on— (Time expired) Australian Natural Disasters 73 15:07 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia, representing the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience. Will the minister please outline the arrangements the Morrison-Joyce government has in place to ensure we are well prepared for floods, bushfires and other natural disasters this season? 15:07 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Parkes for his question and acknowledge not only his leadership but also the member for Riverina's, particularly over the last week, and, I suspect, coming into this week, as further forecasts are showing significant rainfall hitting northern New South Wales. We won't just see houses inundated with water. We have already seen millions of dollars wiped off this year's winter crop, a crop that was there to help those farmers that have endured drought to rebound. Sadly, we will continue to work with the New South Wales government in monitoring that and quantifying the damage. We will work with them constructively, as we have in Queensland, already this year, and in South Australia and Victoria. That is the premise on which this government has worked since the bushfires of last year to ensure that we have a national approach. That's why we stood up the National Recovery and Resilience Agency on 1 July—to make sure that we have a coordinated approach, that we have people on the ground who can get around kitchen tables and work with those that have been impacted and who understand not just federal programs but also state programs, so no-one falls through the cracks. We've also stood up the Australian Climate Service, which is pivotal in bringing together data and information from 10 agencies, including the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, so that we have real-time data that we can provide to emergency services personnel to ensure they understand the gravity of the threat. It's also to ensure that we're prepared and ready immediately after the threat has dissipated and that we can get people into those areas and respond appropriately between federal and state agencies. It's never been done before, and it's an important step in protecting Australians into the future. We're also supporting that through the ERF. Of the $50 million that went into flood mitigation last year, $17.2 million has gone to the jurisdictions and I can ensure the House that the balance of that $50 million will go out in the next couple of weeks as jurisdictions satisfy the requirements of that. In fact, we will reopen again for this year so that $50 million in mitigation works are out there. We're also doing Rebuilding Australia, with $600 million going into projects, including $400 million for community projects, to build resilience—like a levy bank around a large community to not only protect it but to drive down insurance costs. We're also working with households. We've already done that in Queensland. We're supporting households by partnering with them to try to do improvements to their homes to improve their resilience against cyclones, floods or bushfires. We're undertaking practical measures of support to partner with the states. This is a joint partnership protecting Australians now and into the future. Australian Natural Disasters 74 15:10 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claimed that his Emergency Response Fund would fund immediate response activities with up to $200 million a year. But the Prime Minister spent nothing for more than two years and has only recently spent the first $17 million. With people in my electorate still living in caravans, and parts of New South Wales now flooded, why didn't the Prime Minister use the money for immediate response activities like he said he would? 15:11 Mr M E3L Cook Eden-Monaro for her ORRISON (—) (): I thank the member forquestion on the very serious issue of providing support to constituents as a result of those bushfires. The answer to the question is: because we have already provided $1.7 billion from the National Bushfire Recovery Fund that's been delivered to locally led efforts on the ground. That includes $350 million for the local economic recovery projects in impacted communities, which includes those in the member's electorate but also in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia; and there's funding to support a range of mental health assistance and counselling, small business advice, hardening telecommunications infrastructure and primary producer assistance. Also, the $280 million Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program is assisting communities directly impacted by the Black Summer bushfires to address remaining priority bushfire recovery and resilience needs. Applications for that opened on 22 July 2021. The Emergency Response Fund was to be there where there weren't other funds available. We created those extra funds. We did that in the middle of the fires themselves. That allocation of funding was made and, as I said, $1.7 billion has been provided; and we will continue to provide that support. The Emergency Response Fund is drawn on where there is a need for support in addition to the funding available, but I made it very clear that our government would continue to provide the resources that were needed for what was then the Bushfire Recovery Agency, which is now the agency led by the honourable Shane Stone that has people on the ground working with people to ensure they can get the support they need. One of the most important of those, as the member will recall—I thank the state member for Bega, Mr Constance, who worked very closely with me to ensure that the small business grants program was able to be more responsive to the needs on the ground. We worked together on that program, and I know he was very pleased that we've been able to deliver that support on the ground. So $1.7 billion has already been delivered directly on the ground, with more funds still to follow. The recovery effort takes time, as the minister indicated in the answer to the previous question. It is very important that we are in there for the long haul, and hundreds of millions of dollars will continue to flow to these affected communities as they are building back and building their resilience for the future. COVID-19: Pacific Region 74 15:14 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Regional Health and Minister assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Bruce is warned! Mr SHARMA 274506 Will the minister please update the House on Australia's contributions to COVID-19 vaccination efforts in the Pacific? 15:14 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I'd like to thank the member for Wentworth for his question and acknowledge his stellar career as a diplomat before looking after the people of Wentworth. The Morrison-Joyce government stepped up immediately with the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting vaccine rollout and other health support across the Asia-Pacific. There has been $750 million worth of direct support into the Pacific and Asia, initially with PPE, health technology support and skills. But we also made a commitment of 60 million doses of vaccine to our Asia-Pacific neighbours. We have sourced 9.2 million doses of those vaccines from our own production, including 2.3 million doses across our Pacific family of nations. Over one million doses have been delivered in Fiji alone. There's also been support with distribution, training, planning support and AUSMATs where required, as well as facilitating national rollout programs. We've delivered marketing and 'sleeves up' information campaigns and engaged with community leaders in the islands of the Pacific, working with their companies and addressing vaccine hesitancy amongst many of the islands' health workers. There are a huge number of vaccines running around the Asia-Pacific courtesy of the COVAX facility, to which Australia has also contributed. In fact, there's $130 million worth of support to deliver 100 million vaccines across the Pacific. So what I can say to our Pacific family of nations and friends is that we stand with them. We're keen to support them to get through this pandemic, get international trade, travel and tourism going again, and kickstart their regional economies again. So Australia stands ready to help. We have helped and will continue to help our Pacific family into the future. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 75 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Documents 75 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson While the Treasurer is still in the room, Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. As I raised with you during question time, Practice says: If a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs, a Member may ask for it— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Manager of Opposition Business, I'll just get you to start the question again once— Mr BURKE DYW Well, that means that he's gone, and the document's gone with him. The SPEAKER 265967 Well, I can't hear you when— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Order on my left! The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr BURKE DYW Mr Speaker, I'll quote from Practice. It is relevant to whether the Treasurer should have tabled a document that he's now taken from the House, as I provided to you during question time. Page 510 of Practice says: If a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs, a Member may ask for it to be presented to the House. The document must be presented unless the Minister states that it is of a confidential nature. This rule does not apply to private Members. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that the Treasurer did not state that the document was of a confidential nature; he stated the exact opposite and then refused to table it, which is in breach of a very clear statement in Practice. 15:18 The SPEAKER 265967 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I have dealt with that issue already. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Members on my left! I have dealt with that issue. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS Presentation 75 15:18 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. BUSINESS 75 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 75 15:18 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I present a chart showing the program of sittings for 2022. Copies of the program have been placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the program be agreed to. Leave granted. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That the program of sittings for 2022 be agreed to. 15:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson In adopting the program, it's important for members to know exactly what the program for next year looks like. You would go a long way in history to find a year where there are so few sitting days in the first half of the year. This is effectively a sitting calendar designed for a parliament that meets as rarely as possible between now and the next election. In the month of January: no parliamentary sitting—unsurprising. In the month of February: seven days. Seven days! Then you think, 'Maybe they make up for it in March.' In the month of March: three days. Those three days are budget week, and they've been making clear that their intention is to go to an election following the budget. If it's a May election like they've been saying, that means we would not come back in June, because of the time it takes for ballots to be declared, and after that we next sit in August. On that basis, over December, January, February, March, April, May, June and July there will be 10 sitting days of the federal parliament. Ten days when the parliament will sit over all of that time from the end of this week through to 9 August next year. Ten sitting days! I admit, 10 sitting days is enough for the government to get through their whole agenda! I get that. But, in terms of scrutiny and in terms of a government being accountable, this is a calendar for a government that wants to hide from scrutiny. This is a calendar from a government that will do anything to avoid answering questions. Next year's calendar is a calendar from the sort of government that has made a decision that on its watch there will never be an anticorruption commission. In those 10 days, three of them are budget week, and they're saying they're not going to introduce an anticorruption commission this year. That means on their watch there will never be an anticorruption commission. This calendar is that decision in colour coded form. That's what they've decided. That's what's being put to the House. We won't vote against the calendar, because that would mean parliament wouldn't meet at all, but can I make absolutely clear: if there were ever an active moment that the government gave up, this is it. Question agreed to. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 76 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 11 of 2021-22 76 15:23 The SPEAKER 265967 I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 11 of 2021-22, entitled Australian National University'sgovernance and control framework: Australian National University. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 76 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Fifth Annual Statement on Veterans and their Families 76 Reference to Federation Chamber 83 16:08 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS 83 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 83 16:08 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I wish to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CRAIG 99931 Many times. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 I call the member for Hughes. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Last Saturday, 27 November, the Daily Telegraph published the following paragraph: From being a guest speaker at anti-vaccine, anti-lockdown rallies featuring gallows, nooses and Nazis, Kelly, and financial backer Clive Palmer, have embarked on misinterpreting vaccine data in a scare campaign. This public assertion is false, deceptive and misleading in multiple respects. Firstly, there has been no misinterpretation of the vaccine data. It remains a fact that the long-term safety data remains unknown. Secondly, this ambiguously worded paragraph creates the impression that the rallies featured Nazis—namely, Mr Kelly and Mr Palmer. Alternatively it creates the impression that these rallies have featured Nazis, and that I am somehow associated with them. Either way, this is a disgraceful, slanderous representation that is a new low for the mainstream media. These rallies are about citizens protesting that they are being forced to carry digital identity papers to fully participate in society. These rallies are protesting about the superstitious— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Member for Hughes, I must intervene. The standing orders provide that you can indicate to the House where you've been misrepresented, which you have adequately done. I believe you're now straying into argument about the matter. I invite you to come to a conclusion if there's no other misrepresentation that you wish to bring to the attention of the House. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I will conclude with the misrepresentation that the rallies featured Nazis. On Saturday the rally featured Uncle Max, an Indigenous elder, who gave a magnificent speech and led the protest. Such media reporting, resorting to Nazi slurs, slanders everyone who attended these rallies and it also slanders great men like Uncle Max. BILLS 84 BILLS Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 84

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021

Returned from Senate 84 Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 84

Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading 84 Third Reading 84 16:12 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021 84

Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021

Second Reading 84 16:12 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021 concerns the procedures by which public companies execute their government obligations under the corporations law. It makes permanent a number of temporary changes to those procedures—changes that were introduced to help public companies manage their obligations under the laws during the height of the COVID period. These temporary changes are mostly due to expire next year. Labor supports making them permanent by amending the Corporations Act. The requirement to hold annual general meetings is the most significant of the governance procedures this bill is concerned with. For many decades, public companies have been required to hold their annual general meetings in person. Typically, depending on the size of the company, this was done in a public forum like a ballroom or similar. Clearly this arrangement was not suitable once the pandemic hit. Labor was happy, therefore, to temporarily move to virtual annual general meetings to avoid having shareholders and executives congregate in close quarters, which obviously would have been a breach of the public health orders then operative, and failing to have the annual general meeting would have been a breach of their obligations under the corporations law. It was a sensible and pragmatic workaround. We have always been guided by the best health advice, and clearly these arrangements did not fall within that advice. For many months now annual general meetings have been conducted via teleconference, with participants dialling in, or by videoconference, with participants participating from their laptop computers, their tablets or their phones. This means the means by which these meetings are taking place has changed, but the purpose of the annual general meeting has not. AGMs serve as an important forum by which shareholders who own a company are given an opportunity to have their say in the running of that company. It gives them a means of scrutinising and holding to account the decisions of the executives in whom they place their trust and their investments. The purpose of annual general meetings is to elect directors and vote on senior executive positions and remuneration. Motions are debated and voted on. Questions can be asked of management with the expectation of an answer. In Labor's view, it is important that the sanctity of these rights—shareholder rights, the company's owners' rights—be preserved. We are concerned about the potential for virtual AGMs to dilute them. It's not in the wording of the legislation, but there is potential for the practice to be misused. They effectively give the chair of the meeting the equivalent of the remote control to the TV, and as anyone sitting in their living room watching the TV of an evening knows, whoever has the remote control controls what everyone else watches. Potentially it's exactly the same thing. That's why our initial support of the move to virtual AGMs was contingent on them being in place temporarily for the duration of the pandemic, and that's why we will be moving amendments at the third reading stage of this bill that will establish a statutory independent review process of how these virtual AGMs are working. It is important to note that it's not mandatory to have a virtual AGM. It'll be in the shareholders' hands in the first instance as to whether it's a wholly virtual, a hybrid or a traditional AGM. It's our intention that such a review would be conducted through a prism of preserving the shareholders' rights. There is no downside to such an approach. If a review finds that shareholders are being restricted from asking questions or properly debating motions and the remuneration and appointment steps are being frustrated, steps can be taken by this parliament, based on the recommendations of that review, to address those deficiencies. If, on the other hand, the review finds that there has been no dilution of rights, in fact or in practice, shareholders and executives can have both confidence and certainty that the new system is operating as this parliament intends it to. We could have insisted on such a review before offering our support for the bill, but we recognised that our corporations need certainty before the exploration of the temporary arrangements next year. We do not want to stand in the way of such certainty, but we maintain the need for a review, and I strongly commend our amendment to the House, because the fact is that, if such a review can provide confidence in virtual AGMs, there will be some benefits out of that. Anyone who has followed these propositions closely would know that there is some consternation amongst some of the shareholder groups and the accountability groups that it will be used as a forum to override shareholder rights. On balance, we don't think it does that, but those objections cannot be lightly dismissed, and the proposition that we advance will enable them to be ventilated. Without giving away anything else that I've said in my meetings directly with directors' representative organisations, quite simply, the challenge, the ball, is in their court. If these new powers are dealt with responsibly, the review will find that and shareholders will be happy with the new arrangements. As somebody who comes from a regional area, I'm quite certain that most of the shareholders who come from the electorate that I represent—as well as people who reside in regional New South Wales or in other parts of Australia, particularly if they are working—cannot take a day off work to travel all the way to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or occasionally Perth, where most of the AGMs are to attend such an AGM In fact, there's a very valid argument that suggests allowing a mechanism for virtual AGMs is actually extending and expanding the capacity to participate in these important shareholder forums. Despite the importance of AGMs to the proper execution of corporate governance, the fact is that only a small percentage of shareholders regularly attend them in person. As I said, it is particularly difficult for people who live in regional Australia or people in full-time work. Often large shareholders, for entirely valid reasons, attend via proxy using some of the excellent proxy services offered in the market to do so. But, for many smaller shareholders, attendance is made difficult by, for instance, lack of time through work obligations or even by the lack of disability support. Virtual AGMs do offer the potential means to surmount these tyrannies, which would be a welcome development. But we do need to be mindful of ensuring that attempting to improve participation in AGMs by making them virtual does not have the opposite effect. If shareholders feel that they are less able to ask questions and hold executives to account, that is exactly what would happen. That is why we need a proper independent review, and that's why Labor calls upon the House to support our amendments to this bill. I commend the bill to the House, and 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 calls on the government to ensure that an independent review of this bill is conducted within two years of its implementation, with particular emphasis on the ability of small shareholders to hold company directors to account through general meetings". The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Rishworth HWA Yes, I absolutely second this amendment. 16:22 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to support the second reading of the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021, which has two core elements to it. Obviously, we've learned a lot in the last two years about how rapidly you can change and adapt to circumstances that unexpectedly befall you—that has been the case across the planet in so many ways because of the coronavirus pandemic—and how so many everyday things in our lives had to change almost instantaneously as we put in place health measures and restrictions to protect people from a health point of view but equally with far-reaching consequences for our economy and for our society. It is nice to be at the point now—with some trepidation due to the news in recent days—that we continue in this nation to open up economically and shed some of the final restrictions that have had to be in place for so long as we have managed the health challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a bill, of course, that I suppose is very much from the experience that we had in responding to the pandemic. Like many other things, it's something that maybe now in hindsight we are surprised that we hadn't already addressed. Maybe, in hindsight, it does seem surprising that we hadn't already sought opportunities to undertake these kinds of progressive reforms, which in my judgement will certainly make administration for businesses a lot easier, a lot more relevant and a lot more modern. Equally, I think it will provide much greater transparency and access to information for people who should be entitled to that—namely, shareholders. The first part of the bill is fairly straightforward and I don't think requires much dwelling upon. It is about expanding the way in which you can execute the signing of documents. What's being proposed here to allow companies to do that in more digitally friendly ways seems like the sort of reform that we would've been looking at regardless of health pandemics and those experiences, and I welcome the fact that the learning of the last two years around this sort of reform is fairly straightforward. To me, through the consultation that the minister has done on these changes and the experience that people have had through the temporary measures that were put in place, there has been no suggestion in any way that these changes are of any concern. Certainly, I think they will bring about a great deal of efficiency in the various legislative processes that are required for people to satisfy their governance requirements under the Corporations Act. I think that makes a lot of sense, and I don't think anyone has disputed that. The second part of this bill is, of course, providing more flexibility and more options for the holding of meetings, particularly the annual general meetings of companies. I've certainly been to a lot of annual general meetings in my time as a member of the Liberal Party, but I will be honest and say I can't recall ever attending the annual general meeting of a corporation. I've certainly attended the annual general meetings of community groups et cetera, but I've not been to one as a shareholder despite being a shareholder in various ways throughout the entirety of my adult life and even before than that. My parents were very strong on financial education, and I became a shareholder at the very young age of 11 or 12. I remember having an interest in the processes of the way in which public companies, in particular, operated, but I never felt compelled to attend the annual general meeting of any of the companies I had a shareholding in. However, I do remember always having the opportunity, always being invited. Although, living in Adelaide, it was never that much of a practical consideration, whether it was a shareholder like me or anyone else, to make the dedicated commitment to travelling to, perhaps, Sydney or Melbourne where the company was holding that annual general meeting to attend it. Of course, the other communications, the annual report of the business, the notice of meeting et cetera, gave you in some ways enough of an understanding of what was going to transpire there. The important thing is that I always knew, like any shareholder knows, that I had the opportunity, if I wanted to and if I could, to access the annual general meeting, and at that annual general meeting I might have the opportunity to ask some questions of the chair of the board, the CEO, other directors et cetera and perhaps raise issues I had about the direction of the company and the decisions the board was making. This is particularly important for smaller shareholders, because large shareholders in companies—the particularly large ones—tend to have a direct line of sight into the boardroom of that company. Probably, if their holding is significant enough, they have a seat on the board, whether they take that themself or have someone that they've supported into that position, and they have access to a lot of information about the company and the decisions that the company is making. For smaller shareholders, who don't have the capacity to elect themselves or someone that they can regularly discuss issues related to the company's decision-making with, access to that annual general meeting and questioning of board directors is their once-a-year chance to raise issues they've got as an investor with the company they invest in. In a different era, it was always very important that companies held their annual general meetings in a well publicised way and at a venue that could accommodate a reasonably foreseeable attendance of shareholders, regardless of the size of a person's shareholding, so that everyone had equal access to the AGM. I know that in South Australia there have been some prominent annual general meetings. News Corporation used to hold their annual general meeting in Adelaide, given Adelaide was where Rupert Murdoch first started his career in newspaper publishing when he inherited Adelaide paper The News at the death of his father. That tradition of having the meeting in Adelaide was kept for many decades, but, sadly, it is no longer. I remember in my childhood it was quite a significant event when the global directors of News Corporation would come to Adelaide. Equally, BHP at times have held their annual general meeting in Adelaide. As I understand it, they have a rotation. A few years ago it was Adelaide's turn to host the annual general meeting of BHP, given of course we have in South Australia the substantial Olympic Dam mine, one of the most significant assets that BHP have. They had decided at times to have their AGM in Adelaide. Santos is a substantial South Australian company, the most significant South Australian headquartered company on the ASX. Apart from those companies that I've listed, the vast majority of ASX 100 listed companies do not have their annual general meeting in my lovely city of Adelaide. If you're a shareholder of some of the major companies on the stock exchange, it is unlikely that you are going to be able to physically attend each and every AGM of the companies you have a shareholding in by hopping onto a plane and going to either Sydney or Melbourne, where the vast majority of these annual general meetings happen. The coronavirus pandemic and the restrictions around the physical congregation of people provided an opportunity to trial the concept of annual general meetings going virtual. To my own observation, this has been a great success. An annual general meeting in physical times might have been attended by a few hundred people, for the more significant companies with large shareholdings, at a reasonable expense as well. Holding an annual general meeting—booking a venue, having catering, coffee and tea and things—is not insignificant. They would be accessed by maybe a few hundred people, whereas a virtual annual general meeting or a hybrid model of some type giving every shareholder the ability to attend virtually will provide the opportunity into the future for many thousands rather than hundreds of people to attend. They will be able to hear from the leadership of the companies that they invest in, and the virtual meetings will, very importantly, provide an opportunity for shareholders to ask questions of the senior leadership of the companies. I honestly believe that it's in the best interests of the companies to embrace that component of virtual annual general meetings in particular and to use it as an opportunity to take more questions and inquiries from their shareholders than has been the tradition in days gone by when they've had a limited physical meeting. I actually think it does the company a service and it shows their investors a confidence when the board of management takes more queries and inquiries from investors about what the company is doing and why. They will be able to provide an answer to questions not just to the person who's asked but to all the people who are attending the virtual annual general meeting. This process can be a real democratisation of access to shareholders so that they can get a better understanding of what decisions are being made by the companies that they are investing in. Virtual annual general meetings are a very good opportunity for more people to participate in a very important annual process of hearing from the leadership of the company explain some of their decisions, some of their financial results et cetera and take questions. It will be very much embraced by a much larger cohort of people than were able to attend when the meetings were held physically. Clearly, running physical meetings means making a decision to have them in a particular city, usually Sydney or Melbourne, and therefore disenfranchising people who simply would not see it as being worth their while to undertake the personal expense of travelling to that meeting. Equally, as I said, the opportunity to have a virtual meeting will also provide for a lot more scrutiny and oversight of the decisions of the senior leadership of companies, and that is a good thing. This does bring us into the 21st century. I think it's something we will continue to look at beyond just the provisions in this bill to deal with the requirements and governance requirements of corporations. I could see the issues within this around the signing of documents et cetera within the Corporations Act as potentially being something that becomes completely ubiquitous across society into the future. I know it's already very commonplace to use electronic signatures et cetera to prescribe documents. I can foresee that that probably will become the norm across most of the signing that we have to do—maybe not as quickly for members of parliament, necessarily. Nonetheless I think this will just become a common trait in the business world and beyond, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's something that takes off with equal speed in other jurisdictions outside of Australia. Equally, there is holding virtual meetings or giving the opportunity for people to attend the annual meetings of companies virtually. I think in some ways it will surprise people, after we have implemented this, that it took us so long to see this opportunity. Thankfully, we have all learnt so much more about videoconferencing and virtual attendance at meetings et cetera because of the necessity of the global pandemic. This is one of the legacies of productivity gain that we will have from this period of time, this coronavirus period, because we have been able to rapidly educate people that wouldn't have necessarily had the confidence to understand things like videoconferencing. Now, of course, 18 or 20 months into a pandemic, they have embraced it. So I think there is a very high awareness out there of the opportunities and how to engage virtually. Both these measures, on the document side and the meeting side, are good, progressive reforms, and I commend them to the House. 16:36 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021 is a bill relating to meetings and documents. I hope the House might indulge me for a moment in speaking about a great Australian historian who produced more documents than pretty much anyone else in the business. A week ago Australia lost Stuart Macintyre, someone who was one of our great national storytellers. He was a fellow of the Academy of the Humanities and of the Academy of the Social Sciences, where he served at its president. He served as the Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne and published a spate of deeply researched books, including The Reds, The History Wars, Winners and Losers and Australia's Boldest Experiment. As Janet McCalman noted in an article about him for the Conversation: He was assiduous. He always answered letters and later, emails, immediately. He was a close and constructive critic of his students' work and a dedicated supervisor. Those in this place will know him probably most for The History Wars, launched by Paul Keating, though they may be less aware of the later reconciliation with some of those who were on the other side of that debate. I drew on his work on The Oxford History of Australia, Volume 4, 1901-1942: The Succeeding Age on the stories that he told about Australians that symbolise the inequality of the age despite Australia's egalitarian stories—stories about the tycoon father of a distinguished politician who became a baron, about Australia's finest lyric poet labouring in heartbreak land, forever longing for the lovely woman he was too poor and sick to marry. Stuart Mcintyre was a fabulous storyteller. As Janet McCalman noted, his penultimate monograph, Australia's Boldest Experiment: War and Reconstruction in the 1940s, does potentially tell the tale of where Australia should go post COVID, drawing on the lessons of Curtin and Chifley and the advice provided to them by HC 'Nugget' Coombs about how to rebuild a better nation after a crisis. This bill deals with the issues of virtual and hybrid AGMs which have arisen as a result of the COVID pandemic There are advantages to virtual and hybrid AGMs in providing access to people living in rural, regional and remote Australia and to shareholders with disabilities who might otherwise feel comfortable about attending a meeting in person, but it is important also to recognise that this may have an impact on the scrutiny that is brought to bear upon directors. It's perhaps no surprise that the Australian Institute of Company Directors has strongly supported this measure while the Australian Shareholders Association has been much more uncertain. The Australian Shareholders Association's submission to the Treasury review process noted: We have experienced meetings of varying quality. While many companies have tackled the production of a virtual AGM with enthusiasm and goodwill, the atmosphere, and feeling of being heard by directors and management, is missing. Control over the questions remains with the company, with the potential to exclude question,s and shareholders not being aware of any areas of contention or doubt. The effectiveness of questioning someone face-to-face and and being able to follow up by asking for further explanation when the answer is not complete cannot be underestimated, With all the goodwill in the world a virtual AGM is, by comparison, often a flat lifeless affair. The association goes on to note, talking about the benefits of an in-person AGM: When the chair, the managing director and others are making these explanations, it is not to a flat screen or a camera, but to real people, which creates a dynamism which is often reflected in the increased excitement in the presenter's voice and manner. Then the shareholders, the owners, have the opportunity sometimes to praise the directors, but usually to ask those questions that they may have waited a year to ask. If they do not think the response fully answers their query, they can ask a follow-up question or the same question in a different manner. The Australian Shareholders Association talks about the empowering nature of an in-person question-and-answer session in which someone is able to physically face the directors as a shareholder, a part-owner of the company. Many of us in this place have experienced virtual committee hearings, which are, in my view, inferior to in-person hearings as a way of grilling witnesses. There simply isn't the ability to have that back and forth that characterises a really good conversation. It's why many courts have been concerned about moving to a purely online process. Members of parliament who've had the choice to come here or to be patched in by telepresence have almost always chosen to physically come here if they're able to make it work for themselves and their families. That's because physical parliament has a character that virtual parliament simply can't match. Ms Rishworth HWA Hear, hear! Dr LEIGH BU8 That is a 'hear, hear' from the member for Kingston, whose presence we have occasionally missed and whose telepresence doesn't make up for not having her physically here in the chamber. That's a concern that many have raised about the move to virtual AGMs and a concern that has led the Shareholders Association to suggest that hybrid approaches may be preferable, hybrid approaches that allow accessibility to people who can't get there and permit strong scrutiny from people who can. It is these concerns that have led the shadow Assistant Treasurer, my friend and colleague the member for Whitlam, to foreshadow an amendment for an independent statutory review of the bill. We have to make sure that these changes improve accessibility to shareholder meetings, not simply allow directors to duck scrutiny. High-quality scrutiny within a general meeting can bring to light concerns and allow shareholders to work out which directors are managing the show well, which managers are doing the best job. With those comments in mind, Labor will be supporting the bill, but it will be doing so with the intention of having an independent statutory review to ensure that the many promises the coalition has made about virtual AGMs are in fact not a way of watering down scrutiny of corporations. 16:44 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021. They often say that necessity breeds invention, and I think the pandemic has certainly taught us this. In any number of spheres of life we've found that the technology clock, or the digital transformation of our lives, has accelerated. Schooling, which had never previously been done remotely, or had never even been considered to be done remotely, suddenly became a full-time remote affair. People who may have worked from home for perhaps half a day a week or even less were suddenly working from home full-time. Things like electronic commerce, broadband usage, shipping of goods and sites like eBay and Amazon went through the roof. This pandemic has taught us, on the upside at least, that our society was more prepared for these innovations—and that, as individuals, we were more psychologically prepared for these innovations—than perhaps we had earlier given ourselves credit for. The operation of the corporate world here is no different in this regard. When the pandemic struck suddenly, a large number of basic functions a company needs to do on a daily basis to remain compliant with various statutes and laws became very difficult. You could no longer meet in person. It was difficult to conduct AGMs. Even moving documentation around became difficult. On 5 May 2020, which was still in the very early stages of the pandemic, the Treasurer used the temporary powers available to the Treasurer under the Corporations Act to allow companies to use technology to satisfy their obligations relating to things such as meetings and document execution. That initial allowance provided by the Treasurer, using temporary powers, expired on 21 March, but it was renewed again on a temporary basis through the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. That current arrangement allowing for this is still a temporary or transitional arrangement; it will expire on 31 March. This bill will make that permanent. There has been significant consultation on this. Many shareholders, many company secretaries, many boards and many directors have had some experience in doing these things over the past 12 to 18 months, and of course shareholders and the people who own these companies have also been involved. Generally speaking, with some small caveats and some small pools of resistance, the experience has been a positive one. Before coming into this place I was the chair of a publicly listed ASX company that had its operational base largely in Israel and many of its shareholders in Israel and America, so I was quite used to doing not only board meetings remotely and electronically—and often in unusual times—but also AGMs, where the number of shareholders physically present was actually quite small; the bulk of the shareholders were located in overseas jurisdictions. So we know this can be done, and the pandemic has given more traditional companies, where the ownership and control and corporate governance all tend to be domiciled in one jurisdiction, the experience of doing these things digitally and remotely—and the experience has been overwhelmingly positive. This bill will make permanent the temporary relief that's already being granted both in respect of the electronic execution of company documents, allowing companies to sign and provide meeting related documents electronically—they could include the agenda for the annual shareholder AGM—and holding meetings electronically, using technology including hybrid meetings. Virtual only meetings—that is, where all the participants are not physically present—are only permissible if more than 75 per cent of shareholders have agreed to amend the company's constitution to allow such meetings. I would expect that, by and large, most of these new meetings will be conducted on a hybrid basis—that is, with some shareholders and directors physically present and others virtually present. I think that will be important because, as many of us have noticed through this pandemic, holding meetings virtually has allowed us to open up whole new horizons of participation. Elderly people who find it difficult to travel or leave their home and people who suffer a disability or lack mobility broadly suddenly have been able to participate in meetings. I have noticed that, in a few church services that I have attended electronically, rather counterintuitively, the number of attendees has actually gone up. People who would find it difficult to go to church or perhaps wouldn't want to dress up in their Sunday finest or didn't want to drive somewhere or get a parking spot were now able to tune into the church service. So the congregation in a number of churches in my own electorate has grown. I expect this will be the same with AGMs, because people who might own shares in the Commonwealth Bank or Westpac, for instance, may not want to travel to the CBD in Sydney for the AGM; they might not be able to. They might not be in Sydney at all; they might be in another capital city. They will now be able to participate in these AGMs, ask questions, raise concerns and raise issues. Similarly, I think it will also allow a greater enfranchisement of a large number of shareholders. At the moment, if you're not a large shareholder or not a particularly active or engaged shareholder, you would tend not to physically attend an AGM. You might watch it online, perhaps, but not participate in it, or you might just read the notice of the decisions, or you might vote in advance on any resolutions that are coming up, but you wouldn't actually attend. What this will allow shareholders to do is to play a more active role and participate more actively in the governance and decision-making of the companies in which they have a share. I think the other changes are relatively modest, particularly the electronic certification of documents or the electronic execution of company documents and allowing the provision of meeting related documents electronically. Shareholders are obviously still able to request that these sorts of documents are provided to them physically, I suspect. Most people, like me, tend to opt out of that and ask for electronic transmission of documents, and many of us are also quite familiar with those platforms which have proliferated during this pandemic which allow for electronic signatures to be attached to documents in a way that is legally binding. What this legislation does is make sure, importantly, that those changes are given legal legitimacy, but it also makes these changes permanent. Finally, I would say that, while these changes are relatively modest in the scheme of things, they are important, because they're about modernising our business practices and our ways of doing things; they are about creating more efficiencies by allowing those things to happen; and they're about empowering individuals, by and large, because they allow for participation and involvement in things like the governance of companies as a shareholder in a way that really wasn't possible before. For those reasons, I believe these are important reforms and I commend this bill to the House. 16:53 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith A lot of things changed in our world over the last couple of years because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Kids weren't able to go to school. Many Australians had to work remotely and weren't able to go to their normal place of work. We saw sporting competitions shut down. Of course, community sports and kids sports stopped for a period of time during lockdowns. And, indeed, a lot of face-to-face meetings and procedures in our economy and our society changed. One area where there was significant change was in the administration and management of companies and corporations, particularly through legislative changes that didn't require shareholders and boards to come together face-to-face at meetings, be it special meetings or general meetings. And of course the requirement for people to be in the same room to execute documents associated with the management of corporations or legal affairs also changed. These were sensible reforms that the Labor Party agreed to, to facilitate the ongoing management and administration of companies throughout the country. This bill seeks to make permanent some of those changes to the Corporations Act that have been introduced over the last couple of years to allow a range of governance procedures and documents to be executed virtually. Most of these changes have already been made temporarily as part of the COVID-19 regulatory relief bills, which expire next year. This bill will allow for companies to hold their AGMs either in a hybrid model—that's both virtually and with physical participation available to shareholders—or entirely virtually. But I note that, to hold entirely virtual annual general meetings, a company's shareholders must vote to amend the company constitution to allow it to do so, and a significant majority—75 per cent of shareholders—are required to vote for this change. Whilst almost all stakeholders support the implementation of hybrid AGMs, and we don't have a problem with that, shareholder activists are concerned that entirely virtual AGMs reduce the ability of shareholders to hold companies to account. I understand that concern, and that's why Labor has concerns about this bill, particularly that element of this change, and has suggested to the government an amendment for the review of these provisions of this bill to ensure that they are operating in accordance with their intended and stated aims in a couple of years time. I will get to that in a moment. We all know that quite often doing things virtually is not the same as being face-to-face in the room. A classic example of that is this parliament. This parliament probably could not operate wholly on a virtual basis. We require members of parliament to come to this place to debate bills that are introduced by the government, to question the government and to hold it to account at question time, but also, importantly, to vote on bills that become laws for the governance of this country. Many of those laws required significant changes for the country to cope with COVID-19. We probably couldn't have done all of that virtually, and we didn't. Yet here we have the government asking companies to do exactly that—to have the option of holding all of their meetings in a virtual situation. When you've got literally thousands of shareholders in a public company, that can become quite difficult. It's not uncommon for people to report that their questions went unanswered in virtual settings, at either annual general meetings or other meetings of companies, and that it's more difficult to raise issues in general business at company meetings. Some of the significant reforms that the previous Labor government put into place to hold boards to account to their shareholders, particularly for controversial decisions such as remuneration reports, are undermined by a virtual-only platform setting for these types of meetings. Going back a decade, remuneration reports for particular companies were quite controversial. We all recall the situation where particular directors and executives of companies were earning ridiculously inflated salaries—sometimes 40, 50 or 100 times the average wage of a person working in one of those corporations. There was an uproar. There was a movement of Australians that got together and requested reform from the government, and that is what the previous Labor government did by introducing the two-strike rule such that remuneration reports had to receive the overwhelming endorsement of the members or the shareholders of that company, and they might receive a strike. In other words, the shareholders voted down that remuneration report because they felt that it was unrealistic, that it was out of kilter with the remuneration of other executives within the company, or that the company wasn't performing to the expectations of the shareholders and therefore the bonuses that shareholders were receiving didn't meet the expectations of the shareholders. A classic example of this is that, during the period of the crisis in financial services in this country that led to the banking and financial services royal commission, there were plenty of remuneration reports of the big four banks and many other financial institutions that were struck down, particularly in the first instance. Those laws and those changes allowed those boards to be spilled if there was a second strike on a remuneration report. When Labor introduced these reforms, the opposition at the time screamed and howled and said that it would be the end of proper governance of companies, that Australian boards would be uncompetitive compared to international scenarios and that we wouldn't be able to pay our CEOs and executives fairly to attract talent to this country—the usual stuff that they do in sticking up for the boards and the excessive salaries of people in large corporations, particularly in the banking and finance sector in this country. But when those reforms were introduced, against the protestations of the then Abbott led opposition, they became widely accepted and they are now part of the corporate landscape in this country. They provide balance, reason and the opportunity for shareholders, through a democratic process, to hold their boards and executives to account for remuneration and other decisions. That was a sensible reform that has been left in place by the government. It has now accepted it as part of a prudent and accountable regime to ensure better outcomes and better management of corporations in this country. We're now starting to see that shareholders want to make sure that their boards are accounting for and have proper risk management plans and strategies to deal with the increasing risk of climate change. That is a completely understandable scenario for shareholders. If I were investing in in a particular company and I knew there was a shareholder risk associated with climate change, particularly in the energy sector, then it would be prudent as a shareholders to know what actions that particular board was taking to mitigate those risks for shareholders and ultimately to do their bit to ensure that they are good corporate citizens and are doing everything they can to reduce the company's emissions footprint over time. These are important facets of the management of corporations that are best dealt with face to face, particularly if there's a particular motion that shareholders wish to put to a board and wish to speak on at an annual general meeting. That is why Labor believes it is important that there is the option for shareholders to continue to have face-to-face annual general meetings and other meetings—to hold those boards and executives to account for the management of that particular company. The Australian Shareholders Association, which represents shareholders in this country, says that virtual-only meetings 'reduce access for retail shareholders and transparency by company boards and management' and the feedback from their members pointed to the perception that questions were going unanswered during virtual meetings, and some had concerns about companies in a virtual environment having more control with regard to not answering those questions. This year we also saw initial technical problems, such as with bandwidth—you expect that with the dodgy NBN that's delivered by this particular government—along with other issues around resolving how people, from the chairman to management and shareholders, could interact from various locations. If you have a big company with a large number of shareholders, it's not uncommon in Australia, given this government's dodgy NBN, that at a particular meeting you have several board members and a few hundred shareholders all trying to get access to a meeting to have their say, but the bandwidth in Australia simply isn't good enough to cater for that, unfortunately. It simply isn't good enough to deal with those sorts of scenarios. That is why shareholders are saying, 'We want to make sure that there's the option to have face-to-face meetings in the future, when it's safe to do so and the health regulations permit it. In these instances, investors weren't able to put questions to any board member, and this raises issues of accountability. We know that for many retail shareholders the AGM is the only opportunity they have to see and hear from all of their directors and hold them to account and question them. Unlike institutional shareholders, these retail shareholders don't typically receive briefings from companies between AGMs, nor are company directors and senior management as accessible to retail shareholders as they are to institutional shareholders. Dean Paatsch, a proxy adviser on service ownership matters, says that many investors are: … wary of over-reach by boards and their advisors who might use COVID as a pretext for a permanent shift to online only to avoid scrutiny. That's what we want to avoid here with this particular bill. We want to make sure that it is not used to provide opportunity for some boards to avoid scrutiny and accountability to their shareholders. This bill does have stipulations that require companies running virtual or hybrid AGMs to allow members as a whole to exercise those rights to ask questions and to make comments. But, as I said, if the line drops out and the meeting is concluded and you don't get the opportunity to have your say, it's very difficult for a retail shareholder to get that opportunity again. Virtual and hybrid AGMs also make it more likely that accessibility issues in rural and regional areas or with disabled shareholders may create some difficulties in accessing those answers. During the last couple of years, with the pandemic, Labor supported the temporary emergency measures. But any permanent change must not tip the rights away from shareholders to company directors. That's why we see it is important that there is balance and the opportunity for shareholders to hold their boards to account, particularly those retail investors. That's why we've been suggesting to the government that they should consider amending this bill and to look for an independent review to be conducted within two years of implementation, with particular emphasis on the ability of small shareholders to hold company directors to account through general meetings. That would be a sensible reform to this bill—to ensure that that appropriate balance is there and that we can, as a parliament, check in a couple of years' time that the bill is performing as intended and that boards are being held to account by their shareholders, ensuring that we have good corporate governance in this country in all of our corporations into the future. 17:08 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021. I shall not detain the House for many minutes on this, because it is clearly a very simple issue of allowing us to give greater flexibility to the way that we manage our listed companies and the way that shareholders can interact with their boards of directors. The fact that Labor is opposed is no surprise to me, because, as the member for Kingsford Smith— Honourable members interjecting— Mr G86 Well, we will wait and see when the vote comes. It's because, of course, they want to ignore governance. We've seen with AustralianSuper, just today, that the chair of ASIC has made the point that what has been going on at Australian Super is, plain and simple, a breach of directors' duties. So we understand why the Labor Party is so keen to ensure that directors, especially those from industry super, are not subjected to the law, to review or to any of the things that matter when it comes to the governance of a corporation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The member for Mackellar will resume his seat. The member for Whitlam, on a point of order? Mr Stephen Jones A9B I'm always delighted to hear the member for Mackellar, but relevance is the point of order. This is a bill about virtual AGMs, not about superannuation, not about directors of superannuation funds— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The member for Whitlam has made his point. The member will resume his seat. I would ask the member for Mackellar to return to the substance of the legislation. Mr FALINSKI G86 I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall do that. At this point I will now begin an educational session for those opposite on how companies operate. I am so glad that they get to vote on bills that define how our companies operate. What happens is that there are these things called superannuation funds and they invest in listed companies. What the chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—who knows a little bit about Corporations Law and who knows a little bit about corporate governance—was saying today was that those superannuation funds have been misusing their position and been involved in insider trading. In doing so, they have been in breach of their general duties as directors in terms of the way they have been conducting themselves. When we get to virtual AGMs, which is what this bill is about, it would suit those opposite to ensure that the investors elected by big super, who are the big donors to the Labor Party, are not subjected to the sort of rigorous examination that the owners of a company should normally have. What we have here is a bill that brings our corporate governance and the way that our annual general meetings operate into the 21st century. We have those opposite moving their usual amendments and other things so that theyvoteforyou.org.au can have a little go and spread their fake news and misinformation, which is what they love doing, because that's how those opposite operate. If they really thought the Australian people agreed with them, they'd tell the Australian people what they think. Where was I? Relevance. Where we're at now, as I speak for the next 10 minutes and 37 seconds, is the following—the member for Whitlam can't handle the heat in the kitchen, so he has to leave the chamber. Member for Whitlam, I dare you to stay; I dare you to listen to the truth, which is that big super is, at this moment, undermining the very importance of what it is for our listed companies to have corporate governance. I welcome the member for Whitlam back to the dispatch box. No, he's just lurking. What we have here is a piece of legislation that will ensure that we can do what is required to make it possible for us to bring corporate governance and annual general meetings into the 21st century. Why is this important? It's important for a number of reasons. The first is that, during this pandemic, Australians got very used to conducting business online. They got very used to how important it is and how easy it is to do. Secondly, it actually broadens the number of people who can attend these meetings. That means that directors and boards will be subjected to more oversight because, simply put, there will be more investors and more owners of those companies at these meetings. When they're at these meetings, two things will happen. The first is that they will be given the opportunity to ask questions of directors and of management to ensure that their investments are being undertaken in the interests of both shareholders and customers. I wonder how many of these very large corporates would be such advocates and funders of all the woke causes they are advocates and funders of if investors, their owners, were able to ask them questions like: how does it benefit employees, how does it benefit customers and how does it benefit us, the owners of the corporations? As we know, most of this funding goes on because it benefits management. They get invited to all the swanky dinner parties where they can all tell each other what a great job they're doing and how they're saving the world as they fly from one end of the world to the other in a private jet—no doubt using shareholder funds to achieve this—and lecture other people about the importance of corporates needing to be involved in all these very important and earnest public policy issues. I understand why some directors and some proxy advisers are so opposed to this idea. If they were in favour of this idea of not just blindly following what the proxy adviser tells management and the board to do, and owners actually had a say, owners could attend these meetings and ask difficult questions on behalf of customers and employees. I don't mean to shock the intolerant and regressive Left by making this point. They say, 'People before profit,' but without people there is no such thing as a profit. The whole point of profit is that someone, somewhere, is voluntarily willing to hand over their money for a good or service that you are willing to provide to them voluntarily. That is why the market works so much better than government: because we take money from people without asking them—often, if they had a choice, they would never give it to us—and then provide them with services that in some cases they don't want, in most cases they don't need and in many, many cases do more harm than good. If government were a company, where people had a choice about whether they wanted to buy the service or good that we were providing, I can tell you now I'm not sure that we would survive one reporting season. That is why market economies work so much better than centralised government economies. At the moment, I'm involved in a great inquiry to determine why housing in Australia is so unaffordable. We have this situation where we have more land than basically any other nation in the world in terms of per capita landmass. Our densities are the lowest in the world outside the penguin population on the South Pole! We have the highest average weekly earnings in the world, though those opposite, once again, seek to falsify information to say that we don't. Yet we have the most unaffordable housing in the world. Why is that the case? It's because we have a centralised planning system in the provision of housing. So we have these AGM reforms, which are actually about bringing more people into the discussion about how companies are operated, and those opposite seek to pretend somehow that this is a bad idea. It's not. The more people who have access to democracy, the better democracy is. I would also point out to those opposite that in this democratic system that is shareholder capitalism, you have to identify that you own some shares. You see, voter IDs work very well in all sorts of different elections. But the point that I would primarily make in all of this, the point that I would strongly make in all of this, is that if you can't get access to the meeting it doesn't work. We see here that big super is opposed to this. We see that proxy advisers are opposed to this. We see all these sorts of things going on ad nauseum. Why are people opposed to them? It's because they're opposed to ordinary, average Australians, the working men and women of this country, being able to have a say on how companies that they're invested in both operate and behave. Those opposite would prefer that the working men and women of Australia give all their money to big super, to Industry Super, and then Industry Super will tell these companies how to operate. We've already seen how this has started to happen. We've seen Industry Super in breach of their legal obligations, forcing companies to enter into enterprise agreements even though that is not in the interests of employees, shareholders or customers. Once again I encourage APRA to do their job and actually uphold the law when it comes to Industry Super. The more I think about it, the more I understand why those opposite are so opposed to shareholders having a say in the organisations that they have ownership in—because those opposite would prefer the collective in industry super to have a say, so of course they want to keep people offline. They would probably prefer that all these AGMs occur in the boardrooms in Collins Street where industry super presides. That's where they want them all—where the directors of those companies, according to the chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, have been gathering insider information and then trading on that information. It's extraordinary that those opposite come in here and lecture us this side about the Hayne royal commission but fail to point out that all of the investigations into industry super, and all the misappropriate and inappropriate governance in those areas, are falling over, one by one, like bowling pins. Of course, the more democracy we have, the more transparency we have, which you would have— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The member for Mackellar will resume his seat. The member for Whitlam? Mr Stephen Jones A9B A question to the member speaking— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member for Mackellar accept a— Mr Stephen Jones A9B I was going to ask you whether you're aware that— Mr FALINSKI G86 No. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The member for Whitlam will resume his seat. The member for Mackellar has the call. Mr FAL G86 I knew he couldn't stay away. I knew he'd go back to his office, he'd hear this great speech, and he'd want to know more—he'd want to be a part of it. He couldn't help himself. The member for Whitlam is nothing if not a sucker for a good speech. That's why he attends so many of my speeches! Once or twice he has called quorum on me. I don't want to give him any ideas, but he has done that once or twice. I don't think it was fair or nice of him to do that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Order! The member for Mackellar should return to the substance of the legislation. Mr FALINSKI G86 Of course. Where were we? I was talking about Industry Super and their lack of governance. I was talking about how having virtual AGMs will bring more shareholders into those AGMs, where they can see how their money is not being managed to their benefit and so they can see how big super—who are the big donors of the Labor Party— are taking shareholders' money and using it to run their own political organisations through the boardrooms of Australia, without reference to their legal obligations under the financial test and the sole purpose test. I call on APRA to do their job, because they haven't been doing their job. They haven't been. That's why this legislation is so necessary—so more Australians can get in there and see what APRA have not been doing. (Time expired) 17:23 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I thank the member for Mackellar for his eloquent contribution to the public discourse of this bill. I rise to support the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021. The changing world is led by the changes of business, and the legislation passed in this place needs to keep up with this fast-paced environment. As someone who has worked in the real world, outside of this place, I know how frustrating it can be when legislation does not keep pace with the real world. But the bill before us today stands to recognise this, understanding that regulations forcing business to hold in-person meetings and sign documents by hand are outdated and that a technology-minded approach allows for easier running of companies. This bill reduces the regulatory burden on Australian businesses, allowing our companies to operate more efficiently and more competitively. And, in a post-COVID economy, speed and efficiency are going to be what helps the Australian economy recover. We need our businesses to be globally competitive. The pump-primed economy that the Morrison government has delivered to Australia means consumers are ready to spend as we move into a post-COVID economy. This bill serves to allow companies to hold hybrid meetings, with shareholders either attending in person or remotely, and to use technology to execute and sign relevant documents. In May of last year an amendment of the Treasury laws under Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Act 2021 allowed companies and registered schemes to hold virtual meetings and electronically sign and send documents, an amendment which serves to continue until 31 March next year. Of course, this was due to restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic and was referred to as 'temporary relief'. This bill serves to make the change permanent as well as some further modifications to provide even greater flexibility and technology-neutral provisions. I'm a bit of a tech head, I would say. I believe healthtech, smart tech and new energy climate tech are going to help lead this country to a brighter future. This bill is going to be very helpful as a technology-neutral provision and will help an outcome focused approach to the introduction of legislature as opposed to a technology based approach. This is an example of how COVID has provided the world with an opportunity to do things differently. In fact, in 2021 I think the most popular word that I heard was 'pivot'. The world was pivoting to doing things in a new way. Companies have obligations under the Corporations Act 2002 in relation to meetings and documents. This bill serves to reduce regulatory burden, as traditional means of holding meetings physically, sending documents in hard copy and executing documents physically no longer need to be adhered to. Of course we're in favour of a more streamlined and efficient approach of utilising technology. Instead, technology-neutral laws give the option to meet obligations using technology which makes conducting business quicker, simpler and more cost effective. The Morrison government has been considered in the writing of this bill, with three options examined—firstly, allow the temporary relief to end with no further legislature on this issue; secondly, make the temporary relief permanent; and thirdly, and ultimately the pathway this government has taken, make the temporary relief permanent but modify and improve the legislation to benefit the businesses of this country. This third option has incorporated broad stakeholder feedback to ensure that this government's legislation is informed by the very people it acts to serve. This option was selected so that where the statutory requirements can be met using digital technologies the law will allow companies to do just that. Moreover, there is a provision that will ensure that a review of the effectiveness of the legislative reforms will be undertaken in two years from commencement to ensure that this legislation is serving its purpose. While this bill broadly serves to extend existing legislation, there are numerous new features also included. The government has determined these features to be beneficial through accessing the stakeholder feedback that it had undertaken, because this government understands that legislation must be motivated by the requirement for real change. This government understands that industry is core to Australia. Make no mistake: this bill has broad importance. In fact, an estimated $430 million per year for 10 years will be saved by this reform. You might say, 'How can this be?' Well, we all know the old adage that time is money, and businesses saving time allows for businesses to work more efficiently and therefore save on costs. Decision-makers will no longer be forced to travel extensively simply to fill the archaic requirements of hand-signed documents. I know that the passage of flights between Melbourne and Sydney is one of, if not the, busiest air routes in the world, and that is because Melbourne and Sydney are the financial centres in Australia. We will possibly see less movement along the air passage because of this bill today. This bill serves to allow businesses to streamline in the way they should be allowed to: to not focus on printing paperwork and signing it, but to designate their ingenuity to productive business activities—producing goods and services. That's what this side of parliament stands for; we stand for supporting businesses to prosper. We understand businesses are the backbone of the economy, and enabling those businesses to flourish, to function efficiently, means the economy will function efficiently, the economy will be strong and Australia will prosper. That prosperity enables us, therefore, to invest in the essential infrastructure, hospitals, schools and climate action that this country needs. The benefits of this bill cannot be limited just to efficiency, however. The bill also works to increase accessibility of the workplace to all Australians. Gone are the times when staying at home caring for children meant an end to career aspirations. In fact, at a roundtable forum at which I was speaking, a very eminent businessman was asked what he thought was the most important outcome from COVID, from a business activity point of view, and he made the comment that he thought the future would mean a more flexible time for Australians in the workplace and the ability to work from home. My response to that was that it would be an increase in flexibility for men to work from home, since I think it's pretty reasonable to say that women have been leading the way for some time with regard to flexible workplaces and working from home. With the government recognising this, women especially are now more supported in the workplace than ever, with the comfort of increased accessibility to business activities. In fact, workplace participation is of crucial importance to the Morrison government, and small steps like this will lead to a more equal playing field in the future. On top of this bill, we've seen similar virtual technologies find great success. Most notably, we've seen that, with the global pandemic, people have moved to using telehealth here in Australia. That's something that I think is well and truly a great success story, not just here in Australia but right around the world. Since 2011, in fact, phone and video calls with medical professionals have been available in Australia, helping to ensure that people in regional and remote Australia have access to high-quality health care. As a former medical professional myself, I've certainly used telehealth frequently, but its use hasn't had the uptake that you would hope for. What I would say is that, with COVID, the pivot to the use of telehealth has been enormously beneficial to people in Australia. At the beginning of COVID, we found that it allowed medical professionals who may not have had access to PPE, or personal protective equipment, in the early stages of the COVID pandemic to work safely via the telehealth Zoom line. This meant that, when we were having shortages because of supply issues with PPE around the world, we could keep our healthcare professionals safe in the early stages of the COVID pandemic. It also meant that people could dial in more easily and efficiently for their scripts and save time so they wouldn't have to take half a day off work and sit in a medical doctor's office while waiting for their appointment. So the enormous benefits of telehealth have been made clear not just in regional areas but also for those who live in cities, which can be congested. You no longer have to wait for a doctor if you can access a telehealth care line. The COVID-19 pandemic has served to illuminate the need for such services, with 88,251 practitioners delivering 79.6 million telehealth services to 15.7 million patients since March of last year. This is an enormous change in the way that digital health has helped Australian patients. Even this very parliament has used video teleconferencing to aid its operation. Of course, I'm sure we are all well and truly Zoomed out, but nonetheless it has allowed important work to go ahead despite the COVID pandemic. This bill serves to expand accessibility of operations in the sphere of business, as has already been done in the areas we've talked about, health care and politics. Setting aside the immense savings born out of efficiency, this bill stands to reaffirm the Morrison government's commitment to Australian business—to listen to business, to understand what will help them and then, most importantly, to act and to deliver on their behalf. A government like ours is rooted in making sure we are attuned to the changing world. It is a government that is proving yet again an ability to adapt, in ways that benefit not just businesses but all Australians, to ensure our future prosperity. COVID-19, of course, has been a great tragedy, but it's also been a catalyst for change—a catalyst that Australians are embracing with enthusiasm to pivot to new ways of doing things. It's opened doors for more transparent and accessible business operations. It is now our opportunity to take advantage of the positives we've discovered in light of the virtual world that we've lived with over the last two years. This bill serves a simple purpose. It allows businesses on Australian soil to run more efficiently and be more competitive by removing red tape that has been limiting their operations. Legislation passed in this place must keep up with the real world. The bill before us today is yet another example of the Morrison government's awareness of issues faced by Australian companies and our commitment to supporting businesses in this country. This bill reinforces the temporary relief provided by the government, turning this into legislation that will be a legacy for the future. On this basis, I commend the bill to the House. 17:35 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this important debate. The Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021 makes permanent changes to the Corporations Act 2001 and Corporations Regulations 2001 that will provide the flexibility to use technology to meet regulatory requirements. It will modernise the Corporations Act 2001 and enable businesses to become more efficient. Specifically, it will allow companies and registered schemes to hold a physical, hybrid or, if permitted by the entity's constitution, virtual meeting. Members will also have the flexibility to receive documents electronically or in hard copy. Finally, the bill allows for documents to be validly executed in flexible and technology-neutral ways, including using electronic or wet-ink signatures. The government will conduct a 12-month opt-in review of the annual general meetings. The aim of the review will be to encourage companies and shareholders to engage with technology with a view to considering whether future permanent reforms are needed to support companies to use technology to engage with their members effectively. These reforms will support more effective engagement between companies, registered schemes and their members; ensure members have reasonable opportunities to participate in meetings; and provide the regulatory settings to support Australia's economic recovery plan. Of course, like many members dealing with this legislation, we're very well aware of the challenges faced by shareholders in wanting to be full participants in annual general meetings and the like and we want to make sure that there isn't a power imbalance emerging between those who sit on the board and shareholders in their capacity to exercise their authority. Making sure we get the necessary legislative framework right is critical. We've all learned a lot over the past two years as a consequence of COVID-19 and the emergency measures that were introduced last year, which obviously have a slightly greater longevity, and a proper assessment needs to be made about the efficacy in the long term. But making sure that shareholders can be full participants, particularly in a context where travel may be involved or where there may be barriers that are faced as a result of matters like pandemics or other issues, is an important part of making sure that we are futureproofing the conversation around corporations and their management. I'd like to thank all members in particular for their contributions. I particularly enjoyed the contribution from the member for Mackellar in the conversation. He always enlivens the parliament when he speaks, particularly with his passion for scrutiny and accountability not just of corporations but of other entities, including trust based models for the management of people's financial interests. We always welcome that, as well as other members, including, of course, the member for Higgins, who I was also very happy to see here, who was particularly concerned about the full participation of women in the workplace as well as their full participation in financial markets. The more flexibility we can provide to empower and enable Australians to be not just financially literate but financial participants in the economy, the more we will have a stronger and healthier economy. That's, of course, the foundation of liberalism itself—the empowerment of individuals, families and communities, rather than corporates, capital and Canberra imposing their will down. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Whitlam 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. Consideration in Detail 97 17:40 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill with my beautiful signature on it. By leave—I move government amendments (1) to (4) together: (1) Schedule 2, item 47, page 42 (after line 28), at the end of subsection 1687J(2), add: Note: Paragraphs 249R(c) and 252P(c) of this Act (as inserted by Schedule 2 to the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Act 2021) cease to apply if a report is not prepared and tabled within a certain period: see section 1687K. (2) Schedule 2, item 47, page 42 (after line 28), after subsection 1687J(2), insert: (2A) The review, to the extent that it relates to sections 249R and 252P of this Act, must be conducted by an independent panel, with: (a) at least one member of the panel having experience in corporate governance and the role of company directors; and (b) at least one member of the panel having experience advocating for corporate social responsibility; and (c) at least one member of the panel having experience representing the interests of shareholders. (3) Schedule 2, item 47, page 43 (after line 3), at the end of section 1687J, add: (6) If a report under subsection (3) sets out recommendations, the Minister must cause: (a) a written response of the Commonwealth Government to the recommendations to be prepared; and (b) the response to be tabled in each House of the Parliament no later than the first sitting day of that House occurring 3 months or more after the day the report is first tabled in either House of the Parliament under subsection (5). (4) Schedule 2, item 47, page 43 (after line 3), after section 1687J, insert: 1687K Provisions relating to holding virtual-only meetings cease to have effect if report of review of operation of laws is not tabled within certain period (1) Paragraphs 249R(c) and 252P(c) of this Act do not apply to a meeting held after the first sitting day of a House of the Parliament to occur after the end of the period of 30 months beginning on the day Schedule 1 to the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Act 2021 commences, if the Minister does not cause a report dealing with the amendments of sections 249R and 252P made by Schedule 2 to that Act to be prepared, and tabled in that House, on or before that first sitting day. (2) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section affects the validity of anything that is done, or not done, in reliance on this Act as in force before the end of that sitting day. 17:41 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Earlier today, the Labor opposition, through myself, circulated some sensible amendments to this bill, which I referred to in my second reading speech. Of course Labor intends to support the sensible measures within the bill. We thought they could be improved upon by the insertion of a statutory review. We are very pleased to see that, in the time between the commencement of the second reading debate and where we are today, the government themselves have adopted the Labor amendment. It is my view that this is going to charm, enlighten and please 150 members of this place. Of course, the one exception to those who will be delighted with the fact that Labor and the coalition have reached agreement is going to be member for Mackellar, because in his address he spent the best part of 12 minutes railing against the Labor amendments—and a whole bunch of other stuff that was barely relevant to anything that was before the House this week, let alone before the House right now. The amendment is a sound one. We will be supporting it. We won't be calling for a division on the matter. We will be supporting it, as much as we would love to see the member for McKellar come in here and have to vote for the very thing that he argued against so passionately. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 98 17:43 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021 98

National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021

Second Reading 98 17:44 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I'm pleased to speak on behalf of the Labor Party in relation to the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021. The bill flows from the conclusion of the latest round of strategic agreements between the Commonwealth on the one hand and, essentially, the pharmaceutical industry represented by Medicines Australia, which represents the innovator part of the industry, and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association—GBMA—which, as the name of the association indicates, represents the generics and biosimilars part of the industry. This is a process that has been underway now for some time. It started in the latter part of the first decade of this century, largely in response to the projections contained in the first Intergenerational report, which was published by then Treasurer Peter Costello in 2002. It projected that PBS costs would climb quite dramatically over the 40-year period that each of the IGRs contemplate. As I recall, of the increase in Commonwealth health costs across the spectrum of responsibilities the Commonwealth has in health, 70 per cent of the increase in Commonwealth obligations would come from increases in the PBS. At the time there was all manner of breathless pieces of commentary about the PBS being unsustainable and having to be reined in, lest the whole of the Commonwealth health budget fall down because of the burden on it. The process that has now been undertaken through governments of both political persuasions, including the Rudd and Gillard governments, to come to an agreement that balances the viability of this critically important sector, to bring medicines that are often developed overseas—this is a global industry—to Australian patients and to ensure that Australian patients have a ready, dependable and affordable supply of the best medicines in the world is, on the one hand, a key objective. On the other hand, fiscal sustainability has been essentially a tension or a balance sought to be achieved through a series of strategic agreements. This is the latest one, which follows a lengthy negotiation between the Commonwealth, led by Minister Hunt, and the industry, represented by those two associations. The bill implements two critical measures contained in the agreement; I'll come to what those measures are. The agreement contains a number of other very important measures that are not reflected in this bill, because they will largely be measures implemented through the executive government and the industry. I will talk very briefly about one or two of those measures, because they give important context to the important but largely technical matters included in this bill. Of very substantial importance is the government agreeing to the first independent review of our health technology assessment processes. It's quite clear that, with the enormous advances in medical technology we are living through, we are living through a turbocharged period of discovery not just in health but in a whole range of sectors of society and the economy, characterised by the harnessing of big data not only in health and medical research and technology development but also in genomics and the development of this extraordinary generation of precision medicines, new diagnostic technologies and so on and so forth. This is quite expensive but incredibly exciting, because it's giving us avenues to treat and, in some cases, cure conditions that not too many years ago were thought untreatable—or, if they were treatable, were thought to be largely incurable. This is a wonderful period we're living through. I heard the member for North Sydney and, on our side, the member for Macarthur table the latest report from the House of Representatives inquiry into access to medicines. They talked about the horizon that awaits us, where, as the member for Macarthur indicated, very orthodox traditional technologies for cancer treatment, like chemotherapy, may well—and we hope so—soon become a thing of the past, replaced by precision medicine that targets the cancer in a very precise way, without doing the extraordinary damage to surrounding tissue and cells that we know chemotherapy does. This is incredibly exciting. But so many of these new treatments don't fit neatly into the silos which are reflected in our assessment, approval and reimbursement systems. Those systems are largely set up around the idea that something is a therapeutic good, usually a medicine, or a service, a diagnostic technology or a medical device, each of which largely have their own assessment, approval and reimbursement systems. The trouble is that treatments now tend to blur those distinctions such that you might end up with something called theranostics, which is a combination of diagnostics and therapy, not fitting neatly into those traditional Commonwealth systems but giving patients, for example, with neuroendocrine cancer the most extraordinary opportunities for treatment. This health technology assessment review has rightly been welcomed by patient groups in particular but also by the broader industry as well and certainly by the opposition. It commences next year. It's to be concluded in 2023. The inquiry report was delivered by the member for North Sydney and the member for Macarthur, and the inquiry was conducted by both of them with a great deal of energy and a real spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship across the aisle that has garnered very impressive reviews from industry and patient groups. These two things together, along with a review of the national medicines policy, I think set out a really exciting pathway to the future. It will be incumbent on whatever government ends up holding power after the election largely to steer those processes through. That really is the important guts—if I can use that technical term!—of these strategic agreements. They are an opportunity to bring our assessment, approval and reimbursement systems into line with what's happening in the real word. It's an incredibly exciting period of discovery that we're living through. Having said that, though, and having mapped out, hopefully, what some of the more exciting, sexy parts of the agreement are, there are, as usual, the more technical, bureaucratic measures contained in this agreement which are very worthy and supported by the opposition. As I've said a number of times in public fora and in this place, we are a party of government. We take the view that agreements concluded in good faith between the Commonwealth government and industry, as in this case, must be respected by an incoming government, if we're lucky enough to be an incoming government next year. Our approach to the conclusion of this agreement, which we've indicated publicly we support, extends to our support for this bill, subject to a second reading amendment which I foreshadow that I will be moving at the end of my remarks. This bill covers two important measures contained in the strategic agreements. The first is to amend the price reduction system that has been a feature of the strategic agreements going back to the first decade of the century, the decade before last, to ensure that some anomalies are fixed in favour of taxpayers and the budget, particularly through catch-up statutory price reductions, which I will talk about. Secondly, the agreements in this bills also put in place measures to deal with the insecurity of supply of a range of medicines that had already started to become an issue in Australia but which has been greatly exacerbated by the supply chain shock that we've seen through COVID. I might deal with that measure first of all. At the moment, there are around 263 medicines that are listed by the TGA that are experiencing shortages in Australia, with a further 54 medicines that have anticipated shortages. So well over 300 listed therapeutic goods—listed medicines—in Australia do not have secure supply. As local members on both sides of the House, I'm sure we have all been receiving substantial feedback from patients, constituents and pharmacies about the difficulty they have been having—some of that was already happening before COVID—accessing supplies of very standard, important medicines: medicines for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, epilepsy, high cholesterol, pain management—particularly for severe pain, as well as a range of medicines for mental health conditions, including depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. These are obviously very important issues for the delivery of good health care to the Australian community. This agreement contains a number of measures to, essentially, put in place an obligation on industry to guarantee security of supply of a range of medicines, particularly those that are at risk of supply shortage—a security of supply of four to six months stockholding. This is a measure that we support and that we think is a proportionate, measured response to the shortages we've seen, particularly over the last two years, but, as I said, some of which predated COVID. It's a measure we welcome. Regarding return for the obligations that the industry has taken on through the signing of this agreement—the medicines supply guarantee they make—I make the point, firstly, that this is largely a supply guarantee that will fall on the genericised medicines, because they are the medicines that are usually subject to insecurity of supply. In return for that guarantee, the government has agreed to a modest price support for those medicines. This itself, frankly, should help ensure a greater willingness on the part of global industry to ensure that the Australian market is properly supplied. So that is the first technical measure contemplated by this bill, a measure that we support. The bill also implements a number of important measures designed to deliver price reductions for medicines. As I said, a system was put in place some years ago that has really delivered very substantial budget savings for Australian taxpayers. These new measures include catch-up price provisions that deliver price reductions for medicines that have thus far avoided price reductions commensurate with what we would expect in the functioning of a competitive market. It is through these catch-up price reductions that the bill delivers around $1.9 billion in savings to the PBS, which will be reinvested in the PBS through new listings. The full schedule of statutory price reductions is very large and complex—far too large and complex for me to detail in this speech—but it is worth the House noting some of the more prominent of those details. These reductions will ensure that on the 5th and 10th year anniversary of a drug being listed on the PBS the drug will see a five per cent price reduction on each of the two anniversaries. This price reduction increases to over 26 per cent on the 15th year anniversary of a listing. In 2027, towards the end of the agreement, this 26 per cent reduction for the 15th year anniversary will increase to a 30 per cent price reduction—a very substantial saving to taxpayers, which will be reinvested in new listings on the PBS. The bill maintains a first new brand price reduction of 25 per cent, which applies when the first new brand—which will usually be a generic—that is bio-equivalent or bio-similar to and has the same method of administration as an existing brand of drug is listed on the PBS. Again, that is a substantial savings. The five-, 10- and 15-year anniversary statutory price reductions only apply if a drug has no competitors listed on the PBS and, as a result, has not been subject to a first new brand price reduction. Some drugs have been listed on the PBS for over 15 years and have not yet been subject to price disclosure reductions that are designed to ensure the PBS can adjust and see those decreasing costs over time. These drugs will now be subject to catch-up price reductions equal to the cumulative statutory reductions that would have applied over the period of their listing. That means that, for a drug listed for 15 years that thus far has not seen any price disclosure reductions, we will see a price reduction of almost 37 per cent from 1 April 2023. It should be noted though that the 25 per cent first new brand price reduction will not apply if the 15-year anniversary price reduction has been applied. Again, we welcome the agreement between industry and the government on these catch-up price reductions. We think they're a proportionate, measured response to the circumstances surrounding some of those drugs that have not yet been subject to the price disclosure reductions over 15 years, again seeking to balance that need around access to new medicines for Australian patients with the sustainability of the PBS elements of the budget. There have been some issues raised by areas of industry and some patient groups which I want to put on the record and that I know the minister is aware of and is responding to. There are some nonmembers of Medicines Australia who have expressed concern to a number of fora, to the opposition and, I know, to the minister about slow-release drugs for a range of disorders, including opioid dependence, that will be subject to statutory price reductions under this bill, even though the slow-release versions of these drugs are quite novel and have not been supported by the PBS for the statutory period of 15 years. The intent of this bill, which we support and understand the government has, is to give effect to a broad objective in ensuring the sustainability of the PBS while safeguarding medicine supply for the Australian population. That includes making sure that statutory price reductions do not have an unintended consequence that results in the withdrawal of supply of important medicines from the Australian market. We have a strong view, and I imagine the government shares it, that statutory price reductions should not be allowed to undermine medicine supply. As a result of that shared objective as I understand it, we note the important role that ministerial discretion has in determining how price reductions are applied in order to ensure that supply of medicines is maintained along with, connectedly, the financial viability of medicine suppliers. We know that the government shares that view, and to that effect we understand that the government has committed to bringing forward an update of the ministerial discretion guidance material and to engage companies that are potentially affected in that process of an update. In particular, I am referring to the companies that I know have been in communication with the minister, as they have been with me and my office. I welcome that commitment from the minister and expect that will be delivered in good faith. As I said, this is an important agreement that has been struck between the government and the pharmaceutical industry. It follows a series of agreements that have been struck now for some years. It's clear that the predictions contained in the 2002 IGR around increases in the PBS budget have not come to pass. We're only halfway through the 40 years that then Treasurer Costello was looking at at the time. But it is a very different picture to the one that was painted in the 2002 IGR, and that in part is due to the discipline that's been introduced into market pricing through a series of these strategic agreements. I think it also reflects the fact that those projections from Treasury about PBS costs were, to describe them generously, probably quite heroic. I commend this bill to the House and indicate the opposition will support it subject to a second reading amendment, which I now move as follows: T hat all words after " That " be omitted with a view to subs tituting the following words: " whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House urges the Government to do more to ensure Australia's p harmaceutical industry can provide new jobs, medicines and investment into Australia. " The DEPUTY SPEAKE 198084 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Watts 193430 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:06 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise this afternoon in the House to support the substantive National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021. I speak on this bill, as members in this chamber probably already know, with a background as the son of not one but two pharmacists. Both mum and dad were, and still are, pharmacists. They are proudly very active in the industry. For a number of years they ran a very successful small business—a pharmacy, as you can imagine—in the city of Brisbane, in the CBD, branching out to own a second pharmacy at one point. When I was growing up, like all kids of small-business people, I spent my holidays, over Christmas and at other times during the year, working in the business. This gave me an incredible firsthand appreciation of just how vital the PBS is to our nation. Having access to affordable medicines makes our community stronger and improves the quality of life for Australians. It should never ever be taken for granted. It can be taken for granted—members on the other side of the chamber have shown that—but I'll get to that later. It should never be taken for granted. I saw firsthand how important the PBS was for people from all walks of life, from those families walking into the pharmacy with their colds and flus, or their rashes that mum and dad would diagnose and then provide a product for, through to putting together Webster packs for elderly patients. Webster packs are for packaging all of their medicines—of which there can sometimes be quite a lot and involve some significant conflicts if you're not careful—into a pack where they can pop it out day by day and keep track of their medicines. It went all the way through to methadone patients who had significant addictions and struggles, often mental health struggles, who would attend the pharmacy to get their regular methadone to help kick that addiction. No matter where you sit in the spectrum of life, you will need the PBS. You will need pharmacies, for that matter, and pharmacists, but you will need the PBS. That is why I am so passionate about ensuring that it is fit for purpose and that it is doing what it's designed to do, which is to assist Australians. I am proud to be part of a government that, since coming to government, has listed over 2,800 medicines worth $13.9 billion to the PBS. We hear time and time again from the health minister, particularly during question time, about how the drugs that are listed help individuals. He is very good at providing the stories of individual families who are affected by these medicines being listed: people suffering cancer, heart disease, epilepsy, spinal atrophy, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, severe asthma, severe osteoporosis, chronic migraines and many other conditions. For people, particularly those who have a chronic condition, these new medicines can cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars. For people who have a chronic condition, if these medicines weren't listed on the PBS they would be out of reach on a regular basis from these Australians' acces But, because they are listed on the PBS, instead of costing thousands of dollars per treatment per month, or maybe per week, they're available for $6.60 for a concessional patient or $41.30 for general patients per script. Without the PBS, those Australians would have a lower quality of life, would have more suffering and, in many cases, we'd see lives cut far too short. While there's no way to quantify the full impact that the PBS has across Australian society, we know that this is an investment worth making in Australians, many of whom have those chronic diseases that they need relief from. Of course, to be able to add so many medicines to the PBS you need a strong economy, and that's what the coalition government has been able to deliver. Prior to COVID, we were listing medicines on the PBS at a rate on average of one per day. That is an incredible achievement, because, as the previous Labor speaker said—and I'll give him credit for this—we are living in an age of incredible medical advancement. We have incredible opportunities that medicine and medical science is providing to us to advance the drugs that we have available and to tackle some of these more chronic diseases. But to be able to take up the opportunity of those new drugs when you have a drug company lobbying the government saying: 'We have this new drug. It's ready to go. There are this many Australians who would benefit from it, who are currently suffering from a disease and we can improve their quality of life, but, because of the IP and the research and the technology we've had to invest in it, it's going to cost them many thousands, tens of thousands, in some cases, hundreds of thousands,' you want your government to be there with the economic circumstances in place so that they can take up that investment as soon as it is possible so Australians don't have to wait. The economic legacy of this coalition government has been that we have been in a position to take it up. Where the PBS independent authority have recommended it, it then goes to a period of negotiation with drug companies and, once a price has been agreed on as part of that negotiation, we're in an economic position to list it. When I spoke earlier about the fact that that can never be taken for granted, we know what happens when it is taken for granted, because, as much as the PBS is one of the great Australian achievements that we have in place to support a broad cross-section of Australians, it is a great myth of Australian politics that the PBS is somehow all enduring, that it's eternal and it can't be wilted away. Well, it can. It can wilt if you neglect it. And that's what we saw under the previous Labor government, where they literally had to issue budget papers to say that due to financial constraints—that they themselves had imposed with their reckless spending!—they were no longer able to list drugs on the PBS as they came up. The practical outcome of poor and reckless financial management is that you can't list these drugs when they come up and, at the end of the day, that means Australians with chronic diseases, people who need it, suffer. They suffer. I don't ever want to be in that position again as an Australian society and I know that, as a coalition government, we won't allow that to be in place. But Australians need to remember that the PBS is not something that, by signing up to these bills, Labor can claim is all enduring and have no worry about, because we've seen, when they have had their hands on the financial levers of this country, when they've had the opportunity to do more than just talk, as they do a lot in this chamber, when they have the opportunity to undertake the action to preserve the PBS, they haven't been able to do it because they've prioritised other spending. This government is a consultative government. That's why I'm pleased to support the substantive bill, which is all about the new agreement that has been struck with Medicines Australia. It's a result of significant consultation with the medicines industry to ensure that sustainability of the PBS long-term. So, when we went into the negotiations as a government, we had two overarching goals. We wanted Australia to continue to gain access to those brand new breakthrough medicines as early as possible, as early as we can negotiate. The other goal that we have in mind that we've achieved with this agreement is to deliver a far more robust and uninterrupted supply of medicines needed and used by everyday Australians. There are a lot of things that the COVID-19 pandemic taught us, but in particular we learnt about the vulnerability of some of our supply chains, about how these unforeseen events can truly bring global supply chains to a halt. We can't afford that to occur when it comes to these medicines that are either life-saving or treating chronic diseases. The industry agreements will achieve this by securing commitments from the medicine industry which will result in substantial savings that we can then go ahead and reinvest into the PBS to list more medicines. Through improved statutory price reductions, savings can be reinvested in the PBS to make it even more sustainable and to create more headroom for us to list new life-saving drugs. The reforms of this bill see better supply, reduced cost and greater access to new medicines. These reforms are critical to ensuring the continuity of access that is so important for the proper treatment and management particularly of chronic conditions. Increasingly, global shortages are interrupting supplies of medicines. In 2019 and 2020, brands of over 500 PBS items were affected by medium to critical impact shortages, with brands supplied by manufacturers for $4 or less the most susceptible to global supply chains. This includes medicines for common health conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes and medicines for mental health conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. These reforms, as agreed with the medicines industry as part of the agreement that forms the basis of the substantive bill, will ensure that manufacturers are better placed to compete for supply of these medicines in the global medicine market and hold greater reserve supplies of at least four to six months of stock in Australia to buffer the Australian market when interruptions occur. If a global pandemic occurs again, like we have seen with COVID-19, this agreement will help ensure that we have that immediate to medium-term stock in place so that we can deal with those supply chain issues. From 1 July 2023, additional stocks will be held for over 600 PBS items, including most brands that have an approved manufacturer price of $4 or less, because, again, these are the most common medicines used for chronic diseases that people can't afford to skip or they go back a number of steps in the treatment process. These reforms will be critical to ensuring the continuity of access. The other important goal of the agreement is harvesting savings so that we can reinvest them in other PBS medicines. The new savings from improved statutory price reductions, which will be reinvested in the PBS, will ensure that the reinvestment will allow for some headroom—a five per cent price reduction at the five-year anniversary of a drug listed on the PBS; a five per cent reduction on the 10-year anniversary of a drug listed; and a 26.1 per cent price reduction at the 15-year anniversary of a drug listed on the PBS, which will increase to 30 per cent in 2027. These are significant reductions in the headroom of PBS medications that can be reinvested to ensure that our PBS remains sustainable going forward, as we have an ageing population who will draw more on those medicines already listed on the PBS, and that can be used to add new medicines. These reforms will generate net savings. To quantify, there will be net savings of approximately $1.9 billion over the terms of the agreement, which will be reinvested. Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association have committed to this bill. There was a significant amount of consultation that went into the bill, and there is support for greater security and supply of medicines. We've also received support from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Australian Medical Association, the National Pharmaceutical Services Association and the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. As I said earlier, together with the industry, as you can see from the broad support from across industry for this bill, we are going to continue to strengthen our health system. We are going to continue to make sure that pharmacists like my mum and dad have a more reliable supply of medicine so they can ensure that those who rely on medicine are not disappointed and so that those who rely on it for their treatment plan will always have a constant supply. We are going to make sure that we continue to list these drugs when they become available—because we have created the economic circumstances that allow us to do that through good and proper financial management—so that we hear fewer of these stories from sufferers of chronic disease. I am sure many MPs hear stories in their offices from families who are doing it incredibly tough, who can see the light at the end of the tunnel—they can see the drug that's going to drastically improve quality of life for a member of their family—but, because of the price, because of the IP that has had to be put into it and because of how new it is, it's just out of reach. It is with great pleasure that, as a member of the government, I can play a small role in helping to ensure that that gap is minimised and they can get access to a life-saving drug. Again, I pay tribute to the health minister, Greg Hunt, for all the work he has put into this legislation, as well as other stakeholders who have brought it to fruition. 18:21 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan The National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021 is the product of some fairly lengthy negotiations between the pharmaceutical industry and the government. What we have before us with this bill, as the member for Hindmarsh and shadow minister for health spoke to earlier, is something that can have bipartisan support. Certainly we on this side of the chamber support the bill and where it has landed in these negotiations. The enhancements in the bill are estimated to generate savings to the PBS of around $1.9 billion over the life of the agreement. In particular, Labor welcomes the reinvestment of those savings into the PBS to enable the supply of new life-altering and life-saving medicines in Australia. The bill will also, quite importantly, address the issue of medicines that have not seen price reductions through catch-up statutory price reductions and will see measures to ensure the supply of medicines is protected through stockholding and obligations. I want to take some time today to talk about some life-saving medications in Australia and to specifically talk about the cases that have been brought to me as the member for Cowan and to express my advocacy for some of those life-saving medications to be included in the PBS. In relation to the $1.9 billion in savings over the life of this agreement, if consideration is given to reinvesting those savings into looking at listing new life-saving medicines, perhaps the government might consider the cases that I am bringing forward here for Cowan residents and their access to life-saving medication. The previous speaker talked about constituents coming into our offices and telling us their stories of access to medicines, whether for themselves or for members of their family. In some of the cases that I will talk about, it is for children. He said that it's great when they can see a light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, for the cases that I present here today, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. I pay heed to the parents of the children living with chronic health conditions, and the adults who are doing so, who continue to advocate very strongly for changes to the PBS in order to ensure that they do have access to the medicines that prolong their life, that give them a better quality of life or that are a cure for their chronic diseases. Last week in this House, the member for Macarthur presented a petition signed by thousands of people relating to a drug called Trikafta, which is a cystic fibrosis drug. I have a very good relationship with the cystic fibrosis community in Cowan and throughout Western Australia, and I specifically want to pay heed to Taryn Barrett, who is a very vocal advocate for people with cystic fibrosis. Her son, Connor, has cystic fibrosis. I've met Taryn and Connor on a few occasions and can't speak highly enough of Taryn's advocacy. On the drug Trikafta, the pharmaceutical company that developed Trikafta, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, applied to the PBS to make it available for Australian sufferers of cystic fibrosis. Currently, the drug costs Australian patients around $300,000 a year. I don't know anyone who can afford $300,000 a year on a life-saving drug to keep their child alive, to give their child a quality of life and to prolong their child's life. Going through my Rolodex of friends, acquaintances and people I know, I cannot name a single person who can afford $300,000 a year to spend on a drug like Trikafta, but that's how much it's costing Australians living with cystic fibrosis at the moment. Vertex applied to the PBS to have Trikafta listed. The PBS made it available only for people with a certain mutation of cystic fibrosis. The pharmaceutical company Vertex hasn't accepted that recommendation, because they argue it would actually exclude 80 per cent of cystic fibrosis sufferers. Taryn Barrett, who I mentioned earlier, is a WA woman and an advocate for people with cystic fibrosis. Her son, Connor, has cystic fibrosis. She said that there were almost 400 patients with the specific mutation who would have benefited from Trikafta going on to the PBS, who could receive help from Trikafta going on there. But there are 1,800 patients in Australia, including her son, who would miss out. In other words, the decision by the PBAC to recommend that Trikafta only be available to cystic fibrosis patients with a specific gene mutation would help 400 patients but would mean that 1,800 patients would miss out. What does that mean for someone like Connor, and what does that mean for someone like Taryn, his mum? Taryn says it means that people are getting irreversible damage and people are dying, and it's not acceptable in a country like Australia. A treatment like Trikafta would mean that Connor would be able to grow old. Currently, his life expectancy is around 38 years. Another of my constituents, who I was honoured enough to meet at a cystic fibrosis fundraiser and who I've become good friends with, Adam D'Aloia, is an adult who has lived with cystic fibrosis all his life. Through him I've learned so much about how cystic fibrosis affects the quality of life of those who suffer from it. Adam himself was the recipient of a double lung transplant and, because of that transplant, has been able to continue surviving, basically. So Trikafta is one drug that I would hope, with the savings to the PBS and the measures to be brought about by this bill, we could look at funding, putting onto the PBS and making available to sufferers of cystic fibrosis, be they adults or be they children, to prolong their lives and give them a better quality of life. They deserve this. Cystic fibrosis is a terrible, terrible condition. It disrupts life. It disrupts work. It is so disruptive and so intrusive into an individual's life. Anything that we can do to improve the quality of life, the wellbeing and the longevity of people living with cystic fibrosis, we should do our utmost. There is a second issue that I want to speak about. I hope this bill may give that light at the end of the tunnel for those who are living with type 1 diabetes and who do not have access to continuous glucose monitors. Earlier this year I met with Madison Lee, who lives in my electorate. Madison's brother had type 1 diabetes and tragically passed away in his sleep as a result of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Madison's brother was just 24 years old, and, at 24, he was no longer eligible for a continuous glucose monitor. If Madison's brother had retained continuing eligibility and access to a continuous glucose monitor it would have saved his life. He would be alive today. The fact is that for someone who is 24 years old—he was an apprentice, so he wasn't on a high income—the thousands of dollars it costs to get access to a continuous glucose monitor is prohibitive. There are so many young people in their 20s who are living with type 1 diabetes and are no longer eligible for continuous glucose monitors who are putting their lives at risk because they can become eligible for a CGM, a continuous glucose monitor, if they have are hospitalised with a hypoglycaemic incident. So many of them are putting their lives at risk in order to have access to those monitors, which can save their lives. I also met with a constituent, Mark Smith, who's been living with type 1 diabetes for 34 years. He came to see me because, like 60 per cent of people living with type 1 diabetes, he does not have access to life-saving and life-changing CGM technology. He's spending thousands of dollars a year to access CGM, and it's putting a strain on him, it's putting a strain on his family, it's putting a strain on his finances. It doesn't have to be that way. Larissa, another constituent who also suffers from type 1 diabetes, is faced with costs of around $6,600 a year for a CGM, and she simply can't afford to keep up the cost of the continuous glucose monitor. She says, 'I am now in a crazy situation where if I choose to work a little bit less I will actually be financially better off because the burden of the continuous glucose monitor or flash glucose monitor would be subsidised.' Larissa wants to work, she wants to lead a normal life, she wants to contribute and work full-time, but doing so comes at a cost for her—that cost is the cost of having to fully subsidise, fully pay for, the continuous glucose monitor, which she simply can't afford. I've talked about two examples—Trikafta and continuous glucose monitors. I know that every person in this House has heard stories from the families of individuals and individuals who have been living with some form of chronic illness or chronic disease who are struggling to pay for the medications they need. As the previous member said, we are incredibly fortunate in this country to have a PBS and to be able to subsidise some of those important medications for people to ensure their quality of living, to give them a better life, to give them a longer life and, hopefully, to cure their illness, whatever that illness might be. I stand here because I want to support this bill. I think it is a good bill. As the member for Hindmarsh, the shadow minister for health, said, Labor does support this bill. We want our PBS to be better. But we also want more medications listed on the PBS for people for whom access to those medications would literally mean life or death, better quality of life and more longevity. In closing, I support this bill, I support the measures that are contained in this bill. When considering the $1.9 billion of savings over the life of this agreement I urge the government to consider the medication that I mentioned here today, Trikafta, and extending the eligibility for the continuous glucose monitors, access to which will help to prevent avoidable deaths from type 1 diabetes. In the case of Trikafta, for someone like Connor to be able to live a long and healthy life means the world. It means the world to him, it means the world to his parents, it means the world to his community and it means the world to me too. I want to see Connor grow up. I want to see him have grandkids. I might not be alive by the time he has grandkids—and hopefully I'll get grandkids before he has grandkids!—but I want that for him and I want that for Taryn and Connor's family. I know that every member here wants that for every one of their constituents, too. 18:35 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to talk on the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021. Australians view the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or PBS, as it's known, a bit like the way people in England view the NHS. It is something that people know, that they care about and that they trust, and they want their government to deliver the best PBS possible. That is because every Australian knows that at some point in their life they may have to rely on the PBS, and we know that many millions of Australians currently rely on the PBS. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme serves to give Australians affordable access to quality medicine. It is something that everyone in this House should be proud of. The PBS is being supported by this government but has been supported over many, many years by many, many governments in Australia. Importantly, since this government came to power in 2013, nearly 2,800 new medicines have become available through the PBS. They are all government subsidised to ensure that the health of the citizens of our country is maintained. The amendments in this bill reflect the new five-year agreements with Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association. These agreements seek to ensure Australia has a strong supply of medicine, with Australians able to access breakthrough medicines as early as possible. These new agreements that the government and the medicines industry have co-developed as a comprehensive package of reforms for the PBS will ensure that Australians can continue to gain access to new breakthrough medicines as early as possible but also deliver a robust and uninterrupted supply of medicines needed and used every day by Australians. It will just as importantly keep the PBS on a long-term sustainable footing. The industry agreements will achieve this by securing commitments from the medicines industry which will result in new savings from improved statutory price reductions which will be reinvested in the PBS, as they should. This reinvestment will in turn help to make headroom on the PBS for listing new medicines. This is very important because we need to get the balance to enable headroom to be provided so that we can get new drugs onto the PBS. This bill will see patients save on average due to the decrease in price of a large number of PBS medicines. The reforms are expected to save nearly $2 billion over the five-year remit and will target Commonwealth investment towards securing a strong supply of commonly prescribed medicines that have suffered supply chain issues in recent years. Moreover, this bill guarantees over $5 billion of new investment in PBS medicine listings over the lifetime of the agreements to 2027. It seems like an odd year to say, 2027; it's just around the corner, though! This commitment will help guarantee that the government can list new medicines as recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee as and when they become available and approved. The bill will reinforce a strong supply chain to ensure that Australians are not left struggling to find the medicines they need. We all know we have been through a pretty dramatic COVID pandemic. Through 2019 and 2020, over 500 medicines listed on the PBS wrestled with medium to critical impact shortages, particularly medicines sold for $4 or less per pack. These were found to be most susceptible to these shortages. This bill seeks to reconcile these issues. The medicines suffering shortages included those that treat depression, schizophrenia, high blood pressure and many more illnesses. Certainly these patients cannot afford to have supply chain interruptions. I know; I have family members affected by some of these conditions. Supply chain interruptions are devastating to those patients. It's important that they can be sure of a secure supply of medicine. Through COVID last year, I know that there was particularly a supply chain issue of paracetamol, for example. I don't think many people knew some of the struggles that this government had to ensure it dealt with in a pandemic coming at us at speed. It was like being in a great aircraft with both the Spanish flu and the Great Depression coming at us at speed. There were a lot of things that had to be dealt with. The minister for health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, was dealing with some of these supply chain issues himself. I have a constituent in my electorate who is the CEO of Australia's largest generic pharmaceutical company, Arrotex, Dennis Bastos. He called me up and said, 'Katie, I am having trouble with the supply chain of paracetamol as the CEO of one of the largest generic pharmaceutical distributors.' We had to work through DFAT and diplomatic engagement. Finally we actually had to take it right up to the top level, to the prime ministers of both our countries, to solve the supply chain issue with India in order to access paracetamol. Can you imagine the babies of Australia not having access to paracetamol, or the people who are dealing with fever, who are unwell at home, not having access to paracetamol? It was actually quite a critical shortage. I know there have been many shortages over the last couple of years, and they have been dealt with because the minister for health is very effective at securing supply chains. He gets in front of the problems before they can actually cause problems to patients. We know that he is having to deal with these problems behind the scenes and on behalf of Australians, and legislation such as this will help the minister of the day, in this case Greg Hunt, to deal with supply chain issues. In order to maintain a strong supply chain in this country, medicines with prices at or below $4 will not have their price reduced under this act. Moreover, medicines with very cheap ex manufacturer price will undergo modest price increases to ensure that manufacturers can secure strong source of supply in the global market. In light of the increased investments by the medicines industry to ensure this strong supply chain, a price reduction floor will be introduced to support the pharmaceutical industry. This is the balancing act that the minister of health needs to do to make sure that we get the best outcome for all Australians and, of course, that the taxpayer's dollar gets well invested. This amendment serves to support low-cost medicines so that these manufacturers can compete in what is a very aggressive global market as well as invest in supply chain resilience. When a PBS listed brand is protected by the price reduction floors previously mentioned, they will be under strict obligation to hold large amounts of stock in Australia. This will ensure the supply chain issues are not damaging to the Australian environment. This bill acts to employ stockholding requirements, requiring manufacturers to hold at least four months of typical demand of stock on hand. This amendment will almost universally apply to all medicines with prices below $4 to ensure that those struggling in this country with illnesses that are affected by these medicines can rest assured that they will not have their important lifeline of medicine cut by supply issues. The amendments in this bill will ensure sustainable supply for the Australian people of the medicines they need as well as supporting the medicines industry to invest in holding greater stock of medicines most at risk of global shortages and investing in greater supply chain resilience. Since October 2013, the coalition government has approved approximately 2,800 new or amended medicine listings on the PBS, at an overall investment by the government of $14 billion. This is something that taxpayers should be very proud of—the investment of their funds to make sure that Australians can get access to secure, reliable, highly efficient, highly impactful medicines at a very reasonable cost. The Morrison government has a demonstrated history of support for the PBS. In the 2020-21 budget, nearly $900 million was invested by this government in new and amended listings as part of the scheme. This includes for breakthrough treatments for cancer, depression, eczema, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pulmonary arterial hypertension, asthma, migraine and Parkinson's disease, just to name a few. Notably, a medicinal cannabis product, cannabidiol, is now included on the PBS for use in treating Dravet syndrome, which will save more that 100 Australians and their families over $24,000 a year in costs. This is really important because these children—it is usually children who are affected by Dravet syndrome—often have very difficult lives and do not necessarily have the means to support themselves with this incredibly helpful drug, which makes such a significant difference to their lives and their quality of life. Further examples of what's being listed on the PBS include ofatumumab. I'm giving the generic name, because it's very important that we list generic drugs. This is listed on the PBS for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. I know so many people—family members, friends and patients—who've had multiple sclerosis. It can be a devastating condition. Around 5,000 patients a year will benefit from this listing. Without subsidy, patients could pay $28,000 per year of treatment. You can imagine that someone who's affected by multiple sclerosis may, because of their chronic health condition, not have the employment to be able to afford a treatment that costs $28,000 per year. That's an enormous undertaking, so you can imagine what a relief it is for patients who have relapsing-remitting—meaning it keeps coming back and getting worse—multiple sclerosis to be able to have a treatment that will offer them support and better quality of life. It is indeed something that we should all welcome and feel very proud of. A further drug, listed from 1 September 2021, is cariprazine—getting the names right can be quite tricky even for a doctor—which is listed for the treatment of schizophrenia. This means that 39,500 people will benefit, each being saved $1,200 per year for treatment. From 1 October 2021—I'm really going to struggle with this—brolucizumab is listed for patients with age related macular degeneration, a terrible chronic eye condition that causes blurred vision or a blind spot in the visual field. People can lose vision, and it can be quite a serious condition. With the listing, 12,800 patients will each save around $8,800 per year for treatment. These are treatments that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per year, and they could be out of reach for so many, but instead, on the PBS, they will pay $41.30 per script, or $6.60 per script if they have a health concession. Another drug that has been listed from 1 June 2021 is progesterone, or Oripro, to prevent women going into premature labour, saving around 14,250 women up to $300 per course of treatment. A further drug is lisdexamfetamine, the listing of which has been expanded to include patients who are diagnosed with ADHD after they turn 18 years of age. We know ADHD is a problem that affects so many people, particularly children. As they grow older, if they want to continue to take treatment, around 20,000 patients could access comparable treatment for this condition and could benefit from this new treatment option. Without PBS subsidy, patients might pay $1,200 per year for treatment. Finally, the listing of ipilimumab will be expanded for use in combination when treating patients with unresectable malignant mesothelioma, which is a lung condition that can occur when people have had unexpected exposure to asbestos. Over 700 patients a year may benefit from this listing. Without the PBS listing, patients might pay around $130,000 per course of treatment, a huge amount of money. It's wonderful that these drugs are available for conditions that affect only a small number of Australians—but it could be any of us. Recently, a family friend picked up some tiles when he was renovating an apartment block and found, to his horror, that there was asbestos underneath these tiles. Hopefully, he hasn't had a harmful exposure, but it was a fright that he got, and obviously you never know when you may get exposed to asbestos. So it's great to know that our medical system and our health system are protecting people and supporting people to protect lives and save lives. This bill will serve to offer low medicine prices for Australians whilst improving the supply chain that helps Australians get what they need. The Morrison government's commitment to the success of the PBS is clear, with a strong record of new medicines being listed and now this bill being brought forward so that the Australian people can continue to have faith in this government's management of medicines listed on the PBS and so that they can work well, hand in glove, with the pharmaceutical companies and Medicines Australia to ensure a balanced outcome that supports a cost-effective way of ensuring that both supply chain issues and the cost of medicines are kept in check. It is vital that every Australian retain their ability to access medicine. Any shortage is unacceptable as this country strives for a system whereby each and every one of us can access affordable and effective medicine. I commend this bill to the House. 18:50 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley There is no doubt that the COVID pandemic has affected not just Australia but also countries around the world in many ways in addition to the death and serious illness it has caused. As many people before me have spoken about in this chamber, one of the impacts has been on global supply chains and medicine supply. Australia hasn't been immune to that. But this is another example of a government that has been in office for eight years and has failed in that time to put in place plans and procedures, to think about how it would react to things like global pandemics that might affect supply chains. While it's terrific that things are being addressed now, and that this bill, the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021, has some measures that will go towards access to medicines when there has been a disruption in supply chains, it's pretty rich, I have to say, for members of the government to come in here and pat themselves on the back over what a great job they've done during this global pandemic, over how they had to get involved at the last minute to stop shortages of medicines and over how this legislation will make changes when it's reactive, not proactive, when issues with supply chains were known before the pandemic and they didn't do anything about it. Local manufacturing of medicines has needed government support and hasn't got it in the eight long years of this government. We know that there are 263 medicines listed by the TGA that are experiencing shortages in Australia, and another 54 are anticipated. Not all of that could have been prevented had this government had an actual plan for how to deal with the consequences of the global pandemic, but some of it could have been. Shortages of medicines, including medicines for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, epilepsy, high cholesterol, severe pain and mental health conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia—these are not conditions where people should be left wondering how they're going to fill their next script. These are not conditions where it's okay if you miss your medication for a little while. I had a constituent, Ms Cameron, contact my office on behalf of her husband because he couldn't get Actemra medication to treat his giant cell arteritis. We tried our best to help. We made inquiries with local pharmacists at Peninsula Health, and they said, 'Yep, there's a global shortage of it.' Ms Cameron spent four weeks trying to get her husband his medication. It took the help of my office calling pharmacies and contacting suppliers directly before she could get a month's worth of supply, and that was only because someone hadn't turned up at the pharmacy to get their supply. It leaves you wondering what happened to that person. How is it that Australians have to go to such great lengths to obtain medication? I have written to the minister on behalf of Ms Cameron and her husband, acknowledging the global shortages that I have spoken about. But what is the Morrison government doing to ensure the supply of Actemra increases? She can't do this every month. She is not going to be so lucky that every month somebody forgets to go or can't go and collect their script, so that she can get one for her husband. Or is it the case that the government expects her to go through that process to get that medication every month? While the provisions in this bill are welcome, it is a shame that it's reactionary, after people have experienced the consequences of not being able to access medicines, of not being able to pay for medicines and of the global supply chain shortages—not before. It's why it's really important to have vision—vision like Labor's proposal for a reconstruction fund to support manufacturing, to diversify manufacturing and to manufacture medicines as we come out of COVID. Fifteen billion dollars in a reconstruction fund to strengthen and diversify Australian manufacturing including the manufacturing of medicines: that's the sort of policy this country needs—actually delivering an mRNA vaccine manufacturing capacity in Australia, not just talking about it. This is something the Morrison government promised long ago but is yet to deliver. That's the sort of delivery and vision, not announcement, that this country needs, and needs desperately, and that would be provided by a federal Labor government. I want to also talk about one example that my colleague the member for Cowan talked about just before me and my colleague the member for Macarthur, who is sitting next to me, tabled a petition on recently, and that's a drug that's not yet on the PBS but that would help families with loved ones suffering from cystic fibrosis, and that's Trikafta. The member for Cowan spoke about the drug, saying because it's not listed on the PBS it costs something like $300,000 a year for people to access. She doesn't know anyone who could pay that. I certainly don't know anyone in my electorate who could pay that much money. But I know people who would sell everything that they own to get that much money, if only they could, to make the lives of their children who suffer from cystic fibrosis better. They shouldn't have to. Rachelle from Frankston South is one of those people waiting for Trikafta to be listed, for her son. He struggles to breathe every day, and, not surprisingly, she lived in ongoing fear about COVID-19 and what would happen if he was to catch it, even with vaccinations. This is what Rachelle emailed me: 'Cystic fibrosis is an awful disease to live with. It's symptoms are often very difficult to manage. I have learnt not to expect miracles, but I certainly do still expect fairness. But now it's clear that in this latest round, following PBAC applications, we will receive neither. The miracle is right there, just out of reach, because Vertex and the government were unable to come to an agreement. My family will suffer. Other families will suffer, some may even lose the ones they love. Individuals cannot afford Trikafta on their own. We need help. But it is a cutting-edge medicine with proven effectiveness. Trikafta improves lung function, decreases exacerbations and improves weight gain for an overwhelming majority of CF patients. There is no substitute. There is nothing that can offer the same hope, the same lease on life.' She wrote to me: 'Please use your power to help make the powers that be reconsider Trikafta. There is always something that can be done, always a proposition to be made or an angle to be explored. Please step up the pressure, and hopefully your efforts will bring both parties to the negotiating table. In the meantime, CF Australians need compassionate access to Trikafta so that lives and life years can be saved while the negotiations are dragging on. I am one person,' says Rachelle, 'but there are many more like me, and we are all standing up to be counted. Please stand with us, and don't let the government give up on us by giving up on Trikafta. Yours, in help, parents of a child with CF, Rachelle and her husband.' Today I am standing up with Rachelle and all of the other constituents who have contacted me on behalf of their loved ones, to support them and to put Rachelle's words before the parliament about what Trikafta could do if only it was affordable and accessible. I lend my support to their campaign for the government to get that negotiation done and to get it listed on the PBS. 18:59 Dr FREELA 265979 Macarthur NDER () (): It's a real pleasure to speak after my friend the member for Dunkley. Of course, Labor does support this bill, and we note its importance as it seeks to integrate the recently agreed medicines agreement between the Commonwealth and the pharmaceutical industry, in particular Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association. I started my career as a medical student in 1972, so next year it will be half a century, which doesn't seem so long ago to me but may seem a long time ago to others. An honourable member interjecting— Dr FREELANDER 265979 Unfortunately, it is. Australia's health system post the Second World War has been acknowledged as amongst the best in the world. I think there are three pillars of that. At the present time, one pillar is Medicare, initially introduced by Gough Whitlam as Medibank. Of course, it was destroyed by the Fraser Liberal-National government but reincarnated by the Hawke Labor government as Medicare. Another pillar is the PBS system, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which was initially conceived by Ben Chifley when he was Treasurer in the Curtin wartime government and developed fully by Chifley as Prime Minister in 1949. The third pillar is of course the National Health Reform Agreement, negotiated in 2011 by Julia Gillard to provide financial support for our hospital system. Those three pillars were introduced by Labor governments, and it's a part of our DNA that we provide the best and most equitable health services to all Australians. Unfortunately, in the last seven or eight years, there's been a gradual deterioration in the equity of our health system so that people are now finding it very difficult to afford appropriate treatments, even in terms of doctors' appointments. In outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas there's been enormous difficulty in attracting general practitioners. I've approached the present health minister on numerous occasions about this, and nothing has been done. It's leading to very inequitable care, with people not being able to access primary care and falling back on our hospital emergency departments as their primary carers. That's one issue. The other issue is that there have been supply chain shortages for medications in Australia for a number of years, long before the pandemic, and this government has not addressed them. I'm talking about, for example, some of the common antibiotics. There was a severe shortage of the third generation cephalosporins, which are not manufactured in Australia, in 2018, to the point where, as doctors working in hospitals, we were told to restrict use of them; and common penicillin-based antibiotics like ampicillin were very difficult to access because of supply chain problems. And for a number of years there have been shortages of adrenaline for auto-injectors, which are used to treat severe anaphylaxis. This was not addressed by the government until very, very recently, and, even now, there are still shortages. So supply chain difficulties have existed for a long period of time. The PBS system is a cornerstone, one of the pillars of our health system, and we must make sure that it's fit for purpose. This bill will partly address that issue, but it doesn't fully address the issue. It has been a major concern of mine that the ability of Australians to access the best medications, the 21st-century-type medications, has been falling behind because of the difficulties in approval for these medications in Australia with a system that has not been reviewed for some time. To his credit, the minister did ask the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport to undertake an inquiry into how we assess medication availability in the 21st century, and we've come up with a number of recommendations. My concern is that those recommendations will be sitting on a shelf for another six, seven or eight years if this government is re-elected. They have been very slow to respond to previous requests for improvements. I mentioned the GP access scheme. The Medicare review has led to even more difficulties in people accessing primary care. I am very worried that our recommendations for precision medicine and access to the best treatments for Australians will be left in a cupboard for far too long. We already heard mention of Trikafta. Trikafta is a medication for cystic fibrosis which is used for people who have the most common gene mutation—the delta F508 mutation; at least one copy of that with cystic fibrosis—and it is life changing. It is absolutely remarkable. Patients who have been placed on the heart-lung transplant list because their lung function is so poor have been put on Trikafta and the improvement in their lung function has been remarkable—sometimes from as low as 15 or 16 per cent up to 40 per cent, which is a really remarkable improvement. We are now seeing patients with cystic fibrosis, with these newer treatments like Trikafta, living normal or near-normal life expectancy. When I started my training, most people with cystic fibrosis were dead by their late teens or early 20s. These are remarkable 21st century genetic treatments, and we must approve them for Australians with cystic fibrosis and other genetic disorders so that we get equitable access around Australia. There are other medical interventions—not necessarily medications—that we have been very slow to access. There's a new one—when I say 'new', it has been used overseas for a long time—called the Omnipod, which is a treatment for type 1 diabetes. It is attached to the skin, usually of the abdomen, and acts as an automatic artificial pancreas. The settings can be changed remotely, there is no external tubing or visible pump involved, and it's all in a small pod attached to the abdomen. It's a remarkable treatment that's been used overseas for a number of years. It's really good for adolescents, and anyone who has a child with type 1 diabetes knows that adolescence can be a real difficult time because kids get very self-conscious about having attached tubing when doing things like playing sport or going out with friends. This is a terrific advancement for those adolescent kids with type 1 diabetes. For very young children with type 1 diabetes it's great because it can be set remotely, it doesn't require skin pricks to measure blood glucose and it doesn't require external tubing that can be tangled in toys and things like that. So it's a really great treatment, yet Australia has been very slow to approve it. We must do better. During the pandemic, we have had a pretty good response from the TGA, I think. They have been pretty remarkable in how hard they have worked to approve vaccines and new treatments, but we still have a number of difficulties in approval for a range of 21st century medicines. I think that it is time that the government really had a vision statement about where they see our PBS heading in the next 20 or 30 years. I recommend the standing committee's report to the minister again. I really encourage him to let us know how the government is going to respond to our recommendations. We as a parliament have a duty of care to Australians. Our bipartisan report, involving members of the government and members of the opposition, pretty clearly outlines a vision for the PBS system and approval process in the future. We've made a total of 31 different recommendations, a couple of which are really important to me. The one talking about the establishment of a centre for precision medicine is a really important one. I would like to see it expanded even further to have a properly funded institute for precision medicine that is Australia-wide. The other one that is very important to me is the establishment of a national newborn screening program with a regular review process that is instituted all around Australia so that everyone gets equitable access to the best possible treatments. As an example, there is a condition, spinal muscular atrophy, that many people have heard me speak about. It's a genetic condition in which a child is born normal but whose muscles gradually waste away after birth. Those children previously have died by the time they were two or three years of age because of muscle weakness and respiratory failure. There are new genetic treatments available for this that we feel are likely to be curative, and we have certainly seen some very positive results. That condition is only screened for in a number of Australian states, not in all states. Some children are being missed, and the longer the diagnosis is missed the more damage occurs. It is very important that the medication is made available as soon as possible after birth. It's also very important that children who have a milder form of spinal muscular atrophy who survive into adulthood are given access to the genetic treatments through the PBS. At the present time it's only available for people 18 years and under. It should be extended to those over 18 to try and prolong their lives. In summary, Labor strongly believes in an equitable health system for all Australians. The pillars of our health system, including the PBS, are always supported by Labor. We commend the bill to the House, and I hope that, as I said, the government can go even further and provide a vision for their view of the PBS system for the next 20 years. 19:12 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise this evening to speak on the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021. It was a pleasure to listen to the member for Macarthur, who spoke before me, outline some of the significant breakthroughs that are coming down the track that can improve the quality of Australians lives, but we must remember that to list drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to make them available to Australians at an affordable cost, costs money. We have first to create wealth out in the community. There was a period in the time that I've been a parliamentarian when this parliament, in the three years from 2010 to 2013, then under a Labor government, decided that, because of the budgetary situation, the listing of some drugs on the PBS had to be delayed. The member for Ryan was correct when he spoke about that. However, there is no point in continuing to list drugs on the PBS if it's all done by running up our debt. Back when the listing of new drugs on the PBS was suspended the debt was something around the $100 billion mark. Today, national debt stands at something like $1,000 billion—a trillion dollars' worth of debt. This debt is going to greatly compromise this parliament's ability to continue to list on the PBS new life-saving drugs and drugs that will improve the quality of life of many Australians. I have a second reading amendment that I am proposing, which has six separate points. I will quickly go through some of those. The first one is: "whilst" … "not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) that the price of the drug Ivermectin in Australia under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is significantly higher than reported elsewhere in the world; I had a quick look on the PBS schedule, and it has the price for a pack of four three-milligram tablets of ivermectin at the maximum safety net price of $41.30. Yet anyone who looks on the internet can see that same drug available out of India costing something like 20c Australian per tablet, so a pack of four, which you can buy online from India, would be less than a dollar, yet it is $41 even under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Something is going very wrong if a drug that costs less than a dollar to make is being sold to Australians, even under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, for $41.30. The second point in the amendment that I am moving is: (2) that on 10 September 2021, the TGA placed new restrictions on prescribing Ivermectin through the PBS for COVID-19, denying sick Australians access to a medicine that many medical experts believe could save lives, and this denial of Australians' access to a medicine through their doctor was described by experts— including no less an authority than Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy— as 'a sad and shameful day for Australian medicine'; I'll quote from the article. Again, these are not my words; these are the words of Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, which he published an article in Quadrant on 13 September. He said: September 10, 2021, was a black day, the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the "Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling", through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practise and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic's coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. These are not Craig Kelly's words; these are the words of Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy. I will continue to read from his article: This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practise we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates. The immediate consequence of the TGA Notice means patients contracting COVID-19 are left to hear, "Sorry, no treatment for COVID-19 is legally available. Just go to hospital when you get very sick." In the longer term it means that bureaucrats can change the way medicine is practised for whatever reason without review by, or discussion with, the medical community. It is important for Australians to consider two issues that follow the TGA's decision: first, it adds risk to those exposed to COVID-19, putting additional pressures on health-care facilities; second, it drives a wedge into the fault lines that have appeared in medical practise during the course of the COVID-19 saga. Looking at the first issue, the decision by the TGA to prevent general practitioners from prescribing IVM to manage COVID-19, the Notice is flawed and misleading, although giving clues to its political motivation. Again, I am quoting directly from Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy. He writes: The evidence that IVM is safe and effective in both preventing and treating early (pre-hospital) COVID-19 is overwhelming, as has been  laid out in four Quadrant articles published through 2021. Despite this evidence, every artifice has been used to quash IVM's use and to do so in unprecedented fashion. The causes for the suppression include political agendas, pressures from pharmaceutical companies, ideology and breakdown in medical communication. This latest blow by the TGA follows its previous form in shutting down use of hydroxychloroquine, another safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 therapy. Every experienced doctor prescribes drugs for 'off-label' indications. It is anathema and dangerous that the doctor-patient relationship can now be over-ridden by government agendas. Again, these are not my words but the words of one of the most senior, respected and highly qualified immunologists in this country. He concluded: The authoritarian and poorly conceived interference by the TGA in the effective running of clinical medicine, and its broader implications, is a further splintering event. This is a time when everyone needs to be on message to counter a devastating pandemic. The use of blunt legal tools to threaten and bully doctors with de-registration, legal action for "advertising" and even with jail terms for striving for the transparency and common sense that has served medicine so well compromises the rules of science and the doctor-patient relationship upon which our profession is built. The answer is transparency and communication around agreed goals based on science. We should again involve all levels of health care and the public we serve. The decision-making process should include clinicians familiar with the problem to ensure the pragmatic and common-sense approach needed to get us through this pandemic with minimum damage. This is his final paragraph: Rather than create the chaos and loss of respect for an important institution that will follow continued enforcement of the current Notice, the TGA should initiate a working party that includes frontline doctors to establish an agreed treatment protocol that includes dosage, with monitoring of the outcomes. We live in dangerous times that call for new ideas able to address a real world crisis that is out of control and will only get worse without a different way of thinking. They are the words of Emeritus Professor Clancy, written in an article on 13 September. The third point in the amendment that I would like to move is that the recently published Australian data evidence is that ivermectin prescribed under the PBS in Australia prior to the TGA's ban combined as part of a triple therapy including zinc and doxycycline has been highly successful in reducing hospitalisations and deaths. We actually have some data to show how effective this has been; this is not just some theoretical argument or theoretical conclusion put forward by Emeritus Professor Clancy. There is a paper that has been published with the lead authors Thomas Borody and Professor Clancy. In this study, they took 600 Australian residents with positive PCR symptomatic COVID and treated them with ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc for 10 days. The treatment period was from June to September 2021. It involved two states, New South Wales and Victoria, and over 30 frontline doctors. The result of those studies were that only two people visited hospital, for 24 hours, and went home. A total of five people in that study were admitted to hospital, 0.83 per cent, and there were no deaths. In an equivalent control group, so if we took another 600 Australians with similar characteristics who weren't in general society and weren't given Dr Borody's triple therapy, what were the results? On average, 70 were admitted to hospital: 11.5 per cent. So we have those who took Dr Borody's triple therapy, with 0.83 per cent admitted to hospital; and those who didn't, with 11.5 per cent. The number of deaths in that equivalent group: six. In Dr Borody's group: 0. When we have such results in an Australian based study, how is it possible that we are denying Australians access to these treatments? This is what the TGA have done. I do not know whether this drug is effective, but I do know that Australians should not be denied access to this treatment when we have published studies showing such results. Surely when we have people dying every day of COVID we have the right to try in this country. Surely doctors must have the right to practice medicine. Those rights are being taken away by a bad decision of the TGA that is criticised by some of our most senior immunologists in this country. As I'm short of time on the clock, I will quickly also note that the TGA said there had been a threefold to fourfold increase in dispensing ivermectin prescriptions in recent months. They were concerned about the safety of this. We can go to the TGA's DAEN database and see whether this led to more reports of adverse events. We can see throughout the entire length of the pandemic, from 1 January 2020 to 14 November, the latest data of 2021, that there were only two cases of adverse events reported by people taking ivermectin as a single suspect medicine, and one of those took it not through the prescription. In comparison, the number of reports from the COVID vaccines on the same database for the same period is 80,669 cases. I move: That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) that the price of the drug Ivermectin in Australia under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is significantly higher than reported elsewhere in the world; (2) that on 10 September 2021, the TGA placed new restrictions on prescribing Ivermectin through the PBS for COVID-19, denying sick Australians access to a medicine that many medical experts believe could save lives, and this denial of Australians' access to a medicine through their doctor was described by experts as 'a sad and shameful day for Australian medicine'; (3) recently published Australian data provides evidence that Ivermectin prescribed under the PBS in Australia (prior to the TGA's ban) combined as part of a 'triple therapy' including Zinc and Doxycycline (also prescribed under the PBS) has been highly successful in reducing hospitalisations and death; (4) that the TGA noted on 10 September 2021 there had been a 3 to 4-fold increase in dispensing of Ivermectin prescriptions through the PBS in recent months, however the TGA Database of Adverse Events records no increase in adverse events; (5) that a reason for denying Australians' access to Ivermectin through their doctor and the PBS to treat COVID-19 included the reason of 'national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections', however medical regulators failed to take steps to overcome this shortage; and (6) that this denial of Australians' access to this medicine through their doctor and the policies of other nations to adopt widespread use of Ivermectin to tackle COVID-19, have created a black-market for the drug undermining Australia's PBS". I commend this amendment to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 ( ) : Is there a seconder? Mr Christensen 230485 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 112 BUSINESS Rearrangement 112 19:28 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I move: That order of the day No. 4, government business, be postponed until the next sitting. Question agreed to. BILLS 112 BILLS Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve’s Law) Bill 2021 112

Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve’s Law) Bill 2021

Second Reading 112 19:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson on indulgence—Following conversations with the Leader of the House, I just want to report that for the remainder of the debate this evening there is an agreement that there will be no quorum calls and no divisions, and a guarantee from the opposition that there will be no procedural motions moved. 19:30 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I am in continuation. Given that this bill is modelled on the legislation introduced in the United Kingdom, it's worth looking at what progress has been made in the six years it has been in operation. As I understand, only one clinic in the UK has been authorised to conduct research into mitochondrial donation technology, and 21 couples have received treatment. However, I am advised that, due to privacy reasons, we cannot be provided with any information as to the outcomes of these cases. I find that absolutely extraordinary, given that we have been invited to pass legislation based on the UK model itself. I don't expect the names, the ages or the locations of people, but information as to how many viable pregnancies and births have resulted from mitochondrial donation or how many embryos have had to be destroyed to achieve the favoured result would be understandably useful information in considering arguments on advancing these technologies. But there is none. The only reports of successful births as a result of mitochondrial donation procedure have come out of Mexico and, of all places, the Ukraine. Neither of these countries has explicitly legalised the procedure. There are no reports in the Lancet, and, as I understand it, they are not considered as legitimate examples by any international medical research authority. I note the United States has prohibited clinical trials into mitochondrial donation on the grounds that it constitutes genome editing and, as such, presents an unacceptable risk. Similarly the World Health Organization has indicated its opposition to making modifications to the genetic code in humans capable of being passed on to future generations. Therefore we have no compelling information as to the types of methods that have been used in these British cases, and little or nothing about the success or otherwise as to the methods being an assistive reproductive technology. Particularly when the procedures necessitate the destruction of embryos, simply lining up to pass legislation without sufficient evidence or any real idea as to its effectiveness or its prospects of success is, I believe, just not good enough. In 2006 this House debated whether therapeutic cloning through the use of human embryos should be permitted. I said at that stage that an embryo should be afforded the same respect from the moment of creation regardless of the method, intention or age. My position remains the same, unless it can be clearly shown that there are real and substantial benefits to humanity itself that may outweigh that ethical opposition. I'm not opposed to mitochondrial research or all the associated donation technologies. Clearly, we need to be working towards ways to mitigate the risk of children being born with mitochondrial diseases. I believe the maternal spindle transfer may be one of those ways, and I would be prepared to support legislation that allows this technique going forward. However, to support methods that would require at least one human embryo being destroyed at every try, successful or not, is a bridge too far for me. I understand my position is going to disappoint some people. But, ethically, I cannot support clinical research or practices involving these human embryo technologies. I will exercise my conscience vote to vote against the bill as it presently stands. 19:34 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Firstly I'll start by saying that I hold the Chief Opposition Whip in the highest of respect and regard. I think that his contribution to this debate needs to be understood in the way that it should be, which is that, without people like him who are willing to force people like me to justify our position, it is not possible that this parliament can get things right. I agree with much of what he had to say—that an embryo must be treated with the same respect that a life is because that is what it becomes. He and I share similar cultural backgrounds and traditions in which we were brought up. Although I do not have a member of my family who went so far as to join the priesthood, we do our best under the circumstances. I am going to vote in favour of this bill, the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. I appreciate what the Chief Opposition Whip has said and I agree with his concerns. But the reason I came down in favour of the bill is that, if there is meant to be one purpose of this parliament, in my view, it is to maximise the freedom of individuals wholly consistent with the freedom of others. There can be no greater freedom to grant to any particular person, family or community than the gift of life. At the moment, one in 200 Australians are predisposed to mitochondrial disease. It is an extraordinarily debilitating and awful disease. I cannot describe it because I fear I will become somewhat emotional. However, I have met children who are suffering from mitochondrial disease and their families. If it is possible for us to make sure that that suffering no longer needs to exist—this will not go towards a cure; it will go towards eliminating the possibility that a person will develop this disease—then I believe the parliament must take the step, with all due caution and all due consideration and with the possibility, if it does not work, of reversing course. If we are to fail, we should fail fast. I think that this law, on its face, achieves what this parliament should do, which is to maximise the freedom of individuals wholly consistent with others. I do take some comfort in the knowledge that a law very similar to this has existed in the United Kingdom for about six years. The experience of that law in the United Kingdom has been a positive one. It has certainly been one that ethicists have observed and looked at very closely. To date, it has not resulted in the conflicts that many, including me, fear may result. But it has resulted in the fact that many people have been saved from the pain, misery and sheer awfulness of this disease. On that basis, I will add my voice in favour of the bill. In summary, though, I would like to thank two people who I think have helped me understand the processes involved in the science of ensuring that we, as a parliament, can safely allow these donations to occur and also on top of that to ensure that there are many people who will benefit from it. They are Dr Doug Lingard and Professor Carolyn Sue, who have spent many hours educating me patiently but also informatively in what this bill will mean both scientifically and at a human level for so many ordinary Australians and their families. I thank the parliament for the time it has afforded me to make these comments. 19:39 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. At the outset, I would like to dedicate my speech to a little girl called Gabriella, who died, unfortunately, just before I entered parliament and who I cared for prior to her death. She died at age three from mitochondrial disease. It's hard for me to speak on this bill without getting emotional. I acknowledge the views of my colleague the member for Fowler, who I deeply respect. He knows that. I disagree with him on this bill, but I acknowledge the thought that's gone into his speech and, indeed, the speeches of all the members who will speaking on this. I want to pay tribute to the minister for health; the shadow minister for health, Mark Butler; the previous shadow minister for health, Chris Bowen; and the member for Higgins, Katie Allen, who has worked with me to explain the basis of this bill. Very quickly, mitochondria are the little organelles in every cell that produce energy. Every cell requires energy to survive. The energy is in the form of a chemical called adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, and the genetic defects that cause mitochondrial disorders involve ATP production. Without energy, cells die, and those that require the most energy are the ones that are most severely affected. That includes things like brain, muscle, liver et cetera. Mitochondria contain about 0.1 per cent of a cell's DNA, and we inherit our mitochondria from our mother, because the sperm have very few mitochondria. When they enter the maternal egg, the maternal mitochondria are the ones that we all inherit. Defects in the nuclear DNA can cause mitochondrial disorders, and defects in mitochondrial DNA can cause mitochondrial disorders. Mitochondrial mutations are present in about one in 200 people, and about one in 5,000 people will be born with mitochondrial disorders that cause severe illness. That means about 50 to 60 children every year in Australia. This bill is a bill about hope. This gives people who have had a child with a mitochondrial disorder the chance of having a child with their own nuclear genetic make-up who will survive and be healthy. Mitochondrial disorders are horrific disorders to look after. There is no real treatment, and I've seen a number of kids with mitochondrial disorders not survive. Many of them have recurrent neurological problems, gradual deterioration in brain function, epilepsy and recurrent episodes of collapse, with severe metabolic acidosis. I've treated them for a number of years. Usually it becomes a problem of recurrent admissions to intensive care, with intractable seizures, gradual deterioration of brain function and death. I've seen parents have to bury their children, and that's a pretty horrible thing. To me, anything we can do to avoid this is really important. Mitochondrial transfer, which this legislation before the House today allows, provides parents with hope. It enables parents to conceive children that they are biologically related to without the risk of passing on defective genes that would ultimately lead to a mitochondrial disorder in their child. It is cutting-edge technology—there's no question about that. But we know that it is the one thing we can offer to these families that may allow them to have a normal, healthy child. There may be other IVF techniques that can be used, but they do not produce a child that is genetically related to both mother and father. We should never, I think, lose sight of the real human impact that these illnesses have on families and the message of hope that this will give them. It's a step towards ensuring that parents can raise children who have quality of life, a long life free of the burdens of mitochondrial disorders. That's what we're talking about. We cannot lose sight of the profound impact that mitochondrial transfer will have on a patient's quality of life and normal life expectancy. Many types of mitochondrial disease, up until now, have been named after the clinicians who have first described them, mainly because there's no treatment. We are talking about disorders called Leigh syndrome, Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, and Kearns-Sayre syndrome. Other disorders are named by acronyms, such as MELAS or mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes; DAD or diabetes mellitus with deafness; or myoneurogenic neurogastrointestinal encephalopathy. They are all terrible disorders. There are many others. Symptoms can vary greatly, but many children have severe behaviour change initially; extreme lethargy; seizures; recurrent comas; ataxia, meaning a movement disorder; and visual disturbance. Some have severe vomiting; others have a failure to thrive. I have recently seen a child with severe failure to thrive who had mitochondrial disorder. Symptoms wax and wane, but the gradual trend is for deterioration. The clinical course is very distressing to all involved, including clinicians, parents, relatives and others. Apart from supportive care, there's very little that can be offered. But, because of advances in IVF and genetic therapies, techniques have been developed which may allow the affected family to have a healthy, unaffected child. There are two main methods of mitochondrial transfer. There is maternal spindle transfer, which involves adding a mother's nucleus to a donor mother's cell after its nucleus has been removed, prior to fertilisation. And there is pronuclear transfer, which occurs after a sperm enters the egg but before fertilisation is complete. I have no hesitation in supporting the legislation before the House today, and I encourage everyone in parliament to support its passage. It gives hope to these families, and that's the one thing we can offer. Some of my colleagues have concerns based on their own ethical beliefs, but this legislation is above all about providing a choice to families, a choice to participate in a trial which could lead them to conceiving a healthy, happy child. Who are we to deny that choice? As I have mentioned, I want to thank the minister for health. He's a decent man, and his passion for the patient experience is demonstrated through his resolve to bring forward Maeve's Law, which may not have been easy. I also want to acknowledge a number of parliamentarians, including the shadow minister for health, the previous shadow minister for health, and the member for Higgins. I'd also like to acknowledge the work conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council, led by my friend John Rasko, and their review, which ultimately led to this legislation being drafted. It really is important, and they have done some very important bipartisan work. We wouldn't be at this point today, however, without the wonderful advocacy by the Mito Foundation, led by Sean Murray. Sean has been indefatigable in his approach to parliamentarians of all persuasions, and I thank Sean for his determination, his counsel and the efforts of his entire team at the Mito Foundation. I also had the privilege of hosting Oliver Hervir as an intern in my office in recent months, as part of the ANU parliamentary internship program. He's a very bright man with a very promising future. During his time in my parliamentary office, Oliver was tasked with producing a research paper for me on mitochondrial transfer as part of his university experience. I thank Oliver for his wonderful work. I have distributed his work to all my parliamentary friends and it's been extremely valuable in explaining the importance of mitochondrial transfer. To me, this is very important work that we as a parliament can do. I recognise the importance of the conscience vote. I hope that this bill will be passed by this parliament because I think it's a very important first step for the families of the children I've cared for who've had mitochondrial disorders. I know that this first step will require the support of one or two organisations who will conduct this trial, but families do have a choice as to whether to join the trial. I think it's important to recognise that, no matter what we feel personally about the bill, this at least offers those families hope. I can remember the children with these very distressing disorders who I've looked after over a long period of time. Part of my role in this House is to bring forward these issues and to support these issues that would benefit my patients and my colleagues. I think the House for the indulgence of listening to me about this. I do feel very strongly about it. I know there are many others who will talk on this bill who also have personal involvement. I thank them for their work and what they are doing to bring forward this bit of hope from our federal parliament about this very important issue. I thank the House. I commend this bill to the House. I strongly support it, and I thank everyone who has supported me throughout this journey of more than five years. 19:52 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. We've received a good lesson in some of the medicine, science and ethics from the two previous speakers on the other side, and I commend their remarks. This is obviously a deeply personal issue for many people, and I respect that people will have differing views on this. From my own perspective, I look at this as someone who very much believes in the power of science to improve human lives. Our success as a species has relied upon harnessing science and knowledge, and all the traditions that come with them, to make our lives a little less nasty, a little less brutish and a little less short. The subject we're discussing today, mitochondrial donation law reform, relates to mitochondria, the very small structures in our cells which generate the energy that powers every part of our body. They provide us with the energy our body needs to walk, to talk, to laugh, to hear, to digest food, to function and to breathe. They do this by generating adenosine triphosphate, which is used by the cells in which they sit as a source of chemical energy, and they generate this from glucose and oxygen. All cells in the human body other than red blood cells have mitochondria, but what makes mitochondria somewhat unusual is that they have their own DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, which controls their function and, critically, also controls their energy production. Mitochondria, as previous speakers have said, are inherited exclusively from the mother, which means that mitochondrial DNA is passed on from the mother only. It's important to understand that this is quite separate from our nuclear DNA, which sits at the centre of us. Nuclear DNA comes from both our parents and informs who we are, our appearance, our personality and various other attributes. Mitochondrial disease is a defect in these energy-generating structures within our cells. It's a debilitating disorder that robs the body's cells of energy, which usually causes multiple organ dysfunction failure and frequently death, because when mitochondria are faulty the body does not get the correct level of energy it needs to function. Depending on the person and the form of mitochondrial disease they have, they may suffer symptoms ranging from loss of motor control, strokes, seizures, visual or hearing problems, cardiac or liver disease, developmental delay or intellectual disability. The impact of such diseases, as you can imagine, can be devastating, and virtually all forms of mitochondrial disease have a significant impact on patients and those who care for them, including their parents. Babies and young children frequently die of Leigh disease, a form of mitochondrial disease. Mitochondrial diseases can impact on sufferers in different ways. Many people with mitochondrial disease end up having repeated and prolonged visits to hospitals for treatment, which is invariably inadequate because it's not a disease that can be treated. They can present with things like temporary blindness or deafness, strokes, balance difficulties and digestive or eating difficulties, all of which require significant treatment and care. The fact that they will have repeated seizures or loss of motor control means that people of all ages suffering from this disease will usually not be able to work. They will often need full-time care. It will have a pretty broad impact on their family and social circles. In some cases, mitochondrial disease is caused by genetic mutations in the nuclear DNA that we inherit from both our parents. Mitochondrial disease can also arise as a spontaneous genetic mistake at conception. But, in about half of all known cases, mitochondrial diseases are caused by mutations or defects in the separate mitochondrial DNA that we inherit solely from our mother. Around one in 200 people or around 120,000 Australians carry a mutation in their mitochondrial DNA that could potentially cause the disease. It is likely that defects in the mitochondrial DNA are much more common in the community than previously thought. Around one in 5,000 Australian babies are born with a severely disabling form of mitochondrial disease that can cause death in infancy, childhood or adulthood, which is more than one every week. In Australia, there are about 56 children born each year with a very severe form of the disease, with the prognosis being that most of these children will die within their first five years. Like many people here, I expect, I have members of my own electorate who have a story to tell. I had a couple, Vanessa and Tom Fennell, who sadly lost their 11-month-old daughter, Sibella, to mitochondrial disease in 2014. I met with Vanessa in July last year when she shared her tragic personal story and she told me about her view and her belief that legislative changes that would legalise mitochondrial donation would have a positive impact for parents like her. It is possible to significantly reduce the risk of mitochondrial disease being passed on. That mitochondrial disease which is caused by defects in the nuclear genes can often be prevented through prenatal testing or an IVF based procedure called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, but these approaches are generally not as reliable when the mutation is in mitochondrial DNA inherited from the mother. In this situation, mitochondrial donation is an alternative approach. Mitochondrial donation, the topic that we were discussing today, is an assisted reproductive technology that, when combined with invitro fertilisation, or IVF, has the potential to allow women whose mitochondria would otherwise predispose their potential children to mitochondrial disease have a biological child who will not inherit that predisposition. It does this by a complex process of creating an embryo which includes nuclear DNA from the two parents and mitochondrial DNA from a third party, a different woman as the mitochondrial donor. Mitochondrial donation involves removing the nuclear DNA from the patient's egg containing faulty mitochondria and inserting it into a healthy donor egg which has had its nuclear DNA removed. This prevents mitochondrial DNA defects from being inherited by an otherwise genetically related offspring. It breaks the chain of transmission, if you like. So mitochondrial donation can minimise the risk of the transmission of a prospective mother's mitochondria and prevent future generations from inheriting these severe and debilitating diseases. The purpose of this bill, the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021, is to amend existing Commonwealth legislation to allow such mitochondrial donation to be introduced into Australia for research and for human reproductive purposes. The key federal laws governing this area are the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. These laws currently prohibit the implantation of a human embryo that contains more than two people's genetic material. This is regardless of whether that material is simply transferred, as it is in mitochondrial donation, or where genetic modification is proposed. Changing the law here, which is what this bill proposes to do, is critical to allowing affected individuals the opportunity to have genetically related children without the risk of them inheriting mitochondrial DNA defects which will drastically limit their lives. In 2018, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee undertook an inquiry into mitochondrial disease and related matters. Reporting in June of that year, they made a series of recommendations, including that public consultation be undertaken about the introduction of mitochondrial donation reforms. Over 2019 and 2020 the NHMRC, the National Health Medical Research Council, undertook a series of consultation activities. These were informed by experience in the United Kingdom, where mitochondrial donation has been lawful since 2015. The outcome of these inquiries and the overseas experience have shaped this bill, which outlines, in my view, a carefully staged pathway towards the legalisation of mitochondrial donation in clinical practice. A two-stage implementation process is proposed in this bill, with mitochondrial donation initially being legalised for certain research and training purposes and to support selection and licensing of a pilot program to deliver mitochondrial donation to impacted families. Stage 2 would then allow or permit mitochondrial donation in clinical practice more broadly, depending upon the outcomes and an evaluation of the initial pilot program. Mitochondrial donation cannot be used to cure people with existing mitochondrial disease, nor can it prevent mitochondrial disease caused by changes occurring in an individual's nuclear DNA. Mitochondrial donation can, however, minimise the risk of transmission of the prospective mother's mitochondria and, in doing so, prevent future generations from inheriting these severe and debilitating diseases. What this means in practice is that other children and parents like Sibella and her parents, Vanessa and Tom, will not have to suffer the devastating consequences of mitochondrial disease. There are some who have ethical concerns with this legislation. We've heard from some tonight already, and I expect we will hear from more. I respect that, but I also believe that all of the advances we have had as a species, as humanity, have relied upon the embrace of science and technology to protect people from disease and to prolong human life. It's the harnessing of science, medicine and modern empiricism that has led to the doubling of our life expectancy in the last 100 years alone. All of us here are beneficiaries of modern medicine and modern science, and I do not believe that we can stand in the way or deny this to others. That's why I support this legislation, and I commend it to the House. 20:03 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The passage of this bill, the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021, will determine whether Australian parents impacted by mitochondrial disease will have the ability to minimise the risk of their children inheriting this devastating and life-threatening disease. Firstly, I'd like to give a shout-out to all the volunteers involved in yesterday's mitochondrial disease fundraiser, the Bloody Long Walk. Over a thousand people participated in the 35-kilometre walk around Canberra yesterday, and I was pleased to join for the last leg and raise some funds for much-needed research and awareness. In total, the group raised $175,000, a huge achievement for one day. What is mitochondrial disease? It refers to a group of disorders that sit in the metabolic diseases category. They are a group of X chromosome linked genetic conditions that affect the mitochondria, the powerhouses that are found in every one of our cells. The mitochondria's main function is to produce energy, which is greatly needed in high-energy-demand organs such as the heart, muscles, brain, liver and kidneys. In layman's terms, when your mitochondria doesn't work you cannot produce energy and you suffer organ dysfunction as a result. This can mean loss of eyesight, brain dysfunction, strokes, epilepsy, organ failure and developmental delays. One in 200 carries the mitochondrial disease gene. There are approximately 350 variants of mitochondrial disease, and more variants continue to be found. Symptoms can present at any age, from infancy until late adulthood. It is a ticking time bomb for those who carry the gene. Often, the younger the onset the more pronounced the disease. Currently, there is no highly effective treatment or cure. There is an Australian born every week who will develop severe mitochondrial disease. This bill is an important step forward for families affected by mitochondrial disease and will reduce the burden of disease for future generations. The bill has had extensive consultation, including in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill; the committee's 2018 inquiry into the science of mitochondrial donation and other matters; subsequent consultation and work led by the National Health and Medical Research Council; and Department of Health consultation on the bill earlier this year. Mitochondrial donation is an IVF based technique with the potential to prevent mitochondrial disease in the next generation of Australian children. Mitochondrial disease is carried on the maternal line, and mitochondrial donation involves replacing the faulty mitochondria with healthy mitochondria within an egg. A fertilised egg is then transferred to the mother, as per current IVF practices. Mitochondrial donation law has been active in the United Kingdom since 2015. Unfortunately, there's been much spreading of disinformation and fearmongering about this bill. This is not about genetically engineering a child to have blue eyes or blond hair or brown eyes, and it's not playing God. This bill is simply about allowing medical technology trials to give hope to families that they can have children free of mitochondrial disease. Similar fearmongering happened decades ago when IVF technology was considered. Now IVF is commonplace and has given thousands of childless couples the ability to become families. This bill is named after a little girl called Maeve who lives with mito. I would like to thank all of the families who have openly shared their personal stories to build awareness and support. Last week I spoke to Suzie from Lobethal in my electorate. Suzie and her husband lost their beautiful little baby girl, Dot, to mitochondrial disease in December 2019. At the time the Georgiou family lost their little girl, the Lobethal community, where they lived, were suffering terribly with the Black Summer bushfires. Suzie said she remembered praying at the time, saying to the universe, 'Take my home, but spare me my child.' But this didn't happen. This bill cannot change the diagnosis for those born, but it will give hope to families who currently have none. I barely talk about my family in this place. I know some members do, and I respect that. Many of the cards and newsletters that are on our tables have lovely families in them, but I've always kept my family life quite private. However, for this important legislation, I will make an exception, and I've sought permission from my son and my grandson's mum to share our family story. Little Liam, my grandson, was born in February 2020 after a healthy full-term pregnancy. Liam was delivered by emergency C-section, not breathing. He was resuscitated and emergency transferred to the Women's and Children's Hospital. It was a traumatic birth for Liam, who then spent a long time in the neonatal ICU and then the special care unit. Most babies in the neonatal ICU are premature, some as big as your hand. Liam was eight pounds, yet the nursing director said to me, 'He's the sickest baby on the ward.' Hooked up to IV lines in every limb to stop him going into cardiac arrest, he was intubated and heavily sedated. We were told he was on a knife edge and things could go either way. Life for Liam has been, from that day, a very difficult journey but one that has been filled with love. On oxygen day and night for more than a year after his birth, it was a big step forward when Liam was able to not have oxygen in the daytime but only at night. Liam, in his short little life, has had countless hospital admissions, operations and procedures. We knew something was wrong. His little veins are so compromised that getting a blood sample or tapping a vein to conduct an MRI is an ordeal. I would like to thank the numerous teams at the South Australian Women's and Children's Hospital that have helped keep my grandson alive. The feeding team, the neurological team, the renal team, the metabolic team—the list goes on. His file, when I last glanced at it, is about 15 centimetres thick. They do extraordinary work at the hospital. Liam hasn't been able to reach the usual baby milestones—to roll, to roll over, to sit, to crawl, to talk, to walk—and this makes him so frustrated. He loves to play peekaboo and uses all his energy to slowly raise a hand over his eyes. Eating can be difficult. Every single action that your body makes uses a muscle, so every movement and function is a challenge. In the end, genetic testing revealed a diagnosis of phosphoglycerate kinase deficiency, or PKD. It's incredibly rare, and it sits within the mitochondrial disease area. My grandson's muscles are wasting away. His organs are compromised. A tummy bug will send him to hospital for a week, suffering renal failure. His CK levels reach 150,000 units per litre. A healthy adult has a CK range of between 26 and 200 units per litre. When this happens to Liam he experiences severe muscle damage and the damage to organs is immense. MRIs now show a thickening of the skull, and his brain has signs of white matter next to grey matter. That is brain atrophy. It's a bit like dementia for babies. Because of this genetic condition, Liam's mum has been told she should not have any more children. How do you say that to a young woman? This means Liam will never know the joy of having a little brother or sister. My heart hurts for Maeve and for Liam and for all the other children suffering. And my heart hurts for their parents. As a grandma, I feel like my pain's doubled: the pain I carry for Liam, the pain I carry for his mum and dad and the pain I carry for my other children who dearly love their nephew. I feel such pain for Dot's family and all the families who have lost their child. No parent should have to bury a child. As a grandparent, I just want hope; I want hope for all families who carry these genetic diseases. These are metabolic diseases that we can easily identify now with modern technology sitting on specific X chromosomes, and we have the medical technology to intervene to stop the suffering. I share with you my personal story in the hope that members in this place who are undecided on how to vote will vote for this bill, and I hope that I have given them a little more insight to the pain it causes and hope that, one day, this will not occur. We need your courage as members in this place to make that hope a reality. Thank you. 20:14 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I support the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021, and I congratulate the health minister, the shadow health minister and other members who have spoken in this debate for the bipartisanship and the approach that the House has had to this important legal reform. I support this bill for three reasons: firstly, legalising this technology has the potential to help parents—namely, women—afflicted with hereditary mitochondrial disease to have healthy children; secondly, the introduction of mitochondrial reproductive technology is consistent with Australia's medical and ethical practices, such as organ transplantation and IVF; and thirdly, the introduction of this procedure will be properly regulated by the Embryo Research Licensing Committee to ensure the proper licensing of clinical trials, consultation and evaluation. Mitochondrial disease arises from certain mutations in DNA encompassing several disorders. It's passed on by the mother and results in many disorders, including muscle weakness, impaired vision or hearing, development delays, heart defects, diabetes and seizures. The member for Mayo has recently outlined the effects on her grandson. It usually affects the brain, eyes and heart and can be difficult to diagnose. It almost always results in a painful death of the child at a very early age, and, unfortunately, there is no cure. However, new scientific breakthroughs are giving hope. Mitochondrial donation is an emerging assisted reproductive technology allowing the DNA of parents to be combined with a female donor's healthy mitochondria. It allows parents to have children that are 99.9 per cent genetically linked to them and ensure that those children are free of the mutant DNA. In recent years, I've had the pleasure of starting the Bloody Long Walk. This event is close to a 40-kilometre walk that is organised by the Mito Foundation to raise funds for medical research into mitochondrial disease, and it starts in Malabar, in Sydney, in my electorate. I've met with many parents and relatives who have lost children to mitochondrial disease. One of those families that really touched me is the Tierney family. Elizabeth and Robert Tierney from Botany told me of the story of their brave son, Cooper William Timbery Tierney. Cooper was born on Christmas Eve—the perfect Christmas present for their family. Initially, Cooper was putting on weight and feeding well. But, at three weeks old, Cooper was sadly diagnosed with a mitochondrial complex I deficiency, known as Leigh syndrome. Liz says mitochondrial disease is explained by the doctors as 'any symptom, any organ, at any age'. Sadly, there's no cure, and the best case was to treat the symptoms. Liz and Robert told me that, despite his obstacles, Cooper was an amazing son. He had an infectious smile, a cheeky spirit and a strong will. But over time he began to deteriorate. That included seizures that stopped his breathing. There was also hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, lactic acidosis, swallowing incoordination, hypospadias, hearing impairment and cardiorespiratory failure. Cooper died peacefully in his mum's arms at the age of six months and one day. Liz and Robert said Cooper's strength, courage and resilience made each day with him brighter and full of hope. They were incredibly proud of their warrior son. The reform that we debate here today is about giving parents in the future and their children a chance to not suffer the crippling complications that brave Cooper and other children whose lives have been taken by mitochondrial disease suffered. I've asked Liz for her views about this bill, and she said, 'Every parent should have access to the tools needed to provide their children with the best start in life, just as every child should have the opportunity at a healthy life.' It's because of people like Liz, Robert and Cooper that I support this reform to give parents and their children access to the opportunity of a healthy life. This bill is being debated and voted on by both parties as an issue of conscience, and I recognise and respect the ethical concerns some have regarding the use of such medical technology. I've weighed those ethical concerns and considerations with my Catholic faith, and I've decided, on balance, that the benefits of this reform, particularly for the health of children in the future, far outweigh the risks. The objection some have to assisted reproductive technologies is that it involves the unnatural creation and destruction of embryos. With respect to those that hold this view, I believe that the issue of the benefit versus the cost of this technology has been settled in Australia in favour of the safe use of this technology. Assisted reproductive technology such as IVF has been accepted and used safely in Australia since the 1980s. The technology has given millions of Australians the joy of having children who might otherwise not have had that opportunity. And the Senate inquiry that looked at ethical and medical issues of mitochondrial reproductive technology concluded that MRT is indistinguishable from ARTs, assisted reproductive technologies, as it does not result in the greater destruction of embryos. Quite simply, if we have IVF, then we can also have mitochondrial donation. Some have claimed that mitochondrial donation equates to germline genetic modification or gene editing. This is incorrect and misleading. Mitochondrial donation is distinctly different from gene editing, since it does not cut or modify DNA but replaces the entire mitochondria without altering the mitochondrial DNA they contain. This issue was looked at by the United Kingdom parliament in an inquiry that was conducted over there. They determined that mitochondrial donation is not germline genetic modification, and, in 2015, the UK parliament changed its legislation to allow for mitochondrial donation. This legal reform will be accompanied by appropriate safeguards to ensure the highest ethical and safety standards for the use of the technology. The introduction of mitochondrial donation in Australia will be regulated by the Embryo Research Licensing Committee, the ERLC, a subcommittee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. It will undergo a thorough stage 1 trial. Stage 1 is estimated to be a 10-year clinical trial, and the ERLC will oversee the regulations of clinics, technologies and eligible patients who take part in that trial. Donation will be anonymous, allowing donor conceived children to identify donors, but donors will not have access to information regarding donor conceived children. Mitochondrial egg donors would not be considered legal parents of the children. There will also be mandatory reporting of adverse events. In conclusion, I want to thank the Mito Foundation for their advocacy and their support of families dealing with mitochondrial disease and their campaign to have this issue brought to the parliament. I have found the briefings that I've had with the Mito Foundation very informative and rewarding. I congratulate them for their work and for their work with families in highlighting this issue for the parliament. I especially want to thank Elizabeth and Robert Tierney and their brave son Cooper for allowing me to speak about Cooper's disease and unfortunate passing to highlight this issue here in the parliament. They are wonderful family who live in my community and have shown great bravery and great advocacy for others. I support this bill because it will greatly improve the lives of children and their parents. These are children who would otherwise suffer a horrific and premature death. It gives those families hope that their children will lead a normal, long life whilst appropriately balancing the ethical use of scientific practice to achieve good. On that basis, I will be supporting this bill. 20:25 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman [by video link] Thank you, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, for the second opportunity. I too strongly support the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. Mitochondrial disease is a group of inherited conditions that can significantly reduce an individual's life expectancy. Maeve's law, as it has been colloquially named, is the proposition that we can allow the staged introduction of mitochondrial DNA donation techniques into Australia. This story goes back many years. I was a medical and public health adviser under the Howard government with then minister Kay Patterson. At the time, the assisted reproduction debate around embryonic stem cell research came to the fore. This was a highly complicated piece of legislation. It's interesting that today is one of those few moments where that legislation is further amended. Of course, it's very hard to see where this kind of legislation will lead. I'm extremely proud of the work that I know that any government at that time would have done to ensure that embryonic stem cell research were possible. It's also a credit to how far society has moved and that, if science has the ability and the overwhelming benefit is clear—not just a net benefit but overwhelmingly so—the community is willing to countenance what, a generation ago, we couldn't have conceived. That is what this debate is all about. I commend the courage of other members contributing tonight. This bill is amending existing legislation. There has effectively been a prohibition on mitochondrial donation here in Australia, but my training as a GP obstetrician gynaecologist back in the UK introduced me to early work in this space and another controversial area of legislation that Australia addressed back in 2006: the controversial use of RU486. The irony, of course, is that abortifacients and technology like this find themselves under the general purview of obstetrics and gynaecology as far as specialist medical training goes. I pointed out back in 2006 the irony of working back in 1991 and 1982 in the UK for the first time in obstetrics and gynaecology: that one would work all morning counselling infertile parents only to then be performing terminations of pregnancy in the afternoon. It's incredibly morally stressful. To hear the stories that have been recounted by colleagues tonight in the chamber and early parts of the debate, we know just how much this means to you. The fact that this may be a disease that, in its severest form, may affect one in 50,000 Australians or one in 10,000 is no reason to say, 'I'm happy to roll the dice and, if I'm lucky, not worry about those who have to live with mitochondrial disease.' If it is within our powers then we should address it. I want to recognise Catherine McMahon, an absolutely committed and steadfast former policy adviser who has taken up the reins to see this legislation passed. Thank you, Catherine, for your great work. Over the last few years this has been a very, very committed campaign. I congratulate everyone involved for getting to your federal MPs and, hopefully, making this path as smooth as possible. This two-stage approach is really important, having research and training as well as further evidence being collected over time. It also allows the community to become more comfortable with these decisions. As I pointed out back in the RU486 debate, it's not just about safety and efficacy. It's not just about the TGA saying that a process has been assessed and therefore it's stamped and can happen. We need to take the community with us. It was for those reasons during the RU486 debate that I felt the community needed more say. I felt that, if there were something that completely changed the landscape, as an abortifacient would, that should be a decision that came to the parliament and to the people and not just a decision of the health minister. I actually moved an amendment that, while not successful, pointed out just how important changes like this are and that they need to come before the parliament. There were throwaway lines I recall from the Australian Greens at the time: 'Do we have this debate every time there's a new abortifacient introduced? Are we going to have a debate like this every time a new mitochondrial technique is introduced?' Hopefully, no, but for moments like today it's very important that these issues are being brought to the chamber, brought to the parliament and transmitted nationwide. It's very important to make sure that everyone realises that there has been a thorough consultation phase and process, which I'll talk about in a moment. I want to clarify a few things because many people have characterised these changes as more significant than they really are. This is ultimately about looking after people who are likely to have children who wouldn't have normally functioning mitochondrial DNA, which impacts the function of mitochondria. This only assists those who have an mRNA deficiency or defect, so it's about half of all cases, but it can have catastrophic effects in those that are affected. The symptoms can be seizures, muscle pain, fatigue, vision loss—very close to my heart—hearing loss and heart problems. I've talked about the odds of it appearing: about 60 children each year are affected by the severe form. There are 60 very good reasons to follow the UK's lead because they've always been very forward-leaning in this space. There are 60 very good reasons to acknowledge that there is no cure and that, if there is a scientific solution and a medical treatment, every Australian deserves the right to make their own decision about whether they should have access to it, if it has been established as being safe and effective and consulted on with the community. Obviously, I recommend that we watch the UK very closely. The legislation being considered tonight is very similar to what's been done in the UK. I remember the HFEA conducting their public consultations in the UK. That was a very important process and one that we've followed here. We had the Senate inquiry three years ago. The Senate community affairs references committee carried out the inquiry. I remember the findings being that there was a need for more consultation and more scientific review. But remember that time is ticking and, every time we delay these matters by a year, Australians are affected and living with the impacts of mitochondrial disease for life. Two years ago the NHMRC conducted a series of community consultations exploring moral issues around changing these rules and how the community felt about them. I think that was very important. It noted these issues associated with mitochondrial donation, including the creation and destruction of embryos, and the beliefs that it could potentially create children with more than two parents or that it's a form of genetic modification. I think those questions have been fairly answered and, on balance, adequately answered. Many supported the introduction of this two-stage regulatory approach. It's a lovely model going forward, should further changes ever happen to this legislation. The first stage is that mitochondrial donation itself would be legalised for particular research and training purposes and would support the selection and licensing of clinical trials where you could look more closely at the impact and success of mitochondrial donation and how it affects impacted families. Then a second clinical trial, a single one, should be allowed to run for a number of years. The Commonwealth Department of Health should potentially run a competitive grant process to identify who would run that. The licensing committee, the ERLC, should then have an expanded licence and regulatory role to oversee the mitochondrial donation process and its licensing, ensure that those that carry it out are adequately trained, administer applications and monitor compliance with these new laws. I commend every member who has gotten to know families who are living with mitochondrial disease, and I commend those families for getting out to see their MPs and getting this parliament to a position where it certainly wouldn't have been 10 or 15 years ago when embryonic stem cell research was first considered. This is not the leap that that was, but this is a very important tinkering—a recognition that mitochondrial DNA is completely different from nuclear DNA and that it offers incredible hope for a small number of families. It's a transformational piece of science that can give life, health and longevity to those who would otherwise be affected by this terrible disease. This bill has my full support. 20:34 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley This speech is dedicated to Ruby from Frankston, her mother, Janine, her sister, Isabel, and her brother, Trent. This is Ruby's story in the words of her mother Janine: Ruby was welcomed into the world on 31 July 2007. She seemed perfectly healthy, was settled and feeding well. On the last night of our hospital stay, I had dozed off and woke suddenly; I looked down, Ruby had gone limp in my arms and her skin had turned a grey yellow colour. Immediately I knew something was wrong. I rushed her to special care – she had stopped breathing and the nightmare had begun. I was interviewed by the medical staff as to what had happened. I felt like a criminal. It was awful and I felt sick in the stomach. A few days followed, and my husband and I were approached by a doctor who specialised in mitochondrial diseases. He started talking to us about the possibility of Ruby having one. It was overwhelming as we knew nothing about them. The doctors decided to operate on Ruby to take samples of her liver for testing. At first I didn't want them to put her through any more pain but I realised that she would have to go through it as we needed an answer. She made it through the operation but it was so bittersweet. We had just been informed that it was inevitable she was going to die as she was not thriving or getting any better. We prepared for her death. It was surreal – like getting your beautiful child ready for a party – dressing her in a nice outfit and brushing her hair but in this case we were taking her foot and handprints and a lock of hair. We were given a pram so we could take her outside. It was winter but the sun had come out, and she opened her eyes and once again seemed like a healthy baby just for a moment. I wanted to take her and run away with her right there and then to escape her impending death. She died an hour later in my arms. A few months later my husband and I were called back to the hospital and were told that Ruby had died from the mitochondrial disease, Complex IV. I have two other children. They are only young, but when they become adults, they will need to be tested. Janine told me that it is so important that this legislation goes through. It will always be in the back of her mind—and Isabel's and Trent's minds—as to whether her other children also have mitochondrial disease, and they will have to be tested before they have kids. Isabel and Trent know about their sister Ruby, they know about their mother now being a big supporter and working with the Mito Foundation, and they know about this legislation. Janine said to me that what she went through with Ruby, and what she has to face for the future of her other two children, is something that she doesn't want any other parent to have to go through. She said it was heart-wrenching and their whole lives were changed. It was scary that Janine didn't know that she had mitochondrial disease that she could pass on in her genes. Janine told me that, if this legislation had been in place and she had known what she knows now, she would have had the donation and that she will do anything to help the Mito Foundation, which didn't exist when Ruby was born. She told me, when I spoke to her a few months ago, when we saw that this legislation was listed, that she was crossing her fingers on this one. I have no doubt that, knowing this legislation was coming up for debate today, Janine is crossing her fingers today and will be tomorrow when we vote. There are other families in my electorate whose babies have died and whose adult daughters have died. I know of an amazing young woman who has mitochondrial disease and is doing all she can to lead a life of joy and fulfilment and service. It's for Ruby and her family and for everyone else who has a story like Ruby's and Janine's that I am supporting this legislation. I'm also supporting it because it is good science and it's science that will give people the opportunity for a longer, healthier and happier life. In the end, that's what we all want. If this science, this technology, can give that to people who otherwise might not have children, if it can give that to people who might otherwise have been born with mitochondrial disease and had a short and difficult life, then I believe it is my ethical and moral duty to support this legislation, and I'm doing just that. I respect people who have faith that means they have difficulties with this legislation; that's their right and their position. But I urge all my colleagues to do as others have done—to engage with the legislation, to engage with the Mito Foundation and to see if you can get to the position of also supporting it. I want to thank the Mito Foundation for all the work they've done—their briefings on this legislation, their advocacy and their support for people like Janine from my electorate. I want to add my congratulations to the congratulations that others in this chamber have given to the Minister for Health for bringing this legislation forward and stewarding it through. I congratulate the shadow minister for health on the way in which he has conducted himself, and the previous shadow minister for health, with this legislation through our caucus. Janine, I hope your fingers are crossed, and I hope you, Isabel and Trent get to see this speech and know that you have done what you can to help others not to have to go through what you went through. 20:41 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins We've heard many incredibly moving speeches this evening. I would like to thank the speakers before me for the contributions they have made, including the member for Dunkley for her contribution, and to add my voice to supporting this bill, the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. As we've heard, each week in Australia one baby is born with a severe genetic disorder called mitochondrial disease. It's a largely inherited genetic disease. The prognosis for these children, the ones with severe mitochondrial disease, is that most of them will die within their first five years of life—in fact, most in their first year or two. I remember learning about this condition in a textbook as a young medical student. It sounded horrible: Leigh syndrome is a severe neurological disorder that usually becomes apparent in the first year of life. This condition is characterized by progressive loss of mental and movement abilities (psychomotor regression) and typically results in death within two to three years, usually due to respiratory failure. That is very clinical, very cold and very factual. But as a young paediatrician I saw that the reality is not just horrible; it is devastating. It's a devastating condition. It is devastating for the infant; it's a horrible way to die. It is devastating for the parents as they struggle with diagnosing a puzzling set of symptoms. Imagine picking up a child that, over days, weeks and months, becomes progressively floppy. A baby that might once have rolled stops doing it. First the parents are a little worried. They go and see a doctor. They become increasingly worried. Strange things are happening. They're confused. They seek help from different specialists. It's not a particularly common set of symptoms and conditions. They can see many doctors before it is finally diagnosed. And the diagnosis itself is completely devastating, not just for the family but also for the friends around that family and for the community. I can tell you that the conversation you have as a paediatrician is the hardest conversation you can have. It's a conversation that you know will profoundly change the lives of these people sitting in your room. You know it's going to change not just the life of that child but the lives of their siblings, parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins—everybody. We are trained as doctors to be caring and supportive and to break news gently. But you know, as that doctor, that the minute you say what is essentially a death sentence they can't hear anything else. It's like a white wall comes down; they're not going to hear anything, so there's not much you can do to make the conversation easier. You do all you can to try and make it as gentle as possible, but it is an awful thing to have to deliver to a family. Many of us probably know someone who has lost a child. It is indeed a parent's greatest fear. In fact, I said in my first speech that there are words, like 'widow' and 'orphan', that articulate and describe our loss. But there is no word in the English language for the loss of a child. In fact, I've yet to find a language anywhere in the world that in fact describes that, because it is almost unimaginable. It is not something we want to be able to describe. It's a devastating loss. So you can imagine how much devastation families experience and how there are so many wonderful people who have taken this grief and converted it into a drive to provide hope for others. They have taken a loss, a pain that will never go away, that will never really dull, and they have used that for the betterment of others, to try to provide hope to those who have had to deal with pain, this loss, this suffering and this grief. We heard earlier this evening the deeply moving speech by the member for Mayo, whose family has been affected by this condition and its devastating outcome. Then there are also people like Maeve, for whom this bill is named, and her family. That's essentially why we are all here today. I would like to thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Greg Hunt, for chaperoning this bill through careful processes that engaged parliamentarians throughout the chamber and across the divide in a careful, supportive way that allowed people to come on the journey of discussing what is an incredibly profound decision that this parliament will be making. I think it is wonderful that we are to be given a conscience vote. I know there are many people who have struggled with making decisions around what is an incredibly important form of legislation. The purpose of the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 is to amend existing legislation to allow for mitochondrial donation to be introduced into Australia for research and human reproductive purposes. This bill will allow women whose children would otherwise be predisposed to severe and life-threatening mitochondrial disease to have a biological child who will not inherit that predisposition. For those predisposed to this genetic disease and who carry this genetic disorder, if the bill passes, they will now have the hope that they can process a mitochondrial donation to limit some of the risks of having a child, or having another child, with mitochondrial disease. Mitochondrial donation is in effect an assisted reproductive technology that, when combined with invitro fertilisation—and I make note of the fact that Australia has been incredibly world-leading in the area of invitro fertilisation, commonly known as IVF—will provide the potential to allow women whose mitochondria would predispose their potential children to mitochondrial disease to have a biological child who does not inherit that predisposition. The technique is a complex process to create an embryo which includes nuclear DNA from the man and the woman seeking to have a child and mitochondrial DNA from a different woman, the mitochondrial donor. Mitochondrial donation can therefore minimise the risk of transmission of the prospective mother's mitochondria and, in doing so, aims to prevent future generations from inheriting these severe and debilitating diseases. To explain this more simply, we all have mitochondria in our cells. They are essentially the batteries of the cell. They are the energy stores of the cell. Those suffering from mitochondrial disease have faulty batteries. It is a bit like this: if you think about a chicken's egg, there is the yolk in the middle, which is the nucleus, and then there is the white part, which is the cytoplasm. In that, there are little batteries that are the mitochondria. Mitochondrial donation, however, cannot be used to cure people with existing mitochondrial disease, nor can it prevent mitochondrial disease caused by changes occurring in an individual's nuclear DNA. So this is specifically to do with mitochondrial DNA. I'd like to address the report that sometimes raises its head in the media that mitochondrial donation is 'three-parent IVF'. This is not an accurate description of mitochondrial DNA. In fact, it's unfair. Children born using this technology still have only two biological parents: a mother and a father. That is because these children will inherit their characteristics and personality traits from their biological parents through their nuclear DNA—the egg yolk of the fertilised egg. A female donor involved in the mitochondrial donation process only provides healthy mitochondria—only the batteries of the cell. While mitochondrial donation techniques result in change to the genome, they do not involve gene editing of either the nuclear DNA or mitochondrial DNA, which has been expressly prohibited by this bill. To put it simply, the donor does not affect the colour of a child's eyes, hair or the like. It's only the parents who will provide those heritable traits to the offspring. A two-stage implementation approach is proposed to introduce mitochondrial donation in Australia. Stage 1 will see mitochondrial donation initially legalised for certain research and training purposes and to support selection and licensing of pilot programs to deliver the mitochondrial donation for impacted families. Under stage 2, mitochondrial donation would be permitted in clinical practice more broadly, after results of the pilot program. This provides that the necessary checks and balances are in place. Under both stages of the program implementation, the use of specified mitochondrial donation techniques would be subject to strict licensing and regulatory conditions, which would be overseen by the Embryo Research Licensing Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is a very esteemed body, extremely careful and diligent in the processes that it undertakes, and has its own very careful framework in which to assess these things. This will mean that the Embryo Research Licensing Committee of the NHMRC will be expanded under the bill to include licensing and oversight of research and training licences, a clinical licence for the initial pilot site, and future clinical practice licences using mitochondrial donation techniques. Approval of individuals seeking access to the treatment will also be required and will be based on clinical recommendations. That means doctors will need to assess whether the patient and family are in need of this technique. The bill also aligns to other Australian laws preventing exploitation and incentivisation for donors. I repeat: this is a very important law within Australia because in other countries there is permission for certain sorts of incentivisation, which can lead to exploitation of donors for donor organs and suchlike. But in Australia we operate under a very important ethical framework, and it's very important to make sure that there's a separation of these sorts of procedures from any form of recipient of funding or financing. Donor rights and responsibilities for Australian mitochondrial donation egg donors would be largely aligned to current artificial reproductive technology regulations. This would include that mitochondrial donation egg donors would not be considered legal parents, in line with current ART—or artificial reproductive technology—sperm and egg donors, under the Family Law Act 1975. This is very important. Children conceived with mitochondrial donation would have the right to apply for identifying information about their donor only when they turn 18 years of age, as is the case for other sperm and egg donation. Donor eggs may be provided voluntarily from family members, from friends or from individuals who agree to donate eggs or have eggs that are excess to their own needs in IVF clinics. Not only as a member of parliament or as a paediatrician but as a parent—having four beautiful, healthy children—I ask that all members take a moment before voting on this bill. Put yourself in the shoes of a parent who carries these genes, or a parent who has a child who suffers from mitochondrial disease, or even a parent who's tragically lost a child prematurely to this disease. Often we find, as doctors, that people have one view until it happens to them or their family members. It's very powerful to understand living in someone else's shoes. So I ask members opposite who may be unsure about this: put yourself in the shoes of others, speak to the experts and make sure your questions are addressed before you make this conscience vote. We all have the power to unite on this and deliver hope for a future without this cruel disease. I commend the bill to the House. 20:54 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. The bill amends existing legislation to allow mitochondrial donation techniques to be used for research, training and human reproductive purposes. The overall aim is for women at risk of passing on a mitochondrial disease to have reproductive options for biological children without the increased risk of their child having mitochondrial disease. It's really important for people, before judging, to understand just what having a child with mitochondrial disease means. Mitochondrial disease is a group of inherited conditions that can cause serious health issues and, in severe cases, death in childhood. Disease is caused by mutations that impact the function of the mitochondria, meaning it reduces their ability to produce energy. To give you perspective: in Australia about one in 200 babies are born with some level of mutation that could lead to mitochondrial disease in their lifetime, and about one in 5,000—so some 10,000 Australians—develop severe or life-threatening mitochondrial disease in their lifetime. This is very important to Warringah. The bill is named after Maeve, a little girl who, at the time of drafting, lived in the minister for health's electorate. I commend the minister for health for his compassion in bringing this bill forward. He's working with the family and ensuring that a conscience vote is available to the members in this place on this legislation. I wish there were more such votes on so many issues in this place. Maeve's grandfather now lives in Warringah, and I spoke with him recently about the bill. He was worried that this bill wasn't going to come on before the end of this term, and he was fretting that, if there were any further delay in voting on this legislation, more families and more children would be impacted. It is vitally important that we debate and consider this bill as soon as possible because, as he explained to me, while the bill won't help Maeve, it will be vitally important for many future children and families. He would like the House to know that Maeve is a wonderful, happy child. She has already far exceeded her life expectancy: she is eight years old. Greg implored me to vote in support of this bill, and I will be doing that. The Mito Foundation have a strong presence in Warringah. They do fantastic work to support people affected by mitochondrial disease, and they're raising funds for essential research into the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cures of mitochondrial disorders and increasing awareness about the disease. Very recently there was the Bloody Long Walk, which traverses four of the beautiful beaches of my electorate. Excuse me; obviously, the title of the walk is because of the length of the walk. It traverses Dee Why, Curl Curl, Freshwater and Manly. It is one of the fundraisers for the Mito Foundation. I have been a proud participant in the Bloody Long Walk numerous times. Excuse me; I really shouldn't repeat the name. It's probably an unparliamentary term, but it is the name of the walk. It is some 35 kilometres long. It was held once again the weekend before last, in horrendous weather. The coastline of the Northern Beaches was full of drama, under dark storm clouds, but so many participated because they know this is such an important cause. A mitochondrial donation is an assisted reproductive technology that can assist women to avoid passing mitochondrial disease to their children. It works by creating an embryo, by using the nDNA from the perspective mother and father and healthy mtDNA from a donor. In the UK, legislation was introduced to permit mitochondrial donation in 2015, and the UK remains the only country that has done so. Our current legislation prohibits mito donation under the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. It's time for that to be amended and to bring the law forward to these developments. The bill amend these acts to make donation legal for research and human reproductive purposes. The bill creates a two-stage implementation approach. It has been thorough, to ensure that there are no abuses and that this is done to the highest standards. In the first instance, there will be limits on the number and type of licences to practise the procedure, in preclinical and clinical trials only. And then, once clinical trials have been shown to be successful and the findings of stage 1 reviewed and accepted as safe and effective, stage 2 will permit mitochondrial donation in clinical practice. Stage 1 will allow eligible women to access mitochondrial donation by participating in the clinical trial. It's anticipated that a low number of people will access the technology, and the women who do participate may require multiple rounds of IVF. The trial is expected to take place over approximately 10 to 12 years, so this is a really slow and very careful process, but it will make such a difference to the families involved, to the women who fear passing on this condition to their children. The process to get this to legislation has been very comprehensive, starting with a Senate inquiry in 2018. The government responded to the Senate inquiry report in February 2019, which led to the creation of an expert working committee in March of that year. And then, between September and November 2019, the NHMRC undertook community consultation on the social and ethical considerations of the possible introduction of mitochondrial donation in Australian clinical practice. Finally, the Department of Health conducted a round of consultation between February and March this year. So, for all those worried about this legislation, this has been a very thorough process, and I believe that the government has got the balance right on this legislation. I support the bill and commend the consultation process and, in particular, the minister for health. There have been social and ethical concerns raised, and I acknowledge that some in the community may have ethical concerns around the right of the child, the status of the embryo, the role and rights of women donating eggs and community considerations, but I'm convinced that the consultation process has been thorough and that the balance of the advantages of mitochondrial donation outweigh these concerns. There are appropriate safeguards in place to mitigate ethical and medical considerations. They've been taken into account, and I support the advancement of science that will prevent the occurrence of children born with this disease that this treatment can prevent. This is one of those times when we have an opportunity in this place to make a very real and very significant difference to the outcomes and lives of so many mothers as they then approach their journey to motherhood and the families that that will involve, because this does impact whole families. I thank the government for presenting this bill. I also thank them for making this a conscience vote. I wish we saw more of that in this place so that we actually had a more, I think, genuine debate and genuine approach to legislation so we can really talk about how meaningful they are rather than trying to make it a political fight. I commend this bill to the House. Finally, I would like to finish by thanking Maeve's family, because they have been on an incredible journey like all the families that have been impacted by mitochondrial disease. They have been incredibly resilient and incredibly dedicated to ensuring that others are not met with quite the same challenge that they have gone through. They are doing an amazing job, but they would like to provide more optimism, a better prognosis, for others to make sure that they don't have to go through the distress and heartbreak that this condition can bring on families and children. So thank you to Maeve's family and to Maeve for being the namesake of this legislation that I hope will change many lives. 21:03 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid I rise to support the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. I thank the members before me for their contributions, particularly the member for Mayo and the members for Higgins and Macarthur for their medical insights. This bill is about hope. I don't want to detain the House, but I would like to tell the story of the Catton family, who are constituents of mine, and their daughter, Alana. Reid constituent Toni Catton, who is the General Manager of the Mito Foundation, gave birth to her second child, Alana, in 2013. Very quickly, Toni noticed that Alana was behind on her developmental milestones. She was failing to thrive. After 10 months, the term 'mitochondrial disease' was floated. It was the first time Toni had heard of the condition, and she didn't know anything about it. Toni was invited to take part in a nine-month research project at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, led by genetics professor John Christodoulou. Eighteen months after her initial diagnosis, shortly after Alana's third birthday, the Catton family's worst nightmare was confirmed. Medical specialists confirmed that little Alana had mitochondrial disease. It was also around this time that the symptoms of the disease began to take hold, and Alana began to lose motor functions. In the meantime, like every other parent who has just been faced with a terrible diagnosis for their child, Toni was introduced to the Mito Foundation and quickly learnt more about the disease, receiving information and support from the foundation. Here she learnt Alana's dire fate—that mitochondrial disease is a life-limiting condition with absolutely no cure. The childhood onset robbed her daughter of her life. I was fortunate to have met little Alana in late 2019. Her mother, Toni, brought Alana to meet me at a mobile office in Concord in my electorate. What I saw was a beautiful young child in a wheelchair, a child trapped in a cruel reality of this horrible disease. As a mother with children about the same age, it broke my heart. There were no words for the sheer unfairness of what I saw and what this child has gone through. Last year, Alana passed away just shy of her eighth birthday. Alana never really talked. Her muscle development was affected. Alana couldn't stand or walk or crawl or hold her own weight. She displayed dystonia and spasticity. She was fed directly into her stomach. Alana required full care. This is the reality of this disease. Alana's death was brought on by deterioration in the brain, and it was eventually her breathing. Toni discovered that there were few treatment options and that prevention was the only option for children with mitochondrial disease. Toni says that mito donation is about saving life. She says that it allows a parent to have a healthy child that is related to them. For Toni and the Catton family, the mito bill doesn't change Alana's life or her family's experience. But they know it will have a significant impact on other families and could save up to 60 babies a year. Alana had an older sister, who was three years old when Alana was born, and Toni's other daughter was also impacted by the experience of mitochondrial disease. As Alana's symptoms became more obvious, her sister had to face the reality of what was to come. Toni says that Alana's big sister became a real advocate for her and that she would make people understand that there was a real person there behind the horrible symptoms. Toni also says that no 10- or 11-year-old should have to go through the final stages of their little sister's life, Alana's life. Watching her sibling dying over 2½ days was absolutely devastating. Toni says that she and her family live with that every day, and there is a huge shadow left that can't be changed. She says that she tries to take joy from Alana's life, and she draws from that. She says no family should have to live with losing a child like that. Toni told me that legislation doesn't change Alana's fate; it doesn't bring Alana back. But, by advocating, it is her way of honouring Alana's life and helping other families. This bill, called Maeve's Law, could also be called Alana's Law. It could be named after all the children who have been taken by mitochondrial disease. This legislation cannot return the children who have passed away from this dreadful disease, but it does give hope that no child in the future lives the reality of this horrible disease. I commend this bill to the House. 21:10 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner It is rare that we have an opportunity in this place to cast a conscience vote. It occurs about once every term of parliament, the most recent being the marriage equality vote. In an era in which Australians are increasingly becoming disconnected from politicians, in which the levels of trust in government are waning, I chose to use this conscience vote as an opportunity to engage in a deliberative democracy exercise in the electorate of Fenner. I acknowledge the member for McMahon, who alerted me to the fact that this bill, the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021, was to come before the House, and, as a result of that conversation, I collaborated with the University of Canberra's Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability at Ohio State University to put in place a series of town hall meetings, one online and one face to face, with randomly selected constituents in Fenner to flesh out the issues around mitochondrial donation and to inform my decision. This was inspired by the Connecting to Congress project in the United States, which was run by the Ohio State University, but also by many other deliberative democracy processes that have occurred. The City of Melbourne used such an exercise to plot a 10-year trajectory for the city. The City of Adelaide is also using deliberative democracy processes to put in place a local planning frame. The Western Australian City of Greater Geraldton was the world winner for community participation and engagement with the United Nations International Liveable Communities Award, which recognised an exercise in deliberative democracy that they had done. The City of Canada Bay Council in Sydney's inner west put in place a participatory budgeting process, and I acknowledge their mayor, Angelo Tsirekas, who led that process. The Wyndham City Council in Melbourne's west has put in place deliberative democracy through appointing regular citizens to committees there. As deliberative democracy practitioner Lyn Carson observes, deliberative democracy processes are 'a way to find out how randomly selected citizens without vested interests think about an issue when presented with detailed information from differing viewpoints and given support to discuss it in a non-adversarial way'. Successful deliberative democracy processes at a state level have involved VicHealth's 2015 Citizens' Jury on Obesity, which over a two-day period explored strategies to reduce the problem of excessive body weight. Its 78 jurors presented government with 20 recommendations, including food labelling, water fountains and healthier food in schools. In the ACT, in 2017 and 2018, the government used a deliberative process to consider possible reforms to third-party car insurance. Around 50 randomly selected jurors met for two weekends to define their priorities. An expert reference group devised four models to be considered. The jurors met again over two more weekends and finally voted in favour of a no-fault scheme. That scheme was put in place last year and is expected to save motorists over $100 on their insurance premiums and expand coverage by 40 per cent. I go through these examples to illustrate the value of deliberative democracy and the way in which it can improve our decision-making as well as better connecting citizens to parliament. I've been particularly concerned this term about the issue of democratic disconnect, and the deliberative democracy exercise is just one of the ways I've sought to try and address it. Another major one is a series of tele-town halls, engaging with voters across the electorate on issues that matter to them in a way that is for many people more convenient than coming to the physical town halls that we conduct. I want to acknowledge the researchers and the facilitator who assisted with these deliberative democracy processes: John Dryzek, Selen Ercan, Michael Neblo, Jon Kingzette, Amy Lee, Nick Vlahos, Wendy Russell, Nicole Curato, Nardine Alnemr and Hannah Mills. Their careful work helped ensure that the conversation stayed focused and respectful throughout. I was struck by the willingness of Canberrans to engage deeply with the issue of mitochondrial donation and with the ethical, legal and scientific complexities behind mitochondrial donation. I was impressed that some of those who came along had taken the time to read up in advance, and it very much informed my thinking. There were issues raised about the surrogacy process and the impact on people who go through surrogacy. There was a genuine curiosity about the objections to the legislation. There were questions about whether the mitochondrial donation might change the child's DNA, and I think there was great reassurance from a recognition that the mitochondria—the powerhouses of a cell—wouldn't affect the sorts of genetically acquired traits such as hair or eye colour. There was a recognition that mitochondrial donation might be shaping the way in which parliament thinks about other genetic reproductive processes and an acknowledgement that each time we step forward on this it may have an impact on how we consider other issues. There were some of my constituents who asked in the deliberative democracy forums about how their views would be weighed along with expert views and, I think, there was some surprise when I said that the views of the deliberative democracy forums would be the main prism through which I would consider the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. There was a feeling among many who attended the online forums that it was invaluable that parliament was moving ahead of this issue, recognising that, while Britain had done so, many other countries had not. The overwhelming sentiment among those who attended the forum was to support mitochondrial donation, and I will be voting in favour of this bill. I recognise that wasn't a universal view; we weren't seeking unanimity, nor indeed were we looking to have a vote cast in the deliberative forums. That's not the nature of deliberative democracy. It is much more about the conversation and about being able to have these kinds of respectful conversations in the community—conversations conducted in non-partisan paragraphs rather than partisan soundbites. There was an acknowledgement that we are making decisions which are ultimately uncertain and that none of us can be absolutely sure about what will happen, but also that mitochondrial disease is often fatal and that the stories that others have told in this place—such as, of course, the story of Maeve—are tragic stories that no parent would ever imagine as anything other than their worst nightmare. It is with that spirit that many of us approach this conversation. I would encourage other members of parliament to consider deliberative democracy processes when future conscience votes arise. I agree with comments that have been made earlier on in this debate: that we should have more conscience votes in this House. Occasionally, I will look fondly on the British Labour Party, with its three-line whip, allowing a position between 'Do whatever you like' and 'Vote the party line', in which members of the British Labour Party are encouraged but not mandated to vote a certain way on certain bills. In those cases, and in the case of conscience votes, deliberative democracy processes can help to bring citizens into the public conversation. It's vital that we do this; all members of the House should be committed to it, but it is a particularly important project for those of us on the progressive side of politics—for those of us who believe that government does have a powerful role in improving people's lives. We on this side of the House are the party of Medicare, the party of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the party that put in place the pension and gave it its biggest increase in more than 100 years. Therefore, it is incumbent upon progressive politicians—social democrats and those of us in the Labor Party—to be ensuring that we maintain trust in government. Because when people don't trust government then the small government claims, with the sort of rhetoric of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan, that 'government isn't the solution, it's the problem' and those sort of antigovernment views take root. Progressives have to be engaged in that great project of building trust with the Australian people. We can do that through providing opportunities like physical and virtual town halls, through being there on street corner meetings and through engaging positively on social media with those who agree with us and those who oppose us. And there is an important place for deliberative democracy processes. I want to particularly thank the University of Canberra researchers, kicked off by John Dryzek, without whom the deliberative democracy process would not have been possible. It was a good academic exercise and it will build up the academic literature, but I'm taking some time tonight to talk about it with you, my fellow parliamentarians. I know that the door of the University of Canberra is always open. There are great deliberative democracy researchers in Australia who are keen to work with people on all sides of the parliament. There is an enthusiasm among the experts to engage with members of parliament and build the knowledge base and the expertise on deliberative democracy. I found it a terrific experience, and I hope that it is something that many more members of parliament will do. 21:23 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I thank the member for Fenner for his contribution. I think the overall tone of the debate on this very, very important matter has been very collegiate and very well thought out by all members in their contributions. Equally, as I reflect on this, I can't possibly imagine, and I have not met, a family who has been affected by the consequences of mitochondrial disease. Often when we speak on these things it is somewhat easy to speak on them when you know of people personally that have been impacted by various diseases or various issues that we discuss in this place on a daily basis. But I know what it is to see family members who have lost a loved one—albeit not at a young age, which is a common consequence for those suffering mitochondrial disease. We know these inherited genetic conditions significantly lower an individual's health and life expectancy, and, in many cases, can be fatal. The consequence of parents losing a child at whatever age is devastating. This is where, for me, the ethical, moral and health questions that are raised by this bill are cause for serious reflection and consideration. I think the process the member for Fenner outlined, that he conducted in his electorate, is to be commended; I think that is extraordinarily well done by the member for Fenner. It is a terrific way of engaging with his local community. The question, I suppose, with any of these things is: is it going to solve the problem? We know from the science that there is no guarantee that this will solve the problem. This, for me, is my concern with this particular process—particularly three out of the four processes that potentially involve the destruction of an embryo. I accept that, as we move forward and science continues to develop, and as scientific techniques and capabilities continue to grow over time, we will increasingly be faced with various ethical dilemmas—this being one of them. How do we treat the creation of an embryo that is then used to transfer the mitochondrial DNA from one embryo to another to prevent disease, yet at the same time destroy that donor embryo? I think that, for all of us, and certainly for me particularly, this is a difficult question to wrestle with. It is made more difficult by the recognition that since 2015, at least in the UK, these processes have been legalised. Yet there is very little, if any, information on the success or otherwise of these procedures. I understand that much of that is to protect the privacy of the families involved. From an ethical perspective, from my personal values and view, the MST process is probably the closest that I can come to being comfortable with this, in my consideration of this bill. I understand that this bill seeks to introduce this process into Australia as a staged process, with clinical research and training over a period of time, to ensure that the process works, is effective and provides the results that are being sought. The risk of acquiring mitochondrial disease, as I have outlined already, can be devastating on the families involved. I am very conscious of that in my consideration of this bill. But I would seek to ensure that, in proceeding down a new path—only one country in the world has legalised this process to seek to help families, and we are without the information as to how that's going—we don't take risks that are unnecessary or deliver unintended consequences. I have considered the information provided and I've considered the ethics and the morals of this very, very carefully. Other than, as I said, the MST process, I think it's fair to say, as a whole, I wouldn't support the bill in its current form. But I recognise fully the risks to the families involved and consider that very carefully in my consideration and deliberation on the outcome of this bill. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 129 ADJOURNMENT Special Broadcasting Service 129 21:31 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I believe there is a unique perspective in representing an electorate in Western Sydney that was hit so hard by this year's lockdown and representing the Australian Labor Party in a portfolio that is my passion. The communications sector is fundamental to our economy and our society. It is an essential industry that will forever influence the quality of life that Australians enjoy. In this context—and coming from a background in local government, where I was once a councillor and Deputy Mayor of Blacktown, a diverse, multicultural and, at times, challenged region—there are few policies which in their own right encapsulate just about every aspect of the aspirations and vision that I and my Labor colleagues in Western Sydney hold dear for our local area. I recently had the privilege of announcing, along with the Labor leader and Sally Sitou and Zhi Soon, Labor's respective candidates for Reid and Banks, such a policy that we will take to the people of Western Sydney and to the next election: the relocation of the Sydney based headquarters and studios of the Special Broadcasting Service, the SBS, from its current location in Artarmon on the Lower North Shore to Western Sydney. This is a joined-up proposition combining cities policy, multicultural affairs, the arts and communications. It's an idea that has been mooted for many years and has been a topic of discussion in the media and among a wide range of stakeholders. The proposal is a feasibility study into the relocation of the SBS to Western Sydney alongside the provision of a multipurpose space for content creation and public use. The feasibility study will do a number of things, including examine the business case, benefits and risks of relocating the SBS Sydney studios from Artarmon to Western Sydney; assess the benefits of the provision of a multipurpose space for such content creation and public use; and incorporate a competitive bidding process between local government areas for determining the optimal site of any relocation in collaboration with the SBS. This proposal would explore the economic, social, cultural and financial dividend of a physical relocation of the SBS to the fastest-growing multicultural corridor in Australia. It's an initiative directed at building the inclusive Australia of tomorrow by addressing the imbalance in infrastructure, skilled jobs and cultural investment in Western Sydney, leveraging the public's investment in the nation's multicultural broadcaster. Although Greater Western Sydney is one of the most diverse and fastest-growing regions in Australia, we are denied much of the taxpayer funded cultural capital that the inner city enjoys. Despite being home to 30 per cent of the population of the state, Western Sydney receives just a small percentage of Commonwealth arts program funding and the New South Wales government arts budget. The SBS, of course, is independent of government, and any decision to relocate is ultimately a matter for the SBS. Meanwhile, I do note that several Western Sydney councils are vying for the SBS to relocate to their area, which is why Labor's feasibility study will explore the best options to assist the SBS in any future relocation decision. A fully functional media outlet based in Western Sydney could leverage the talent and diversity of the area, not only delivering smart multimedia jobs but enhancing the visibility of the SBS as a platform for migrant and ethnic communities in the heart of Western Sydney. It's therefore a most worthy proposition at a time when, as reported in the Western Weekender only recently, the New South Wales Liberal government is actually doing the opposite and moving jobs out of Western Sydney to the inner city, noting: Local police communications operators are speaking out against a planned proposal to move their jobs answering Triple Zero calls to the Sydney CBD early next year. Up to 70 staff members were informed via email last Tuesday that the Penrith Radio Operations Centre (ROC) would be closed and the team would be relocated to the Sydney Police Centre in Surry Hills. I could say the contrast could not be clearer, but it was certainly made crystal clear by the very authentic and talented Sally Sitou, who articulated how the SBS and our public broadcasters generally had influenced her life and those of her Chinese-Lao family. It's only Labor representatives, people like Sally Sitou and Zhi Soon, who have the foresight and the energy to take their local communities from strength to strength with such holistic and forward-thinking policies. It's important to note that, when the former Prime Minister Paul Keating opened the SBS building in Artarmon over 25 years ago, it was actually to help mainstream the SBS by moving it closer to other TV networks. A quarter of a century later and other TV networks have relocated and SBS is a distinctive, dynamic and successful multicultural platform and digital broadcaster that stands on its own two feet. Australia should be optimising and leveraging our public institutions like the SBS to promote inclusive communities and strengthen public media, and that is what this policy will do. Magic Words International 130 21:36 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I wish tonight to draw the attention of the House to a modern David-versus-Goliath struggle within corporate Australia. It's an example of poor behaviour by an Australian company, Wesfarmers, and their subsidiary company, Kmart. The issues I'm referring to point to a substantial gap in our intellectual property laws or a failure to protect a deserving Australian small business from large corporate predation or a cultural and leadership deficiency in corporate Australia. The essential facts are these: Magic Words International and its founder, Marcella Reiter, developed a world-leading literacy resource for Australian children. It is used throughout Australia and, indeed, throughout the world. The product is known as Magic Words. It is innovative and clever. It is distinctive and unique. It's bright and colourful, in an easy format, with an enjoyable presentation and learning genius. Magic Words is about engaging and motivating children to have fun whilst learning to read. It is a successful Australian business and business product selling into our homes and schools. Magic Words is a key component in teaching and assessing outcomes in our schools. So guess what has happened? In January 2020, on the shelves of Kmart in Australia and New Zealand, there appeared an almost identical product, with the same titles, same colours, same words, same statistical significance and same design, all apparently lifted from Magic Words. Indeed, the trademark expression 'Magic Words' registered to Marcella Reiter was used in the promotion of the Kmart product. As I said, Kmart is a subsidiary of Wesfarmers. So you can imagine the surprise of the creator and author when the Kmart product was brought to Ms Reiter's attention. She immediately approached Kmart. Guess what happened? Kmart and Wesfarmers went legal—'Nothing to see here. Be on your way.' What next? There were protracted legal letters and meetings with evidence and substantiation, but all without any resolution. The matter was escalated to the Wesfarmers chair, Mr Michael Chaney AO. Guess what happened? Kmart and Wesfarmers went legal—'Nothing to see here. Be on your way.' Ms Reiter's member of parliament—the honourable member for Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus QC—wrote to Mr Chaney requesting Kmart and Wesfarmers engage with Ms Reiter. Guess what happened? 'Nothing to see here. Be on your way.' Small Australian businesses like Ms Reiter's need to be protected and promoted. We have here an example of no such protection and possible victims of frankly outrageous conduct from an Australian corporate. There is a question mark over the corporate leadership of companies like this that essentially rip off small businesses in Australia. Accordingly, I urge all honourable members to look to and sustain people like Marcella Reiter, who are working hard in small businesses around Australia for the benefit of themselves but also, in her case, for children, for families and for communities. I urge honourable members to hold to account large corporates that hide behind obfuscating, frustrating and elongating tactics of their lawyers, not once but repeatedly. I urge honourable members to promote a corporate culture of honesty, decency and accountability. Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. In examples like this, where people have used their ingenuity to create a product, go out there and market it, working from the kitchen table and the garage at home where product is stored for distribution throughout a country, to have that ripped off by Kmart, in this instance, is so disappointing compared to what should be happening. Then to have the corporate response of, 'Call in the lawyers and deny everything,' is simply appalling. Fraser Electorate: School Leadership, National Disability Insurance Scheme 131 21:41 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Mr Speaker, belated congratulations on your elevation. The last two years have particularly impacted children and young people throughout my electorate, whose school and extracurricular activities have been severely curtailed. As 2021 draws to a close, I want to thank all the school leaders, teachers and students, and their families, across Fraser for doing so much to support the learning and development of our young people in such difficult circumstances. I'm delighted to recognise more recent winners of the Fraser Primary School Leadership Award, which is presented to year 6 students who have made particular contributions to their school communities, including: Chelsea and Tiva of Christ the King Primary in Braybrook for being dedicated learners and respectful, inclusive leaders; Melle and Sajal of St Peter's Catholic Primary in South West Sunshine for being excellent role models and always going above and beyond; Abbie and Anan of Mackellar Primary School in Delahey for outstanding community leadership and academic excellence; Huang and Lavinia of St Albans North Primary for their amazing commitment and leadership as school captains, especially during remote learning; Kathy and Ruby of Resurrection Catholic Primary School for being conscientious, hardworking and independent learners; Lana and Franklin of Monmia Primary for being wonderful house leaders and earning the respect of their peers; and Chantelle and Kevin of St Albans Heights Primary for working hard in all areas of the curriculum and doing their best. It's also a great privilege to announce the winners of the Fraser Young Leaders Award for year 11 students. Each of these young leaders have made special contributions to their school communities this year, including Cindy and Louis of Braybrook College for their community service, supporting their peers and being valued members of the school's leadership team; Rianna and Matthew of Sunshine College for supporting their peers and working hard to achieve their goals; Isabelle and Jayden of Catholic Regional College Sydenham for their leadership and advocacy for the student community and their involvement in so many dimensions of community service; and Sarah and Tevita of Keilor Downs College for their strong advocacy of student interests to policy leaders, their peer support, their leadership of cultural change and their outstanding contribution to so many academic and extracurricular activities. I'd like to congratulate all of these students and indeed all of the nominees for their wonderful contribution to their schools and to the broader community. Thank you again to the teachers for supporting them in their learning and co-curricular activities in such a difficult period. I'd also like to talk about the importance of the NDIS in my community. This weekend I'm looking forward to attending the open day of First Choice Allied Health, which is an NDIS provider in Melbourne's west which plays a significant role in my community as a provider of therapy services to Vietnamese Australian NDIS participants. The NDIS is such an important provider of services to many people who are vulnerable in our community, but in particular to many people who come from a culturally and linguistically diverse background. I was delighted to join in recent weeks with my neighbours the member for Gorton and the shadow minister for the NDIS, the member for Maribyrnong, for an NDIS forum. Well over 3,000 participants live in my electorate of Fraser, and the NDIS plays a key role in my community. It was a privilege to join with so many participants and providers and to hear directly from them about their experience, how the NDIS could be made more effective, and their suggestions for improvements and reform. It was concerning to hear from some participants in my electorate about the negative impact that recent policies have had upon NDIS participants and their families, and how these policies are undermining the agency and the autonomy of participants. The NDIS is a landmark Labor reform on the same scale as Medicare. Labor understands that one of the key rationales for the NDIS is that it should empower participants and provide them with more control and autonomy over their lives and more access to more diverse and better funded services. This government has recently criticised the NDIS for being a service which has seen overspending. In reality, over the last 12 months there has been an increase in costs of 18 per cent and an increase in the number of participants of over 20 per cent, so, on a per capita basis, funding is actually falling. (Time expired) Tasmania: Health Care 131 21 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Mr Speaker, may I add my congratulations to you for your elevation to this role. As a proud Northern Tasmanian, I will always fight for what our community needs. Right now one of the biggest challenges facing our region—as it has been for many, many years—is access to health care and, specifically, general practitioner services. Tasmania, and Northern Tasmania in particular, is a wonderful place to live. I think it's the best place to live in Australia. However, I don't shy away from the fact that the rates of many chronic health conditions—including arthritis; asthma; cancer; heart, stroke and vascular disease; and osteoporosis—are higher in our state than the national average. Combined with the highest proportion of the population aged over 50 and with significant socioeconomic factors, this is undoubtedly putting a strain on our health system. Since I was elected in 2019—right back to my first speech, in fact—I've been committed to doing what I can to address the challenges related to our healthcare system and, in particular, the challenges that exist within the public hospital system. In the many conversations I've had within our community, I've heard time and time again that people will avoid going to a doctor if they can't be bulk-billed or access a local doctor. Inevitably, when left untreated, whatever health challenges they are having will lead them to the emergency department of our hospital. Although data from the last decade shows GP numbers in Australia have increased at triple the rate of the population, unfortunately the bulk of this growth has been in capital cities. Additionally, from many discussions with health professionals at the coalface of the system, it's clear that in order to at least partially take the pressure off the hospital we need to create a primary health system that is more equitable and accessible to the community. Over two years ago I met with Tasmanian branch members of the AMA and engaged in a direct, open conversation about the complexities of the health system in the Northern Tasmanian region, many of which were also raised by GPs directly with Minister Hunt during his visit in September 2019. One of the challenges faced by GPs in our region, which has been raised with me many times, is the challenge of recruitment and retention of GPs, some of which is a result of the classification certain areas receive under the Modified Monash Model. With Launceston and many surrounding areas falling under a tier 2 classification—the same as Hobart—we're often competing with our capital city for doctors, a problem that also exists at the Launceston General Hospital when trying to attract specialists. After speaking with practices in Northern Tasmania—including from Summerhill, Prospect, Lilydale and Mowbray—I brought together a number of general practices via videoconference with the department and the then minister for regional health, Mark Coulton, where many of the issues could be discussed at length. At the end of last year, after many months of advocacy I was pleased to secure a new initiative fund to attract doctors to Launceston and across northern Tasmania to address some of the longstanding GP shortages in the region. Addressing the maldistribution of GPs and health professionals in Australia is complex and requires a mix of short-, medium- and long-term solutions. I'm committed to bringing some permanent solutions to these challenges to the people of Bass. In particular, I'm looking forward to reviewing the recommendations of the recent inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee into the provision of general practitioner and related primary health services to outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australians. Its report is due to be handed down in March next year. Lastly, I do think there is some opportunity to look at how we can leverage the capability and expertise of community pharmacists to take some of the additional pressure off the health system. This year we've seen pharmacists play a critical role in helping to keep our community safe and healthy as they've assisted in the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccinations. From talking with many community pharmacists, I know that they are ready and willing to play a more active role in providing key health services, and I will be raising this further with the minister as we work together on finding sustainable solutions to GP accessibility and affordability in the northern Tasmania region. Neuroendocrine Tumours 132 21:51 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Mr Speaker, please accept my belated congratulations. It's disappointing to lose someone who was basically a neighbour, but well done. The SPEAKER 265967 Thank you. Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 I'd like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of neuroendocrine tumours, also known in Australia as NETs. The issue was brought to my attention in a meeting with Canberrans Lynda and Simon Dunstone, who are working to raise awareness of NETs across the ACT and the country. Lynda has a stage IV pancreatic NET that has spread to her liver. She was misdiagnosed and had two years of chemotherapy for the wrong cancer before finally getting her NET diagnosis. This was in addition to a lengthier original misdiagnosis. Heavily impacted by Lynda's misdiagnosis, Lynda and Simon have been working with the not-for-profit NeuroEndocrine Cancer Australia advocating for greater awareness and policy change regarding NETs. Lynda is also a valued support group facilitator for other patients. NETs are a distinct type of cancer. They develop from the endocrine system rather than from cells of an organ or tissue like other cancers. They can arise in various parts of the body and can develop into other conditions such as diabetes and other diseases. Sometimes it's referred to as the forgotten cancer, as there is a concerning lack of awareness of NETs by healthcare professionals, let alone the general community. This means that patients are frequently misdiagnosed or are only diagnosed after significant delay. Indeed, the median time to diagnosis is 9.2 years, and in 60 per cent of cases, the patient has stage IV cancer at the time of their diagnosis. This not only has a severe impact on a patient's survival and quality of life but means they face high out-of-pocket costs, reduced capacity to work, if not early retirement, and financial stress. The effect on the emotional health of the patient and of their family and friends is also substantial. Furthermore, late diagnosis results in high economic cost to the health system due to the unnecessary and inefficient use of healthcare resources. Sadly, the number of sufferers of this debilitating condition is high. There are currently more than 22,000 Australians living with NETs, and it's estimated that over 5,000 people will be diagnosed this year alone. It is estimated that, this year, NETs will be the seventh-most-common cancer diagnosis, yet it's still relatively unrecognised in the general community. Compared to other countries, Australia plays a leading role in significant areas of research and many therapeutic treatments for NETs. However, patients remain far from receiving optimal treatment. We must do more. NeuroEndocrine Cancer Australia have pioneered a national action plan. The goal of the plan is to highlight the need for greater awareness of NETs as a distinct group of cancers and its significant impact on patients, their families and the healthcare system. The plan is built on over a decade of research, working with patients and other stakeholders. Some of the recommendations include increased patient support through specialist NET telehealth nurses. Currently there is only one NET nurse for telehealth purposes for over 22,000 patients across Australia. There is also a need for targeted awareness campaigns, healthcare professional education, nationwide optimal care pathways and referral frameworks, and health sector delivery support through centres of excellence and a NET data registry, as well as, of course, increased access to research funding. Central to the plan's recommendations is to leverage existing capabilities, expertise and infrastructure. Lynda and Simon reached out to the federal government seeking consideration of the national action plan's modest recommendations. However, they were not reassured by the government's response. NETs as a distinct type of cancer and its place within existing structures was overlooked, and the funding figures noted in response were inconsistent and added confusion. The modest call for an additional five telehealth NET nurses was rebuffed, despite the capacity of the still-small team to provide invaluable advice and referrals to those 22,000 patients. But I'm pleased to say that the shadow minister for health and Dr Mike Freelander and other medical professionals here are actively engaged in trying to raise awareness of these very serious issues. Overseas Students 133 21:56 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I'm pleased to be the final speaker in this evening's debate. I would like to speak about the international education sector. As we're probably all aware from just a few hours ago, this week was to mark the return to Australia of international students. Australia's world-class education sector has been such a vital resource to our economy and society. In 2019 it was Australia's third largest commodity, at $40 billion, and on the Gold Coast was worth $1.6 billion. As I said probably an hour ago, due to the new omicron variant, the government has paused this reopening until 15 December, following advice from the Chief Medical Officer and in order to gather more information on the new variant to continue to keep Australians safe. So I will continue to talk about the sector and what our government has planned for the immediate future and, of course, the intermediate future, in the hope that re-entry for this very important international sector will recommence as soon as possible. Part of the past success comes from our attraction to international students who want to get a taste of the Australian way of life. Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. Almost half of our current population either was born overseas or has at least one parent born overseas. We come from every culture and every race, every background and every faith. For international students, Australia is home away from home, and it quenches the desire to explore a foreign land while being safe yet familiar at the same time. To support the recovery of our education sector as a global commodity and economic contributor, and when it's safe to do so, the Morrison government is introducing further targeted measures that support the international education sector to bounce back as and when those borders open. In the last year-and-a-half, the government supported the sector with $53.6 million, which included innovation grants to assist with changes to business models. Three organisations in my electorate, providers of English as a second language, were grateful recipients of just under $150,000 each to pivot their business to new areas where they could innovate and change their business model. In addition, more than $37 million will be delivered to support international education providers most affected by COVID-19. This support includes extending regulatory fee waivers and providing additional grants, which is good news for the sector. Australia's visa framework will be enhanced, with more flexibility for international students as they prepare to return to our shores. The new framework will further extend current measures to protect the post-study work rights of international students as well as extend the temporary graduate visa from two years to three years for masters by coursework graduates. As I said, this is good news for international students and regional and rural communities experiencing the worker shortages that we talk about. Two weeks ago, I spoke directly to more than 250 foreign student agents, all via Zoom, from all over the world in an online forum to prepare them for this milestone in Australia's recovery, in terms of enrolment, visa application requirements and, of course, the recognised vaccination list that we have. I believe there are eight on that list now. It was clear that international students want to study and experience our diverse society, but they also want to explore Australia and contribute to our economy post study. They love, of course, visiting the Gold Coast, surfing at Surfers Paradise and cuddling a koala at Currumbin. I'm sure the member for McPherson is listening as I spruik the beauty of my electorate and, of course, her electorate as well. Before the pandemic, Australia had more than 589,000 international students. Locally, there were more than 19,000 international students calling the beautiful Gold Coast home, and we can't wait to welcome them back. These changes implemented by our government are practical and fundamental to Australia's recovery process and the future of our education sector. There are very many other changes. Goodness me! Five minutes goes very quickly at this time of night. But there are very many other changes that the government is putting in place to make sure that we can welcome back international students when it is safe to do so, and we look forward to that day when we can welcome them back with open arms. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 22:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Rob Mitchell) took the chair at 10:30.

Monday, 29 November 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Rob Mitchell) took the chair at 10:30.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 135 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Hotham Electorate: Hotham Writing Prize 135 10:30 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham As members of parliament, we of course represent our voting constituents. But there are also thousands of people within our communities who don't get to vote and we are also their voice in federal parliament. It really matters to me what the young people of Hotham believe, even though it's not quite their time to have a vote. Recently, I launched the Hotham Writing Prize. It's a way that my team has devised to make sure that we understand the concerns of young people in Hotham and that we're able to represent those to the federal parliament. We invited students from all over Hotham to send a letter or essay to me which addressed an issue that was very important to them as a young Australian. I also asked them to make sure that they talked to me about the things that they believed government could do to address their concern. The entries we received were of an incredibly high standard, which I think speaks to the excellent schools that we have right across Hotham and also to the very clever young people that I'm honoured to represent in this parliament. There were two really clear themes that came out of the things that young people spoke to me about this time. The first of those was the desperate urge they have to get this parliament to recognise the threat of climate change and to put in place real plans that will help us see our country do the responsible thing and make sure that we avert a disaster that, for these young people, is something that they're going to have to live within their adulthoods. The second issue that was most important to them was about mental health, something that has really come up for a lot of young people in particular because of the issues they've been subjected to throughout COVID lockdowns. I want the House to join with me in congratulating Markus Baumgartner of East Bentleigh Primary School. He was this year's junior winner of the Hotham Writing Prize. He wrote an amazing piece to me about climate change. One of the things that I loved about Markus's piece was that he talked about real solutions—real things that he believes the Australian government can do to address this very important challenge. I also want to congratulate Rion Morgan of Mazenod College, who was the senior winner of the Hotham Writing Prize. Rion wrote to me about the really pressing concern he sees around mental health and also talked about something which I think is really interesting: his generation of young people is probably the first generation of Australians who are able to have a really open conversation about mental health issues they're facing. I also want to congratulate two additional students who were special commendation winners: Sienna Leopold from Oakleigh Primary School, who wrote an incredibly thoughtful piece about violence against young women; and Hector Rivas Turner from Huntingdale Primary School, who wrote to me about climate change. A lot of people in the public realm say that young people don't care about politics. In my experience as a local member, nothing is further from the truth. I'm so proud of the young people who I represent in parliament and I want to thank each and every one who took the time to put pen to paper and write to me about something that really matters to them as members of my community. Victoria: Andrews Government 135 10:33 Mr MT4 Monash BROADBENT () (): There are some times during a long stay in this parliament, like I have had, when I need to bring to your attention, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and to the House's attention and to the attention of the people of Australia what's going on in my state of Victoria. These things need to be recorded on Hansard so that the world knows exactly what's going on in Victoria, my home state. Recently, a friend of mine brought to my attention that a fellow friend of his had heard about a vigil being held in a bayside suburb. It was opposing what the Victorian state government is doing. He thought: 'I'd like to go and sit with that vigil. It's a quiet vigil.' He went and sat on the lawn quietly. There were some police nearby, but they were just watching. Some journalists came along and he spoke to them. As he spoke to them, the police walked towards him and then issued him with an infringement notice. He took his infringement notice and went home, and last week he received the fine. The fine was more than $5,000. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people have entered the streets each weekend and yet there were no fines for them. How is it that what we would have seen as absurd and unconscionable even a year ago in this nation is now here? How can we have a nation so corruptly divided as this, where thousands can march—thousands can march—and yet this one person who spoke to two journalists receives a fine for more than $5,000? This was at a time when he had decided he didn't want to take these vaccines. He's not an anti-vaxxer, but he didn't want to take these vaccines, so he has lost his job and he has a $5,000 fine. That family was already struggling. This is my 'great south land'. There are things that we don't do. I think this is wrong. I think it is unconscionable. I think it is criminal. And I think it is immoral. Gorton Young Leaders Awards 136 10:36 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to congratulate the talented and hardworking recipients of this year's Gorton Young Leaders Awards. Since 2009 I have been acknowledging selected year 12 students from the electorate of Gorton through these annual awards. These students have demonstrated a commitment to active public leadership within their schools and their communities. These awards are an important way to recognise and encourage young local people beyond academic performance, and to reward their efforts in giving to their community. I am consistently impressed with the remarkable achievements of the prize winners and the fantastic local talent who call Melbourne's west their home. This year was particularly challenging for our year 12 students, with two years of schooling disrupted by the pandemic. We have 15 Gorton Young Leaders Awards winners this year from across eight local schools in the electorate of Gorton. From Gilson College we have Sasha Bonnici and Chris Nicolau. From Melton Christian College we have Sarah Grimaldos and Matthew George. From Staughton College we have Jasmine Green and Jasmin Donnelly. From Kurunjang Secondary College we have Garang Guot. From Melton Secondary College we have Mercy Une Passi and Zed Tuionetoa. From Catholic Regional College Melton we have Zoe Attard and Raph Hadfield. From Southern Cross Grammar we have Izzy Chetcuti and Callum Weir. And finally from Lakeview Senior College we have Kabango Kalombe and Nathan Guinan. I am aware of how dedicated Nathan is in particular. I've already mentioned him in this place, as he previously took part in our Gorton young leaders' workshop after completing work experience in my office. All of these students have made significant contributions to their schools and local communities. Many are school captains or on their school council and represent their school or community officially. Some have done specific work such as running sports programs for the disabled, working with multicultural communities, creating videos to keep young people connected, helping the elderly and even assisting funeral services for those families who are on a tight budget. These are the students that people seek out for assistance. They advocate for and help others, and put others before themselves. They should be commended for their efforts. I'll be watching these young people closely as they become the leaders of the future. Victoria: Andrews Government 136 10:39 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to highlight my ongoing concern with the Victorian Labor government's ill-conceived and illogical plans to abolish native timber harvesting in Victoria. It's a plan to destroy a viable industry and throw families into poverty. It's another Labor plan that undermines blue-collar jobs for green votes. It's madness at every level. But you don't have to take my word for it. Michael O'Connor, who is the national secretary of the CFMEU, wrote recently: … federal Labor's task of convincing blue-collar workers and communities they will be looked after is threatened by the approach of the Andrews government toward timber workers and their communities. Because these workers are being thrown on the scrap heap. I repeat: 'these workers are being thrown on the scrap heap'. The only type of transition the current Victorian government proposal offers for the workers, their families and communities is a transition into poverty. Keep in mind that this is the national secretary of the CFMEU. He continues: The reality facing federal Labor is that actions speak louder than words. Voters will look to this example of a Labor government transitioning an industry and see that it will destroy livelihoods and communities in the Latrobe Valley. This will send a shiver down the spine of blue-collar workers and communities all around Australia. I repeat: it's a 'transition into poverty'. I appeal to those opposite, particularly those Victorians amongst you: please stand up to Premier Dan Andrews. Please fight for the timber industry jobs in our state. We have a world-class and sustainable industry about to be destroyed, because Dan Andrews has done another dodgy deal with the Australian Greens. To anyone who's listening to today's broadcast and thinking, 'You know, the sustainable Victorian timber industry doesn't really impact my life,' you need to think again. The combined impacts of this ridiculous ban, the ongoing activism by extreme environmentalists and the recent bushfires are set to exacerbate supply chain problems here in Australia. The humble wooden pallet, which is relied on to distribute just about everything that we buy in our shops, is in short supply, and it's only going to get worse if Premier Dan Andrews continues with this irresponsible plan to ban native timber harvesting. The manufacturers of pallets are already facing timber supply shortages. It's another reason why Victoria should overturn this decision. The reality is that we have seen supply chain fragility occur during the coronavirus pandemic, and we need to be a nation that makes things—a nation that adds value to our rich natural resources and locally grown products, including our timber resources. Over the last 20 years we've seen enormous changes in the timber industry and enormous investments in their future. The modern timber industry, which is typified by businesses such as Fenning Timbers in Bairnsdale or Australian Sustainable Hardwoods in Heyfield, has world-class manufacturing facilities. It's recovering smaller sections of wood all the time and joining them together to create high-value products, focusing on maximising the yield from every log. This is an industry that provides jobs and provides a skilled bush workforce during the bushfire months. This is ideological madness. We should not be shutting down the Victorian native hardwood timber industry. Labor Government, Blair Electorate: Community Events 137 10:42 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair [by video link] On Wednesday 24 November, it was 14 years since I first had the honour of being elected by the people of Blair. After the 2007 federal election, a newly elected Labor government introduced many reforms, including the NBN, paid parental leave, the education revolution, the NDIS and aged-care reform. We apologised to the stolen generations, addressed the scourge of institutional abuse against children and removed the draconian industrial measures, Work Choices. In Blair, locally, we upgraded the Ipswich Motorway and the Blacksoil Interchange. The Fernvale Indoor Sports Centre and the Somerset Civic Centre were both built. We delivered a cancer clinic and invested in community, cultural and educational infrastructure such as the Orion Lagoon and the Robelle Domain parklands, all in Springfield. Those opposite have very little to boast about for their more than eight years in government. The last two years have been particularly difficult for community groups and businesses across Blair. As we cautiously open our borders and businesses, the community is enjoying coming together. However, not everything goes to plan. Regular Christmas events here were not just victims of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021; they've also been postponed and cancelled in storms. One such victim is the Rosewood Lions Christmas carnival. I was looking forward to attending this last weekend and having a stall on John Street. The cancellation notwithstanding, I offer my sincere appreciation to the Lions Club of Rosewood; the event coordinator, Dennis Kenyon; and former local councillor David Pahlke for their hard work and organisation. Recently, I was fortunate to attend an event with the Ipswich Prostate Cancer Support Group, run by cancer survivor Dennis Ellis. The group raised $6,000, and I was pleased to support the event by buying a table and sharing the event with some good mates, family and colleagues. My father, Al, had prostate cancer, and it caused his death. I appreciate the work of this group to support men and their families, and to raise awareness. I've enjoyed getting out and about across Blair to visit groups that have recently received the Blair stronger communities grants. I recently visited the Ipswich Switches Junior Motorcycle Speedway Club at Willowbank, with Cameron Jeppesen, to see the new lap-timing technology in action. I congratulate the club president, Dwayne Rew, and hardworking volunteer Cam for their great work. Last weekend, I had the pleasure of attending the Linville Heritage Festival in the north-western part of the Somerset region. I had the privilege of opening stage 2 of the Linville Community Garden. I congratulate Carolyn Barker and the association for their dedication to the project and their tenacity in organisation. And I congratulate them for the work they do across the northern part of Blair. Thank you very much to all those organisations for dealing not just with the challenges of COVID but the storms recently. China: 2022 Winter Olympic Games 137 10:45 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I rise to call for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. To go ahead with these games without formally registering our concerns about crimes against humanity occurring at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party sends a very strong message to the victims that we actually turn a blind eye to their suffering. So I, for one, will not turn a blind eye and will never forget their anguish. We, as a nation that respects human rights and dignity, must not let this happen. In a few months time the best athletes in the world will converge on Beijing for the Winter Olympic Games and, whilst sport does unite us and brings out the best in humanity, it is also crucial that the world unites to respect the humanity of those who suffer human rights atrocities occurring at the hands of the CCP. We refused to turn a blind eye to the rapidly-deteriorating human rights situation in Hong Kong and the Tibet autonomous region. Tibet and the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region are where Tibetans, Uighurs and other minority groups are subject to widespread religious and cultural repression, forced labour, sterilisation, political indoctrination, arbitrary detention, torture and death. Make no mistake: the Tibetans, the Uighurs and other minority groups in those regions are victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. This is happening now. Whilst the International Olympic Committee has made it clear that it is not in the business of politics, the Olympic Charter's principles of solidarity and nondiscrimination are hard to reconcile with holding the 2022 games in a country whose government stands credibly accused of perpetrating crimes against humanity and genocide. We know what's going on and it would be a betrayal of our common humanity to stand in silence. So I say to the House and to members of the International Olympic Committee that the desire to stay above politics does not mean turning a blind eye to mass atrocity. There's still time to urgently postpone the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing and initiate an emergency search process for suitable replacement facilities outside China for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games, to make a strong stand for human rights. There's time for us here in this country to register our protest against crimes against humanity. We must decline invitations for state officials to attend the games as long as Beijing remains the host, and discourage companies operating in Australia from acting as commercial sponsors for those games. We must work multilaterally with our allies through all available forums, including the Five Eyes alliance, to urge the IOC to move the games from Beijing to a suitable host outside China. I also urge individual athletes competing to think carefully about whether they should take part and consider a personal boycott should those games remain in China. Their boycott would possibly send the strongest message that human rights abuses are not okay in any part of the world. Dunkley Electorate: Housing 138 10:48 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Housing affordability is a crisis in this country. It's not just that young people can't afford to buy a house it's that people who are in long-term rentals can't afford to stay where they are because their rents are going up so much. A serious crisis in my electorate of Dunkley is where people who are in rental accommodation and the house is being sold, or something is happening that means they can't continue to live there, they can't find anywhere else to live. The cost of rent has skyrocketed in the last 12 months and millions of Australians are paying more just to keep a roof over their head. We saw on Channel 7 on Saturday night that rent has increased by thousands of dollars a year for so many people. In Frankston, the median cost of rent has increased by $1,650 in the last 12 months. The Grattan Institute, ACOSS and the University of New South Wales have released research which shows that there has been a two-decade shortfall in low-cost housing investment by governments, and this has been exacerbated by the increase in property prices recently—some 22 per cent over the past year. Research shows that by August this year rents were growing by eight per cent, which is the fastest since 2008 and is almost four times the pace of wage growth. In Frankston, Carrum Downs, Skye, Seaford, Langwarrin, Frankston South and Mount Eliza—across my electorate—rents are going up and up and up, and real wages are going backwards. Everyone is affected by this, but people who have other disadvantages in their life are the ones who are truly badly affected. These are people like Dom from my electorate who lives in Frankston South with his father. Dom is an NDIS participant and his father is on the age pension. They are good people who are struggling to deal with the challenges life has given them. Dom has a motorised bed and chair and relies on a four-wheel walker to get around. He's recently had surgery—times are pretty tough. He and his father have been served an eviction notice because the property they're renting is to be demolished. They're on the critical waitlist for public housing, but they can't find anything in Frankston. There is nothing for them. In Australia today it is harder to buy a home and harder to rent than it has ever been. People like Dom and Dom's father are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. An age pensioner and an NDIS participant in a wheelchair are at risk of homelessness. It is not good enough, and we cannot continue to accept it in this country. That is why federal Labor has a plan to address our housing affordability and homelessness crisis, to invest in affordable housing and partner with state governments, like the Victorian state government, that also want to do it. We have to do it for people like Dom and his father and people across my electorate. Goldstein Electorate: Morrison Government 138 10:51 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein In the lead-up to next election there's going to be a lot of talk: Labor candidates seeking to sell the credibility of the opposition—good luck with that! There'll be Greens that selectively pick the science that they like—climate science, yes; scientifically enhanced food, no, not so much. There'll be candidates wanting to outsource climate policy from the Australian parliament and towards unelected bureaucrats—'yeah-nah'. What we actually want is action. The people of Australia want action. And while talk is cheap, outcomes matter and we've got them in spades. We lowered income taxes to ensure that Australians keep more of their own money. We introduced laws to punish online trolls harming children and to hold big tech accountable. We exposed corruption in the superannuation sector and fixed loopholes that they exploited, including those that were used to harvest low-balance accounts for fees, and ASIC is now investigating whether to bring insider-trading charges against Industry SuperFunds executives and fund managers. We made the tough call to uphold national security, including increasing the Defence budget and commissioning nuclear submarines to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In the last term we stopped an extradition treaty with China that would have exposed Australians to China's opaque judicial system. We delivered marriage equality to ensure Australian couples have legal equal recognition in rights. We also improved medical privacy laws so that your health records can't be compromised. Of course, we also proudly stopped Labor's retiree tax that would have stripped many self-funded retirees of up to 30 per cent of their income and pushed them down the financial stairs. We're now delivering Australia's first comprehensive economy-wide plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, with emissions already down by 20 per cent and falling. Of course, we introduced the first legal framework for offshore electricity infrastructure. That's at the national level, and there's also the local where we work directly with councils. After they applied, we delivered the largest grants to Bayside and Glen Eira in history for car park upgrade along the Sandringham and Frankston lines. We provided funding to replace the Black Rock Yacht Club and upgrades to community sporting infrastructure. We've provided funding for local netball facilities to address the issue of gender inequity and $1 million to help return Elsternwick Park to a nature reserve along with funding for foreshore restoration in Black Rock and Sandringham. Whether it's national or local, there are no empty promises. There is a clear track record of delivery, and, in short, on election 2022, I know some people are getting very excited about it. Trust me, I'm excited about it too, because what I love about elections is the chance to directly engage with the community as we've done for the past six years. In short, bring it on. Wee Jasper Distillery, Snowy Trout Challenge, Merimbula Chamber of Commerce Sea Change Expo 139 10:54 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I rise today to celebrate Eden-Monaro's communities starting their bounce-back after two of the most challenging years in history. I've been fortunate recently to get back on the road in my electorate, and I may be biased but I strongly believe I live in the best electorate in the country. I could stand here all day talking about the stunning plains of the Monaro, the pristine beaches, the breathtaking Snowies, the vast and diverse landscape within the beautiful Yass Valley, heritage towns, buildings and history, the incredible lakes, dams and caves and countless vistas and national parks all around the region. But it's the people who make this electorate so special. It's the culture and diversity of the Queanbeyan region and the hundreds of close-knit communities that have come together to endure the tough times. I recently had the pleasure of spending a night in Wee Jasper, which is a natural wonderland perfect for exploring. What made my trip so enjoyable was the hospitality of the community and that, no matter their political views, everyone was so welcoming. Whilst there I learnt of a new business venture that's just starting up—and a thank you to Shannon for showing me around the brand-new and very exciting Wee Jasper Distillery, which will be opening in early 2022. This has been a long project for Shannon, her family and the team but one that will no doubt draw people to the region. With a husband and kids that love fishing, it would be remiss of me not to talk about the Snowy Trout Challenge, which is back for its second year. The Snowy Trout Challenge is open to all anglers and is a regionwide event across the Snowy Monaro. Tagged rainbow trout have been released into Lake Eucumbene, Lake Jindabyne, Lake Crackenback, Black Lake in Bombala, Murrumbidgee Pumping Station in Cooma and Lake Williams in Nimmitabel. The Snowy Trout Challenge kicked off in October and will run until May 31. It's the perfect excuse to visit our Snowys and support our local businesses. The Snowy area's been hit harder than most due to the pandemic. While the rest of New South Wales is mostly back to normal, businesses in the Snowy missed an entire snow season. Communities lost millions of dollars of income, and it's a long six months until the snow returns. Please check out this region and support these communities. One thing the past last two years has taught us is that people are able to work from anywhere. However, moving to a new area can be daunting, especially if it's a region you don't know well. This is why the Merimbula Chamber of Commerce's Sea Change Expo is such a good idea. Taking place on 22 and 23 January, businesses and community groups are coming together to showcase the Merimbula region, answer people's sea change questions and shine a light on the lifestyle that makes living and raising your kids on the Sapphire Coast so great. If you're planning a holiday this summer, make sure you check out Eden-Monaro because, right across this electorate, you'll find something amazing to explore and taste and you'll meet amazing people. Pearce Electorate: Yanchep Health Centre 140 10:57 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce In early 2019 my community worked extraordinarily hard, and I worked hard with them, to secure a $10.4 million Commonwealth funding commitment for a much-needed Yanchep Health Centre. The context to that funding was that the northern coastal suburbs of my electorate, 50 to 70 kays north of Perth, are thriving. They're a growing corridor of Perth—in fact, they're one of the fastest-growing population centres in Australia—and there's still a very strong overreliance of medical facilities which are located further south and that necessitates long commute times for locals to access proper health care. After that $10.4 million of Commonwealth funding for the Yanchep Health Centre, three years on and despite record levels of ambulance ramping in WA and record emergency department running times, sadly—and, in my observation, totally inexplicably—the WA government has just not met its commitments and got on with the job of building this centre. When the project was initially announced, the WA government revealed a completion date of October 2022. However, due to WA government delays, which, again, are just totally unexplained, the construction will now not likely commence until late next year and that will mean the completion of the project is very unlikely to happen until very late in 2023 or early 2024. This is again all in the further context of the fact that the Australian government, the Commonwealth Liberal coalition government, has been funding hospitals in Western Australia at an increase of 72.8 per cent between 2012-13 and 2020-21. Over that same time the WA government's funding for their own public hospitals has increased by only 18.4 per cent. I think it leads to an observation that the WA government has not been adequately managing the state's healthcare system and, obviously, that is during a period where the state has no COVID-19 in the community. The time for delays and obfuscation by the state government have to be over with respect to the Yanchep Health Centre. It needs to get on with the job of building the Yanchep Health Centre and improving the public health system in suburbs like mine in Yanchep as well as Perth's northern suburbs more generally. If people are seeking health care, they shouldn't have to wait for hours to be seen. The constituents of Pearce and the residents of WA just expect the right thing from the state government, and they deserve uninterrupted access to adequate healthcare services. The idea that there is $10.4 million sitting there committed to building a healthcare centre which is badly needed, and there hasn't been anything like the schedule and timetabling that the WA government had promised, to me is just baffling. It would be good for the state government to get this thing built. It would be good for the Commonwealth government to get this thing built. It would be good for all of the citizens who live in my electorate, who would come to rely on this excellent facility once it has been built. I'm imploring the state government to get on with the job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 140 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS GP Access After Hours Service 140 11:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that: (a) the GP Access After Hours service: (i) has provided over a million urgent after-hours consultations to families in Newcastle and the Hunter region for more than twenty years; (ii) delivers 50,000 face-to-face appointments and handles 70,000 calls through the nurse led triage call centre each year; and (iii) saves our health system up to $21.7 million in unnecessary emergency department presentations each year; (b) due to the Government's continuous cuts to bulk-billing incentives and its failure to adequately index Medicare rebates, Hunter Primary Care has been forced to make cuts to the GP Access After Hours service; (c) from Christmas Eve, the Calvary Mater Clinic will close completely, and operating hours for clinics at the Belmont Hospital, John Hunter Hospital, Maitland Hospital and Westlakes Community Health Centre will be reduced; and (d) over 10,000 people from the Hunter region have signed a petition calling on the Government to restore funding to the GP Access After Hours service; (2) recognises that: (a) the GP Access After Hours service has been an essential service for tens of thousands of Newcastle and Hunter families who rely upon bulk-billing GP services to access the healthcare they need, when they need it; (b) with so few bulk-billing doctors in Newcastle and the Hunter region, any further loss of services will have a huge impact on families already faced with high out-of-pocket healthcare costs; (c) any cuts to this service will dramatically increase pressure on our already overstretched and under-resourced emergency departments; and (d) not only is the Government's lack of support for primary healthcare unacceptable, it is also grossly irresponsible in the middle of a global pandemic; and (3) calls on the Government to: (a) restore the funding to our GP Access After Hours service to stop the closure of the Calvary Mater Clinic and retain existing hours of operation at all remaining clinics; (b) reverse cuts to bulk-billing incentive payments in the Lower Hunter that have seen GP practices close and vulnerable people left without access to a bulk-billing GP; (c) abandon any efforts to further reduce funding to our GP Access After Hours service; (d) provide additional support for GP Access After Hours to expand their services to areas of need throughout the Hunter; and (e) utilise the success of the GP Access After Hours service as a model of best practice after hours primary healthcare across Australia. I'm very pleased to move this motion in the Australian parliament today. This is an issue that concerns all of my Labor colleagues in the region because of the brutal reality of the Morrison government's decision to cut our GP Access After Hours service in the Hunter. From Christmas Eve, the after-hours GP service at the Calvary Mater hospital in my electorate will be closing permanently, and operating hours at the four remaining clinics—at the John Hunter Hospital, the Belmont Hospital, the Maitland Hospital and the Toronto Polyclinic—will be significantly reduced. The Liberal government has a long history of undermining our universal healthcare system. We've had eight long years of savage cuts to Medicare under Liberal governments, including Medicare rebate freezes; the reclassification of most of the Hunter region from being a district of workforce shortage to being a so-called metropolitan area with no GP shortages at all; brutal cuts to our bulk-billing incentive payments which have cost our region some $7 million in lost revenue and the forced closure of many GP clinics; and, earlier this year, almost 1,000 changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, resulting in even higher out-of-pocket costs for patients. And now the Calvary Mater hospital after-hours clinic is next on the Morrison government's chopping block. The Morrison government have made it abundantly clear that they have zero intention of restoring the funding to our GP Access After Hours service, leaving local families just hanging out to dry. But this isn't the only thing they have in store, because the Minister for Health and Aged Care has a review sitting on his desk which, if implemented, would totally gut our GP Access After Hours service, wiping out any hope of retaining an after-hours service as we know it in the Hunter. Abandoning this much-loved service would have a profoundly negative impact for our community and place enormous pressure on our public hospital emergency departments. Keeping this service fully operational makes good sense from a social and public health policy perspective, but it also makes good economic sense. Sadly, the Morrison government would rather continue the blame game with the New South Wales Liberal government about who should fund primary health services than stop the closure of this essential frontline service. Make no mistake, this is nothing more than a silly finger-pointing exercise. It's buck-passing. It is a classic Morrison government move. Every problem is someone else's fault. Every crisis is someone else's responsibility. It's clear that the Morrison government have absolutely no clue what it's like for sick Novacastrians to try and access affordable health care and it's clear they have no plan for the 15,000 people who will be impacted by these cuts. Over 11,200 people have already signed my petition, and that number grows every day. Hundreds of people from the community have reached out to me to share their stories of what the service means to them and their families. They've expressed their dismay and disbelief, their frustration and anger, over these cuts. These reckless cuts make no sense to my community. As Sue from my electorate noted in a message to me: 'Last Saturday afternoon, my husband had an accident and badly injured his hand. GP Access After Hours was able to offer him an appointment at the Mater within 30 minutes of calling, and treatment was completed in one hour. Compare that to what would have happened on a Saturday night in emergency, waiting for six hours or more.' Rachel from my electorate said: 'I've used the GP Access After Hours service a few times, and so has my family. It's an excellent service. I have to pay to see a doctor and at times don't always have the cash to pay. With GP Access, there are no wait periods.' Michelle Harvison from Toronto was so outraged when she heard news of government cuts to our GP Access After Hours service. She told me how this service had saved her daughter's life. Her three-year-old daughter's health deteriorated. She went to GP Access first. Without a prescription for the antibiotics and an X-ray from the GPs at the Toronto Polyclinic her daughter's pneumonia would never have been attended to in time. This government has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the tens of thousands of families like Michelle who will feel the full force of this reckless decision. This government should be listening to the firsthand experiences of local families, GPs and health professionals on the ground who will wear the full brunt of these callous cuts. We cannot allow the public good to be sacrificed for some petty bureaucratic turf war. It is madness to cut a service that is saving the government millions of dollars every year. This government's stubborn refusal to restore funding for our GP Access is pathetic. The GP Access funding shortfall is a drop in the ocean for the Commonwealth's budget, but it has a very large ripple effect. This money must be restored immediately. Prime Minister, it is time you stepped up and took responsibility to restore this funding for a vital primary healthcare service immediately, because at the end of the day it's the families in the Hunter region who will pay the price for your inaction. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Conroy 249127 I proudly second this motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:06 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman [by video link] It's a brave member who stands up to New England MPs in a rage, but there is probably a need for some sobering information about exactly how after-hour services work and the fact that there's a broad platform of services that all residents in the Hunter and New England are able to access. The first speaker was absolutely correct that large amounts of money, from both sides of politics, have gone into supporting after-hours GP services. It was an absolute brainchild of the Howard government, which put together this scheme. It led to significant after-hours access to GPs, and it' really important. That funding has never been cut. But, by being activity based, as Medicare is, the more the service is used, the more likely a service is to be viable. Likewise, if hours are reduced by providers then, by definition, their income will be lower. I think that's at the heart of this problem, not some malevolent hatred from a political party towards after-hours access. The rules are the same nationwide. If an individual service is noting a decline in funding then it's most likely due to a decline in activity. That's a very important point. As a government, we don't directly fund Hunter Primary Care. Funding can and has been reduced, for instance, by the state government, which is likely to have a significant impact on the decision to close Calvary Mater hospital on, I think, 24 December. That's a state not a federal issue. I know that residents there can access one of the four other GP Access After Hours programs in the Hunter region. There's a John Hunter just a 10-minute drive away. You've got the explosion of online consultations, as well, through Medicare. We do understand the irritation and frustration, but hopefully not political opportunism, from the first speaker. She's a good MP, but I don't think she fully understands the economics behind changes in funding that are predominantly activity based. The government spends nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars on after-hours care, and $71 million of that for the PHN After Hours Program. It's basically driven by demand, isn't it? You need to be finding your GPs. I'd say to the member: go out and promote the after-hours service and get more GPs into your area who are prepared to bulk-bill. If you're losing that battle to electorates like mine, which have lots of GPs prepared to bulk-bill, then you have a PR issue and you need to work on your marketing and on your recruitment of GPs to your area. Do better. A C-plus for the member on those grounds. We know that after-hours investment ranges from all of the basic MBS to the Practice Incentives Program and the Healthdirect services. There are lots and lots of sources of funding. There's been a recent program evaluation of the Hunter, New England and Central Coast PHN. The PHN After Hours Program, in particular, had an independent assessment that looked at whether the program was filling critical roles, meeting after-hours needs, and they found significant areas that needed to be worked on and improved. You need to expect the government to be able to have that latitude and headroom to be able to improve services where required and to work with PHNs to redesign a service, particularly when they're not consistently prioritising the delivery of primary care services in the after-hours period. There are instances where the PHN was commissioning services that just duplicated other Commonwealth and state services. To follow the line of logic from the previous speaker, do we do nothing about that? Of course not. You've got to do something. You've got to hold workshops. You've got to improve the focus. You've got to make sure patients are able, through this raft of providers, to get an after-hours service. Whether or not it's from that service member is not as important as ensuring that they can get the service. We're not here to save every provider. I can see some whimsical, quizzical faces in the opposition. Well, I've been doing this for a couple of decades. I know that some services don't meet the needs of the population that others do, and we need to be making sure that there is a financial signal, and it's mostly through demand. If there are reduced operating hours at a place like Calvary Mater clinic, then that contract has to be renegotiated. It's quite simple. There are plenty of other providers out there for GPs to work for—to be redeployed. It just reflects the national trend, doesn't it? If providers are doing a good job, they attract GPs. The decision to bulk bill is one for them to make, and them alone. I know this is a very good member moving the motion, but I've got to be honest. I've been doing this for a long time; I know exactly how after-hours services work. Some do it better than others. Some meet community needs; some don't. Some deliver after hours in a genuine sense, and others are sometimes duplicating services and sometimes not getting the activity and the customer base that they should be from patients, and funding must reflect that. I think having these workshops at PHN level is an important step in that direction. I hope these service providers get through it, but there's no malevolence from the government. These are local issues, and these GPs need the support from their local MPs. 11:11 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I proudly second the motion by my colleague and friend the member for Newcastle, defending the Hunter GP After Hours Access service and calling on the government to urgently reverse its draconian cuts, because the truth is that the GP After Hours Access service is a Hunter institution that has touched the lives of every single Hunter family. I'm yet to meet someone who hasn't had a family member or a friend call on this great service to get them through a tough time. My own family, with two young kids, has been to the GP clinic many times—many times—and we've got phenomenal service, and, importantly, we've avoided a trip to the emergency department, saving taxpayers lots of money. The facts are these. This service receives 70,000 phone calls a year; 25,000 are immediately triaged and told that they can see their normal GP on a weekday or take some paracetamol or some other treatment. That's straightaway 25,000 visits to the emergency department avoided. Then the remaining 45,000 callers are given appointments at the GP clinic, again avoiding a huge weight on the emergency department, which is much more expensive to run than a GP clinic. The truth is that this service, which costs $4½ million a year to run, saves nearly $20 million a year in taxpayers' funds that would have gone to emergency departments. The truth is that, when the Belmont clinic had to close temporarily because a nurse got sick, the waiting time at the Belmont Hospital Emergency Department blew out from two hours to six hours—a great anecdotal example of how this service saves taxpayers money. It means that patients in my community don't have to wait for hours and hours and hours in an emergency department for conditions that can be treated by a visit to the GP. That's why the current Liberals' cut of $560,000 so tragic. This cut of $560,000 will close the equivalent of two clinics. It will mean that the hours that my local clinic at Belmont Hospital will be halved on the weekend, when people need it most. It means that, of the 70,000 funded consultations, 15,000 hours are cut straightaway. The letter from Minister Hunt that Labor MPs received was a disgrace. Minister Hunt defended the cut. He defended the cut to this great GP service. And the previous speaker, the member for Bowman, in Brisbane, defended the cut, quite bizarrely. He didn't have a single fact right about what this service does, how it's funded, its meaning for our community, but he defended the cuts, just like Minister Hunt. This is an interesting debate because I'm yet to see a single coalition MP come to the chamber to defend the cuts; they've all gone missing. The member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister—the great hero of the Hunter, if you've ever seen him on Sky 'news after dark'—is nowhere to be seen. He's in hiding, like the coward that he is, not defending the cuts—I withdraw. He has gone missing, he is hiding from these cuts, because he is ashamed of what his own government is doing. The truth is there is a review on Minister Hunt's desk, and if he accepts it—and we've got no reason to believe that he won't accept it—it will slash the remaining $4 million of funding to $1 million. He'll slash it from $4 million to $1 million. If that happens, the service is gone. It's kaput. It will disappear. The remaining four clinics will have to be closed, and this great service will be gone from our community. Families will have to wait longer at the emergency department to get treatment or they won't be able to see a doctor, and that would be a great tragedy. Minister Hunt has refused to rule that out. In fact, from the tone of his letter, there is a very good likelihood he will accept that review's recommendations and kill the GP Access After Hours service. This is the fourth attack on Hunter Health outcomes that we have seen from this government recently. We've seen the cut to the bulk-billing incentive that's forcing constituents of mine in Shortland to pay more to see a doctor. We've seen the reclassification of our area from an area of GP shortage to a bizarre metropolitan classification, which means that it is incredibly hard to find a doctor—and if you do get into one you have to wait an extraordinarily long time to actually see them. And we have the cuts to the Medicare Benefits Schedule that make it much more expensive to get treatment. The truth is that the coalition government do not give a fig about good health outcomes for the people of the Hunter and Central Coast. They do not care about it. You only have to look at their actions to know that. That's why all the Labor MPs are calling on the government to reverse the cuts that hurt every single constituent of mine in the seat of Shortland. 11:16 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise to speak on this motion about the GP Access After Hours service with pleasure. I wholeheartedly disagree with the member for Newcastle's suggestion that the government's not supporting primary health care for Australians. I stand here proud to be part of the Morrison government that is committed to improving the lives of all Australian through health care and GP services when and where they need them. We have made access to safe, quality and accessible health care a priority for all Australians—especially through this COVID-19 pandemic—but we won't stop there. We will continue to work with our GP specialists and consumers across the country to improve the delivery of care. Bribie Island, in my electorate of Longman, is well-known for having the oldest average population in Queensland and for being a great place for our senior Australians to retire. In early September last year, I announced that Bribie Islanders will have access to the medical care they need thanks to a new trial of after-hours primary care, with the Australian government investing $500,000 in the Brisbane North Primary Health Network to co-design and develop this service. This was a huge win for our Bribie Island residents, who have for years been calling for better access to medical services because their community doesn't have an established after-hours healthcare service available through their GPs or medical deputising arrangements. I also discovered that mobile GP services like 13SICK National Home Doctor deem it not economically viable to make house calls on Bribie Island, due to the geographic location of Bribie Island and simply no mobile GPs living close by to Bribie. Go figure. Why wouldn't you want to live on Bribie Island? In fact, when I was first elected the lack of after-hours GP services on Bribie Island was one of the main issues that came up. Not having an after-hours GP in the community that is known for its older population simply isn't good enough for our senior residents who call Bribie Island home, and as their federal member I have been fighting to bring this project to fruition. A single bridge connects Bribie Island to the mainland and sees many people coming and going every day. Currently the Bribie Island community, including its older residents, is forced to drive over the bridge in order to access urgent after-hours medical treatment or care 20 kilometres away in Caboolture. This means that if there's an accident on the only bridge leading in and out of Bribie Island, our senior residents are stuck and unable to get the medical attention they need. Although I had secured funding for this service last year, its rollout has been delayed. But there is good news on the horizon, and we are making progress. It has been a long and arduous process to find a service provider, but I'm pleased to announce today that primary health network Brisbane has advised me that a provider will be announced early in the New Year. I know this will be a relief for the Bribie Island community as well as the surrounding suburbs. It's incorrect to suggest that the Commonwealth government, which since the 2018-19 budget has invested over $3 billion in new primary healthcare initiatives, doesn't care about the primary health of Australians. Each year the government spends more than $728 million on access to after-hours GP services through higher MBS rebates, incentives for GP practices to stay open longer and funding to the primary health networks. In the 2021-22 budget the Australian government provided funding of $71 million to extend the PHN After Hours Program for one year, increasing the government's total investment in the program to more than $452 million since 2015. Does this sound like a government that doesn't care? I don't think so. Providing Australians with affordable access to universal health care is a key pillar of the Australian government's long-term national health plan. We're investing a record $125 billion in Medicare, an increase of $6 billion over the forward estimates, to ensure that all Australians continue to access high-quality, affordable health care, including primary care services. This investment includes an additional $204 million to extend COVID-19 MBS telehealth measures, providing unprecedented access to healthcare services including GPs, specialists, nursing, midwifery, allied health and mental health services. The increased investment in Medicare announced in the 2021-22 budget includes more than $65 million from 1 January 2022 to boost bulk-billing rebates and to provide more affordable health care for patients in regional, rural and remote areas. Meanwhile, I'm pleased to say that, thanks to the Commonwealth government, Bribie Island will have immediate access to a GP for after-hours care. As we head into an election there will no doubt be misinformation and unsubstantiated claims made by others; this, sadly, is a fact in the political world we live in. But I know that the Australian people are not fools, and that they will see through any falsehoods that may be circulating. 11:21 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise in support of this motion by my colleague the member for Newcastle, and I acknowledge the hard work that she has done within our community. We value GP after-hours-access services for the people of the Hunter region and we condemn the Morrison government for cutting funding that will cause the closure of the Calvary Mater clinic and reduce operating hours at Belmont, John Hunter and Maitland hospitals, and at the Westlakes Community Health Centre. Cuts to this valuable and pioneering 20-year-old health service will be devastating for the people of the Hunter, who have come to rely on it so very much. These cuts will put more pressure on our overstretched and underfunded emergency departments, and will cost the taxpayer much more in the long run. It just makes no sense. But, most importantly, these cuts mean that an important safety net will be taken away from Hunter families—families who can't get into a GP because, quite frankly, there just aren't enough of them and families who cannot afford to see a GP who bulk bills because there aren't enough of those either. And all of this because the Morrison government is determined to undermine Medicare. This is the length and breadth of it: they hate Medicare and they don't want universal health funding. They can't stand this because it's a Labor idea that has worked so brilliantly well over the decades. They just hate Medicare and it's death by a thousand cuts for Medicare. Why on earth would a government want to cut an after-hours GP clinic that saves it money? We really have to wonder about the Morrison government, led by this Prime Minister. Of course, they've tried to pass the buck to the state, to the New South Wales government, but no-one's buying that. The Minister for Health in the Morrison government can reinstate GP access funding right now, today. In fact, the Prime Minister could himself reinstate GP after-hours funding when he comes to town—which he seems to enjoy doing these days. In fact, he flies in like Santa Claus and sprinkles a little bit of magic dust around, but then, on Christmas Eve, he takes away GP access. For every parent who has sat in an emergency waiting room for hour after hour with a sick child—I myself have done it—whether they sat at the John Hunter or Maitland hospitals, thinking, 'Please, God, let them be seen soon,' GP access has provided the answer. You can actually make an appointment, be seen within a short time and not sit all night in an emergency department. And it takes the pressure off these overstretched emergency departments. The people in them are doing such a great job. GP access is a godsend, and this government wants to cut it. It's death by a thousand cuts. The government freeze Medicare rebates and then they make it harder for doctors to bulk bill. Then they make it harder for regional practices to actually recruit doctors and then they make it nigh impossible for people to get into a doctor, or into a doctor who they can afford. And now they're cutting the safety net: the after-hours GP access. We have seen through COVID that health has never been more important to the people of this country. Why would the government cut such a valuable service? It just does not seem really important to this government. What about our frontline workers? Where's the recognition of what they've done for us over the last couple of years and, quite frankly, what they've done for us every day? The past two years during the pandemic have been inordinately stressful for healthcare professionals. Nurses, doctors—they're on the front line and particularly those who work in after-hours clinics such as GP Access. They've borne the brunt of this. They're part of our community and they understand how valuable the service is. Access to GPs and GP Access in the Hunter is an institution. It was started in the Hunter; it should most definitely stay in its full capacity in the Hunter. It saves families time and distress. It saves families money. It saves the government money, for goodness sake! Where is the downside to this? I have been proud to join with my Hunter colleagues to speak up in support of this incredibly important service. Over 11,000 people have signed our petition to stop these cuts and restore GP Access to its full operation. This is the thin end of the wedge. We cannot allow the Prime Minister to cut the health care of good hardworking Australian families. 11:26 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by my friend and colleague, the member for Newcastle, and to join my colleagues across the Hunter and the Central Coast in opposing these outrageous cuts to health care in regional Australia. People in regional communities across Australia are fed up with this government's cuts to health care. They've spent years slashing funding to our hospitals and GP services; they've cut Medicare rebates for hundreds of orthopaedic, cardiac and general surgeries; and they've sat on their hands when it comes to the GP shortage, which is in crisis across regional Australia. Because of this we're seeing another major GP service being forced to close. The GP Access After Hours service at the Mater, just north of my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales, will close its doors on Christmas Eve—all because of cuts to bulk-billing and Medicare rebates under this government. The GP Access After Hours service is one-of-a-kind service in regional communities. It triages patients to the right place at the right time for the care they need. They take the pressure off emergency departments and they always take care of the health of locals. This is a service that deserves the government's support, not cuts. But, instead of backing the service with more funding, this government is standing by while the doors are being closed at the Mater and the other services are having to cut their hours at Belmont, John Hunter, Maitland and the polyclinic at Toronto. Even the New South Wales health minister, Brad Hazzard, has written to the federal minister asking for more funding for this service to be kept open. He said, 'You would be aware of these additional pressures that the state and territory health systems are under as a result of the pandemic. I seek your immediate assessment of the circumstances and commitment to ongoing funding to enable the service to continue operating under its current arrangements.' This is from the New South Wales health minister, Minister Hazzard, pleading to Minister Hunt. But instead of acting, what does the government do? It ignores responsibility and shifts the blame. The community I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales is under the same pressure. We've been facing a critical shortage of GPs for years. Locals have to wait weeks for routine appointments, practices have been forced to close their books and GPs are exhausted through the pandemic, because this government refuses to recognise my community as a distribution priority area and refuses to take responsibility for the health care of people living outside of big cities. That's why, with the help of my Labor colleagues, we successively called for a Senate inquiry into GP shortages. Our communities need answers and they want solutions, not more blame-shifting. I made my own submission to this inquiry and so did countless locals—people like Dr Brad Cranney. Dr Cranney is a senior GP who runs four general practices in the community that I represent on the north end of the coast. Ten years ago, he had 32 GPs on the books. Now he only has 25, and he's lost two more who'll be moving soon to Queensland. In his submission to the inquiry, he said that patients in the community are waiting weeks to get an appointment with their GP and they are turning away 60 patients a day. And that was before COVID-19. Dr Cranney says the pandemic has only made things worse. Then there's Dr Shamila Beattie, who runs her own clinic in Blue Haven in the northern end of the Central Coast. This clinic serves around 6,000 patients in our community, but they're struggling to keep up with the demand because we're not considered a priority area. In her submission to the inquiry, Dr Beattie said: Due to changes in the government policy, we are no longer eligible to sponsor overseas trained doctors or deemed to be in a Distribution Priority Area (DPA). This change to policy has had a catastrophic effect to our local community as we are no longer able to provide the service they want or deserve. We have to turn away new patients every day as all of our GPs have closed their books. Dr Beattie, who runs a brilliant service on the northern end of the Central Coast, has described the situation as 'catastrophic'. There is an urgent need for action now, while locals are waiting weeks for routine appointments, while emergency departments are stretched beyond capacity. I worked at Wyong Hospital in my electorate on the Central Coast of New South Wales. The staff who work there are capable, dedicated and trained, but they are under enormous strain. The cuts and the slashing to healthcare funding by this government is only making it worse. This is not good enough. We have dozens of practices in our community crying out for help. We have hundreds of patients who can't access quality care close to home when they need it. Emergency departments are under strain, stretched to capacity, treating people who could have been seen by a GP—but they can't be. That is why I will keep pushing for a public hearing of the Senate inquiry to be held on the Central Coast in the community I represent. Communities like mine are struggling to get the quality care they deserve close to home when they need it. I want the Senate inquiry to hear from people on the north end of the coast because this has gone on for far too long. 11:31 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I seek leave to make a further contribution to this debate. Leave granted. Ms CLAYDON 248181 I wanted to rise to respond to some of the comments that have been made. I note that we have had two government members speak on this bill, the member for Longman and the member for Bowman, both good Queenslanders. Sadly, there has been a distinct absence from our regional members, like the Deputy Prime Minister, who has a seat in one of my neighbouring areas and who has a lot at stake when it comes to the potential loss of the GP Access After Hours Service in the Hunter region. Sadly, he can't be in the chamber to speak on this motion today. Likewise, I note the absence of the minister assisting—well, no, he's actually the Minister for Regional Health, a man who should have a primary interest and responsibility in the loss of GP Access After Hours Services in rural and regional communities like mine and the lower Hunter. Sadly, he is not present in the chamber today. Maybe they have matters at hand; let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I also want to bring the House's attention to a response that I received to a letter I wrote to the Minister for Health, Mr Greg Hunt. Sadly, the minister himself couldn't be bothered responding to me personally but got his chief of staff to write a letter back to me, which really just said, to all of the tens of thousands of families in our region: 'Well, you know what? This clinic is going to close. The Martyr Hospital Clinic will be closing on Christmas Eve. We have zero intention of restoring funding to that service. That will be closing. So merry Christmas, Lower Hunter.' The biggest Christmas Grinch of all, this Minister for Health, is giving us the worst possible Christmas present, the closure of a GP Access After Hours Clinic at the Martyr Hospital. He says: 'That clinic is going to close. And you know what? You can just tell all the families in your electorate, Sharon, to get in the car and drive to another clinic.' This is a minister that clearly doesn't live in our region. He doesn't understand the importance of this service for vulnerable families and he doesn't understand the lack of public transport that might make connections between these respective clinics difficult. It is an outrageous proposition and an absolute insult to my community, to the communities in the Shortland, Patterson and Hunter electorates. Indeed, as the member for Dobell made clear, this issue stretches to the Central Coast as well. What an insult. For members opposite to suggest that there is no undermining of Medicare taking place by this government, I remind this House that this threat to our GP Access After Hours Clinic comes off the back of ongoing cuts to Medicare and our universal health system. There have been cuts to the bulk-billing incentive payments, which have seen GP surgeries close their doors in my electorate; cuts to the MBS program, which have seen increased out-of-pocket costs for patients; and the redefining of our region from an area of need to a metropolitan area where, suddenly, we apparently don't have any GP shortages. I'll tell you what: that's news to my GPs and it's news to all of my constituents. This government seems to forget all the years and years and years of Medicare rebate freezes. Do not come to this chamber and say that you are somehow investing in primary health care in our region. This is not true. I heard the member for Longman say that he was looking forward to a renewed service on Bribie Island. You know what? Good luck to those people. I suspect there has been a great helping hand from the Labor Palaszczuk government up there to ensure that there are good health services in Queensland. I don't want to see a situation where a region like the lower Hunter misses out on having a quality primary health service. It is a unique service in the Hunter. Don't try and push us into some cookie-cutter national model that you've got in mind, because we predate all of that. Our service is owned by our community. It is owned by our GPs. More than 240 GPs volunteer their time to be rostered on to this service. It is a unique service in our region. It is a local response to what has been an issue of access to affordable, quality healthcare services in our region. So step up and take responsibility, Mr Morrison. 11:36 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I remember when, in Parramatta, the Labor government funded the expansion of the clinic in Harris Park to allow for after-hours services. We actually funded the renovation of a building so that that service could be open essentially 24 hours a day. They had a whole range of specialists in that building, as well, so people were able to walk down the street, in this high-density area, to an after-hours clinic that profoundly made a difference. Rather than getting in the car and spending several hours at emergency—if they had a car; many don't in that suburb—they were able to get the help they needed. It reminded me of something that I've had discussions about with health professionals for years, which is that it is almost always true that what is best for the patient turns out to be cheapest for the taxpayer—early intervention and better primary health care, helping people not progress towards diabetes or liver failure by actually getting in early with calcium tablets, vaccinations, cancer scans, colon cancer checks and all those things. What is best for the patient is nearly always cheapest for the taxpayer. There can be no doubt that the issue that the member for Hunter has raised, which is after-hours GP clinics, is actually both best for the patient and—coincidentally!—cheapest for the taxpayer. It is better for everyone that people can take their families to an after-hours GP clinic and get in quickly rather than go to the emergency department where the costs are enormous because the safety checks and the protocols are horrendous—quite rightly in an emergency department. It is much more expensive, by thousands of dollars, to go to an emergency department and not as effective or as useful. In fact, there are many people that will not be able to take their three children under the age of five to be at the emergency department all night because one of them has a tummy ache. They will wait. It's not good for the patient and, in the long run, not better for the taxpayer either. Why on earth would the government do something which is worse for the patient and more expensive for the taxpayer? The answer, I suspect, is in the system where one part of the cost is paid by the federal government and the other part of the cost is covered by the state government. If the federal government cuts its GP after-hours services, it's cheaper for the federal government but more expensive for the state government, because the state government pays for the emergency services. They have to do that within their budget. So you take the money out of the federal government cost and whack it over to the state. That's what's happening here. It's worse for the patient, cheaper for the federal government, and more expensive for the state government And there are many, many examples of that. If primary health care isn't sufficient, people end up in hospital, moving the cost from the federal government to the state government. If people can't get the treatment they need in an aged-care facility, they end up staying in hospital for long periods of time because they can't get the treatment or the bandages they need at home or they don't live in an aged-care facility that will take care of them. That means the cost doesn't go to the federal government but goes to the state government. It's not blame shifting, it's cost shifting. It's profound cost shifting, and it's not good for anybody, because ultimately the taxpayer pays for it. Taxpayers either pay for it through federal funding to the states or they pay for it at the federal level. But the taxpayer pays for it, so it is worse for the patient and worse for the taxpayer in the end. But one section of government gets to look good and the other one tends to look bad. What we've got here is a really dumb decision. It's a decision born of the system that we have that allows for cost transfer between state and federal governments. It's a symptom of not having a holistic approach to health which actually considers the overall cost to the government and the overall benefit to the patient, and that's what we see happening here. This is a nonsense decision. If the government were closing down my after-hours clinic, they would be putting thousands of people's health at risk. The other interesting thing we're hearing about today is the loss of one in the Hunter, but, according to the member for Longman, gaining one in the Longman electorate, which means we're losing one from a Labor electorate and gaining one in a Liberal electorate. What is that about? How many times have we seen that pattern with this government? They look after the ones that vote for them and think, 'Stuff the others.' What we've got here is a transfer of costs from federal government to state government and, essentially, moving the cost from a Labor electorate to a Liberal electorate. It's just wrong, and we should all be outraged. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 148 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Australian Defence Force Careers 148 11:42 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I would like to thank the members for Stirling and Berowra for bringing this motion forward. Like the member for Stirling I've been the beneficiary of the skills, education, training and experience that you get when you're a member of the Australian Defence Force, and it really is first-class training. There are so many great careers in the Australian Defence Force, but it's also about the attitudes as well as the skills and the knowledge that make them special. I believe the Australian Defence Force is unlike any other military body in the world in that we're a small professional force with a small professional reserve. But we have a huge task to defend such a huge continent with our substantial land borders. We're surrounded by massive oceans, so, being a relatively small force, we must have the best people and train them to the highest standards—impeccably high standards—and I believe that we do. The adherence to those standards is what conditions what our Defence Force looks like and the great outcomes that it can achieve. The impact that our forces can have, both here and abroad, like what is happening in the Solomon Islands right now, is directly related to the training that ADF members get during their careers. Our people are carefully selected, initially, and then they're carefully and vigorously trained. It's not for the faint-hearted, and that is why we select the right people that have got the right attributes to do this training to defend our country and our interest. The defence of Australia rests upon many things: the kit we have, the technology and the capabilities, and also the posture that we take in our region and around the world. We need our people to be exemplars. We need them to have the best skills and training so that they can apply their craft with the kit that we procure for them. So their careers are really fantastic opportunities for them as individuals but also so important to the defence of our nation and our interests, as I said. Without their personal dedication, we would not be the country that we are today. I'm often told by business owners and operators that veterans are highly sought after in recruitment because of these acquired skills, attitudes, knowledge, education and experience, and I think that should increase in time. No-one likes the narrative of the broken veteran. It is true that we needed to have a royal commission into veteran and defence suicide, because we needed a systemic analysis of where some of our patriots have fallen through the gaps. That is underway and that is good thing. But, overall, veterans serve with distinction and then go on and use what they have learnt in their ADF career to apply in 'civvy street', as we used to call it when in uniform. It's troubling that veterans can struggle in post-service life, but I think we've found overwhelmingly that if an Australian in one of the forces can transition as seamlessly as possible from their ADF career into their next career then we get much better outcomes for them and their families. I thank those who are speaking on this bill because, obviously, they're interested in this important issue for our nation. I think it will become even more important into the future as we face challenges far and wide. 11:47 Mr McCO 219646 Riverina RMACK () (): At the outset I acknowledge the member for Stirling, who proposed this debate, as well as the member for Solomon for his fine service to our nation through the military. I acknowledge that today the veteran and defence suicide royal commission is beginning its hearings in Brisbane, and I acknowledge also the amount of investment that this government has put into defence generally and into veterans' welfare. The Governor General, David Hurley, at one time a platoon commander at the home of the soldier, Wagga Wagga, returned to the base just the other day. As the reviewing officer at a March Out parade, as reported by ABC Riverina, he recalled similar events when he was at that recruit-training base. Governor General Hurley told those present: I had many a father come up to me and say, 'Well, I don't know what you did, mate, but it's a bloody miracle. It's not really a miracle — it's the product of the work put in by your staff and all here at Kapooka, to see you through your training. It's the product of your families and your friends who have supported you during this 83-day journey. But more than that, it's the product of your determination, your desire to complete this training and become an Australian soldier. We need the best, the brightest and the bravest to continue that long line of khaki stretching right back to Gallipoli and even before that. Only in recent days we've deployed Townsville troops, trained at Wagga Wagga, to the troubled Solomon Islands. Those 60 or so recruits, who were addressed by Governor General Hurley, joined more than 350,000 before them in graduating from that gruelling 12-week course. I'm in a privileged position, as the member for Riverina, given that the largest centre in the electorate, my home town of Wagga Wagga, is a tri-service city, where all three arms of defence have a significant presence. We have the Army and we have the Air Force—and if you end up spending any given time in the Royal Australian Air Force you'll end up at Forest Hill. And even though we're many hundreds of kilometres from the nearest drop of seawater, we also have a Navy base. How fantastic is that? I often say to the students at university graduations, that their degree is the key to their future, but I want to suggest that enlisting in the Australian Defence Force is a ticket to endless opportunity. That's not only because those who sign up to defend our nation and its interests earn themselves our heartfelt thanks and eternal respect but that they sign up for an array of career opportunities and benefits. Signing up to the ADF opens the door to a multitude of benefits and advantages, such as flexible working arrangements, being paid to maintain personal health and fitness, a constant variety of work, the provision of meals and accommodation, and the opportunity to learn more and to gain new skills. Career options in the ADF range from aircraft maintenance officers, administration and human resources officers, communication specialists, engineers, chefs, mechanics, medics, air traffic controllers, combatants, infantry officers, and geospatial and intelligence analysts. There are so many opportunities and so many advantages. One only needs to look at the history of commandants of Blamey Barracks, Kapooka—the home of the soldier—to see the great heights and achievements of those who have led this fine institution. Mick Garraway went from leading Kapooka to assisting in the New South Wales bushfire crisis. Andrew Nikolic went from Kapooka to being a member of the House of Representatives. Steve Jobson was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross in 2012 for his service during the Queensland floods. Outgoing Commandant Jim Hammett was recognised in the 2017 Queen's Birthday honours—and well done to him. He is to be replaced by Andrew Deacon, the youngest ever commandant at 38 years old. He's a lieutenant-colonel now and may that colonel rank be forever attached to this role, as it is one of—if not the most—important positions in Army. I appreciate the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Army are important roles, but making sure that those recruits at Wagga Wagga are their best selves when they come out of the place is such an important role. I cannot emphasise that enough. Serving in the armed forces, of course, comes with great risk, and we acknowledge that. It comes with great sacrifice. Our Defence Force members give up time with their families and friends to serve our nation. We give them eternal gratitude. I know that the benefits and advantages of being an ADF member are many, and I am so pleased to be able to speak in this debate, because we want, our best, our brightest and our bravest to continue to wear those uniforms. Whatever colour they are, ADF uniforms have a proud past, are very good now, and they have a great future ahead. 11:52 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I am very happy to speak on the motion moved by the member for Stirling, and I particularly commend the contribution by the member for Solomon in this debate, but also on the rugby field yesterday when we took on the ADF and got touched up by the members of the ADF. But this is an important motion, acknowledging the sacrifice of personnel who put their hands up for a career in the Australian Defence Force, and the sacrifice of their families. It is a very worthy topic for debate in this parliament, particularly today, when the royal commission into suicides is kicking off in Brisbane. I regularly visit the RSLs in my electorate of Moreton and do so proudly. Of course, on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day those organisations play a special role, but they are actually very important every day of the year. 'Shoulder to shoulder always' is the motto of the Queensland RSL, and I know the Yeronga, Sunnybank, Salisbury, Sherwood and Stephens RSLs all live up to that motto each and every day. This motion is particularly about the benefits and sacrifices of a career in the ADF. I spoke to some local returned soldiers to hear their stories. When Hugh Poulson was at school he was attracted to the school cadets. He joined the regular Army as an enlistee in 1968, went to officer cadet school in Portsea, Victoria, graduated 12 months later as a second lieutenant in the Royal Australian Artillery and was in the ADF for 25 years. When he left, he held the rank of major. Hugh commanded a group of 500 men and had postings in Australia and overseas. He left the Army because he felt he was no longer leading his men in terms of physical fitness and because his children needed some stability. Hugh left the ADF in 1993. Unemployment was still high and he had to battle the preconceived views that civilians held about the Defence Force. But Army is much more than 'foot soldiers'. It is a self-sufficient organisation with all the skills and traits to exist as a solo enterprise. Hugh had, and still has, excellent people management skills, project management skills and communication skills, which he gained and developed in the Army. Hugh understood that he had to sell himself and civilianise his Army skills and capabilities into a language that employers could relate to. It took him a number of interviews before he was finally employed. He actually found work in the Queensland public sector. At one point Hugh worked directly to the then Premier Peter Beattie on a telecommunications project, where his management and communication skills and flexibility were crucial to the success of the statewide project. He also learnt law and represented many ex-servicemen before the AAT—such an important part of RSLs. He was an advocate who not only understood the law but understood the military context of the law. Hugh has been an influential force at the Sunnybank RSL subbranch, which has embraced the wider community and multiculturalism. Another local RSL member is Andrew Clifford. Andrew was in the Army Reserve for 13 years. He'd been employed at the department of transport but gave up his day job to go to Timor as part of Australia's reconstruction project. He described this as 'the hearts and minds project'. Andrew went to Timor as a reservist but was in charge of men who were in the regular Army, as there weren't enough corporals in the regular. In the reserves he was a technical engineer, but in Timor he was a combat engineer. He worked on mine warfare, water purification and bridge building. When Andrew returned it took three months to try and process his experience. While he was away life had moved on. Andrew was very unsettled for a time and moved from place to place to try and find himself. What he took from the Army were more than the skills of a combat engineer. Andrew had planning and organisational skills and could follow instructions. He transferred the skills he developed during his time with the ADF into building a business that removes legionnaire's disease from sites. He's also part of the executive of the Stephens RSL subbranch in Annerley and has made a significant contribution to the support and social activities of the branch. These are just two stories. We know that our Defence Force personnel have developed valuable skills that can be transferred to civilian businesses. They understand the meaning of service and sacrifice and see them as substantial commitments. Returned veterans have put themselves on the line to protect our freedoms, and we owe them an enormous debt. It is not always easy to return to civilian life, and the RSLs, along with other organisations, do an amazing job in easing the transition process. I particularly thank Hugh and Andrew for their service and for letting me tell their stories here at Parliament House. I thank all of our returned service personnel. The horrific numbers that are coming out of the royal commission will reinvigorate trauma for many people. The idea that there could be one person a week who takes their life because they haven't transitioned back into society after honourably serving our nation disturbs all parliamentarians. I hope that Hugh and Andrew know that we are proud of their service. I'm certainly proud of them and I wish them well. 11:57 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I associate my remarks with those of the member for Moreton, the member for Solomon earlier and other speakers on this motion. If there's one thing in this House the brings us all together it's our admiration and respect for the work that our service men and women do to protect our country. But they not only protect our country; they try to help other countries in far-flung parts of the world make their societies safer and better. Each and every day, our ADF members protect our borders and our natural resources, and provide humanitarian and disaster relief, as we've seen over the past couple of years. They assist in recovery efforts and they contribute to our regional stability. As we've seen in the past week, we now have members of the ADF on the ground in the Solomon Islands again. It's a very sad state of affairs to see that. I was there six or seven years ago on an election monitoring trip, when we saw the success of RAMSI prior to that. Now we are seeing our troops on the ground again. I wish the Solomon Islands every success in getting things back in order. Their mission to defend our nation's interest is underpinned by the quality of training in a range of areas that are not, I think, replicated in the civilian workforce. When we look at the contemporary role that our Australian ADF personnel play, the variety of jobs and occupations on offer, the incredible array of high-tech, innovative and challenging part-time and full-time roles, it's no wonder that people with a background in the ADF should be well and truly recognised for their efforts once they leave service They bring with them a broad range of backgrounds, a broad range of skill levels and expertise, a broad range of interests and, I would say, given their roles, a much broader view of society and the world maybe than many others in our community. They are a wide range of reasons as to why somebody should choose an ADF career. But more importantly, to me—and, sadly, as we will see over the coming months with the royal commission—there are many instances where, once people leave service, they find it difficult to reintegrate into society and they find it particularly difficult to transfer the skills that they acquired in the Defence Force to civilian roles. One of the weaknesses is certainly an area we can improve on as a nation, and that is to ensure that the skills and the qualifications that those leaving the defence forces have acquired—whether they're mechanics, electricians, carpenters or engineers, or logisticians, who are logistics experts—are recognised in the civilian world. The standards required in undertaking those roles in Defence are at such a high level in many cases that I think there should be a much better transition in that space. I look at returned service men and women at the Beenleigh RSL, for example, and I look at people like Roger Freeman, David Draper, Cameron Murphy and many others. When they came back, they transitioned the skills that they acquired from their service—some more recently, some many years ago in Vietnam—into the civilian sphere. There were businesses they built as a result of those skills that they acquired, or careers that they had, and there was an ability for them to transfer those skills to a new generation of trades men and women. I want to thank all of our serving men and women and those who have served, and commend them on the wonderful work they do each and every day to make our country a better place. 12:02 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Towns and communities in Eden-Monaro greatly benefit from having Australian Defence Force bases or headquarters nearby, and thousands of Eden-Monaro constituents have had very fulfilling careers in the ADF. On top of this, when the bushfires hit communities across Eden-Monaro, the ADF was there to support and assist in recovery efforts. Army and Army Reserve personnel were on the ground throughout Eden-Monaro, and HMAS Adelaide provided logistics support to Eden. Following the fires, HMAS Supply crew travelled back to the Bega Valley to help rebuild fences that were lost and to rejuvenate a local oval that was used as an evacuation point. HMAS Supply has since made Eden its ceremonial port, further strengthening the bond between our communities and the ADF. Closer to here, my electorate is also home to the ADF's Headquarters Joint Operations Command, near Bungendore. My electorate is also host to an impressive defence technology sector, filled with multiple defence technology companies located just over the border in Queanbeyan. For people who live in my electorate, a career in the defence industry is a realistic and viable career option. We know that people who join the ADF benefit greatly through the skills, education and experience that they get during their service. There are myriad well-known benefits to a career in the ADF. But I do question the timing of this motion, because, while we are standing here talking about the benefits of a career in the ADF, this week hearings started in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. There is a time and a place for this discussion, but I wonder if it is now. Right now, we need to be listening. We need to be giving this royal commission the attention it deserves, and this government needs to be entirely focused on fixing the broken veteran-support system. Veteran suicide is a national shame and it's a national tragedy. Too many people have died by their own hand, and there are too many people in our defence and veteran communities that are living with mental health problems without adequate support. We saw a report handed down last week by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee that said there are systematic problems in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Morrison-Joyce government's privatisation of public sector capability in DVA is responsible for record waiting times and reduced services to Australia's veterans. In the 2019-20 financial year, 41.6 per cent of the department's workforce was labour hire, including over 50 per cent of frontline claims-processing staff. The report found that replacing experienced public servants with external labour hire contractors has had a disastrous effect on services for veterans. Higher rates of labour hire contractors lead to unsustainable case loads, high staff turnover and the need to constantly retrain new staff, creating significant delays. The average processing time for an initial liability claim is now 193 days. This means a wait of over six months—and we know that delays in processing compensation claims have a direct impact on the mental health of our claimants. The Morrison-Joyce government is once again proving that it doesn't know how to listen. For years, our veterans, their families and DVA staff have spoken up to demand change, but this government continues to outsource its responsibility. This government has chosen to raise a motion today talking about the benefits of a career in the ADF, but it needs to focus on listening and the tale being told by veterans and their families across this country. I was recently in Googong, where I met a person who had served in the Middle East. That person couldn't talk about their experience and simply said the support received since their service was not enough. I had a similar experience talking to a veteran in Talbingo. That person had served in Vietnam and said that, frankly, he feels like governments have abandoned him. These stories aren't unique. We need to do more to support our Defence personnel when it comes to transitioning out of the ADF and into civilian life. We need to do more because, when we don't, our veterans fall through the cracks. This is something that is already happening far too often, with thousands of our veterans sleeping rough across this country. In New South Wales, one in 10 people sleeping rough is a veteran. Around 5,800 ex-service men and women have been homeless in the last 12 months. It's a national shame that so many people who have risked their lives and have served our country are homeless. Those people who stand tall with their medals on Remembrance Day and who march the streets on Anzac Day shouldn't have to sleep there too. The devastating and stark reality is that, in our nation, we have failed too many of our veterans. It's time to not only spruik the benefits of ADF service but also ensure that our veterans are looked after when they leave that service. This should be the aim of all governments. 12:07 Mr FALINS G86 Mackellar KI () (): Is there no motion that the Labor Party will not politicise? Is there no depth that they will not plumb? Is there nothing that the union movement will not demand of them? I would say to the Labor Party that, if this is the cost of donations from the union movement, they should send the money back. The last speaker spoke to us about labour hire, privatisation and those sorts of notions. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The member will resume his seat for a moment. The member on a point of order? An opposition member: I'm just asking what the relevance of this is. I'd like him to speak to the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP There is no point of order. Mr FALINSKI G86 Those opposite ask for a point of order, yet the member for Eden-Monaro just spent 3½ minutes of a five-minute speech—that was meant to be about the benefits of the sacrifices that other Australians, their fellow Australians, make to serve on our behalf—talking about privatisation and labour hire funds. What is going on on that side of the House these days? An opposition member: Have you listened to veterans? Mr FALINSKI G86 Now they ask me if I listen to veterans. There is no government in the history of this federation—and I would expect the next one will do even more than we have for the veterans in this country. An opposition member interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 The member opposite asks about how often they ask for a royal commission. It is this government that instituted a royal commission, after their government ignored it. We wanted to have a rolling commission on veterans' affairs. I speak to the northern beaches Veterans Centre, which is now the Veterans Centre Australia— An opposition member interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 The snide remarks from those opposite will be noted by veterans in this country—the snide remarks from those opposite, who rather than spend time talking about the service and the sacrifice that fellow Australians make to defend our nation, talk about what the union donors would prefer them to talk about— An opposition member: You're embarrassing, mate. Mr FALINSKI G86 Now he says I'm embarrassing. I'm 'embarrassing' because I stand up for those serving in our Defence Force. I'm 'embarrassing' because I stand here as a member of a government that actually brought on a royal commission into veteran suicides while those opposite did nothing but make snide remarks, while those opposite did the bidding of their union donors and while those opposite talked about labour hire and privatisation. This government has invested and spent record amounts of money in veterans' welfare. Those in this government have done more to help those who have served our nation and continue to serve our nation— An opposition member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEA DZP There is too much disruption in this speech. Mr FALINSKI G86 Of course there is disruption, because they can't hear the truth. They have to disrupt it because the truth is that this government, on behalf of the Australian people, on behalf of a grateful nation, has invested record amounts of money in veteran welfare and has invested record amounts of money in our defence forces. The first job of any government is the security and safety of its people so that the people of Australia can know, when they go to bed at night, that their government has done everything it possibly can to ensure their safety and security. That is what sacrifice is. That is what service is. It's not just talking about whatever your largest donor wants you to talk about. Every day, ADF members are protecting our borders and natural resources; providing humanitarian relief and disaster relief; assisting in recovery efforts; and contributing to regional stability. This is worth noting in this House. They're being snidely attacked by those opposite because those opposite would prefer to talk about a royal commission, labour hire and, of course, privatisation. The ADF represents a modern, inclusive and diverse workforce, with an incredible array of high-tech, innovative and challenging full-time and part-time roles. Diversity in Defence means respect for individual difference. It means valuing and using the unique knowledge, skills and attributes that our people bring to their work. These are the things that we should be focusing on, rather than defending our serving men and women from the attacks of those opposite. The nature of military service has a significant difference to civilian employment, with unique demands and sacrifices both from ADF members and from their families. Family moves are regular, their sacrifice sometimes seemingly random, and they do this because they put their fellow Australians before themselves. Demands of the ADF are not only limited to national security and regional stability; they are about our safety and our security. 12:12 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I'm pleased to speak in support of the member for Stirling's motion before the House. I acknowledge and thank every member on both sides of the House who have served our country in the Defence Force. I also acknowledge and thank service members of the defence forces, particularly those currently deployed overseas, including the personnel deployed last week to help quell unrest in the Solomon Islands. It's an incredible sacrifice to put your life on the line and be away from your family and your loved ones for long periods of time to help keep us, our friends and our region safe. I've had the opportunity to observe a career in the defence forces firsthand as a regular participant in the ADF parliamentary exchange program. What has always struck me on seeing ADF service men and women on deployment is just how impressive they are. Highly skilled, highly professional Australians, who know their role, know how to get on with the job and execute it. Some of the ADF's most skilled service men and women work in cybersecurity, the area that I am very happy to represent in the shadow government of this parliament. Cybersecurity is the most innovative and exciting area in both civilian and defence life right now. You won't find a more interesting career or one with as much future growth potential as one in cybersecurity. We face a critical talent shortage in cybersecurity across Australia. AustCyber estimates that around 16,000 additional cybersecurity workers will be needed for both technical and non-technical positions by 2026. In fact, data from the CyberSeek platform identifies: … in the 12 months to September 2020, there were more than 14,000 job openings for dedicated and related cyber security roles in Australia, but a talent pool half the size of the national average for employers to recruit from. The pandemic has only fuelled this demand for cybertalent, with global borders shut and more people working from home than ever before. While more people are choosing to study cyber-related qualifications, with AustCyber estimating the number of graduates to quadruple by 2026, this will still fall far short of what the nation needs. Just 14 per cent of respondents to a 2019 ISACA technology landscape survey believed that we would bridge the skill shortage in our region in the next decade, and 37 per cent believed that the skill shortage would worsen in our region compared to other parts of the globe. So if you want to start a career in cybersecurity today you'll be confident that there'll be plenty of demand for your skills in the coming years. We need pathways to train those in tomorrow's workforce to develop the skills they need to be effective cybersecurity professionals, and the Defence Force offers an excellent pathway in this regard for those looking to start their cybersecurity careers. Even better: you don't even have to fully commit to a career in the Defence Force straightaway: you can try before you buy. The ADF is currently running an innovative cyber gap program. This offers a 12-month program for anyone its tertiary cyber-related qualification, at any level from a certificate III through to a masters degree, to enhance their cybersecurity skills. It includes two cyberexposure experiences that give participants real-world experience in what it's like to work in areas like instant response; network vulnerability assessment; threat simulation and discovery; and counterinfiltration. Along the way, participants get access to mentoring networking opportunities and guidance on applying for jobs after their studies. There is even generous financial support offered to help cover the cost of study. It's a great and innovative program, and a great stepping stone into a career in cybersecurity, with no obligation to work for the ADF or the government after you finish. Let me tell you why spending the first few years of your career in cybersecurity, helping to protect Australia, is not just good for your country but is good for your career. We have world-leading cybercapability in Australia and much of it sits within our defence forces, in serving roles in the armed forces and, in addition, within the Australian Signals Directorate as part of the defence portfolio more broadly. In fact some of the world's best hackers work inside the Australian Signals Directorate, and we can be really proud of them. Go to any of the world's biggest hacking conferences, as I have done, talk to the people there and they will tell you the same. While in our defence forces or at the ASD you'll be able to do some of the most interesting work in cyber. Working at these institutions is a 'license to hack'. Working for the ADF or the ASD, you get to do things in cyber, legally, that you can't do anywhere else. And if the idea of hunting big game like international ransomware crews thrills you, there's no better place to do it. Under the leadership of Director-General Rachel Noble and Head of the Australian Cyber Security Centre, Abigail Bradshaw, these places are keeping Australia's network safe and frustrating our adversaries through offensive operations. The fact that we currently have two women leading these important roles in our nation's cybersecurity sends a clear message that cybersecurity is a career for everyone. And while we have more work to do on this front, it's changing rapidly. As the ASD says, diversity powers our mission. Take up a career in cybersecurity in our defence forces. Debate adjourned. COVID-19: Young People 154 12:18 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this House: (1) recognises that young Australians have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are being left behind in our recovery; (2) notes that young people: (a) are facing an extraordinary jobs crisis, further noting that: (i) during the peak of the pandemic 15 per cent of all jobs were filled by young people yet 40 per cent of all jobs lost since March 2020 were held by a young person; (ii) the youth unemployment rate soared four times the national average to 13.1 per cent in October 2021 and is now higher than pre-pandemic levels; and (iii) 50 per cent of young Australians have said that getting more reliable work is of most importance to them when it comes to employment; (b) are struggling with their mental health, with: (i) more than 50 per cent of young Australians saying their biggest concern with COVID-19 was mental health; (ii) one in two young Australians reported to not being able to carry out their daily activities during the pandemic due to a decline in wellbeing; (iii) one third of young Australians reporting high or very high levels of psychological distress; and (iv) 75 per cent of Australia's young people describing their mental health as worse during the COVID-19 pandemic; (c) are suffering severe social disruption, as: (i) many have missed out on once in a lifetime milestones and rites of passage; and (ii) more feel isolated due to lockdowns with distributions to school attendance, campus life extinguished, and social gatherings restricted or prohibited; (d) are grappling with disruptions to education and training, and: (i) many feel their motivation and career plans have been dented; and (ii) nearly 50 per cent of young Australians reported being worried about their education being disrupted or held back as a result of the changes to schooling; and (e) feel they do not have a voice in politics, with: (i) almost 60 per cent of young Australians feeling the biggest barrier to getting involved in politics was 'feeling like they won't be listened to'; and (ii) 52 per cent of young people feeling they had a say 'none of the time' in public affairs; and (3) calls on the Government to work with young people and urgently design a comprehensive COVID-19 Youth Recovery Strategy that puts young Australians at the centre of our economic and social recovery and builds our future generations. We know that COVID has impacted people right across this country. However, I would say that young Australians have been impacted particularly by COVID-19 in a way that has led to severe disruption to their lives. We know that report after report talks about this pandemic really exacerbating many of the generational challenges that young people already face. Measures such as income, superannuation, housing and the environment, and even things such as jobs and insecure work, have been exacerbated by the COVID pandemic. Of course, there have been other things that have been quite unique to the COVID pandemic which have affected young people—whether the social disruption that has come along with it or mental health issues around loneliness, so many things have impacted young people. Disruption to study in particular has been something that many young people have spoken to me about. It is therefore been incredibly disappointing that the federal government 's response has been so lacklustre—and that would be putting it mildly. They announced the Youth Policy Framework, which was handed down a year late. A lot of us had anticipation about this. When we opened it up—two years in the making; one year late—we thought it might actually have some future focused ideas and future focused policies. Instead, it was a shopping list of failed policies that are not even working for young people. Some of them included one-off grants that were no longer available for young people. This was a government with no imagination and no ideas. Importantly, this government had not even bothered to listen to the issues affecting young Australians. Let's look at a couple of the programs that were lauded in this report. There was the Youth Jobs PaTH program—$250 million of funding—the trial internship work placement. That has consistently failed to meet its targets of 120,000 internship placements over four years. Only 14,000 young people commenced an internship over the three years and only 30 per cent of the participants were even offered a job. This is a failed program. We also have the big $4 billion JobMaker program, which was listed in this youth framework. It was meant to deliver 450,000 jobs. Of course, it failed spectacularly, meeting just one per cent of the target. There are so many examples where the government had the opportunity during this COVID crisis to look at a proper recovery strategy, to meet all the challenges that young people are facing, to talk with young people and engage, but they failed to do it. Instead, they put out glossy brochures—we know they like to do that. What we need is a proper youth recovery strategy that outlines what these challenges are and how we're going to provide a holistic response from government. It needs to outline how federal and state governments can work together with measurable outcomes, because that is what young people deserve and that is what they are calling for. Many of us came to this place as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign to talk about the concerns that young people have for the future. Reading through those, what was very clear was that they are worried about their future and they want a government to listen and respond. We do not have this from this government but you will under a Labor government. A Labor government has committed, if elected, to properly put in consultation with young people. We will have a proper engagement strategy with young people and we will ensure that there is an office for youth to respond to the needs of young people and to put proper policies in place to respond to young people. This is what young people are demanding and this is what they need. We must see them as such an important resource if we are going to continue to have economic growth. To continue to succeed as a country, we must invest in our young people and respond to their needs. This coalition government is not doing that, but Labor will. Therefore, I commend this motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Dr MULINO 132880 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:23 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I have a passion for representing young families in this place. I don't know if I can still call myself a young Australian. I am young at heart— An honourable member interjecting— Mr 282983 I still can? That's excellent. As one of the youngest members in this place, I do feel an obligation to make sure that we are best representing young Australians and young families. I can agree with the member for Kingston that the COVID-19 pandemic has absolutely been extremely challenging for young Australians. We know that they need certainty at a time when they are building their careers and building their families; we need to support them. Of course, the pandemic has been the perfect confluence of circumstances to provide great uncertainty. That is why the Morrison government was so quick to act to support young Australians and young people, so I can't agree with the member for Kingston's characterisation of the number of measures that we have put in place to make sure that young families are supported throughout the pandemic.   JobKeeper and JobSeeker were the lifeblood of the Australian economy when the pandemic first started, and they've now set us on our path to recovery. We're seeing young people play an important role in that, in particular in the hospitality sector. In my electorate of Ryan we have the famous Regatta Hotel and others that were forced to shut down during the pandemic. But having JobKeeper to support the young people who would normally be working behind the bars or at the tables was incredibly important to sustain their efforts. Now, having seen the success of JobSeeker and JobKeeper, we see young Australians getting back into the workforce. As our economy is recovering, more than 30 per cent of the more than one million jobs that were created went to Australians aged 15 to 24. In June 2021 Australia's rate of youth unemployment dropped 10.2 per cent to the lowest level of youth unemployment since 2009. I will say that again: as we come out of the pandemic we have the lowest level of youth unemployment since 2009, and that is testament to the fact that the Morrison government has supported young people throughout this COVID crisis. An article in the Australian last week said: The number of Australians taking trade apprenticeships has hit an all-time high as the nation embraces a 'once in a generation' opportunity to train up more skilled workers to fill gaps sparked by border closures. There were over 217,000 Aussies in trade apprenticeships in July this year, the highest figure since records began, so we have the lowest youth unemployment since 2009 and a record number of young people getting their apprenticeships because of this government's focus on sovereign capability. This is how we provide certainty for young people. We provide— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Those on the other side of the chamber are scoffing at the idea of young people improving their skills and getting a job, which is what the Morrison government wants for them. The Morrison government wants young Australians to have the opportunity to go into the trade that they choose, to get education opportunities and to find a job so that they can start to support their family and they can build the life and the career that they want. Labor, on the other hand, would prefer to tell you how to do it: what you should do, what you should study and the conditions of the job into which you should go. In the last three years Morrison government policies such as HomeBuilder and the Home Guarantee Scheme have helped over 320,000 Australians get into a home. Getting the education and training opportunities that you need, getting a job opportunity and then getting your first home are vital so that you can start the important role of building your family and your career. This is what creates certainty for young people. This is what young people need at a time of incredible uncertainty during the pandemic, and the Morrison government's policies are ensuring that they're getting those opportunities. I'm incredibly proud to be a part of the government that has helped so many of these young Australians to get their first homes, including in my electorate of Ryan where we see considerable construction and that young people have taken up the HomeBuilder opportunity. In the time that I have left, I want to touch on the topic of mental health, because this is also very important for our young people. We know that if we can get them the support that they need early on we can head off a lifetime of mental health challenges. The Morrison government is funding two important programs that focus on mental health for our youth. First, the government has allocated $60 million annually for the National Schools Chaplaincy Program that has a special antibullying focus at the moment. The chappies are doing fantastic work in their local community, and I pay tribute to them and to our local headspace providers. They're taking the funding provided by the government and bringing practical support to young Australians to help them in their time of need. 12:28 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner If there's ever been a worse government for young Australians, I am yet to hear of it. The fact is that the Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison governments have overseen a deterioration in the living standards of young Australians that is unprecedented in Australian history. A number of years ago Jennifer Rayner wrote Generation Less in which she catalogued the ways in which life has become harder for young Australians. Rejecting the common view that things are always tough when you're young and young people in Australia don't know how good they have it, Jennifer Rayner instead goes through the statistics. She starts with getting into work, pointing out that underemployment rates are at record levels. It used to be very rare for young people to leave university and be unable to get a full-time job. But, increasingly now, that's a common experience. We're seeing young people graduating from university, going into part-time work, wanting more hours and being unable to get them. Then she talks about wage growth. We've seen a fanning out of wages, with wages going up a lot at the top and flatlining at the bottom. Young people have borne the brunt of that. She turns to wealth and points out that wealth accumulation for young Australians has stalled, largely as a function of the collapse in the home ownership rate. In 1981, 60 per cent of the poorest 25- to 34-year-olds owned a home. Now it's only 20 per cent. We're seeing a huge rise in renting among young Australians, and 42 per cent of homeless Australians are under the age of 25. Jennifer Rayner points out that there's been a significant increase in debt, with HECS-HELP debts going up substantially compared to previous generations. The cost of doing a humanities degree in Australia now is pretty similar to the average cost in the United States—somewhere around $58,000 for a degree. We saw huge increases under the Orwellianly named Job-ready Graduates Package last year, which loaded more debt onto an already over-indebted generation. Then there's mental health, where we've seen a significant deterioration of mental health over the course of the last decade. We've seen changes since this government came to office, with youth unemployment rising. It's now at 13 per cent, which is a higher level than in Britain, Germany, the United States, Japan, Canada or Korea. Millennials now earn 20 per cent less than their parents did at the same age. We've seen the number of young Australians with disabilities living below the poverty line multiplying by some 300 per cent. Mission Australia's youth survey in 2020 found that 43 per cent of young Australians felt stressed all or most of the time and that many are performing excessive unpaid overtime. I commend the member for Kingston for bringing this motion forward because it highlights how different things would be under a Labor government. We would set up a dedicated office for youth and give young Australians the focus that they need. We saw just over the weekend how tough it is in the housing market in particular. If you go back to the early 2000s, according to numbers from the ANZ it took the average household somewhere around five years to save for a deposit. Now that figure has blown out to more than 10 years. It's harder than ever before for young Australians to break into the housing market. Yes, overall interest rates are down, but they don't do you much good if you can't get the deposit in the first place. In the 2021 youth ambassadors report, young Canberrans focused on a range of these challenges. In particular, they focused on the issue of climate change. As a year 12 student in the ACT said: "I think the Prime Minister needs to take climate change seriously. This summer was the worst of my life with smoke compromising access to clean air and the ability to go outside. I am terrified." When I go into schools, I don't hear climate sceptics in the way I hear them from the conservative side in the parliament. Young Australians want action on climate change. It is typically their top policy priority. Yet we have in the coalition the only advanced government that failed to take an increased 2030 commitment to the Glasgow climate change talks. Shame! It is a failure of policy and it's hurting young Australians. 12:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I like the member for Fenner. I respect the member for Fenner. But on this occasion there are a number of points that he raised in his contribution which quite frankly are beyond the pale. Young people have every reason to be optimistic about their future. They've got every reason to be confident and optimistic because of the policies put in place by the Liberals and by the Nationals in government. If the member for Fenner should be so lucky as to be a minister in a future Albanese-Bandt government— An opposition member inte rjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I agree: he may well do some good things. But I do not want to see Labor and the Greens in government, because it will be a coalition. I know members opposite have talked about the coalition that's in government at the moment. Should there be a change of government at the next election there'll be another coalition, but it will be a Labor government dragged along by the nose by the Greens. I know that members opposite do not want that to happen, but the only way that they'll get into government will be on Greens preferences and the only way they'll be able to get into government will be on the back of the Greens—and they will be at the beck and call of the member for Melbourne. On this motion that has been brought to the House: I appreciate that there are some aspects for youth which are very disturbing and very worrying at the moment. My daughter lives in the member for Higgins' electorate—she has a very good local member. She teaches, and it has been very difficult for teachers to have that face-to-face contact whilst giving students their best opportunities in life. Of course, let's face it: through COVID and through the lockdowns in Victoria and elsewhere, kids have had it tough. There's absolutely no question about that. But the member for Fenner talked about university graduates, and there are so many opportunities for university graduates. Not every year 12 leaver wants to go to university; there are many, certainly across regional Australia, who want to go into a trade and who are going into the trades. They're also absolutely being given such advantages because they've got a Liberal-Nationals government in place looking after their interests through the apprentices program and looking after their interests through increased funding at the right levels through their education. The member for Fenner talked about home ownership. The HomeBuilder scheme put in place by this government has enabled young people, in many cases for the first time in their own families—their parents rented and their grandparents rented—to have the opportunity to live that great Australian dream of home ownership. I can well recall in the mid-1980s buying my first home with my wife, Catherine, and paying anywhere in the order of 18 to 21 per cent home mortgage rates. Could you imagine if there were interest rates that high on a home repayment now? It would put the anti-vaxxer protests to shame, because there would be 10 times the number of people protesting in the streets. But whilst I appreciate that interest rates, since the dollar was floated in 1938 by then Prime Minister Bob Hawke, are not the purview of the federal government—I acknowledge that—the economic conditions under which the Labor government ran this country in the mid-eighties and around that time saw interest rates at an unaffordable level, and for many Australians, for many young Australians, home ownership was impossible. Well, we've got the HomeBuilder scheme in place and we have other things in place which are enabling home ownership for many people for the first time. For those young people who do have a bleak outlook on life, there are so many jobs in regional Australia at the moment. We can't fill them. Whether they're in the hospitality sector, in the health sector or in the education sector, in every single area of endeavour in this country today there's a job in regional Australia waiting for that right young person to take that opportunity to avail themselves of that chance of a better future. And for those for whom it's tough, we have significant mental health investment in place right around the nation through headspace and other endeavours to help those young people. So I say that if you're finding it difficult, please reach out and say that you're not okay. There's help available for you. 12:38 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Almost 60 per cent of young Australians feel that the biggest barrier to getting involved in politics is, 'Feeling like they won't be listened to.' And 52 per cent of young people feel that they have a say in public affairs none of the time. There's more than one thing wrong with the conduct of federal politics in this country at the moment, and anyone who has seen politics in parliament over the last few weeks knows how toxic and dire some of the debate has become. But if we don't do something to change the fact that 60 per cent of young Australians feel that they won't be listened to and 52 per cent of young people feel that they have a say none of the time in public affairs then we're not going to be able to change the nature of politics and debate in this country and we're at risk of having another generation of people who see those of us in this place as not representing them. It means that the big challenges that we face in this country and in the world that the young people that I meet across my electorate are engaged in, are passionate about and care about won't be addressed. You can't go to a school in Dunkley and talk to young people without them raising climate change, without them asking me: why do we have a government that has people in that don't think climate change is real; why do we have a government that won't commit to legislating net zero by 2050; and why do we have a government that attacks us when we have the temerity to exercise our democratic rights and go and protest to ask them to act on climate change? I don't have answers for the students who raise those concerns with me because I don't understand why we have a government that takes those positions either and that doesn't seem to care about the future of the young people and children of this country but only seems to care about whether or not it will get re-elected at the next election. So, is it any wonder that the young people in this country despair and look at politics as being about power, getting and keeping power, rather than doing good things. It has to become about doing good things, and the more we can support our youth to be involved, to have their voices heard, to feel like we care about them and their issues, not just about their vote, the closer we will come to being able to address some of those big issues. We can't despair, because there are some amazing young people. In the last 18 months alone, while we've been through a global pandemic and lockdown, I've had these young people wanting to come and do work experience and be interns in my office because they want to be part of something that will build a better future. Joseph Levett, Luka Pajic, Eilish Salmon, Monica Galovic, Kate Eadie, Lucy Skelton, Ysobel O’Brien, Patrick Stephenson, Alexander Nancarrow, Giovanni Costanzo, Shahd Alkaabi, just to name a few, need their voices heard. Do you know who also need their voices heard? The young people who don't have the wherewithal, the confidence or the opportunity to contact their federal member and say, 'Can I do work experience in your office?' They're the young people who need Labor's policy of a dedicated office for youth. They're the young people who need a government that says, 'We know that you are leaving school in circumstances where wages have been stagnant for the longest period in Australia's history and real wages are going backward. We know that you care about the environment and are desperate to see something happen. We know that you're entering a jobs market where, sure, there might be jobs but there are two million Australians already who need either work or more work because casual and insecure work has become the norm in our country. We know that the cost of living has been skyrocketing. We know that, because of COVID, when you've been trying to finish your education you've also dealt with isolation, mental health issues and loneliness. We know all of these things and we know that what you need is a holistic, dedicated approach to harnessing your energy, your capabilities and your opportunities and supporting you to overcome your challenges but also hearing your voices.' And that's what you'll get from a federal Labor government, but not the current one. 12:43 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm There is no doubt that young Australians have done it tough over the past two years. Whether it's an 18th birthday party, travelling with mates or schoolies week, the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that so many of our young people have missed out on what many Australians regard as significant milestones and rights of passage. Lockdown restrictions have also caused major disruptions to education and training, and resulted in fewer opportunities to find employment in sectors that traditionally employ many young people. It is little surprise that so many young Australians have reported high levels of psychological distress and a worsening of their mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health and suicide prevention remains one of the Australian government's highest priorities, and young Australians, in particular, continue to be a focus of our investment in mental health. We want them to receive the help, support and care they need, where and when they need it, so that they can reach their full potential. In the 2021-22 budget the government is investing a record $2.3 billion in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan to lead landmark reform. This is the largest federal government mental health investment in Australia's history. A key feature of the plan is the investment of $1.4 billion in high-quality and person centred treatment, including $820 million for a national network of mental health centres for adults, youth and children through the Head to Health and headspace programs. Headspace is the government's flagship program for the provision of mental health services to young people aged 12 to 25. With the opening of headspace Syndal, in my electorate of Chisholm, I have seen firsthand the incredible impact of this program at a local level. On the economic front, too, young Australians have every reason to feel optimistic as we emerge and recover from the pandemic faster than even the most bullish forecasts. The Morrison government's economic recovery plan—which includes our JobMaker hiring credit, the JobTrainer fund, the supporting apprenticeships and trainees wage subsidy, the boosting apprenticeship commencements wage subsidy, the Transition to Work program, Industry Training Hubs, the Youth Jobs PaTH program and many more—has contributed to cushioning the effects of the pandemic. The youth unemployment rate fell by 0.6 per cent over the month, to 17.5 per cent in October 2021, and it's below the 19.2 per cent recorded in March 2020. Furthermore, whilst Labor talks about the rise in the unemployment rate over the month of October, they've neglected, as usual, to consider the context of the nearly 60,000 youths who entered the Labor market over the month, pushing the youth participation rate up from 64.3 per cent in September to 66.4 per cent in October. Labor can continue to spout misunderstandings of these statistics and spread its negative message. We'll just get on with the job of delivering for Australians. Yes, it has been tough for our young people, as it has been for many Australians, but there is reason for hope. Our economy is resilient, and the Morrison government will continue to back Australians in as we secure our recovery. 12:48 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I've had wonderful opportunities to be around young people in the last few weeks. On Friday night I joined a group of young women who are part of the EViE Project, which is aimed at ending violence and improving equality, at the Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre. Supported by Zonta Blue Mountains, there were messages of what coercive control looks like illuminated onto the windows of the Springwood hub by illuminart, as part of 16 days of activism against gender based violence. On Sunday I watched kids as young as eight fearlessly racing at the state BMX championships at the Hawkesbury Hornets ground in Mcgraths Hill, and I had the chance to thank Saya and Kai Sakakibara for the inspiration they both provided us during the Olympics. Within my electorate, I have the Macquarie student climate activist group, MESCA, who are determined in their efforts to see action, not words, on reducing emissions. They can see the impact of the Morrison government's failure on them. Throughout these lockdowns, I've met with a group of young people who just want to see something tangible done to improve the odds for their generation, whether it's around accessing mental health support, like a Hawkesbury headspace; more secure work; better value for their university fees; or a chance to one day own their own home. These are young people who you'd think, on the face of it, had the world at their feet. They are articulate, motivated, damn strong and amazing to be with. But what lies beneath with some of these young people is a sense of alienation from the business that goes on in this very place. They feel they don't have a voice in politics. With almost 60 per cent of young Australians, the biggest barrier to getting involved in politics is feeling like they won't be listened to, and more than half feel that they already have a say in politics none of the time. They don't feel they have a say at all. For some people, COVID has not just put a pause on their ambitions and their dreams but radically changed their expectations. I've seen that in my own children's generation—those in their late 20s—but, for kids just finishing school and thinking about their next step, the options they have are now severely limited. Nearly 50 per cent of young Australians report being worried about their education having been disrupted or held back as a result of the changes to schooling that COVID has brought. Many feel their motivation and career plans have been dented. The gap year as we know it is on hold. Teachers have told me about the pain of having high achievers, both at school and at uni, lose their motivation to participate in remote learning. All young people have suffered social disruption severely. They've missed out on once-in-a-lifetime milestones and rites of passage, and they feel isolated due to lockdowns, with their ability to attend school and campus extinguished and social gatherings restricted or prohibited. It has taken its toll, and that's had its impacts on mental health. More than half of young Australians say their biggest concern with COVID was mental health problems, reporting that they were not able to carry out their daily activities during the pandemic due to a decline in wellbeing. A third of students and young people report high or very high levels of psychological distress, and 75 per cent of Australia's young people describe their mental health as worse during the pandemic. I know we've all been affected by COVID. We've worried about our health or the health of our loved ones. We've missed out on family events and special celebrations. We've lost opportunities to do things and experienced financial impacts. It's been hard on everybody. But, as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare observes, adolescence and young adulthood is a critical time. What happens then can be not just a marker of a life; it can profoundly affect the course of someone's life. This is a generation that we here in this place have a huge responsibility to. Whether it's about renewable energy, about spending programs, about where mental health funding goes, about investing in education, about TAFE, about housing or about jobs, the effects of so many of the decisions we make will be felt disproportionately by young people. They're the ones who'll have to clean up any failures by this generation of parliamentarians. I believe that many of us are here not to do what makes life easier for ourselves but to make Australia a better place for our kids and grandkids. That's why Labor will put young people at the centre of our policies. 12:54 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Australians have faced many hurdles throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, none more than the youth of our nation. They've been deeply impacted by COVID-19. With their education disrupted and many transitioning during this time from school to university or the workforce, much uncertainty remains for their future. But we do care. The Morrison government and those on this side—and, I know, on the other side—do care about the future of the youth of our nation. Mental health and suicide prevention has been and always will be one of our priorities. As individuals our mental wellbeing is equally as important as our physical wellbeing. The government is delivering on policy initiatives and funding commitments to ensure that every Australian, especially youth and those who need extra help, have access to mental health services when they need them. The Morrison government invested record funding in mental health and support services through the 2021-22 budget, with $2.3 billion in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan, to lead landmark reform in that area. As part of this record investment, we're safeguarding the wellbeing of young Australians aged 12 to 25 by strengthening, enhancing and expanding the headspace network at a cost of $278.6 million over the next four years. I have a headspace in my electorate, in Southport, and have been there many times to visit and congratulate them on the work that they do. What the Morrison government is doing includes an increase in headspace clinics around the country, made possible by this government's mission to expand the national headspace network, establishing 10 new centres and upgrading five satellite services, including one in Coomera, on the Gold Coast. This funding will contribute to a total investment in the national headspace network of $873.2 million over the next four years from 2021-22—quite a significant investment in the youth of our country. I had the privilege of visiting my local headspace in Southport, as I mentioned, to talk to the staff and talk to those who are accessing those services and to get some feedback on the services. The young people that I spoke to were very happy about the services that were being delivered there and their holistic nature—all kinds of services, including counselling services, for that age group. Southport headspace provides a combination of in-person, online and phone services, and is free for eligible young people aged 12 to 25, funded by the federal government through Medicare, of course. Headspace Southport also runs an early psychosis program to support young people in their recovery and their treatment, and also in their education and employment opportunities. Headspace also provides youth with access to a GP in a calm environment, which was very welcome to those I chatted to at headspace. Sometimes doctors and health professionals can seem daunting and intimidating to young Australians, and headspace creates a kind of funky environment, a fun environment, but also an inclusive environment for those young Australians to feel safe and secure. In addition to expanding the national headspace network, the Morrison government has introduced and invested in a multitude of existing and newly formed school-based mental health programs to further support young people. There is $154.9 million over seven years from 2016-17 for Beyond Blue's Be You program, which offers educators evidence-based online professional training, tools and resources to support the mental health of their students, which is very helpful as well. There is $2.5 million over four years from 2019-20 for Smiling Mind, to support 600 regional, rural and remote schools to implement mindfulness practices into their curriculums. There was $3 million in 2020 for Raise Foundation to deliver early intervention and mentoring support to year 8 students across Australia at risk of disengagement—a very important age group. The government recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant impact on the mental health of many young Australians, and it acknowledges that restrictions and lockdowns have caused stress to the youth of our nation, and probably disproportionately. That is why our government is investing in the future, in our young people. Our thoughts are with you as you finish high school and go into the New Year, and we wish you all the best. Debate adjourned. Roads of Strategic Importance 160 12:59 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I move: That this House: (1) notes the Government's ongoing commitment to improving connectivity for regional businesses, and better connecting regional communities through the Roads of Strategic Importance (ROSI) initiative; (2) recognises that the ROSI initiative upgrades key freight roads to efficiently connect agricultural and mining regions to ports, airports and other transport hubs; (3) commends the Government for its funding of $4.9 billion for projects nation-wide to deliver works such as road sealing, flood immunity, strengthening and widening, pavement rehabilitation, bridge and culvert upgrades and road realignments; and (4) acknowledges that the ROSI initiative is providing substantial social and economic benefits, including opportunities for greater regional employment and business growth. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the motion seconded? It can be seconded after you speak. Mr RICK WILSON 198084 The $4.9 billion Roads of Strategic Importance initiative is improving connections for mining and agricultural regions to ports, airports and other hubs right across Australia. That's fantastic for my entirely regional electorate of O'Connor, whose mining and agricultural areas are directly benefiting from $224 million of that funding. In O'Connor, ROSI will improve essential freight roads in the productive Goldfields and Wheatbelt regions of Western Australia. Under ROSI, three key projects are being funded in my electorate. Firstly, there's the $52 million Coolgardie to Esperance Highway upgrade between Widgiemooltha and Kambalda. ROSI is contributing $41.6 million to this important freight route in the shire of Coolgardie. The project started in February and is due for completion in mid-2022. The second project is a $40.5 million upgrade to the Great Eastern Highway will greatly improve freight transport between the Goldfields and the Port of Fremantle. That project will start very soon. It will include significant works in the shires of Westonia and Yilgarn. Following the recent Western Australia electoral redistribution, these two shires will come into O'Connor from the adjacent electorate of Durack, so ably represented by my good friend Melissa Price. Construction on this Great Eastern Highway upgrade is expected to be completed in early 2023, and the $32.4 million of this project cost will come from ROSI. With Western Australia accounting for almost 70 per cent of the nation's gold production, both of these projects are important for the nation's economic development. But it is the third and largest project funded in my electorate under ROSI that I wish to focus on today. The $187.5 million Wheatbelt secondary freight network is a once-in-a-generation fillip for a region that has 4,200 mostly family-run farms. Western Australia regularly produces one-third of Australia's wheat and more than 40 per cent of its wheat exports. This year we are on target for a record 20.5 million tonnes. That's two million tons more than we ever produced previously, or an increase of about 10 per cent on the previous record. It is no surprise of course that that production comes out of the Wheatbelt. The region also produces much of Western Australia's 21 per cent contribution to the national wool clip. Almost all of the clip is transported interstate or is exported. You can see then why efficient freight to port and ROSI's $150 million contribution to the project is a huge deal for the region. I am pleased to report that 42 local governments are collaborating on the 4,400 kilometre Wheatbelt secondary freight network. The project technical director, Garrick Yandle, CEO of the shire of Kulin, tells me that the 42 LGAs have agreed on seven priority routes to progress first up. Along those routes, 10 road projects have commenced, with two already complete. This is in the first year of the project's operation. I am incredibly enthused about this project because, under the redistribution, my electorate—if I'm fortunate enough to be re-elected—will pick up an additional 16 of these Wheatbelt shires, and that's in addition to the 14 Wheatbelt shires that are already in O'Connor. In the Wheatbelt areas new to my electorate, the $2.2 million Merredin-Narembeen Road upgrade is one of those two projects already completed. Also in new areas of O'Connor will be the $1.3 million Kondinin to Quairading upgrade, which is nearing completion; the $1.4 million improvement to the Goomalling-Meckering Road, which is three-quarters complete; and the $1.6 million upgrade to the Merredin-Narembeen which is well underway. These projects aim to improve access from Wheatbelt ports to the ports of Albany, Kwinana, Fremantle, Geraldton and Bunbury. Elsewhere, in existing areas of O'Connor, shires have priority-one projects, including Corrigin, Cuballing, Dumbleyung, Kondinin, Kulin and Wickepin. In the shires yet to come across to my electorate, Kondinin, Merredin, Narembeen and Quairading will all directly benefit. That is just from the first $18 million tranche of projects in the overall $187 million Wheatbelt secondary freight network. In shires that will receive funding, Garrick Yandle tells me, the average project cost is between $1.5 million and $2 million, which is three to four times the magnitude of projects that Wheatbelt LGAs would typically deliver. Mr Yandle says the secondary freight network is one of the biggest infrastructure projects the region has ever seen. The roads are essential for supporting key freight supply chains. They also support tourism in the region. I congratulate all 42 participating Wheatbelt shires for their leadership and collaboration in delivering this game-changing project. I commend the Morrison government for its outstanding strategic commitment to this nation-building ROSI initiative. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the motion seconded? Mr McCORMACK 219646 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.   13:04 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I'm pleased to speak on this private members' business today, because in my electorate of Gilmore, we have many roads of strategic importance. Before coming to this place, I fought hard to get federal funding for the new Nowra Bridge. The 140-year-old iron-truss bridge was reaching the end of its operational life. Put simply, it had to replaced, otherwise locals would have fewer lanes going directly in and out of Nowra. With$155 million in funding from the federal government and $155 million from the New South Wales state government, which is great news, I'm pleased to say that the new Nowra Bridge is progressing well and expected to be completed by mid-2024. But during this time I've heard the very loud cries from people about the need for a Nowra bypass and that the new Nowra Bridge was not going to solve all our massive traffic issues. At the Nowra Bridge sod-turning on 19 June 2020, I also said that we have to get on with the Nowra bypass. Quite honestly, I'm gobsmacked nothing has happened on the Nowra bypass. The plans have been there for decades. We have a New South Wales state government that has been in power since 2011: 10 years of state coalition government and not one bo-beep about the Nowra bypass; three New South Wales Liberal MPs in my electorate of Gilmore and again, no willingness or drive for a Nowra bypass. None. We've heard a lot about bypasses in other areas. Look to the south: we have both the Milton-Ulladulla bypass and the Moruya bypass going ahead, albeit with a distinct lack of genuine consultation with the communities involved. But Nowra, the largest town in the City of Shoalhaven, has no bypass. The Shoalhaven, the gateway to Jervis Bay and the pristine New South Wales South Coast, is a magnet for visitors. When lockdown ended, people were fleeing Sydney and Canberra for the coast—and who would blame them? It's such a beautiful area. Our population more than quadruples at Christmas and holiday times. More and more people are choosing to relocate to the New South Wales South Coast and work from home, but our infrastructure just doesn't cut it. Ask anyone living in Bomaderry or further north who needs to travel to Nowra for work—it's a nightmare, and that's on the good days. Friday afternoon commonly sees gridlock around our internal Nowra CBD streets, as people try their best to dodge the traffic without any luck. Our local small businesses, their workers and families have done it tough. Drought, bushfires, floods, ongoing bushfire recovery and COVID-19 have created the perfect horrific storm. Our local businesses just need a break. Parking in the Nowra CBD is a nightmare and an ongoing issue, and the amenity of the town is not helped by the gridlock of our Nowra Bridge crossing and our streets. I love Nowra. I'm proud of Nowra. It's where I've grown up, it's where I was married 25 years ago and it's where I've raised my four children. But there is so much more that could be done to help improve the liveability and workability of the town. The revitalisation of the Nowra Riverfront is something that I have long been passionate about. The new Nowra Bridge is a great start, but unless the government looks to the future and gets on with the preplanning for the Nowra bypass it will be another 30 years. Don't we owe it to our children, their children and everyone in the Nowra-Bomaderry area, and along the New South Wales South Coast, to ensure that people have safe passage through and into Nowra—that the town of Nowra can flourish, helping businesses, workers and jobs? How can people help? By signing the petition on my website calling on the state and federal government to get on with the Nowra bypass and start the preplanning. Together, let's get it done. 13:09 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It was great to hear the member for Gilmore acknowledging the delivery by the Liberals and the Nationals in government. I certainly know that when I took over as Deputy Prime Minister and minister for infrastructure, amongst other things in that financial year there was a $50 billion infrastructure rollout. When I left in June there was $110 billion, because I knew that we needed the infrastructure rollout right across the nation to revitalise the nation, to give it that impetus, particularly through the bushfires—and I acknowledge that the member for Eden-Monaro has just joined us in the chamber—through COVID-19 and through everything else that has beset this nation in recent years. The infrastructure program supports 100,000 workers, whether it is in projects like Adelaide River to Wadeye, Alice Springs to Darwin, Alice Spring to Halls Creek, Cairns to Northern Territory border, Cooktown to Weipa, Karratha to Tom Price, Mount Isa to Rockhampton, Newman to Katherine, Northern Territory gas industry road upgrades, Tennant Creek to Townsville or Townsville to Roma. There are also infrastructure programs in southern Australia: Ballarat to Ouyen, Barton Highway, Cockburn to Burrup, Echuca to Robinvale, Great Northern Highway, Bindoon Bypass, Green Triangle, Hobart to Sorell, Melbourne to Mildura, Port Augusta to Perth, Renmark to Gawler—we're getting to South Australia now, member for Grey—Stawell to the South Australian border, the Tasmanian roads package with its many projects. In New South Wales we have Tenterfield to Newcastle. In Queensland we have Toowoomba to Ipswich and Toowoomba to Seymour, taking in the Newell Highway. We have the Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network, which the member for O'Connor mentioned. There are so many Roads of Strategic Importance initiatives—so many. I know that this can only happen when the Liberals and Nationals are in government. Last week I spoke about a Brisbane based ALP federal member bemoaning the fact that we were putting bitumen on unsealed roads. Unfortunately, this is an example of what we hear from those opposite, particularly those opposite in metropolitan seats who don't understand the vast road networks in regional, rural and most specifically remote Australia. But they also don't understand that those local government areas, those regions, punch well above their weight when it comes to economic output, particularly in beef and grain production. They produce so much and they deserve a good road network—they deserve the best road network. They deserve that connectivity, they deserve those safety aspect that only programs like the ROSI can implement, and that is why it has become such an important part of the overall national infrastructure rollout in this nation in recent years. I'm proud of the ROSI and what it's been able to do. I'm also proud of those people who've been able to increase their productivity as a result of the ROSI. I spoke to a fellow in a remote Western Australian mining company who told me that just by putting bitumen on part of the Outback Way—and the object is to get the entire Outback Way completely sealed—70 kilometre or so, was going to boost his company's productivity by hours upon hours upon hours, because they wouldn't have to go over those corrugated unsealed sections at very low speed while trying not to tip the heavy excavation equipment and mining gear off the back of the truck. They have to drive carefully on those roads, and that's just one small example of the huge benefit of ROSI and other programs, which are only put in place by the Liberals and Nationals. The ROSI has brought benefits to this country and its the regions, particularly those in remote Australia. No-one understands regional Australia quite like this bloke over here, the member for Grey, and he'll tell you. He'll extol the virtues of not just ROSI but all the road programs that we have put in place for those farmers, for those miners, for those people who choose to live in regional Australia. Why shouldn't they have roads in remote Australia that are just as good as the roads we have in Kingston or Barton or anywhere else in the Australian capital? I see members nodding and I thank them—and someone is even ringing me to tell me what a great speech this is. ROSI is so important, and everybody in this chamber agrees. We will not only have this program in place for years to come but invest more in it in the future. 13:14 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Thank you to the member for Riverina for his ringing endorsement of regional areas! It's great to stand here today to talk about the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, because the premise of this initiative is so important to regional communities right across Australia. This initiative is a vital way to ensure that regional communities are connected and to make sure that key freight and transport routes are maintained and improved, where needed. The safety of highways and important transport routes is something that's raised with me in my travels across Eden-Monaro. Everywhere I go I meet with people who are concerned about the state of our roads—and not just the roads in their neighbourhoods or their main towns; they're concerned about the state and safety of the key highways and transport routes that intersect our region. Time and again I'm asked whether there's federal funding available to fix or improve Eden-Monaro highways. Every time I provide the same answer, 'Yes, there can be one-off funding available but ongoing funding is only available if the road is identified as a road of strategic importance.' This government has identified a number of roads across the country which they deem to be of great importance to our nation. They've attracted $4.9 billion for projects nationwide to deliver work such as road sealing; flood immunity; strengthening and widening; pavement rehabilitation; bridge and culvert upgrades; and road realignments. Following the bushfires, two bridges in the Bega Valley will be restored, thanks to the funding of this initiative: the Murrabrine Bridge in Cobargo and the Whipstick Bridge in Wyndham will both be upgraded. These existing timber bridges will be replaced with new two-lane concrete structures. The benefits of these projects are expected to include improved freight and load limits for the bridges; improved accessibility of freight to transport for local producers; and increased productivity. These are three really significant benefits from two comparatively minor projects. Unfortunately, key transport routes for timber, livestock and produce, and the increasingly busy tourist drives on highways across Eden-Monaro, are not included in the list of Roads of Strategic Importance to receive regular federal funding. Only one road in the entire Eden-Monaro electorate, an electorate that is the size of Switzerland and covers more than 40,000 square kilometres, is considered a road of strategic importance. That means only one road in the entire region that completely surrounds Canberra, and which goes down to the coast and stretches to the Victorian border, receives that funding, and that is the Barton Highway. When people ask me why Barton Highway is the only road to receive regular funding, and why the Monaro Highway, the Kings Highway, the Snowy Mountains Highway and the Princes Highway aren't on the list, I can't answer. There's no visibility as to why some roads are chosen and others haven't been, and this is a point of frustration for some communities. The Princes Highway stretches from Melbourne to Sydney, with dozens of towns along the way. It's the coastal highway between Australia's two largest cities, and yet the vast majority of it is not considered to be a road of strategic importance. The Kings Highway connects the nation's capital to the coast, and it's a road that's used more and more every year as the population in the Canberra region grows, but it's not a road of strategic importance. During the Eden-Monaro by-election last year, the Prime Minister travelled to my electorate and stood with his high-vis and hard hat on to announce that Snowy Hydro 2.0 would go ahead. He was quoted as saying that the scheme would help Australia to grow its way out of the economic challenges of the pandemic. Over the life of the scheme, Snowy 2.0 is expected to create 4,000 direct jobs. It's a nation-building renewable energy project that will benefit many generations to come, and we never begrudge jobs or investment in these communities. It seems to me that the Snowy 2.0 project is a pretty significant project for the country and that, as such, the Snowy-Monaro and Snowy Valleys regions should have had roads of strategic importance declared. This scheme has resulted in more cars, more trucks and more heavy vehicles on Snowy roads. The Monaro Highway and the Snowy Mountains Highway are just two of the highways which are seeing an increase in heavy-vehicle traffic. More traffic and more extreme weather events, including the recent floods in my region, mean that these roads are quite literally taking a beating. A project that's of national significance should attract federal funding to help with the infrastructure requirements around it. This means that some of the roads in Eden-Monaro, particularly in the Snowy region, should be eligible to receive funding under the roads initiative. When I meet with communities and they ask these questions I tell them I will follow them up. So today I'm putting questions to the government about the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. How are the roads selected to receive this regular funding? When was the last time a review into this scheme took place? How can new roads be added to the list of roads that receive regular funding under this scheme? I look forward to getting the answers on behalf of the people of the mighty Eden-Monaro. 13:19 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like other members of this place, would sometimes have people make complaints to your office about various things, whether it's about being vaccinated or about not being vaccinated or about 100 other topics, but I'd have to say that, in the last four years, my office has had quite an uptick of complaints from people about having to go slow on our roads because they're being rebuilt. I've never had a better complaint, I must say! I'm very pleased that so much is happening on our roads. You've got to really work to get around Grey and avoid the roadworks at the moment. Roads of Strategic Importance is just one of the programs that are delivering for us. In particular, there is $62 million allotted to the construction, or reconstruction, of the Barrier Highway between Burra and the border, essentially. For those who don't know, the Barrier Highway is South Australia's direct connection to Sydney, so there is a lot of heavy traffic that comes down that line. Then there is $100 million allocated west of Port Augusta—$75 million for the Eyre Highway, heading through to WA, and another $25 million on Eyre Peninsula, for assistance in replacing the rail network that was closed two or three years ago now. Around $15 million of that has been drawn down on. All of these numbers I quote are matched, I hasten to add, by 20 per cent from the state government, so the figures are actually bigger than they might initially appear. On the Eyre Highway, we have seen hundreds of kilometres of widening go ahead. At one stage, driving between my home place and Port Augusta, I think I had around 120 kilometres of speed restrictions. But the speed restrictions are off now, and the road is in fantastic order. But, as I said, there's so much more happening. We've got a $100 million commitment from the federal government for what we call the Port Wakefield solution, which is an overpass and dual lanes through Port Wakefield—this is on the Augusta Highway—and $160 million for the construction of a new bridge, a second bridge, in Port Augusta. Works on those are well underway, and it's very exciting for me to drive past those works. We've begun work on duplicating the highway north of Port Wakefield, heading towards Port Augusta. The first section will be to Nantawarra. There has also been a lot of work done on the Horrocks Highway, and there is more to come. The Todd Highway, on Eyre Peninsula, which is one of the major grain routes, has been widened. There are significant numbers of passing lanes going in around the electorate, and the councils have not been missing out either. In Grey alone, there has been $9.4 million extra coming, through the ramped-up Roads to Recovery, to councils in Grey and another $23 million coming through the local roads component of the FAGs. The Supplementary Local Road Funding program, a South Australia-specific program, delivers $20 million a year to regional councils across the state. In the last 18 months, $68 million has gone to councils in Grey from the three rounds of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. No wonder things are happening on our roads. In so many areas in regional Australia we rely on transport routes. Our farmers and miners need a best path to port, if you like, the most competitive way of getting our products onto the world stage. And there is the safety issue. While the road toll is not what it was 10 or even 20 years ago, we are moving in the right direction all the time. Some of that is on the back of better cars and better safety in cars, but certainly a lot of it is on the increasing level of road safety provided by a good road. The road transport people are very keen to point out to us that the best value for our buck we can get is through road widening, the extending of the shoulders out so that, if someone dips a wheel off, they can get back while they're still on the bitumen rather than dipping that one wheel off and—we've all seen the tracks, that curving line that comes from the left-hand side of the road and ends up with the car backwards on the other side of the road. I do around 80,000 or 90,000 kilometres in a year, and over the last 14 years I've had a couple of close encounters that I would have preferred not to have had, and they weren't through my driving mistakes. There is always a chance out there that there is an accident waiting to happen. We will never get to a stage where there will be no accidents. Let's not kid ourselves. Driver error is alive. But we need to do all we possibly can to make sure that the road surfaces are not contributing to that outcome. I think we've made great ground. I'm very pleased to be part of a government has a $110 billion commitment in this area. We have never seen works on this scale before, certainly not in my electorate of Grey. Sitting suspended from 13:24 to 16:00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 165 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Marillanca, Mr Victor 165 16:00 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my constituent and friend Victor Marillanca, who tomorrow night will be granted the very prestigious Ohtli award. This award is one of the highest honours from the Mexican government given to citizens outside of Mexico. It's awarded once a year per country and it celebrates individuals who have aided, empowered or positively affected the lives of Mexican nationals. What's especially unique about Victor receiving this award is that he is not a Mexican national but Chilean, having escaped to Australia as a political refugee during the Pinochet regime. Nevertheless, his support for the Spanish-speaking community within Australia and abroad has been far-reaching and worthy of this esteemed award. Victor helped establish the first Spanish-language radio program in the nation's capital, Conneccion Latino Americana. For 45 years, the program has provided a voice to thousands of Spanish speakers and kept them informed on important topics such as immigration, refugee programs and current politics. Frequently featuring academics, politicians and diplomats, the program has also supported human rights and strengthened diplomatic ties between Australia and Central and South America. Victor continues to provide valuable diplomatic support to Spanish-speaking countries, deepening ties between them and their communities here and in Australia. Congratulations, Victor, on 45 years of remarkable service and on this remarkable recognition from the Mexican government. Murray-Darling Basin 165 16:02 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls The current wet season across the Murray-Darling Basin has resulted in the basin being at near-saturation point. High flows in our catchments have resulted in storage capacity running at near full, particularly in the southern basin. On the Murray, the Dartmouth Dam is at 85 per cent, and the Hume is at 98 per cent. The Goulburn storages have Eildon at 87 per cent and the Goulburn Weir and Waranga Basin both above 95 per cent full. I'd particularly like to draw attention to Lake Buffalo, on the Ovens River, which is at 98 per cent full. Lake Buffalo has reached 100 per cent capacity every year since 2003. There is real concern that further rain will create substantial flooding which will bring some serious damage to many of the Murray River communities. Lake Buffalo was built in 1965 as a 24-gigalitre dam. That was just the first stage of a major project. The Victorian government owns all the surrounding land, and it was originally intended that Buffalo wouldn't be 24 gigalitres but would be 1,000 gigalitres. We have an opportunity now to build 'big Buffalo', construct it properly. This would act as a flood mitigator—which would enable people right now to avoid hundreds of millions of dollars of damage—plus, when we go through our dry periods, we would have this incredible amount of water for productive agriculture. It should be a win-win. Ellwood, Captain James (Jim) 165 16:03 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It's with deep regret that I advise the House that Second World War veteran VX67548, Captain Jim Ellwood, passed away on Saturday evening. Jim was surrounded by his family. During World War II, Jim was a cipher signaller. He arrived on the island of Timor with the 4th Independent Company in September 1942. He was attached to Sparrow Force headquarters and then continued with Lancer Force once the 2/4th returned to Australia. Jim volunteered as a member of the stay-behind party that was established in early 1943 to continue to observe and report on Japanese activities. This stay-behind party was evacuated from Timor to Fremantle by the submarine USS Gudgeon in February 1943. Jim Ellwood then returned to Timor seven months later as a member of the SRD's ill-fated Operation Lagarto. He was captured and spent the remainder of the war as a prisoner of war, mostly in Dili, and was subject to terrible deprivation and torture. Jim was liberated after the war, in late 1945. Jim went on to live a big life. He was a proud member of many ex-service associations. Our condolences to Jim's wife, Loretta, their sons and their descendants. He was a true gentleman. Vale Jim Ellwood. Moncrieff Electorate 165 16:05 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff This year, 2021, has been a challenging year for many, and I take this opportunity in the last sitting week of 2021 to wish everyone in my electorate of Moncrieff a happy Christmas and a bigger, better and safer new year in 2022. It's Queenslanders who have done the heavy lifting to reach almost 80 per cent double vaccinations, and that means that the domestic borders will open to Queensland so that families and Moncrieff can reunite with their loved ones who may be interstate. The Gold Coast economy can now reignite, and business can do what it does best, and tourism and small business can start the journey out of the pandemic. I thank the Moncrieff community cabinet for the work that you do in our community. I also thank the Gold Coast's only cross-industry think tank, the City Heart Taskforce, for the work that they've done for job skills and industry on the Gold Coast this year, and for their dedication; I wish you and your families all the best. Congratulations to Alfred Slogrove, CEO of Study Gold Coast, and his wife, Katia, on their new baby, Allegra. And congratulations to Adrienne Readings on her elevation as the new chair of Destination Gold Coast. Thanks to Ned Pankhurst and Ian Kennedy for their service on the City Heart Taskforce, and to Paul Donovan for his 17 years of service to Destination Gold Coast. To the good people of Moncrieff: I wish you an absolutely fantastic Christmas and new year for your clubs, your schools, your surf club, your veterans organisation. Merry Christmas and a happy, safe 2022. COVID-19: Broadband 166 16:06 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm a big fan of libraries and of the Yarra Plenty Regional Library network in particular. Through the pandemic, they have been sorely tested in the work that they do. I think we know that libraries are much more than places where people go to borrow books; they're places of community connection. The network has been sorely tested but never found wanting. Indeed, how critical these libraries are to community has been revealed. I want to thank Stephanie Convery from the Guardian for highlighting the great work of the Thomastown branch and that of its manager, Coralie Kouvelas, who noticed cars in the car park, and the same cars with children sitting in them: "I thought, this is really unusual,' Kouvelas says. So she said hello to the people in one of the cars and found out they were there so the children could do their homework— using the library's wireless network. The City of Whittlesea and the library recognised that this was a real issue in our community and answered it by providing wi-fi dongles for use so kids could participate in remote learning. I give a big shout-out to the City of Whittlesea and Thomastown and Lalor libraries. But, of course, this really shouldn't have happened. We shouldn't have this digital divide in Australia in 2021. And that's why I am so proud that my friend the member for Greenway, the shadow minister for communications, has announced that Labor will provide 30,000 families with free broadband so that they will never be cut out from online learning when the fact is that the internet is a necessity of modern life. Soil Degradation 166 16:08 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Deputy Speaker Claydon, this Wednesday is World Soil Day—and I knew you'd be interested in that! Soil degradation is widespread in Australia, and this poses untenable risks to food security, the environment, and our health and wellbeing. Over the past 200 years, we have done terrible damage to our soils. But the good news is that innovative farmers, graziers and market gardeners across Australia have turned their creativity and knowledge to regenerating Australia's degraded soils. Organisations like the independent, non-profit Soils for Life have been sharing their stories of restoration and regeneration for more than a decade, and now soil has rightly found prominence as a matter of national significance, through the National Soil Strategy and Office of the National Soils Advocate in PM&C. I recently hosted a discussion with Soils for Life with leading producers, farmers and soil specialists. As we deliver on this strategy to repair degraded soils, success will rely on researchers, policymakers and producers partnering to support stewards of this land to make our soils healthy and naturally productive again. Their advice to me was clear. They need stable, long-term, ongoing support for locally led soil health initiatives run through local hubs. I look forward to continuing to work with Soils for Life and producers in my electorate and encourage other members to do the same. Broadband 166 16:10 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin [by video link] For access to the internet, as we've just heard from the member for Scullin, a good-quality, reliable connection is becoming more and more important. We've seen that, of course, through this global pandemic, with many people working and studying from home. That's why I am so pleased that federal Labor has announced that, if we were elected, the communities right across my electorate the Franklin would stand to benefit from Labor's NBN plan—a $2.4 billion plan to expand fibre access to more than 1.5 million premises across Australia. In my electorate it will mean that 7,600 homes and businesses currently stranded on the Liberals copper will get access to fibre under Labor's policy. Communities such as Lauderdale, Rokeby, Margate and Huonville will have the potential to benefit from Labor's plan. Labor's plan will run fibre to these homes and business, giving Tasmanians relying on copper-wire connections the choice to upgrade their homes to fibre if they want faster speeds. Not only will this policy deliver faster internet speeds; it will also create jobs in our local community. It's a significant announcement for Tasmania, and it's specifically significant for the communities in the outer suburban and regional areas in my electorate. We also announced that we would keep the NBN in public hands. We know that it is critical for the rollout of fibre to the home and reliable internet to keep the NBN in public hands, where it can do the job it was always intended it do and benefit our communities. Blue Tree Project 167 16:11 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Just recently, Ian Venables and members of the Alberton West fire brigade used donated paint from their local Mitre 10 to paint a dead tree blue on a picnic reserve located near Yarram. It's one of almost 700 trees painted to start a conversation about mental health around Australia and, indeed, overseas. They've been painted to give a very simple message to all Australians: it's okay to not be okay. The Blue Tree Project was born from tragedy but lives on in the cherished memory of Jayden Whyte, who tragically took his own life in 2018, in Western Australia. Jayden's family and friends are determined to prevent others from experiencing the same anguish and heartbreak they did with his loss. The blue trees are often set quite incongruously in the landscape. They're intended, though, to encourage difficult conversations—to start those difficult conversations, to encourage typically silent people to share their feelings and suffering and to seek help and to try and remove some of the stigma that is often associated, even today, with mental illness. I want to congratulate the families and friends involved in the Blue Tree Project, and I want to also congratulate the Alberton West fire brigade for bringing the Blue Tree Project to Gippsland. I'm looking forward to working with other communities across my region to make sure we continue to have that conversation. I say again: It's okay to not be okay. Help is available. Please don't suffer in silence. National Water Safety Day 167 16:13 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley The 1st of December is National Water Safety Day, and it's an appropriate day to recognise the bravery of Frankston South brothers Ryan and Oscar. Last summer, Ryan and Oscar rescued three girls who were in trouble in the water at the beach. They say they were in the right place at the right time, but they risked their own safety to bring these three girls safely back to the sand, and they rightly received a life-saving award for their brave efforts. The Royal Life Saving Society of Australia and Surf Life Saving Australia have asked us to support National Water Safety Day and to get this message out. Here's what you can do to be safe in the water: swim at supervised locations and between the red and yellow flags at patrolled beaches; wear a life jacket when boating and fishing; avoid alcohol and drugs in and around the water, possibly all the time; and supervise children at all times around water. They're simple messages that one would think most of us in Australia have grown up with, but there are too many people who don't know those messages. Please share these messages. Get them out. We're about to enjoy a summer with some freedoms we have not had for a while. Let's make it a safe and happy summer. I very much look forward to coming down to the Frankston Life Saving Club and the Seaford Life Saving Club, getting out with the nippers and being part of teaching people how to be safe in the water. Blackburn, Ms Shandee 167 16:14 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson In February 2013, a young Mackay woman, 23-year-old Shandee Blackburn, was brutally stabbed to death on her way home from work. It was an horrific crime that rocked our community, and it remains unsolved. In the last few days, however, as a result of an investigative podcast by the Australian's Hedley Thomas, we have learnt there are some very serious questions being raised about the DNA testing at Queensland's government-run laboratory. Samples sent to that lab have not been fully tested and, on a number of occasions, DNA could not be detected—not even in a sample of Shandee's own blood. One of this country 's most respected forensic scientists, Dr Kirsty Wright, has looked into the case and has grave concerns. Dr Wright is calling for testing at the lab to be suspended and an inquiry conducted. She has said: … we need a public inquiry because I don't believe the police and the courts can trust any of the DNA results coming out of this lab … Doctor Wright also said: … this has the potential to be the biggest forensic disaster in Australia's history. And yet the Queensland health minister has refused to consider an inquiry or the retesting of the evidence. The family of Shandee Blackburn—and I spoke with Vicki Blackburn, Shandee's mother, earlier today—have called that response a disgrace. They do deserve better. I'm calling on the Queensland government to take action to immediately investigate that forensics facility and see what can be done to have justice for Shandee. National Disability Insurance Scheme 168 16:16 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Sadly, the Morrison government's inability to govern in the best interests of vulnerable Australians has extended to the mismanagement of the NDIS. As a constituent said to my office recently, 'It's as if this government has redesigned the system to proactively lock the most vulnerable out.' One of the most heartbreaking local cases for me involves Avril and Earl, the grandparents and guardians of two boys who have autism, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, PTSD and severe behavioural issues. Needless to say, Avril and Earl are undertaking an incredible care responsibility, the nature of which I don't think any of us could imagine. On the advice of their specialist support worker and with considerable clinical evidence, they successfully applied for one of the boys to receive a place in an independent supported living program. Yet, after a drawn out and convoluted process, the NDIS has declined this request with no explanation. The family must now weigh up whether they have the strength to appeal through the AAT process. Rather than working to strengthen the NDIS, this government has removed the reasonable and necessary test, introduced independent assessments with the clear intention of restricting access, made it harder to appeal NDIS decisions, and explored other ways to push people off the NDIS and into less suitable mainstream services. Avril and Earl are not alone. There are more than 12,000 people in my electorate who provide regular unpaid care to a family member with a disability. They deserve a high-quality and supportive NDIS. They deserve a better government. COVID-19: Vaccination 168 16:17 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I would like to acknowledge and thank the community pharmacists for the work that they have done collectively to ensure the success of the vaccine rollout, particularly in regional and remote Australia where, at times, getting access to doctors is very limited. I'd also like to extend that thanks to the hardworking staff in those pharmacies and acknowledge that it would have been a difficult time for them. In the country, we know that a pharmacist is so much more than someone who dispenses scripts. They are quite often somebody who is a trusted confidant of our medical information, our medical conditions, a counsellor and a carer—particularly to the elderly—most of which is done for the benefit of the individual and the benefit of the community. I would also like to take this opportunity to call for equity in payment for community pharmacies for the rollout of the booster program. Currently, pharmacists are paid $17 to administer the booster, which in most cases is not enough to cover costs. Doctors receive $38, plus many charge a consultation fee. We must remunerate pharmacies adequately or risk their withdrawal from the program and, consequently, undo the great work that we as a nation have done over the past 20 months. It is only fair that community pharmacies receive fair payment for such an important role. Early Childhood Education 168 16:19 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo This morning I met with early childhood educators on the lawn of Parliament House to discuss the report that they've released today—'Where does all the money go in Australia's early learning sector?' The report is quite damning. This report highlights the amount of money that goes towards big business and into shareholders' pockets. It is a vital industry. It is a vital sector. Early childhood education and care in Australia has a turnover of $14 billion annually, and 80 per cent of the funding flows from government. Those are taxpayers' dollars, which we all want to go towards the education and care of our youngest Australians. Yet, sadly, because of the way the sector is structured, hundreds of millions of dollars are distributed annually to shareholders and to CEOs' salaries, not towards the care and the education of our young people. This money, rather than going to shareholders, should flow into the care and education of our youngest Australians. The government needs to do better. We need to look at early childhood educators' wages. They should be paid a better wage for what they are doing. We need to look at the resourcing to the sector. It's time the government listened to these workers and to their union and acted. We need more money into education and care and less money into shareholders and CEOs' salaries. New South Wales: Floods 168 16:20 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'd like to alert the Australian parliament to a disaster that's unfolding across western New South Wales as we speak. We have had, under the effects of the La Nina weather pattern, increased rainfall over recent times. That has led to a substantially above-average winter crop. Sadly, the rain has continued, and we've seen that crop not only downgraded but in many cases completely destroyed. At the moment, in Gunnedah, we're seeing up to a hundred houses affected by flooding. The main concern that I want to alert the House to is the forecast. It is a very great concern. I think, as a nation, we need to be prepared to step into what could be a potentially very, very dangerous Christmas period. The forecast just for this week in my home area is that there's a 100 per cent chance of rainfall tomorrow of up to 100 mils. With dams that are full to capacity, the potential for very, very damaging floods on top of what we've already seen with the devastation of the winter crop is of great concern. We need to be prepared as a government to step up when we need to as the current situation unfolds. Morrison Government 169 16:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Belconnen Tennis Club was just one of hundreds of sporting clubs across Australia whose application under the sports grants program was highly rated by the department yet was not funded by the minister. Of the almost 700 programs in this hundred-million-dollar allocation, almost half, according to the Auditor-General, fell below the cut-off from the department. Today, we've had an analysis by the Australia Institute researchers Hannah Melville-Rea, Robyn Seth-Purdie and Bill Browne of some $3.9 billion across seven grants programs. It finds that funding clearly favoured coalition seats, with marginal coalition seats receiving $184 a person while safe Labor seats received $39 a person. In terms of the national grants programs, they identified 13 seats that received zero funding, including my own electorate of Fenner. It's no surprise that a majority of those 13 seats are Labor seats. The analysis doesn't even cover the car park rorts, or 'pork and ride', in which 47 approved car parks included not a single one selected by the infrastructure department. It doesn't even include the Safer Communities Fund, also known as 'Safer seats', in which $31 million was overturned by the home affairs minister and allocated based on his own political considerations. It's no wonder that the Liberals don't want a national integrity commission. Peach, Mr David 169 16:23 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I rise today to pay tribute to David Peach, executive officer of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, who passed away recently after a short illness. David arrived from Sydney in August 2020, ready to take on the role at the chamber during a critical time for our local economy as we navigated the uncertainty of the pandemic. He took on the role with such passion and drive that Northern Tasmania quickly embraced David as one of our own. His experience and enthusiasm were valuable as the community worked together in the best interests of local employers and employees. I was fortunate to have the privilege of working closely with David, including during a visit from the Treasurer for a post-budget breakfast this year, and his professionalism always shone through. Before moving to our region, David built a 25-year career across business, consulting, IT and community service, and he brought his wealth of knowledge to the chamber. As the chair of the Northern Tasmanian Development Corporation, Mark Baker, said: 'David was a natural collaborator who brought a positive attitude to working together for the greater good of the city and the regions.' David was also instrumental in establishing The Men's Table in 2011 in New South Wales with his mate Ben Hughes, who also moved to Launceston. There are now four tables there supporting men's mental health and wellbeing. The David Peach Foundation has been set up in his honour to establish more local men's tables across the state. My deepest condolences to David's wife, Victoria, and his two children. Vale, David Peach. HMAS Parramatta II, Parramatta Electorate: Veterans 169 16:25 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Saturday was the 80th anniversary of the loss of the HMAS Parramatta II. Commissioned in 1940, her crew served in perilous conditions, escorting, patrolling and mine sweeping as part of the Red Sea Force. In 1941, she began service in the Mediterranean, supporting the reinforcement of Cyprus and allied forces besieged in Tobruk. In the early hours of 27 November 1941 she was escorting a ship carrying much-needed ammunition supplies to Tobruk when she was sunk by a German submarine. The damage to the ship was so great that only those on deck had time to escape. Twenty-four crew survived the sinking; 138 lost their lives. On Saturday, I was honoured to attend the annual memorial service in honour of the men who served on the HMAS Parramatta II that was held at Queen's Wharf Reserve on the Parramatta River. I'd like to thank the Naval Association of Australia, Parramatta memorial subsection, and its president, Bruce Richens, for their work to commemorate the HMAS Parramatta II and her crew. I'd also like to thank the other organisations in my community that work tirelessly to support veterans and service men and women in the community: the Parramatta RSL subbranch—President Ron Grace; the Merrylands RSL subbranch—President Robin Grimley; the Granville RSL subbranch—Treasurer Alice O'Connor; the Vietnam Veterans, Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association of Australia, New South Wales branch—President Frank Cole; and the Sydney Veterans Lodge—President Fred Mannah. Lest we forget. Leichhardt Electorate: School Awards 170 16:26 Mr 7K6 Leichhardt ENTSCH () (): Presenting certificates at end-of-year school award ceremonies is something I look forward to each year. It's a time when school communities come together to recognise the achievements of students throughout the year. This year I presented awards at Kuranda District State College; Redlynch State College; Cooktown State School; and Cape York House—for the graduating boys and girls. Sadly, given Queensland's quarantine requirements and the vast size of my electorate, I couldn't attend more. One of the things that strikes me about these ceremonies is the air of excitement among students, teachers and families. End-of-year awards night is a great celebration. It's a celebration of excellence, whether it be academic or sporting. For some it's the end of a chapter in their lives, and there are thousands of students across my electorate who are now about to embark on a new chapter in their lives. For some, their formal education will have finished. For others, they will get to enjoy their summer holidays before embarking on vocational and tertiary studies in the new year. Attending these recent presentation nights made me cast my mind back to when I finished school. I finished on a Friday afternoon and started work as a 14-year-old in the job on Monday morning! Finally, I'd like to take the opportunity to wish all of those students across my electorate who graduated this year the very best for their future endeavours. Defence Exports 170 16:28 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark The government have made no secret of their plan to make military technology one of Australia's top exports. This plan is working, with some $5 billion worth of sales approved last financial year alone. The problem is that the government has approved military sales to countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Eritrea and Sudan, countries with appalling human rights records, with some directly involved in civil wars and other conflicts and others responsible for abducting children to become child soldiers, mass executions of prisoners, torture and other horrific war crimes—not that the Australian government would necessarily know, because it does very little to track our arms exports once they've left the country. Moreover, there is a media report today that Australia's Future Fund has almost $160 million invested in 14 companies linked to the Myanmar junta, including a Chinese arms manufacturer which sold aircraft and missiles to the Myanmar military and which is designated by the US as a banned investment entity. The situation I describe is obviously unethical and out of step with community expectations. No way should we be selling military kit and know-how to the world's most odious governments, nor should we be investing in their own grotesque arms industries. Frankly, the government needs to get out of this trade and get out of it now. Higgins Electorate: Victorian Tunnelling Centre 170 16:29 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins It's not every day you get to a specialist tunnel-training facility, but I had a great reason to visit one recently. As the recipient of $419,000 in the Morrison government's National Careers Institute Partnership Grants program, Holmesglen Institute were keen to show me what this funding will do to help train the next generation of tunnel engineers and workers. With infrastructure projects sprouting across the nation, the tunnelling industry can't keep up with enough skilled workers. This funding will help those who are thinking about a career in tunnelling to find out what it's all about in replica and virtual environments. I want to thank Andrew, Gary, Ross and Tina from Holmesglen, who showed me around the incredible Victorian Tunnelling Centre. They explained that people need to experience working underground in a realistic way to know if it's the job for them. During the tour, I tried on some stylish 3D virtual glasses which transport you to a replica mine tunnel and then to a replica boring machine, using the exact type of equipment used on the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project. Holmesglen are helping to build the engineers of the future and these engineers will build our future. This is yet another example of the Morrison government investing in technology, backing in industry, creating more jobs and securing our future. Aged Care 170 16:31 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to speak about the ongoing crisis in aged care, specifically regarding the blowout in the waitlist for residential home-care packages. Older Australians are literally dying while waiting for their packages and others are missing out on precious extra years in their family home due to the Morrison-Joyce government's failures. One of the key recommendations from the aged-care royal commission report was that the government clear the home-care package waitlist of over 100,000 people by the end of this year. However, in the budget, the Morrison government announced only 80,000 new packages over the next two years, ignoring that there were over 100,000 people waiting and that thousands are added each and every year. In my electorate of Shortland, which is the sixth-oldest in the country, there are almost 3,000 older Australians waiting to receive their home-care package. This is an absolute disgrace. There's currently only one home-care modification company in the region dealing with the waitlist for home modifications as well, down from three companies previously. And there's no additional funding, so this one company is now doing the work of three without any additional funding. This means that the wait time for home modifications is expanded dramatically. For eight long years the coalition government has neglected older Australians, but they deserve our respect and need to be treated with dignity. These people continue to make a valuable contribution to our community and they should be able to receive the best quality of care in their own homes. Boothby Electorate: South Australian Country Fire Service 171 16:32 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Although we've had a mild spring in South Australia this year, summer is on its way and so is the hot weather. I want to remind all of my local residents about what they can do to be bushfire ready and to thank our wonderful CFS volunteers, who keep us safe each and every summer. Boothby Hills-zone residents must make sure they have their bushfire survival plan in place now. There's nothing more important than having a plan in place; it could literally be the difference between life and death. There's nothing more important, as well, than supporting our incredible CFS volunteers. They have a wealth of information about planning and prevention, and I encourage all residents to visit cfs.sa.gov.au to update their bushfire plans. It's essential that my local residents know how to protect themselves, their loved ones and their homes. As the CFS says: prepare, act, survive. I want to acknowledge the continuing work of our local CFS volunteers in the Sturt CFS Group for keeping local residents safe in Boothby each and every summer. The Sturt CFS Group is led by Group Officer Dale Thompson and deputy group officers David Simms and Chris Smith. I thank them for their years of dedicated service to our local area. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the following CFS brigade captains and all the brigade volunteers: Mark Brooks and volunteers at Belair; Jamie Emsweiler at Blackwood; Lawrie Linggood at Cherry Gardens; Rowan Clark at Coromandel Valley; and Ben Gloyn at Eden Hills. On behalf of all our residents, thank you so much for everything you do. Domestic and Family Violence 171 16:34 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra One woman every week in Australia is murdered at the hands of a current or former partner—mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, co-workers. In fact, violence is the leading preventable cause of death, illness and disability for women aged 15 to 44 in Australia. Violence against women is so bad in this country that police are called to a domestic violence incident every two minutes. This is a national shame. It is a deep seated cultural problem in Australia, and the pandemic has exacerbated many of these issues. The support services that support women are overwhelmed by doing the very best they can without the resources they need. This government hasn't funded family violence services to give women the help they need to leave and stay safe. This means Australian women and children are trapped in violent situations. Across the country at this very moment women fleeing violence are being turned away from services because there aren't enough workers to help them. Women's safety should be a national priority, and Labor is committed to addressing this. A Labor government will fund 500 new community sector workers to support women in crisis and will create the position of a family, domestic and sexual violence commissioner to act as a strong voice for victims-survivors and to provide accountability and coordination for violence prevention. Labor will invest $100 million in crisis accommodation and build 4,000 new homes for women and children fleeing violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness, because all Australian women should feel safe. Chen, Mr Hudson, KHS OAM 171 Macquarie Electorate: Medical Workforce 172 16:37 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie GPs across the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains have raised with me their fears about patients facing long waits to be seen and doctors and staff being stretched like never before. They call it a crisis, and it isn't caused by just COVID, although a lack of a hub in the electorate created extra work for GPs. But even before COVID some had closed their books to new patients. A change by the Morrison government in 2019 means that the Hawkesbury and most of the Blue Mountains are no longer considered part of a priority area for trainee GPs. I met with the team at Katoomba's medical practice. Dr Aman Rana said, 'We miss out on doctors because we aren't considered regional.' He and other GPs say it's a struggle to find registrars to come here as the area shares the same zoning as metropolitan Sydney, and it's hard to attract students from regional medical and nursing schools. Overseas doctors can't do their training either. Dr Rana says that, while some local doctors and nurses are at retirement age, others are simply burning out and none of them are being replaced. GPs can be a vital stable influence in a person's health care. Our area needs to be reclassified as a matter of urgency to help our local GPs respond in the way that they need to and to see their patients in a timely way. They need to be fully supported and resourced to meet the needs of our community. Chen, Mr Hudson, KHS OAM, Lu, Master Jun Hong (Richard) 172 16:39 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I would like acknowledge the passing of two significant Chinese community leaders, and in doing so I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for North Sydney about the late Hudson Chen, who was a lion of the Chinese community within the Liberal Party, along with other such greats as Ben Chow and Helen Sham-Ho. Hudson and his wife, Eve, were very devoted to the party, the Chinese community and the Catholic Church. To Eve and her family I say may Hudson's memory be a blessing. I also wanted to talk about master Richard Lu, an Australian Chinese community leader and a spiritual leader of global significance. I first met Richard during an interview at the Australia Oriental Media Group in 2017. As the proprietor of a Chinese and English language newspaper broadcasting business, Richard was very proud of the fact that his group was free of interference and remained independent. Richard Lu was also very committed to interfaith relations and had amazing connections all over the world. One of the kindest things he did for me was to introduce me to his friend, Emanuelis Zingeris, who was a respected leader of the Lithuanian Jewish community and a member of parliament in that country. It says something about the multiculturalism of Australia that a Chinese community leader would introduce two Jewish community leaders from opposite sides of the world, but such was the nature of Richard Lu. Given his status as a Buddhist master, I was pleased to also introduce him to the Buddhist monastery in my electorate, the Mahamevnawa Buddhist monastery at Cattai. He formed a great friendship with him. To his son, his family and his followers, I offer my sincere condolences on the passing of a great man. National Integrity Commission 172 16:40 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham It is the sad truth that trust in our parliaments and our parliamentarians is under threat these days. There is a lot of disquiet in our communities about things like the rorting of programs, about self-interest being put before the national interest, and about debates being shut down. One of the most important things that we as a parliament could do to help restore trust in the way we do our job in parliament and indeed in government and democracy as it stands is to introduce a national anticorruption commission. This would be a really important pillar in restoring trust. But we don't have one in the parliament. The Prime Minister tells us he has a bill. But he's not bringing it in. Why is he not bringing it in? Because Labor don't support it. I'm sorry—blow me down with a feather—but I would have thought, from my years of experience, that this government would delight in bringing in a terrible bill that Labor won't support so that they can try to wedge and sledge us; they do that all the time. I've never seen this government decide that, because Labor won't support one of their bills, it can't be presented to the parliament. What an extraordinary position for the government to take. I suspect it is more to do with the fact that it's a really bad and ineffective proposal and people will see it exposed for what it is. Box Hill Returned and Services League 172 16:42 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm Last week I had the privilege of representing the Chisholm community award to a truly remarkable individual, Mr Arthur Mereweather. When Arthur joined the Army Reserves at just 17, he was driving five-tonne Army trucks before he even had his drivers licence. He went on to serve for 30 years, working for the Commonwealth Bank while travelling with the Army doing drills and jumping out of planes. Arthur went on to join the Box Hill RSL, where he has been a member for 26 years; 23 of which he has been the Treasurer. As well as caring for his wife, four children, 13 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, Arthur has always ensured his RSL remains a priority. To quote Arthur, 'It's great. But I'll tell you, I don't get much time for tellie.' Congratulations, Arthur, and thank you for your service to our country. To the excellent executive team at the Box Hill RSL, President John Haward, committee members Ray Wall, Lindsay Burke, Brian Tateson and Dep Dawes. Thank you for making Box Hill RSL one of the best RSLs in the country. Tasmania: Housing 173 16:43 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'll use my time to speak on the housing crisis currently gripping my state of Tasmania, and I don't use the term 'crisis' lightly. One in 10 residents of the Brighton LGA are at risk of homelessness. In Bridgewater and Gagebrook, which is around my office, that figure jumps to one in five. A young woman who my office is assisting is one of those five. I have written to the state housing minister and we are continuing to advocate on her behalf. She, of course, is beside herself at the prospect of homelessness. She is just one of the 4,500 Tasmanians who are now on the emergency list for housing—not the total list, just the emergency list. We're looking at a 72- to 78-week wait, on average. We will keep seeing sole parents coming into my office and begging for aid. We will keep hearing from shelters that are full to the brim. And, all the while, house prices and rentals continue to rise, with no action from this government to tackle the issue. An Albanese Labor government will create 20,000 homes for those in need, through a Housing Australia Future Fund. We'll achieve this in five years, creating 21,000 jobs in the process. Providing safety and shelter is not just right; it builds our nation. It builds back stronger, and that's what good government does. After eight long years, we desperately need to address the housing crisis. WestConnex Project 173 16:45 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid Speaking of governments getting things done, I am pleased to announce that the M4-M5 Link Tunnels final breakthrough event went ahead last month. I joined the Prime Minister; the New South Wales Premier, Dominic Perrottet; the Minister for , Paul Fletcher; the CEO of Transurban, Scott Charlton; and the CEO of WestConnex, Andrew Head, at the event, which marked a major construction milestone in Australia's largest road infrastructure project. This project is changing the lives of thousands of people, bypassing dozens of sets of traffic lights and allowing an uninterrupted drive from the Blue Mountains to the city. This $16.8 billion project has seen us cutting travel times and supporting thousands of families with work in Sydney and across Australia, where we're reopening after the COVID-19 lockdowns. When opened to traffic in 2023, the M4-M5 Link Tunnels and the Rozelle Interchange will complete the WestConnex project, providing improved links between key employment hubs and local communities. This project is going to make incredible and significant changes to the lives of the people in Reid. Trucks will be taken off Parramatta Road, which is a very busy road in Reid. The improved traffic flow will help lots of families in Reid to get home safe and faster, to be together, so we welcome this new project. Congratulations to the government on getting this done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. BILLS 173 BILLS Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 173

Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020

Second Reading 173 16:47 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith [by video link] Victims of violence shouldn't bear the legal burden of rebutting the presumption that the abuser should equally share parenting. The best interests of the child, including children's interest in being safe from violence, should come first in family law, yet the law as it stands today tells the courts to start with the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, as you know very well—because you're involved in a parliamentary inquiry in relation to these laws, to which I will refer shortly—this situation has been the subject of criticism both in and outside of this parliament. The Women's Legal Service is calling for the removal of this presumption, and the member for Moreton has introduced this private member's bill, the Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020, to seek to give effect to that call and to reform these important laws. The Women's Legal Service says that the presumption shifts the focus of the decision-makers, which is the courts, away from children's safety and away from the best interests of children to an emphasis on shared care so that the current system places victims of violence on the back foot in court, in mediation and in their negotiations with the violent perpetrator. The Women's Legal Service further says: The legislation is complicated, easily misunderstood and its links to equal time incentivise violent perpetrators to pursue their "rights" in the court and other processes putting kids at risk. It is also very complex, making trials and legal processes longer and more expensive. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, in the 2009 report Time for action, the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children pointed out: Under previous (almost identical) legislation, evidence emerged that a very strong pro-contact culture had arisen and that the "the opportunity for a significant relationship with both parents" took precedence over a history or even recent experiences of violence and abuse. That was a report from that council at the time, and that same report said that evidence from the council's own consultations and from the judiciary itself tended to show that such a presumption was inappropriate for a great number of families using the act. In a bipartisan report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs in 2018—which I believe you were the deputy chair of, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon—the committee said it had: … received considerable evidence that the presumption in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) of equal shared parental responsibility is leading to unjust outcomes and compromising the safety of children. The committee recommended that: … the Australian Law Reform Commission, as part of its current review of the family law system, develops proposed amendments [to the legislation], and specifically, that it consider removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. In its 2019 report on family law, the Australian Law Reform Commission described the language used in the law as 'confusing' and recommended redrafting the relevant provision to refer to a presumption in relation to joint decision-making on major long-term issues to draw a clear distinction between, on the one hand, responsibility, and care and time on the other. They also recommended that the legislation should make it clear that in determining what arrangements for the care of a child would promote the child's best interests, the court must determine on all of the material before it: what is best for the particular child in their particular circumstances. It is really obvious that there will be different views about how children's interests will be best served in family law matters, but I would hope and expect that every member of this House would be of the view that children's safety should be paramount—and that that paramountcy should be clear to all who come into contact with the family law system. Unrepresented parents and others should be under no doubt that a court would, if called upon to adjudicate, seek to discover precisely what is in the best interests of the children concerned. As we are within the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, it is particularly timely to consider the impact that the design of statutory provisions has on victims and survivors of violence and their children. This is a long-term issue that the Morrison-Joyce government should address, particularly given the bipartisan nature of the House committee report that called for the change. I want to thank the stakeholders who are continuing to press this issue—it is an important one. There should be no position in our law that suggests that people who are victims and survivors of abuse should be forced to rebut a presumption that the abuser, the perpetrator, should have equal rights in relation to the children. It is incredibly important that this matter be dealt with, and I call upon the Morrison-Joyce government to take heed of this private member's bill; to take heed of the views of stakeholders and committees of this parliament; to take heed of the many representations that been made over a very long period of time; and to resolve this situation in the interests of children. 16:53 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise to speak to the private member's bill, the Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020, moved by my friend and colleague, the member for Moreton. This is an incredibly important bill because it is about the children. Children in a family breakup, all too often, are used as weapons by perpetrators of family domestic violence and coercive control. They know how to hurt the other partner through exploiting her or his love, connection and concern for their children. To be honest, I have experienced this through my own divorce. I was told by mediators to be 'careful' because they said my ex-husband did not care about arrangements for the children; he only cared about hurting me and getting all the money out of me that he could. Being 'careful' was the only advice they could give me. I know how effective using the children is as a punishment. I know the worry, the pain and the constant game of trying to mitigate the hurt to the children—all the 'everything's okay' lines, when everything is not okay. Of course, my experience is nothing like the tragic and horrific experiences that we hear of and know of through the media, through work and friendships, but I do have an understanding of the situation. Currently, the Family Law Act perversely makes things worse, instead of working to avoid tragic outcomes. The act provides a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in parenting matters. It also stipulates a complex pathway for a judge to navigate when determining parenting arrangements—a pathway that has been described as 'practically impenetrable' and 'confusing'. This bill, tabled by the member for Moreton, removes some of those problematic sections of the Family Law Act. It goes to ensuring that only the children's best interests are served by our justice system. It ensures that the system is not used for retributive justice for perpetrators of abuse. Time and time again, we've been presented with reports from parliamentary committees and organisations, including the all-important Australian Law Reform Commission, raising concerns about these sections of the act. As the member for Moreton pointed out, Women's Legal Services Australia, through their Safety in Family Law campaign, recommended removing the presumption of shared parental responsibility, and we've just heard some excellent evidence given by the member for Griffith about that. It may be, of course, that the act was written with good intentions, but when we know that a law has bad unintended consequences it's up to us in this House to make amendments to fix it. Yes, it is important when we see those consequences blazoned across our TV screens and social media feeds, but it is equally important for the countless families who we don't see: those who struggle desperately through the courts with inadequate legal support and without the ability to fight back against a system which we know is stacked against them—frightened, vulnerable, often alone and unseen. The extent of family and domestic violence, including coercive control, is a tragic indictment on our society. One woman every week and one man a month are murdered by a current or former partner. When the women of Australia stood up against violence against women and said, 'Enough is enough!', when we marched through the streets and on to this House, the Prime Minister said that we were lucky we weren't shot. That was bad enough, but he must not—he cannot—say the same about the kids. He cannot dismiss their safety with a glib line, because, as I said at the beginning, this is about the children. If this House cannot make the world safer for children then why are we here? Or, more to the point, why are they on that side here, because indifference to the vulnerable is their trademark on so many fronts. Remember that the Liberal-National government abolished the Family Court against all recommendations. Pretty much all stakeholders, bar none, advised against that move. In other areas, tens of thousands of people are waiting for in-home aged-care packages and thousands are dying while they wait. Underspending on the NDIS means that so many people are going without the supports they desperately need. Pensioners are being forced to pay back welfare payments while multinational corporations keep billions in JobKeeper payments they didn't qualify for. We have robodebt; neglect in residential aged care; appalling treatment of the early childhood education sector and the families who rely on it; the maintaining of the punitive and racist CDP; the inability to deal with toxic workplaces for vulnerable employees; and, if I had time, there would be more. The government don't care, and I'll go back to my original question: why are they here? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 175 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Global Polio Eradication Initiative 175 16:58 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I move: That the House: (1) notes that: (a) the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) leads the world's efforts to end polio, bringing together Rotary International, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and many others including in the private sector with a common objective to eradicate polio; (b) when the GPEI commenced, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries annually; (c) in 2021, polio is 99 per cent eradicated and wild polio remains in only two countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the entire African continent certified as polio-free on 25 August 2020; (d) this success has been driven by the GPEl's extensive worldwide community-driven vaccination program, the largest of its kind in the world, to safeguard children from polio worldwide; (e) safe and effective polio vaccines have been the single most important factor in achieving 99 per cent eradication of polio so far; (f) Australia has been a strong supporter of polio eradication for more than three decades and has invested more than $135 million in polio eradication over that time; (g) 2022 will be a critical year for polio eradication as the GPEI sets out its strategy to achieve polio eradication by 2026, and that this will be a key opportunity for Australian leadership; and (h) Australian organisations lead the effort to see continued support for polio eradication from Australia, including Rotary International Australia, UNICEF Australia, Global Citizen and Results Australia; (2) acknowledges that: (a) the work of the GPEI is a testament to the great power of vaccines and that the equitable and timely access to those vaccines is critical to the program's success; (b) progress made toward polio eradication is facing new challenges with the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan impeding vaccination efforts and increasing the risk of new polio outbreaks; (c) additional measures will be required to manage the risk of polio in Afghanistan in an effort to ensure that no widespread polio outbreaks occur; (d) Australia is a long-term champion of polio eradication along with many other Commonwealth nations including the United Kingdom and Canada, who all share an interest in ensuring the success of the polio program and its important contribution to global health security; and (e) the current parliaments of Australia and other countries have the opportunity to be recognised as the elected representatives who ensured that polio was completely eradicated; and (3) calls on the Government to continue its strong ongoing support for the GPEI. Battling a pandemic is not an easy task. We're learning this more every day as we deal with yet another variant of concern in the form of omicron in COVID. But this is not the first time that a coordinated global health effort has successfully responded to a highly infectious disease in the community. For a masterclass in an extraordinary global response to a significant health threat, we need only look to the story of polio. In the early 20th century polio cases surged in the United States, leading to widespread outbreaks which quickly spread around the world. Australia was no exception; more than 1,000 people died of polio in Australia during the first half of the 1950s alone. It has haunted the childhood of many, and left as many as 40,000 Australians with lifelong paralysis. In 1952, a successful vaccine was finally found but a global response was needed to bring polio under control. To that effect, in 1988 the World Health Organization founded the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. The newly founded organisation took on the ambitious aim of eradicating polio worldwide. Excellent vaccine uptake did well to control the spread of polio in developed countries, and in 1994 polio was declared eradicated from the Americas. Australia achieved the same milestone at the turn of the century in 2000. However, a greater challenge remained. The world's most vulnerable people were still exposed to the ravages of polio. Australia has been there from the beginning, stepping up to provide financial and technical support to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative as it set out on the largest community driven vaccination program in history. The initiative developed a strategy and implemented vaccination drives across the world. A broad coalition of community members took up the task of immunising the world's children against polio. As a Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International, I am particularly proud of the hundreds of thousands of Rotarians worldwide who have raised money and contributed more than $1 billion to the effort so far. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of UNICEF, I know firsthand the extraordinary contribution UNICEF has made to polio eradication. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative leads the world's efforts to end polio, bringing together not just Rotary International and UNICEF, but the World Health Organization, Global Citizen and, here in Australia, Results Australia. Of course, there are many others, including in the private sector, with the common objective of eradicating polio. When the Global Polio Eradication Initiative commenced, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries annually. Fast-forward to today, and in 2021 polio is 99 per cent eradicated. Polio remains in only two countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the entire African continent certified as polio-free just last year on 25 August. It is an amazing achievement. Some had considered the challenge of polio eradication, particularly in India, insurmountable. Nonetheless, with the extraordinary dedication of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and its partners, vaccination drives continued. In fact, in a single day in 1998, more than 134 million children in India were immunised against polio. The pay-off wasn't instant. In fact, it wasn't until 2014 that India and the rest of South-East Asia were finally declared polio-free. But now, in 2021, we have almost completely eradicated polio. What's more, we are seeing only a handful of cases in those two countries where it remains, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are remarkably close to finally ending polio forever. Australia has much to be proud of in the fight for polio eradication. We stood side-by-side with global health organisations. Come next year, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative will set out the final stages in this great journey to achieve complete eradication of polio by 2026. It means a major opportunity for Australia to reaffirm its commitment to polio eradication. As much of an achievement as polio eradication will be, it is also a rare chance to affirm the power vaccines have to change the world. As parliamentarians, we can all support this. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 Is the motion seconded? 17:03 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I second the motion and I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Higgins relating to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. We are honoured to be co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of UNICEF and advocates committed to the GPEI. We are also very fortunate to be living in a country where polio is eradicated and a world in which polio is 99 per cent eradicated. It is a remarkable achievement. Today the disease is almost forgotten except by the few whose lives were and remain directly affected. It was once hard to imagine that 70 years ago polio was rife across the globe. But over the past 18 months we all got a taste of what a worldwide pandemic actually looks like and feels like: cities shut down, borders closed, isolation from friends and family, spending most of our days online—they didn't have that luxury 70 years ago—working from home, watching Netflix. The only possible domestic travel was to the edge of your five-kilometre radius, as some of the lockdowns in Melbourne restricted us to. We've gone through the Rolodex, through many kinds of public health interventions, in our struggle to stop COVID-19 spreading. Now, just like with the polio epidemic, vaccination is the primary means by which we're aiming to end the pandemic for good. Thanks to vaccines, the prevalence of polio has been reduced to a small sliver of what it once was. At its worst, in the late 1940s, it infected hundreds of thousands and paralysed more than 35,000 people a year. Polio remains in only two countries—Pakistan and Afghanistan—with the entire African continent certified as polio free on 25 August 2020. This is a testament to science and what it can achieve and to vaccinations. It is a historical legacy of achievement, and it also speaks volumes as to what can be achieved when the international community works together. Much of this is thanks to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. The GPEI leads the world's efforts to end polio, bringing together the World Health Organization and many stakeholders with the core objective of ending polio once and for all. And we're almost there. It's fitting that we're talking on this motion today, given the new strain of COVID-19—omicron. This new variant, which was first identified in South Africa, has shed light on the low vaccination rates in developing countries. Despite the repeated warnings of health leaders around the world, our failure to put jabs in the arms of people in the developing world is the reason the virus has come back to haunt us with this variant. We were forewarned, yet we are here. Vaccine equity was critically important. The WHO asked every country to vaccinate at least 10 per cent of their population by September. More than 50 countries have missed this target. Most of these are in Africa. Our neighbour in the Pacific, Papua New Guinea, has achieved only 1.7 per cent coverage of the vaccine. Why are we forgetting that we are part of a global community? Why have we forgotten this, from the very beginning of the pandemic? Why are we forgetting that Australia has to play a role in protecting our region, supporting our friends and partners and stepping up to support that part of the developing world? We have delivered only 18 per cent of the COVID vaccinations that we promised to developing nations—just 18 per cent. This is not a partisan point here. I'm imploring the government to do better, because it affects all of us into the future. Until we vaccinate enough people, we will see this happen over and over again. We are literally in an arms race to vaccinate the world. I call on the Morrison government to step up. They talk about the Step-up policy in the Pacific. Well, they're not stepping up. It's time now that they do so, because it's in our interests in Australia and it's in our common global interests to actually vaccinate the parts of the world that have such low vaccination rates. I implore the government to do what is necessary to get those vaccines to our friends and partners, particularly in the Pacific as well as in other parts of the world. We are a wealthy nation. We are privileged in many respects. We could do so much better in helping our friends around the world with vaccination, and, by doing so, we would be helping ourselves as well. 17:08 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth It's very timely to be talking today about global polio eradication. Polio, of course, was one of the great scourges of humanity in the early part of the 20th century and one of the most dangerous communicable diseases that we laboured under. It did not discriminate between victims or countries, from children in the Third World to people such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and an uncle of mine, in fact, in Trinidad and Tobago. Many new people were afflicted by polio, even until the 1950s and 1960s, in Australia. What we've been able to achieve as a global community since the development of a polio vaccine has been little short of remarkable. Polio today is endemic in only two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are outbreaks from time to time in other countries, usually countries that are suffering from a degree of state failure or have highly fragile institutions, and we need to remain vigilant about that. But since 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative began, 2½ billion of the world's children have been immunised and polio cases worldwide have gone down by 99 per cent. It's a remarkable achievement, and initiatives such as the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and global governance bodies like the World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, have played an incredibly important role. In August 2020 the WHO announced that transmission of wild poliovirus had stopped in all 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, so we're now focused on quite a small number of countries. What this shows us is that, until we eradicate any communicable disease, it poses a risk to all of us and that the developed world has an obligation and an interest in helping developing or less developed countries to deal with this problem, not only because it's the right thing for our shared humanity, our shared values and our ideals but because ultimately we will not be safe from any communicable disease until it's eradicated everywhere. We are seeing that now with COVID-19 and the emergence of a new variant. It's no surprise that the deeper the disease reservoirs that exist for COVID-19, the greater the chance of new mutations forming and the greater the prospect of new variants emerging. These new variants can then quickly outcompete other variants and may well be more lethal or more transmissible or more likely to evade the protections of our immune system or protections afforded by vaccines. This is really the struggle we're dealing with now with COVID. The developed world, especially Australia but not only Australia, has done a very good job of rolling out vaccines quickly, and our scientific community has done a remarkable job in developing vaccines for a new disease in record time by using new technology, using messenger RNA technology, commercialising these vaccines, scaling them and distributing them. But, as we're reminded, we need to make sure that these vaccines are not only in the arms of our own population but in the arms of our neighbouring populations. The member for Wills mentioned Papua New Guinea. The low vaccination rate there does concern me. Papua New Guinea is a difficult country in which to vaccinate people because the terrain is very forbidding, transport infrastructure is not great, public health infrastructure is not well developed and there is a degree of scepticism and suspicion about vaccines. Vaccination programs generally struggle in Papua New Guinea, but we saw an outbreak of polio in Papua New Guinea in 2018, which Australia helped them get to grips with, and it's equally important now that we help them get to grips with COVID-19 as well. I think this omicron variant will only have strengthened our will to show that the world has the capacity and the means but also the political will to make sure this vaccination program reaches our neighbours. We've had great success in other parts of the Pacific, small islands, small estates, where the geography is a little more permissive and where public attitudes towards vaccination are perhaps a little less hostile—places like Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Samoa. But it's very important that, just as we had success with polio due to a persistent and well resourced campaign over many years, we bring the same attitude and resourcefulness and will to bear in the fight against COVID-19. 17:13 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Like many of my generation, my first exposure to polio was reading Alan Marshall's I Can Jump Puddles. I have since met people who survived polio and I note that some of those survivors are now experiencing post-polio syndrome in their later years. But, essentially, we've worked together to completely eradicate polio in the developed world and we're close to getting rid of it everywhere. Vaccination is the only effective preventative measure against polio, and Australia began mass vaccination in 1956. The country's last polio epidemic was in 1961-62, and that was after a second wave took hold because the vaccination rates weren't high enough to achieve herd immunity. So for Australia, this is largely history. Australians have been at the forefront of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which has been a joint effort led by Rotary International, the World Health Organization, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund—UNICEF—and many others. When the eradication program began, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries each year. In 2021, it is 99 per cent eradicated. The entire African continent was certified as polio free on 25 August 2020. Wild polio remains in only two countries—Pakistan and Afghanistan. Safe and effective polio vaccines have been the single most important factor in achieving that eradication. Australia has been a very strong supporter for more than three decades, and has invested more than $135 million in polio eradication over that time. And Rotary was at the forefront, working to eradicate polio for more than 35 years. In 1988, when the joint project with the World Health Organization was launched—that was the official start, but Rotary started a project to vaccinate children against polio in the Philippines in 1979. Rotary members have contributed more than $2.1 billion and countless volunteer hours to protect nearly three billion children from this paralysing disease. Rotary's advocacy efforts have played a role in decisions made by governments to contribute more than $10 billion to the effort, and my own local Rotary clubs have been involved in this initiative for many years. In 2013, I stood with Katoomba Rotarian Amanda Woods as she helped lobby the then Gillard government to recommit to funding the polio eradication program for another four years. Amanda acknowledged that Australia's contribution to the effort was a game changer when Prime Minister Gillard showed leadership at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011 and restored polio eradication to priority status on the international agenda. This year in the Mid Mountains, which Central Blue Mountains Rotary Club calls home, local businesses helped the club raise money through its End Polio fundraiser, where members walked, ran or rolled 10, 20 or 50 kilometres during the month. The support they received included sponsorship from local businesses like Wentworth Falls Podiatry and LoveBites Coffee company. In previous years and decades, every club in my electorate has contributed. They've walked, they've caught trains, they've worn their red 'end polio now' T-shirts to raise awareness. They haven't got sick of the challenge. They've kept going. Next year, 2022, will be a critical year for polio eradication as the program sets out its strategy to achieve eradication by 2026. Progress has been made, but the new challenges in the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan are certainly impeding efforts and risk the outbreak of new polio cases. Additional measures will be required to manage that risk so that we can ensure no widespread polio outbreak occurs. Now, this has been a vital global effort, and Rotary has been there. It is so easy to see the parallels that we have with the current pandemic, and I'm sure that people around the country would like to see the same level of commitment to Australia helping other countries deal with the COVID pandemic. We need to step up beyond what we are doing. Words are not enough. We have to make sure we do everything we can to help our neighbours, particularly in the Pacific, have the supplies they need and the education program needed to be able to increase their levels of vaccination. We can see what is happening. If we fail, we will be failing all those nations. 17:18 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I thank the member for Higgins for bringing forward this motion on the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. I have spoken a few times lately on medical treatments that are bringing an end to debilitating conditions. It might be a COVID thing with this endlessly ongoing disease, but it's nice to look around and see that we aren't victims to diseases and we have some agency against them. It takes time and effort, but eventually, with enough people focusing on one condition, we can consign it to the history books. Polio is one such story. Less than 100 years ago it was so prevalent that the president of the most powerful industrialised country in the world could have it. In prewar generations, polio was rife in Australia, with thousands of children suffering. Even when I was at school, one of my mates, Barry Mulligan, had polio and could only get around with the help of calipers and crutches. But while it was endemic in the thirties, in Australia our final case of polio was caught in 1972. Since then it has hardly been visible. Australia was declared polio free in 2000, at the same time as the whole of the western Pacific. The western Pacific point is important. As a rich country, we often have health outcomes that are better than the poorer countries around us, but eradicating polio is not about eradicating it in rich countries; it is about ensuring that it is consigned to history everywhere. That Australia was declared polio free at the same time as the western Pacific is very important. This excellent news has been continued across the world. As this motion says, in August 2020 the entire African continent was declared polio free and, around the world, polio is 99 per cent eradicated. How have we got there? Together. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative has brought together organisations like Rotary International, the World Health Organization and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund as well as the private sector to bring polio to heel. When it started, there were more than 350,000 cases of polio annually. Each of these cases resulted in a child being paralysed or killed. The program has been incredibly successful. The other key ingredient has been vaccination. The polio vaccine has been one of the more efficient vaccines, proving to be easily distributed and highly effective. The National Immunisation Program in Australia still operates a polio vaccine for newborns and infants, and, by this method, we will keep Australia free of this terrible condition. Just as we talk of smallpox being eradicated by a vaccine, soon this narrative may be taken over by the polio shot. But we are not fully there yet. Polio continues to spread in two countries: Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both of these countries have challenging health networks and very isolated, if not autonomous, regions. Lawlessness is as endemic as polio, and this makes treatment difficult. There have only been two cases this year, one in Pakistan and one in Afghanistan. However, 2021 has not been a good year for health reporting in either jurisdiction, and it is safe to assume that polio remains widespread, with continuing transmission throughout the community in these countries. Furthermore, COVID restrictions have caused massive disruptions to the eradication goals compared to 2019. In 2020, there were reports of increasing cases of circulating vaccine-derived polio virus globally and continued reports of wild polio virus cases in endemic countries. Polio vaccines were briefly stopped at the beginning of the pandemic as health care was diverted to more pressing areas. However, that has since been reinstated. So, although we don't know the extent of the COVID impacts, it is likely that there is underreporting of cases globally, particularly in resource-poor settings. That said, ultimately, polio is a good story. Hundreds of thousands of children who would have suffered from polio will now live full lives, thanks to modern medicine and the efforts of the international community. There is still more to do in a small number of countries, but we have the tools and the willpower to make this happen. Then, soon, the world will be able to look back at polio, knowing that we will never have to fear it again. 17:24 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I commend the member for Bennelong and his fine words on this motion. I also rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Higgins. Clearly there is fierce agreement across both sides of this chamber, the House and the parliament that Australia's efforts in eradicating polio are crucial, and they are supported, regardless of our political inclinations. My personal connection to this motion is on behalf of the electorate that I proudly represent. Dame Jean Macnamara, who the Australian Electoral Commission honoured with the naming of the electorate of Macnamara—formerly Melbourne Ports—was a pioneer in the treatment of polio. She was a pioneer in the treatment of people and children with polio. I will go into some of the scientific breakthroughs that she was famous for and managed to lead. But one of the things that does not get spoken about in relation to Dame Jean Macnamara, and which should be spoken about in any conversation about polio, is just how frightening it is for a young person or a child who is crippled by this disease. Dame Jean Macnamara was not just known for her brilliance and her sharp mind but also for her bedside manner and her ability to make young children feel calm and supported and to help treat them through this really difficult and awful disease. Dame Jean also helped lead some of the scientific development that eventually led to the development of a vaccine. While she began the experimental treatments around immune serum, it was widely acknowledged that the work she did in collaboration with Macfarlane Burnet, who is also a famous name in the medical research world of Australia. The Burnet Institute which currently resides in Macnamara, does some outstanding work on malaria vaccines and a range of other bits of research. They have done some outstanding work on COVID. These two fine Australian scientists paved the way for Dr Jonas Salk to develop the polio vaccine. So I pay tribute to Dame Jean, especially her early works in this fight against polio. Funnily enough, Dame Jean's granddaughter still lives in the seat. She is a dear friend of mine. I know her daughter as well. Dame Jean's granddaughter is actually a doctor, and we were speaking to each other about the outbreak of the coronavirus. I, at the time, had made some firm remarks about the need for vaccination and the need for people to get vaccinated. Dame Jean Macnamara's granddaughter has been running a vaccination clinic locally in my electorate and has literally vaccinated thousands of locals in the effort to combat coronavirus. We were discussing that the stance that I took as a member of parliament but, more importantly, that she took as a doctor is exactly the same stance that Dame Jean Macnamara would have taken had she been here during this pandemic. She would have insisted that vaccinations are the way through this and she would have insisted that people have confidence in taking the vaccine to prevent this disease from spreading. Obviously, this virus is not over. And, obviously, this virus is still running its course through humanity and through the globe. Just like with polio, until COVID is eradicated everywhere, it is eradicated nowhere. We must commit ourselves to the global eradication, not just of polio but also of this awful, novel coronavirus. The final thing I will say on this is that I think we have heard the best of this parliament in this debate contribute to our efforts on polio. I think it is incumbent on all of us to be giving the same commitment to vaccinations and the treatment of this disease as we have to polio. I think it is fair to say that some members of the government have been outstanding and some members of the government who have been absolutely appalling. Some have put vaccine misinformation out there and actively encouraged civil disobedience against health authorities. I want to call that out in this instance and say that that is not the best of this parliament. It is not acceptable. We commit ourselves on both sides of this House to actually treating people and getting over these two awful diseases. 17:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I acknowledge the words spoken by the member for Macnamara and I agree with him. Certainly, given the fact that he has put a challenge out there, I do distance myself from the remarks of people who are calling for social and civil disobedience. I felt the gallows that were erected and taken to the Melbourne protests were absolutely despicable. The people who do that sort of thing as part of protests, particularly on a health issue, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Any person who is a community and political leader who wants to spread misinformation and fear amongst their communities should also think long and hard about the role that they are playing in their communities, because people listen, people look at their Facebook posts, people observe and follow. Older Australians in particular don't need to have this sort of misinformation before them, because it makes them worried, it makes them anxious, and it leads to a lower vaccination rate in those communities. But we're talking about polio, which is so important. I acknowledge my good friend the member for Macarthur. I also acknowledge the member for Higgins, who brought this important motion to the floor of this chamber. John Winterbottom, a mate of mine in Wagga Wagga, contracted polio in 1948. He was only three years old. He, along with three other people in a very small area of Wagga Wagga, which was not a very large town then, all contracted polio at around the same time. John spent 2½ years in the Wagga Wagga hospital. Thereafter, every six months, until he was 14 years old, he would go to the Far West home in Manly for treatment. Yet John, through his perseverance and resilience and through the great medical assistance he received, managed to survive, managed to live—and continues to do so—and managed to contribute to his community. But he had an awful limp. I remember John telling me, with amusement, about how one day he had gone into a hardware store, dragging one of his legs behind him. The fellow in the hardware store had similarly been afflicted by polio. John had asked for some sort of hardware implement, and the fellow had gone to get it and limped away. It was almost like one of those bad British comedies—although it's certainly no laughing matter in the Federation Chamber. But John said that the fellow had turned around, limping, and he thought he was taking him off. He had turned back to get the screw or the nail or the hammer or whatever it was. John had limped forward towards him, and the fellow had turned around again and asked: 'Are you taking me off? Are you mocking me?' He said, 'No, I have polio.' They became firm friends after that, both sharing an affliction that, sadly, so many in Australia had contracted. Thankfully, due to the great work of a number of philanthropic organisations, not least of which is Rotary, we are now polio free in Australia. As the member for Macnamara so eloquently put it, hopefully we will be coronavirus free with a similar determination to roll up our sleeves and get jabbed. It is not that hard. Polio remains endemic in two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that is very unfortunate. I know that the African continent has so many countries which go without so much, but so much work has been done in Africa, thankfully, because of the philanthropic efforts of people such as Bill Gates and Rotary International. I have to say that in my home district, 9705, in and around the Riverina and Central West, Rotary clubs have dug deep for so many years to provide so many funds for this so important a cause. I commend all the efforts aimed at making sure that one day the world will be polio free, just like I hope that one day we will be coronavirus free. I commend every medical professional for taking the time in this space to do what they can to make a healthier society and a healthier world. 17:34 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I thank the member for Riverina for his wonderful speech and also the member for Macnamara for reminding us about the work of Dame Jean Macnamara, who became world famous for her treatment of children who had been severely impacted by polio. The member for Higgins is to be congratulated for moving this motion and commended for congratulating Rotary International, the global fund, Results Australia and the work they're doing to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. I'll happily speak to this motion, of course, for a few reasons. First of all, I consider myself a very lucky man: my generation of Australians were the first to receive polio immunisation. I have a cousin about three years younger than me who, unfortunately, developed polio before she could be immunised and she was severely impacted. I can remember talking to my mother about how terrified people were of catching polio, or of their children succumbing to polio. When I started working in the children's hospital in Sydney, when it was at Camperdown, they still had the mechanical ventilator in the basement. It was like a big metal piston which used negative pressure to breathe for children whose respiratory muscles were paralysed by polio. Some of those children didn't survive and some that did were severely damaged. Even if they survived, in the present time many of them are suffering from post-polio syndrome. So polio is a dreadful disease. I myself have seen children with polio—not in this country, but in the subcontinent—in my early years of training. It's a dreadful disease and we must not ever become complacent about it. Many generations of medicos have now in fact never seen the childhood illnesses of polio, tetanus or diphtheria, or even measles, because of our immunisation programs. Those are really transformative: they've transformed the medical landscape in the developed world and are doing so in the present pandemic also. However, in the Third World, in developing countries, polio still has the potential to explode in unimmunised populations. The work of Rotary International over many decades has been trying to eradicate polio around the world, and that work continues. We're still seeing cases of polio reported in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the potential still exists for polio to occur in other countries which have low immunisation rates. We've spoken about the present pandemic; some countries in sub-Saharan Africa still have immunisation rates for COVID-19 under two per cent of the eligible population. We will not eradicate COVID and we will not reduce the health impacts of COVID around the world until our immunisation rates increase. Immunisation is vital. I've remarked previously on Australia's role in this. Australia must step up its efforts to increase immunisation rates around the world. And it's not just in Australia; it's to our north in Papua New Guinea and in the Pacific Islands, the subcontinent and around the world where we must try to increase our COVID immunisation rates. We owe it to our neighbours and to ourselves in general to get the world population immunised for COVID. We must reaffirm our commitment to eradicating it around the world. If COVID has taught us anything, it's that we're living in a connected world and that it doesn't take long before an outbreak of disease in somewhere like South Africa comes to our shores. Health care has come a long way since I first started studying medicine but, tragically, there are still far too many deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases—not just polio but diseases like measles. We saw an outbreak of measles in Samoa recently that killed a number of children. It's always important that we recognise the human effect of these diseases not just on our population but on populations around the world. Unfortunately, there are people in this parliament who are actively trying to undermine our immunisation program for COVID-19, and this must stop. I welcome any steps that governments take to further our cause in eradicating not just polio but other infectious diseases around the world. 17:39 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I'd like to thank the member for Macarthur, whose contributions on this and other matters are always so well considered and well thought out. I particularly want to reiterate, before I get into my speech, his point about immunisation and vaccines because it is well made and timely. Importantly, in this debate it is worth reminding people of what the member for Macarthur just said, which is that we now live in a world largely free of polio, and we are very lucky in Australia, but that this didn't just happen; this happened because public health officials globally—not just in one country but globally—made a concerted effort to eliminate polio from their countries so that we could live free of it. That's something that was achieved through vaccines that led to immunisations. Even though it doesn't naturally flow, I also at this point want to thank Rotary International, because this was a program—and I stand to be corrected—in which they decided in the 1960s to eliminate polio from the face of the world, and they are so very close. They are incredibly close to achieving that. I came across that point when I was watching, during the recent pandemic lockdown we had—so some good came of it—Inside Bill's Brain,which is about how Bill Gates, with Rotary, has used the power of data to drive polio from so many countries. We got so very close to eliminating polio from the face of this planet, but, unfortunately, we were not successful at that time because there were hard-to-reach regions on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We've had the withdrawal of the security forces in Afghanistan; that will now complicate matters more. Of course, the pandemic also made it very difficult for us to reach those people that needed to be reached. But we have learnt so much and we should not give up, because we are so close. It is for that reason that Australia is committed to the global eradication of polio, and we have supported not just as a government but as a nation the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, otherwise known as GPEI. Australia itself was declared polio free in 2000, and I think it's important to remember that that was only very recent. The other day I was watching something with my 12-year-old and a thing came up saying, 'Imagine if you were transported back to a time long ago,' and it was 1994. I thought, I remember 1994 very well, so it wasn't that long ago, hopefully! But 2000 is very recent, and it was only then that we could officially say that we were polio free. It remains endemic in two countries, though there are suspicions that it is also endemic in a number of African nations. But the two that we know of are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until poliovirus transmission is interrupted in these countries, other countries remain at risk of importation of polio. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed challenges to polio eradication goals, through disruptions to immunisation programs and surveillance, making 2022 a critical year for polio eradication activities. So Australia, along with the western Pacific region—and the member for Macarthur was making this very good point—was declared polio free in 2000, but there is still much work that we need to do and that we need to stay on top of in the South Pacific. We have an excellent record when it comes to polio control, with the last case of poliomyelitis caused by locally acquired wild polio virus in Australia reported in 1972 and the last imported case of WPV reported in 2007. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted public health globally through the disruptions to surveillance and immunisation activities, although we hope that this will change next year.   17:44 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I'm really pleased to rise to join these important contributions from a number of colleagues this evening. This is an important topic, and it's good that it's being addressed in this chamber. I would echo the comments of many of my colleagues as I begin by saying how fortunate I am that I grew up in an environment where polio was certainly nothing I had to worry about contracting myself. My parents didn't have to worry about me contracting it, and now, with my children, I am certainly not worried about them contracting polio. I am not worried, because of the success of the vaccination program. This is truly a global success story. It shows us what happens when we, as an international community and as a nation, put the effort in—when we realise the benefits of what science has brought us and the safety that vaccines bring us from these diseases that, as many have talked about this evening, ravaged lives. Polio left children in the position of carrying a lifelong disability or being in an iron lung, and, unfortunately, obviously, some children also died of polio. As I said, that is something that I have never had to experience in my lifetime—what a privilege. I very much hope that this is the direction that we, as a world, are heading in when it comes to COVID-19 and vaccinations. I know, when I have conversations with people in my community about vaccination, many of the stories that older people want to tell me are about their experience of the rollout of the polio vaccine in Australia—about just how important that time was and how people were anticipating and waiting for this vaccine because they'd seen the devastation that polio caused for too many families. This is the potential that is within our grasp with the COVID vaccine now. We have excellent vaccine rates in our country. We can continue to push those higher and, of course, we can do the global work that has been happening with the polio vaccine. We can do this global work with the COVID vaccine. There is absolutely a role for Australia to play here as a good neighbour to our Pacific family and also as a good global citizen: to be a lead actor in making sure that we support countries around the world with their COVID vaccination efforts, both with vaccines and with information that combats the misinformation that is out there. There is too much misinformation, and we need people to understand the benefits that these vaccines bring. So I very much hope that is the next thing that Australia does in this space, because, as the past few days have shown us, we're not safe until the world is vaccinated, and that is really important. As I said, this is a global success story—the effort to get polio eradicated in so many countries and also to have so many people vaccinated. I want to acknowledge the work of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, together with Rotary International, who have been such leaders in this space; the World Health Organization; other UN organisations; and the private sector, as well, who I know have been involved in this effort. I am such a supporter of this global polio initiative and I was delighted earlier this year to meet with representatives of Global Citizen, who are one of the Australian organisations who continually push us to be a supporter and an active participant in the push for global polio eradication. Since 1988, when the World Health Assembly first resolved to attempt eradication, huge progress has been made around the world. It's estimated that 16 million people are able to walk today who otherwise would have been paralysed, some in iron lungs, and approximately 1.5 million people are now alive who might otherwise have been dead as a result of polio. This is a phenomenal achievement, and, as I said, as we face this global pandemic, it is something we can look to as to what we can achieve—as a nation, but also as a world—together. We know that what is termed 'wild polio' is now only in two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in fact Africa was certified as polio free in August 2020. This success really is a result of the GPEI's extensive worldwide community-driven vaccination program, which has been the largest of its kind in the world, to safeguard children from polio worldwide. We should be proud of Australia's efforts and the strong role we've played, investing $135 million over three decades into it. So it is important now that we don't give up—that we make that last push on polio and we continue to hunt out the inaccessible places and to battle the misinformation to eradicate polio across our world. We've shown so much can be achieved; there's just a bit more to be done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Juvenile Arthritis 183 17:49 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I move: That this House: (1) notes that juvenile arthritis affects between 6,000-10,000 Australian children and adolescents; (2) further notes that of the Australian children living with juvenile arthritis: (a) 80 per cent will experience pain daily; (b) 20 per cent develop a vision-threatening inflammation of the eyes; and (c) many experience lengthy delays in obtaining a formal diagnosis; (3) commends the work of the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation of Australia and their tireless advocacy for young Australians living with juvenile arthritis; and (4) recommends that the Government provides funding to establish programs aimed at: (a) raising awareness of this disease; and (b) developing a national registry and research package to better understand the extent and impact of juvenile arthritis on individuals and the economy. I came to this place to provide a voice for my community and for the many patients I've cared for over the years. Some of those patients suffer from juvenile arthritis. One organisation that I've been privileged to work with since I've been in parliament and that I support is the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation Australia. I support them alongside the member for Higgins, who co-convenes the Parliamentary Friends of Arthritis with me. Juvenile arthritis is a serious, incurable and debilitating disease that affects up to 10,000 young children and adolescents around the country, and more than double that number of adults are suffering the side effects of the childhood arthritis. The Juvenile Arthritis Foundation Australia is a wonderful organisation founded by professors Ruth and Stephen Colagiuri. It seeks to advocate for these children and families, and it's doing a fantastic job. But we must help them to provide state-of-the-art treatment for children with juvenile arthritis. There is no proper Australia-wide program to develop paediatric rheumatologists to treat these children, and many children are missing out on care because of delayed diagnosis and the lack of a comprehensive program to provide multidisability treatment for them. Between five and 10 per cent of these children also suffer from what's called uveitis, which is a chronic inflammatory disease of the eye that can lead to blindness. Some of these children can't get to see an ophthalmologist because of the lack of a comprehensive program for their care. Many of these young Australians have really suffered a lot because of their juvenile arthritis. Before the COVID lockdown we had a meeting in this place where we heard the stories of the children and their families, and they were really harrowing. Juvenile arthritis is not uncommon, but the diagnosis is often missed because of a lack of proper training for general practitioners and other health professionals. One in five children with juvenile arthritis will develop uveitis and 80 per cent of children living with juvenile arthritis have daily pain that's often difficult to manage. One in three people who have suffered from juvenile arthritis will enter later life with a severe disability. There's a shortfall in specialist services around the country, but particularly in the more populous states such as New South Wales. I've been privileged to work with a close friend of mine Dr Jeffrey Chaitow, a paediatric rheumatologist, who has provided wonderful care for children with juvenile arthritis in New South Wales, but he has severely limited resources because we're not training enough people to deal with juvenile arthritis. There's a shortfall in specialist services in things like paediatric physiotherapy and occupational therapy. As I mentioned, there's a shortfall in ophthalmologists who can assess and treat these children quickly. Unfortunately, although it's so common in a complex condition, the children are waiting far too long for a diagnosis. We must have a comprehensive national plan. The effect of juvenile arthritis on families is severe. Children often struggle to get to school because of pain. They often have physical disabilities because of limitations in joint movement and contractions, and the effect of this is really profound. These children battle every day, and their families battle with them. We must raise awareness, we must provide comprehensive care plans for them and we must train more people in paediatric rheumatology so better treatment can be provided to these kids. We need to address the shortfall in services around the country. We need to improve affordability and accessibility of care and the quality of care that the children are getting. Whilst I am most familiar with the problems in New South Wales, I know that in places like Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia it's very difficult to get comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment for children with multiple joint abnormalities. Some children have other associated problems, such as heart problems. Some children suffer, as I mentioned, from uveitis and visual impairment. Early treatment and early diagnosis to prevent disability are the key to management, and we must do better as a country. I'll be talking about this more next year, because we are about to start a health committee inquiry into better treatment for juvenile arthritis, but we as a country must do better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 Is the motion seconded? 17:55 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I second the motion. Thank you to my friend and colleague the member for Macarthur for bringing forward this important motion today. As he often does, he reminds us that there are good people on both sides. Juvenile arthritis is a serious, incurable, debilitating autoimmune disease affecting an estimated 6,000 to 10,000 children and adolescents in Australia. For a condition with such a high prevalence, there is an incredible lack of awareness of this condition. For example, today I learned that shorthand for juvenile arthritis is JA, something I feel I should have known sooner! The condition is debilitating but also unpredictable: mornings without flare-ups are no guarantee of a pain-free afternoon. And when the condition does flare up, the excruciating pain can leave people unable to walk, move and, importantly, play and socialise. At this age particularly, even temporary disability can leave lasting stigma and depression. With effects like this it would be logical to think that juvenile arthritis would be better known, and yet despite the prevalence being similar to childhood diabetes and epilepsy, and around six times more common than cystic fibrosis, there is hardly any political or community awareness of juvenile arthritis. Thankfully, there is some movement by the government to address this condition. In 2018 the government commissioned the National Strategic Action Plan for Arthritis, which is an evidence-informed blueprint to guide national efforts to improve the health-care-related quality of life for people living with arthritis, including children living with juvenile arthritis. The action plan was released in 2019 and implementation funding of $4 million has been provided to date, focusing on consumer awareness-raising, educational activities and health professional education and training for arthritis. In regard to juvenile arthritis specifically, activity being implemented under the action plan includes development and dissemination of guidance on consumer focused care for people with the condition, their carers and families, and support for kids camps run by arthritis organisations. These camps provide an opportunity for children and adolescents to meet others like themselves and to participate in condition-appropriate and fun activities. They include educational workshops and self-management techniques delivered in a fun environment, and provide important opportunities for peer support both for the child and for their families and carers. For a disease that can limit the amount of childhood that a child can enjoy, camps like this can make a real difference. The emotional and physical therapies for juvenile arthritis are obviously important, but we must also devote time and energy to finding treatments and, hopefully, a cure, so that this condition does not continue to bring pain to people into the future. On October 14 2021 the health minister announced a new grant opportunity through the Medical Research Future Fund's Emerging Priorities and Consumer-Driven Research initiative, targeted at chronic musculoskeletal conditions in children and adolescents and with funding of up to $20 million over four years, from 2021 to 2022. The objective of this grant opportunity is to provide financial support to Australian medical research and medical innovation projects that develop or improve approaches for the early diagnosis of chronic musculoskeletal conditions occurring in children and generate knowledge that supports the development and implementation of improved therapeutic regimes through models of care for chronic musculoskeletal diseases in children. The grant opportunity will target chronic autoimmune diseases that affect the musculoskeletal system, such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis, juvenile system lupus erythematosus and juvenile scleroderma. The final piece of this puzzle is education. We can't treat these conditions if we can't diagnose it, and early detection is key. There needs to be more education for doctors and clinicians. I understand that work is also underway to develop a living guideline for juvenile arthritis as part of a health professional's education and training via a grant funded by the government, led by the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network and cochrane musculoskeletal— (Time expired.) 18:00 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to support the motion moved by my friend and colleague the member for Macarthur. Dr Freelander has had a long and distinguished career as a paediatrician and is passionate about quality health care for all Australians, especially children and young people. I commend him for bringing this motion to the parliament. As Dr Freelander has said, juvenile arthritis is serious, incurable and debilitating, and it affects between 6,000 and 10,000 young children and adolescents across Australia. While juvenile arthritis is relatively common, about as prevalent as childhood diabetes or epilepsy, it does not receive the same level of attention. This motion aims to help change that, and to raise the profile and prominence of juvenile arthritis in the wider community and, importantly, with decision-makers and funders. As the motion states, juvenile arthritis can have a profound impact: one in five children with juvenile arthritis will develop inflammation of the eyes, which can permanently impair sight and cause blindness. Eighty per cent of children with juvenile arthritis live with pain each day, impacting their learning, their play and their mental health. There are 30,000 adults in Australia today whose arthritis started in childhood, and one in three of these people will have a severe disability. As the member for Macarthur mentioned, there is a shortfall of specialist services available to Australian children living with juvenile arthritis, and, as is all too common, this shortfall is even more acute outside of the big cities. A grandparent in the electorate I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales wrote to me about his granddaughter. He said, 'Our granddaughter suffers from ankylosing spondylitis, a form of arthritis that has a very significant inheritable causative factor.' He goes on to say: 'I myself have suffered a lifelong severe disability, with symptoms commencing in the 1950s. Much less was known of the disease in those days, and most sufferers went undiagnosed for years, leading to a lifelong disability. Better knowledge and management these days will ameliorate these impediments to a successful life.' He goes on to say: 'Unfortunately, these are sadly lacking in New South Wales. The continual pain and disability resulting from these diseases very seriously impair these lives of the sufferers; moreover, the family burden resulting is also significant. Time is lost, financial burden incurred and family relationships are harmed. Affected children such as our granddaughter need the care of a paediatric rheumatologist, a physiotherapist, trained nurses, pain management and psychological counselling. These services are all lacking in New South Wales.' He finishes by saying, 'Much better care should be available to sufferers of juvenile arthritis.' As is common with a range of complex conditions, children are waiting far too long for diagnosis, which means that that they are waiting even longer for effective treatment and care. The early years of life are critical to our social, cognitive and emotional development. Children and adolescents with juvenile arthritis unfortunately miss out on a lot because of their condition, whether it's time off from school because of pain or because of treatment, the social impact of having to miss out on activities, or the complexities associated with diagnosis, treatment and support. These children struggle. As the member for Macarthur said, they battle each day. We owe it to them to give juvenile arthritis the attention that it deserves. Juvenile arthritis must receive proper recognition so that these children can access the services they need close to home and when they need them. But we also need to address the delays families experience in obtaining a diagnosis. Ten months is far too long for a child living in pain each day to wait, and, as a society, we must do better. We also need to address the shortfall in services to manage this condition. In particular, we need to improve the affordability, accessibility and quality of paediatric rheumatology services across the nation, but especially for young children and families living outside of big cities. Early diagnosis and expert care by specialist multidisciplinary teams can significantly reduce permanent joint and eye damage, stop pain and disability, and improve lives. I also support calls made by the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation Australia—and it was a pleasure to meet with them in Canberra earlier this year—to establish a national registry and research package into juvenile arthritis. Appropriate recognition and appropriate funding from all levels of government is critical if we are to better understand the disease, better train people working in diagnosis and treatment of the disease, and improve the quality of life for all those who live with it. It will be much better for all Australians, particularly young people, who at the moment are waiting 10 months for diagnosis and waiting even longer for effective treatment. Early diagnosis and early treatment mean that many of these young people might avoid the lifelong disability associated with juvenile arthritis today. So I commend the member for Macarthur for bringing this motion to the House and I support the calls of the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation of Australia for more support. 18:05 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin It is difficult to contribute to this debate without repeating some of the matters and discussion points that have already been raised by other speakers. I commend the member for Macarthur for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, because it is indeed a serious matter. I for one have always looked at arthritis as being an adult's disease or illness or ailment. But the reality is that, as the member for Macarthur quite rightly points out in the motion, arthritis can affect anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000 young people. Indeed, even those numbers are questionable, because we don't have either a register or adequate research to establish what the real rate is of young people that are affected by the disease. Nevertheless 6,000 to 10,000 young people are affected that we know of. For them, life can be incredibly debilitating. I can only imagine what it would be like for a young person, each and every day to deal with joint stiffness, pain, swelling, joint tenderness and possibly bone growth problems, which in turn affect the whole development of the young person. As a result of all that, it is more than likely the young person will be excluded from a whole range of daily activities that other kids would be able to participate in. Whilst there might be a little bit of support already in the form of perhaps a bit of guidance from their GPs and other health professionals, the reality is that it is a disease that is not curable at this point in time. Yes, there is support that can be provided to them. Certainly, by way of nutrition and maybe some forms of exercises, their life can be made a little better—in particular, exercises such as swimming and bike riding, which are not stressful on the joints and which can help with muscle strengthening aspects of it all. But, ultimately, they will not fix up the disease itself. That is something we should be focusing on, and this motion talks about that by talking about research and also establishing a register. As a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, having to confront parents of young children with any kind of debilitating disease is something that breaks your heart. I have said it in this place before and I will say it time and time again: it disappoints me that every time we see these young people, particularly if they have a rare disease that has not been properly researched, we can never find the money to carry out the research, to set up the registers or to give them the same support we do when it comes to other diseases, and yet we can, in the blink of an eye, find billions of dollars for defence equipment. I'm not saying defence equipment is not important; I am simply making the point that sometimes the amount of money that is being asked for is absolutely minuscule and it will change lives and even sometimes save lives. We can't find money for that but we can find it for other purposes. One of the concerns I have about this particular disease, from the research I have been able to put together, is that, as other speakers have quite rightly said, it sometimes takes a long time for the diagnosis to be verified. That means that, for all of that time, the child goes undiagnosed, untreated and unsupported, and therefore has a much worse lifestyle than would otherwise be possible. One of the reasons for that, from what I understand and according to one publication, is that in Australia we only have 22 paediatric rheumatologists. That in itself highlights a shortfall in the medical profession. I'm not sure how well a normal GP would understand this condition or what sort of advice or treatment they should be providing, so one of the first things we need to do as a nation is to try to ensure that we have enough professionals in the medical field who are able to provide the advice and support that these children need so that they can, in turn, impart that advice to the GPs and so on. That's because without their support, obviously, we can't find those cures and treatments. It's a disease which is quite often—in fact, too often—misunderstood and therefore neglected. So this motion goes straight to the point of having the register and carrying out the research, which I strongly believe we need to do, so that at least we give these kids a chance and, hopefully, one day find a cure for what is indeed a very debilitating disease. 18:10 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In 2016 I got a call from my friends Macgregor Duncan and Tanya Dmitronow about their one-year-old son, Leo. They told me that he had been diagnosed with juvenile polyarticular arthritis. This meant that he had many severely swollen joints, including his ankles, knees and fingers. Leo was in a lot of pain, and a little boy who had been crawling had now ceased crawling after weeks of testing in hospital. My friends knew that if his arthritis went without proper treatment it would probably mean permanent disability, a life of pain and possibly even blindness. Soon after he was diagnosed my friends returned to Australia from the United States, where they had been living, and they remarked to me how they were struck by the lack of attention to or resources for juvenile arthritis sufferers in Australia compared to the United States. As others have mentioned, juvenile arthritis affects just as many children as does juvenile diabetes, and many times more than have cystic fibrosis, and yet across the nation there are only 22 paediatric rheumatologists, limited community awareness and support, and little research funding. My friends Mac and Tanya are lucky. They live in a city and they have a great paediatric rheumatologist. Leo's illness is so well dealt with that they tell me he is now the fastest runner and swimmer in his class. But that might not be the case if he lived in a rural or regional area. So we do need to do better for Australian kids with arthritis. I commend the member for Macarthur for bringing this motion forward and the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation Australia for their advocacy on this issue. In March this year I was really pleased to meet with JAFA's representatives as part of their launch of the national campaign to stop pain and disability in kids with arthritis and to meet with Associate Professor Ruth Colaguiri and other experts on juvenile arthritis. It's a disease which afflicts between 6,000 and 10,000 Australian children and adolescents, 80 per cent of whom experience pain daily. In the ACT, Rebecca Davey of Build a Better Me: Arthritis & ME/CFS ACT told me the stories of two Canberra children who are affected by juvenile arthritis. There is Julia, an eight-year-old who is legally blind from the disease; it affects her eyes and other organs. She travels from Canberra to Sydney every month for injections and drainage from some of her larger joints since there is no paediatric rheumatologist in the ACT; her parents have to take time off work. She does hydrotherapy to assist with pain relief and improve joint mobility, but she can't always get into the pools. The medicine she takes reduces her immune response, which means that her parents are constantly worried about the fear of contracting COVID in school or about a family member bringing it home. She has some NDIS funding, but the interstate trips are also a burden on the family. And there is Sam, a 13-year-old who attends school in the ACT. His juvenile arthritis took five years to diagnose. He misses up to half of his schooling due to joint swelling and stiffness unless he gets up really early and gets moving in order to allow the stiffness to settle Sometimes Sam needs to use a wheelchair, sometimes he doesn't need to use a wheelchair, and that in itself generates a stigma because sometimes people in authority question whether he's really sick or disabled, or just 'seeking attention'—and that only makes it harder. He has regular blood tests, fortnightly injections and regular X-rays and MRIs to try and track his disease. Some days he gets out with his mates, other days he's in bed with incredible pain, and he hates not knowing what the day will bring. That affects his schooling outcomes and his social outcomes, and it may well affect his work and his lifelong earning capacity. There is the concern, as well, that he might pass the disease on to his children, since it is a definite familial trait. I commend those who are working with children with juvenile arthritis. It does deserve more attention. We need a national registry and a research package to better understand the extent and impact of juvenile arthritis on individuals and on the Australian economy. Debate adjourned. Genocide 187 18:16 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I move: That this House: (1) recognises that 9 December 2021 is the United Nations' International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and the Prevention of this Crime; (2) notes that 9 December 2021 is also the 73rd anniversary of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; (3) further recognises that that development of the Genocide Convention was motivated by genocidal crimes of the 20th Century including: (a) the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities; and (b) the genocide of six million Jews committed by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945; (4) acknowledges the importance of recognising, condemning and learning from these and subsequent genocidal crimes to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated; (5) remembers the loss and suffering caused by genocides in the modern era and their enduring impact on the lives of many Australians and their descendants; and (6) calls on the Government to: (a) affirm its long-standing support for the prevention of genocide and the punishment of those who perpetrate or instigate genocidal crimes; and (b) formally recognise the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities. There are two places in world I've visited which have moved me to my very core. They both represent some of the darkest chapters in modern human history. Sitting on the western slope of Mount Herzl in Jerusalem lies Yad Vashem, Israel's official remembrance and memorial centre for those who perished in the Holocaust. I visited Yad Vashem three times. The third time was just as powerful as the first. Within the complex, nothing touched me more than the children's memorial, where the loss of 1.5 million Jewish children is remembered. All of the victims of the Holocaust were innocent of any crime other than being who they were culturally or by their faith, yet there is something especially moving and disturbing in reflecting on those children, in their age of innocence and with their lives before them, being murdered without compunction or compassion. How could this ever be so? On a ridge above the Armenian capital of Yerevan sits an austere but impressive memorial and museum dedicated to the 1.5 million Armenians killed during the Ottoman Empire, in one of the greatest tragedies of the modern era. Just over two years ago, I visited Yerevan with my federal colleagues the members for Goldstein and Bennelong. We planted a tree in the grove of remembrance and we laid a wreath. These were small gestures that reflected our determination to ensure that the suffering of the Armenian people during its genocide is never forgotten. Both places are heart wrenching and sobering. Both so clearly convey the barbaric impact and magnitude of genocidal crimes designed to exterminate a people based on their ethnicity and beliefs. On 9 December this year, as happens every year, the United Nations will mark the crimes of genocide that have killed so many millions in the modern era. It will reflect on that great early achievement in the United Nations' history, the adoption of the convention against genocide. The immediate impetus for that convention was the events of the Holocaust and the global determination to make sure that international law recognised the crime against humanity that genocide represents. But, as one of its primary authors, Raphael Lemkin, often acknowledged, the roots lay earlier—in the genocide undertaken by the Ottoman government. The Holocaust and the Armenian genocides are linked so clearly in driving the creation of that convention, yet they have been treated differently. Australia and the international community, with few exceptions, recognise the Holocaust for what it was: a genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. Importantly, this is accepted by current generations of Germans, and their governments have strived for atonement and reconciliation in a way that has been both moving and incredible. Yet similar recognition has not been given to the Armenians or the Assyrians or the Greeks, past or present, for the genocide they faced in the Ottoman Empire, despite the enduring scars and legacies. In contrast to Germany, the successor of the Ottoman state, modern Turkey, stridently resists recognition of that genocide for what it was, let alone makes any efforts to heal the wounds wrought by those events. It is time that changed, and Australia must play its part by joining what has been a slow but growing number of nations that have recognised the Armenian and other genocides of the Ottoman regime. This year, the United States, in a historic statement made by President Biden, joined the list of over 30 other nations that have now done so. These events started 106 years ago, yet they remain relevant today. For the Armenian, Syrian and Greek people, and their diasporas, that great loss haunts their communities. So many count grandparents and other relatives amongst the dead or dislocated. However, the case for recognising the genocide has a much more profound calling, not only based on identifying the truth of past events but also on our efforts to prevent these tragedies occurring again and befalling other communities. We should never forget the words of Hitler, who on the eve of launching his own murderous assault on the people of Poland said, 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' These crimes cannot be forgotten, and Australia must play its part in making sure they're not. We owe it to truth and justice, and we owe it to the memory of the millions who perished and their descendants—and to the hope of atonement. And we owe it to the world as we strive to achieve a more peaceful global community, free of crimes that threaten whole communities based on their attributes of race, or culture or belief. 1948 was a landmark year, with the optimism and determination of the still-young United Nations to address crimes against humanity like genocide—that's the most evil of all. It is that spirit we should remember on 9 December and it is that spirit we should be leaving as our own legacy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? 18:21 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I second the motion, and I rise in support of the motion moved by my friend, the member for North Sydney. Together, we convene the Australia-Armenia parliamentary group. The International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and the Prevention of this Crime is an important one, and those of us who are making a contribution to the debate tonight would like to see it receive more attention. In particular, we'd like to generate more attention for the Armenian genocide. For too many years, survivors and their descendants of that terrible event have been ignored. Their calls for historic justice have largely fallen on deaf ears. A little more than 106 years ago, more than three million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek peoples lost their lives for no other reason but for their ethnicity and their beliefs. That is genocide: there is no other word for it. And it's time that the Australian parliament joined with many others who have recognised it as such. This is important, not only to give closure to those affected by the events of 1915 but to send a clear signal to the world that genocidal behaviour will not be tolerated by our community of nations. Support for the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide means taking resolute action on all genocides—tolerating genocide denial does all of us harm. It's a stain on our conscience and it prevents survivors from achieving proper healing. I understand the events of 1915 are a sensitive issue amongst Australians of Turkish heritage. But recognition of the crimes of the Ottoman Empire's leaders is no more a reflection on our Turkish friends here in Australia than is the recognition of the crimes of the Nazis on Australians of German heritage—zero reflection. Earlier this year, as indicated by the member for North Sydney, the United States took the important historic step of recognising the Armenian genocide. President Biden's recognition is a significant shift in US foreign policy. In recognising the genocide of 2015 he has led the way, and has joined some 32 other countries around the world in making such a recognition. It's time for the Australian parliament to do the same. By continuing to remain silent, and tolerating genocide denialism, we are effectively diminishing the very legacy established by our forefathers and the great work they did to help the victims of this horrible crime. Our Anzacs were there, by their side, in 1915, and Australia accepted many refugees. Armenian and other diaspora have generously continued to support those who have an ongoing disadvantage because of the genocide. I have seen the Australian Armenians do that firsthand. I've had the confronting experience of visiting the former Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland. One million people were gassed to death in that camp. Six million Jews across Europe were murdered in the Holocaust. It is surely the worst atrocity in modern human history, if not all of human history. Visiting Auschwitz today, you see people shedding tears. Even the most hardened of them. It's difficult not to. The families of those Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks who were victims of the 1915 genocide do not ask for our tears; they simply ask for recognition. Like the member for North Sydney, I have had the confronting experience of visiting the Armenian genocide memorial in Yerevan, Armenia's modern capital. There, too, it is difficult not to be overwhelmed by emotion. I predict that in coming years more parliaments around the world will add themselves to the list of those recognising the events of 1915. I hope the Australian parliament is amongst them—indeed, I hope the Australian parliament does that soon and leads the way for others. 18:26 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Thank you to my friend and colleague the member for North Sydney for bringing forward this important motion. The word 'genocide' is a terrifying one. It is the chilling finality of homicide but on a mass scale—not killing one person, but killing one race, one ethnicity. The concept is as horrifying as it is unimaginable. That genocide exists at all is tragic. That we saw so many in the last century on so many different continents and in so many disparate situations is truly frightening. Some genocides are organised—the Germans. Some are chaotic and opportunistic—Rwanda. Destroying a race is nearly impossible and, thankfully, all genocides fail in that goal. Genocide leaves deep scars in communities. It is not just the loss of the victims, the empty seats at the dinner tables and children growing up as orphans. It's also the deep psychological cuts and the branding aimed to dehumanise before the killing starts. The effects of this dehumanisation live on for decades to come. What can we do? You can't fix it or undo a genocide. You can't bring people back from the dead. Genocide leaves a legacy that can never be forgotten and will mark a people for centuries. Perpetrators can apologise. But what apology can compensate for the lives of millions lost? There is only one thing that can be done; we can discuss. There can be no healing without acknowledgment. The Jewish will never forgive and they will never forget, but they can start to heal at memorials around the world, including in Germany, where they can air their grievances, mourn openly, and continue a discourse with their former persecutors. The Armenians, similarly, will never forgive or forget the atrocities that were visited upon them in the fading light of the Ottoman Empire. There is nowhere they can mourn, no place to discuss, because the genocide is not acknowledged by the descendants of the perpetrators or by many countries around the world. There are tens of thousands of Armenians in Australia. We have one of the largest Armenian diasporas in the world. We've had an Armenian Treasurer, and our biggest state was run by an Armenian until recently. Yet we still cannot officially acknowledge the genocide at a national level. My local council has and my state has, but the government I work in still has not. This is shameful. In my years representing the largest Armenian Australian populated electorate of Bennelong, I have witnessed that this community is made up of active and vital contributors to our contemporary understanding of what it means to be Australian. These Australians are the descendants, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren, of those who tragically died from starvation, deportation and death marches. I have pushed during my time in this place to have the Armenian genocide recognised by our government. Not recognising the past's harrowing realities leaves room for mankind's most atrocious perpetrators to continue pursuing heinous crimes against humanity. The open wounds of the Armenian genocide are a primary example of this. In September 2021 I had the privilege of joining a federal Australian delegation to the republics of Armenia and Artsakh. I visited the Armenian genocide memorial with parliamentary colleagues intent on seeing motions like this lead to what we must do: recognise the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides as a proud signatory to the UN convention we celebrate today. On 9 December 2021, the United Nations International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime, surely this is the time to acknowledge this genocide and give these people the opportunity they need to grieve. The word 'genocide' didn't come from a lab or through an experiment. It was first used in 1944 in reference to the killing of Armenians in the 1910s, the very intent of which coined this most odious of words. We should now recognise this for the sake of our Armenian Australians. 18:31 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I start my remarks by acknowledging the member for North Sydney for moving this motion and all those who have contributed to this discussion and who will contribute to it. It takes courage to put your name to a motion such as this, and I acknowledge the member for North Sydney for doing so. As this motion states, 9 December is the United Nations International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime. It's been 73 years since the 1948 convention, in which the punishment of the crime of genocide was ratified. The Holocaust had only ended three years earlier, the darkest hour of mankind where over six million Jews, gypsies, political prisoners and other enemies of the state were murdered at the hands of the Nazis. My grandmother was born in Germany and fled in October 1938, only one week before Kristallnacht, the night of the broken glass. Many members of her family were not as lucky. They were unable to escape and they stayed on in Germany. In 1941 they were some of the very first people that were sent to Auschwitz and they obviously didn't survive. The term 'genocide' was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer. He not only coined the term 'genocide' in 1944 when looking at the Holocaust but also referenced the genocide committed against the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and other minorities between 1915 and 1923 at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. To this day, this genocide has not yet been recognised by the Australian government. This genocide has been recognised by 33 other countries, including Germany, France, Italy, Canada and most recently the United States. President Biden made that historic declaration this year, on Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, and he was the very first US President to acknowledge and recognise the Armenian genocide. I want to take this moment to say that, prior to the US President making that recognition, the genocide was recognised by both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate—chambers from which the Australian parliament drew inspiration and for which we named our chambers, following the US example, our House of Representatives and our Senate—and in their honour and we should follow suit. When houses of parliament seek to make recognitions such as this we don't do it lightly, but we do it in a way that is intent on speaking the truth and intent on recognising history as it was. It was significant that the US houses of Congress did recognise the Armenian genocide, and I thank the member for North Sydney for taking the steps today to replicate that recognition so that Australian houses of parliament have the opportunity do the same. Hopefully, one day the Prime Minister of Australia will follow suit and recognise the Armenian genocide in the same way that the US President did. I think it is worth mentioning in this debate the differences between Australia and America. Obviously, Australia has an important relationship with Turkey. Each and every year Australians go and commemorate in Turkey, on the beaches of Gallipoli, and the Turkish government has, for decades, collaborated with the Australian government in order to mark that difficult battle and allow Australians to go and pay our respects. That should not be put in jeopardy or diminished in any way shape or form. What we are doing here today is simply recognising what was. We are simply recognising that, in order to move on and to acknowledge the atrocities committed against the Armenians, the Assyrians and the Greeks, we must be honest. Being honest with the Turkish government and the Turkish people is the least we could do as friends of the Turkish government, the Turkish people and the Turkish Australians who are proudly part of our wonderful country. This motion for reform and recognition is what must happen. It happens slowly, but it happens purposefully. I'm pleased to add my name, as the descendant of people who understand acutely what genocide is. We recognise that what happened to the Armenians was a genocide. We stand with them, we acknowledge the truth of what happened and we hope for better days in the future. 18:36 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Let me pay tribute to those who have already spoken in this debate and associate myself with their words, particularly the members for North Sydney, Bennelong, Macnamara and Hunter, as well as my friend the member for Adelaide, who's going to speak shortly. I associate myself with everything they have said about the Armenian genocide, although, in my remarks today, I'm largely going to focus on the Holocaust. There is of course a link between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. It is the phrase the member for North Sydney reminded us of, when Hitler famously said: 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' That demonstrates what happens when people forget what's happened and they misunderstand the particularity of what's gone on in a particular genocide. I'll return to that thought at the end. In recent years, the consciousness of the Holocaust has been placed in sharper focus in Australia by a wonderful book by the late Eddie Jaku, The Happiest Man on Earth, which he wrote at 100 years of age. Eddie died earlier this year. Despite the extraordinarily difficult war that he faced, despite the fact that he repeatedly escaped and was drawn back in and despite the fact that he saw most of his family murdered, he managed to maintain his humanity and the wisdom of someone who had every right to be angry at the world but who, through the reflection in his book, was happy and grateful for his family, his friendships and the kindness of strangers. His victory over Hitler was to live a happy life and to give happiness to others. He beautifully said in his book: … you must remember that you are lucky to be alive … Every breath is a gift. Life is beautiful if you let it be. Happiness is in your hands. Eddie Jaku's life was witness to the truth that we must never forget our humanity or the humanity of others. Eddie Jaku was one of many Holocaust survivors whose numbers are gradually thinning in this country. On a per-capita basis, Australia is home to more Holocaust survivors than any other nation on the planet. People like Frank Lowy, Judy Cassab and Eddie Jaku have changed the face of Australia. While my generation had the privilege of meeting and knowing these survivors, by the time the children who are born in a few years time are old enough to understand what happened in the Holocaust those survivors will be gone. For a coming generation without survivors, the danger is that the Holocaust will seem as long ago as the pogroms, the crusades or slavery in Egypt, and it will then be up to us to tell the next generation our own memories of the survivors and their stories to help turn our memories into the memories of the next generation. The importance of that task shouldn't be underestimated. Sadly we're witnessing a growth of Holocaust denial around the world. This comes in two forms. In parts of the Muslim world it is a way of playing into an anti-Jewish message that bolsters an anti-Israel message. In the West it is fuelled by social media and a regression to what I've termed the 'pre-Enlightenment age', where people seem incapable of reasoning and assessing sources of information with the ability to tell fact from fiction. Former US President and Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Dwight D Eisenhower saw the potential for denial in April 1945. He wrote about Ohrdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald which he'd just visited: The things I saw beggar description… the visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were… so overpowering… I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things if ever, in the near future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda'. Eisenhower, remarkably, organised delegations of journalists, politicians and filmmakers to go in and see what happened firsthand. The traditional view is that it is up to us to educate the next generation so that they view the Holocaust not just as the experience of Jews, Romas, homosexuals and people with intellectual disabilities, but rather as a human experience where the most civilised and enlightened society on the planet can quickly turn to monstrous barbarism and engage in murder on an industrial scale. That has been the traditional view of the importance of Holocaust education. But I have been struggling with a rather arresting series of podcasts and a book by an extraordinary Jewish American author, Dara Horn, which has just come out, with the confronting title People Love Dead Jews and a companion podcast series, 'Adventures with dead Jews'. Dara Horn is critical of the way we remember these events, because they lose their particularity. She says in particular that, when going to the US Holocaust Museum in the United States in Washington, you are encouraged to think of yourself as a child going through the same set of circumstances—it could be any one of us—and we forget the particularity of the culture that was lost in the Holocaust. Similarly, to take us back to where we began: when we fail to remember it, we forget the culture of the Armenians. 18:41 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I congratulate and other speakers before me, and the member for North Sydney for bringing this motion to the House. It would be remiss of me if I didn't participate in this debate as a member of this parliament who represents one of Australia's largest Greek Australian communities, many of whom are descendants of those atrocities that took place that we are discussing here today. So I rise to support this motion, which recognises the United Nations International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime, but I also rise to support this motion that actively recognises the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and other Christian minorities—in what was known as Asia Minor—and one of the greatest crimes against humanity in modern history. The term 'genocide' is relatively new as a historical concept. Genocide itself isn't a very old term. It was developed partly in response to the horrendous murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to the brutal cleansing that took place in this campaign committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923. In this period millions of Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and other Christian minorities from the Pontus region and other parts of modern day Turkey, were deported, massacred or marched to their deaths. Some of these stories have been handed down. It's only two generations ago. In fact, my son's best friend's grandparents came from Pontus. He was a small child and I recall him telling us the story of the long march from the Pontus region through to modern day Greece. Along that March, many perished from starvation, being murdered along the way, and through illnesses et cetera. Approximately 300,000 people lost their lives. It was a brutal cleansing campaign. It all started in the early morning of 24 April 1915, when the Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian political, religious, educational and intellectual leaders and community figureheads in the capital Constantinople, making the first stage of the Ottoman Turks' attempt to exterminate the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire.   The Greek genocide began with a series of pogroms in eastern Thrace and on the Aegean coast of Anatolia, beginning in January 1914, when the Ottoman Turkish government declared that only those Greeks who became Muslims or changed their religion would be allowed to remain in Thrace. Maps and history were rewritten. Churches, schools and cultural monuments were desecrated and misnamed. There were even stories of children being snatched from their parents; they would be renamed and farmed out to be raised as Ottomans. On that particular day, 300 kilometres south of the empire's capital, young Australian men began to fight against the Ottoman soldiers during the Gallipoli campaign, one of the most significant and formative events in the military history of Australia. Some of the first documented evidence of genocide taking place was from ANZACs, some of whom were prisoners, who witnessed some of the atrocities and began writing little notes on pieces of paper that still exist today. The neglect and the plight of the peoples of this region, the Assyrians, the Greeks, and the Armenians—I'm sure it was an absolute bloodbath in terms of the cleansing that took place—is absolutely something that should be recognised by our government and by this parliament. As we heard earlier, President Biden has recognised the genocide. Many countries around the world have recognised it, and it's about time that we did too. If we don't recognise humanity's mistakes, they're there to be committed again. It's not about pitting one ethnicity against another. As we heard, we recognised the Holocaust of World War II. It doesn't mean that German people are bad; it just means that we recognised an atrocity so it could never ever take place again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. COVID-19: Economy 192 18:47 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I move: That this House: (1) notes that supports like JobSaver and disaster payments have ended at a time when the economic impact of COVID-19 restrictions will continue to impact a number of sectors for at least six to 12 months after the lifting of restrictions, including: (a) the business events sector, which has lost $29.4 billion in revenue from 96 per cent of all events being cancelled for 2020; (b) the mass participation sporting events sector which lost over 80 per cent of events over the past two years, causing a loss of over $5 billion to the Australian economy; (c) travel agents, which have been in effective lockdown for over 600 days and will not be back to full capacity until after March 2022; and (d) seasonal specific retail such as winter apparel and sporting stores who will need to wait six months for the next season and do not have savings to purchase stock; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) work with state and territory governments to implement targeted economic supports for specific industries including travel, business events, mass participation sporting events and seasonal retail, such as: (i) providing ongoing business income support, including for supporting supplier businesses; (ii) underwriting cancellation insurance for events and travel to provide planning confidence and accelerate recovery of sectors; and (iii) providing economic incentives, including tax rebates, for events to be organised and booked in advance; and (b) recognise the profound impact of COVID-19 restrictions on these sectors and their contribution to the Australian economy with benefits for trade, tourism and investment. This motion concerns the fate of several industries as we enter yet another phase of this pandemic. Australia is the lucky country, and, during this pandemic, most were shielded from devastating recession. Our support payments worked. But a third wave of lockdowns across the economy in the third quarter has brought many businesses to their knees, and we need to tell their story and make sure the government is focused on their needs. Businesses in Warringah, like in other electorates, have been hit hard by the pandemic and the lockdowns. Sectors like events, tourism and seasonal retail were the first into lockdown and the last out. On top of this, the third wave has hammered them and now, because of the influx of the omicron variant, confidence is going fast. There is concern for this sector, which are long-pipeline industries. People are uncertain and will not book events, overseas or domestic travel while this variant is hanging over their heads. There is uncertainty, and the government needs to recognise the impact of uncertainty on the recovery for these sectors. These sectors have enjoyed some support in the form of JobKeeper, JobSaver, disaster payments and grants but, unfortunately, these supports have ended in circumstances where these industries don't just snap back into operation. Many, especially seasonal industries, have six to twelve months before they will be back to operating circumstances, and that is not recognised. These businesses were hoping that things were going to start to pick up, but they are now being hammered with that lack of confidence. For example, in Warringah, over 18 travel agents have been without bookings for months and months. They have approximately 10 per cent of the revenue that they had pre COVID. For them, the current challenge is to survive into the new year. Other challenges pale next to this one. It is about survival—keeping these businesses going. Some have bookings, for example, in March next year. With the withdrawal of support and with open borders—state and international—they were hoping things were going to get better. But, unfortunately, these sectors still need some support. Australia's confidence to travel again is not yet there. There isn't certainty, especially when it comes to booking events. Large hotels are relying on conferences being able to be booked. These things don't get booked a week out; they get booked months in advance. Seasonal retail like the snow industry is struggling. They will need to wait it out till the next season, which is next June or July. Boot fitters and winter clothing and ski shops usually outfit many Australians to go to the snow over the winter months. They've lost two seasons in a row and the international season in the middle. They have simply no revenue whatsoever. Some of the resorts are struggling to stay afloat because they simply have not been able to operate because of the restrictions. These are not the ordinary retail sectors that can snap back as soon as you lift restrictions. They need to wait till the following season. We need to restore confidence and optimism so that these sectors can survive until they are next able to operate. This is where the Commonwealth can and should step in. I've written to and met with the Treasurer on the issue. While I understand the concern about spending, we can be fiscally disciplined and responsible and still keep these sectors afloat. The large outlays we have already committed will be for nothing if we just let these sectors fall over with these later strains. But, also, we should not think that the lifting of restrictions somehow means an immediate return to trading condition. For certain sectors it just doesn't, so a one-size-fits-all solution simply doesn't work. There are some ways in which we could turbocharge these sectors and the recovery. We could have sensible policies to assist businesses, like ongoing income support for businesses and their suppliers for up to six months when they are in an industry that can't simply reopen. We could have an event-underwriting or insurance scheme against more closures and more strains, to provide the confidence to go ahead with bookings. We could provide tax rebates for travel events and seasonal retail to stimulate demand. At the moment, there is barely the confidence, and, as soon as there is talk of more border shutdowns or more variants, that confidence just evaporates. So I urge the government to consider the specific needs of these sectors. T DZP Is the motion seconded? Dr Haines 282335 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 18:52 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I thank the member for Warringah for moving this motion, as it gives us all the opportunity to talk about Australia's recovery from the COVID pandemic and the ongoing recovery efforts. The member for Warringah is quite right when she says that Australia has done a remarkable job throughout the COVID-19 pandemic on measures relative to the rest of the world. But it's Australians who have done the heavy lifting. This wasn't just luck. They have rallied significantly. They have followed directions and requests to get the jab and to take other measures. It wasn't just fate. It was this government moving swiftly to put in place support measures that helped them get through the early lockdowns and uncertainty of the pandemic and then allowed us to get through the further lockdowns of the last 18 months. JobKeeper and JobSeeker have been lifelines for Australian businesses. I was reflecting earlier on in this place about the practical impact that they had had in seats like Ryan, at popular pubs like the very famous Regatta Hotel, particularly for young people, who tend to work in hospitality establishments. For them, having JobKeeper there was an absolute lifeline. We've seen the results of that. We have seen youth unemployment drop significantly. The RBA is forecasting economic growth at 5.5 per cent next year as well as for the unemployment rate to be sustained at five per cent for the first time in 50 years. Three hundred and fifty thousand jobs have been created since the start of September. We were the only nation, of comparable economies, to be able to say that we had more jobs after the pandemic than we did at the start. That's because, at all stages, the government has moved swiftly to put in place support packages as needed. I agree with the member for Warringah that businesses do need certainty, and that certainty is the most important thing in helping them plan for the economic recovery. But the remarks she has made today, and that the Labor Party are making today, are trying to stoke fear of new variants. She's trying to jump a couple of steps ahead before we truly understand whether this new variant is going to lead to lockdowns or anything like that. We are in a different position now. We do have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world because of the vaccination program this government has been able to roll out and because Australians have been willing to roll up their sleeves. That gives us the opportunity to provide more certainty for businesses that rolling lockdowns aren't going to be required. The other way we can provide certainty is to, again, reinforce with the state governments that the agreements they made as part of the national plan, to open up their borders when certain vaccine benchmarks are reached—they have now well and truly been reached—are stuck to. That's what will help the travel industry more than anything else that the member for Warringah has specifically raised. It gives Australians the ability to make plans without concerns that they might change at a moment's notice because of a border closure or of new quarantine requirements. Although nothing can be exactly certain, if we have premiers out there—Liberal and Labor; I'm from Queensland, so I know the example of the Queensland Labor government best. If we had our Labor Premier in Queensland reinforcing that she will meet the national plan requirements that she has agreed to and that the border will definitely be reopened at 80 per cent vaccination rate in our state, then the tourism industry that Queensland is so heavily reliant on—people travelling from the southern states, which the Queensland tourism industry is so heavily reliant on—can have more confidence than they have at the moment. We have a planned reopening date, on the 17th, but already today, with the new variant, we've seen the Labor state government start to equivocate on that. We will continue to ask state premiers of all political sides to stick with the national plan as we continue to support Australians into apprenticeships, into jobs and into new homes through programs like the HomeBuilder scheme that has been so successful. We will be nimble and quick as support is required, as we have always been throughout the pandemic. 18:57 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Last year the New South Wales and Victorian border was closed for 137 excruciatingly long days for small business. On the Victorian side, Wodonga locked down for 167 days; on the New South Wales side, Albury locked down for 73 days. You don't need a calculator to see that the impact on the Victorian side was disproportionate. Wodonga was locked down twice as much as Albury. That's the simple truth. The latest modelling shows the border lost over half a billion dollars in economic activity last year. Most of that downturn was on the Victorian side of the border. Tourism businesses were particularly hard hit, with spending in the Victorian High Country dropping a whopping 50 per cent, and the member for Warringah has just pointed out the impact on alpine areas such as mine as well. There were also many weeks this year when Albury was locked down but Wodonga was not. As one community, we rely on each other to keep our economy going. When Albury locks down, businesses on the Victorian side suffer too. Imagine being able to shop and dine on one side of Collins Street in Melbourne, but not the other. That's what we've been dealing with. The New South Wales government understands these unique impacts on borders. Last week, the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, Paul Toole, announced a $10 million COVID recovery package to help border towns get back on their feet, including grants of up to $25,000 for local stimulus-geared infrastructure projects. That's exactly what border communities have been calling for. As the Deputy Premier put it himself, 'Border communities have faced some of the biggest challenges in the state's history over the last few years—from droughts, to fires, to floods, and the additional burden of border closures.' How refreshing to hear that! A few months ago I called our federal Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and asked him to pick up the phone to the Victorian Treasurer, Tim Pallas, and sort out a dedicated economic package for businesses on the border in Victoria. He rejected my argument for support for these Victorian border businesses, and yet the federal Treasurer managed to do it with the Queensland government in September. Together, the Queensland and Commonwealth governments funded four payments to small tourism operators on the border: (1) a $5,000 statewide small-business payment; (2) a $10,00 South-East Queensland lockdown payment; (3) a $5,000 extended border closure payment, and (4) a $15,000 tourism sector payment—that's $35,000 in one-off grants that particularly targeted border communities. What if you were an identical small tourism operator in Wodonga? You had to choose between either a $2,800 per week payment which was statewide, or a one-off $20,000 small-business COVID hardship payment which was also statewide. If a small tourism operator in Wodonga took up the latter, they were straightaway $15,000 worse off than an identical business in Coolangatta even though they were locked down more than double the amount of time. I'm not begrudging the financial support offered in Queensland. They did it tough, too, but on the border in Victoria we have done it incredibly tough and all we want is to be treated equally. I've been speaking to businesses on the border every day for months now, and many tell me they're barely hanging on. Just last week I met with Zak Rogers, who owns CrossFit TMA in Wodonga. He told me how painful it was for him to hear from his regular clients in Albury that they could not travel across the border to the gym. I admire Zak; he's got incredible integrity as a small-business owner. He called his clients in Albury and offered to suspend their gym memberships, because they couldn't cross the border. Zak knew this would damage his bottom line at a time when his business was just holding on, but he couldn't stomach taking money from clients who couldn't use his services. In his heart he wanted to see people working out and keeping their mental health strong during a difficult time, and his clients showed their love for him in return: they declined his offer to suspend memberships because they knew he was doing it tough with border closures. What a powerful example of our border community coming together to support each other to keep small business alive when the government chose to look the other way. I call on the government right now who are talking up grand plans for economic recovery: if you can't show up for border businesses in their darkest hours, how can we trust you to show up in recovery? I call on the Treasurer to work with the Premier of Victoria to deliver immediately $15,000 grants to small businesses on the border in Wodonga and show you are serious about treating all border businesses in exactly the same way. 19:02 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina At the outset I will point out to the member for Indi that this government and our Treasurer never, ever turned his back on any business and indeed the support that we have given right throughout the 20 months— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I'll take that interjection in a tick—of this coronavirus pandemic has been extraordinary. It's been on the back of the fact that, when the virus first came to these shores, the economy was in a strong position: unemployment was down; the number of job opportunities was up; business was looking to the future with confidence; all the retail sectors were very optimistic; and things looked bright and rosy. That was despite the bushfires, despite the drought—and I don't often hear a word about the drought from those opposite; I don't often hear it from the member for Warringah. The drought was crippling to rural and regional Australia. The drought took a heavy toll, as did the bushfires, and then of course along came the virus. I heard the member for Kingsford Smith say, 'What about the travel agents?' Well, we looked after them too. And, Mr Deputy Speaker Chester, you will know that certainly in the National Party room that was a big topic for discussion. Many of those travel agents are women, operating their own small businesses, often at home—even before the virus, even before people had to work from home—because that's what suited them. We have looked after them, in conjunction of course in a coalition government with the Liberal Party, and made sure that they have been able to continue to operate. The member for Warringah talks about the business sector in her motion. Yes, the business sector has lost a lot of money. But, right throughout the world, many businesses have actually gone bankrupt. They've gone absolutely broke. Through JobKeeper, and JobSaver support from the state government, we've been able to nurture those businesses and nurse them through the bleakest of times. She notes 'the mass participation sporting events sector which lost over 80 per cent of events over the past two years, causing a loss of over $5 billion to the Australian economy'. Yes, I agree, it's been very hard, particularly on people who like to watch and participate in sport. But let's talk about community sport as well. My football and netball competitions in the Riverina got up to their finals after a full season, and all of a sudden, because of a state government directive, even though in Wagga Wagga there hadn't been a coronavirus case for 13 months—too bad; there were to be no finals played. And it came as such a blow. It's not just about those sporting organisations that make money and are watched by a mass television audiences; it's also about the community sports in country areas that sometimes those metropolitan members forget. But did they whinge? Did they moan? Did they bleat? No, they just got on with it, because they knew that it was for the sake of the health of their communities and of their state. They said, 'We're prepared to miss out on our finals. We are prepared to, even though we've played all the minor rounds, all the home and away games. We'll go without the premiership deciders'— Mr 219646 'and we will do right by the community.' I can't hear what you're saying, so there's no need to keep trying to interject on me. It's been very difficult for business. It's been very, very difficult for communities. I say to the member for Warringah that, whilst I appreciate that she's no doubt brought this motion to the House in good faith, there are supports out there that have been provided by the federal government to ensure that businesses and communities were able to get through this virus as best they could. And we've worked very hard with state governments. The national freight movement code was brought into being in a matter of hours, not days or weeks or months, because of the good relationship I have with the largely Labor state members. That's the sort of cooperative ability that we probably need more of around the national cabinet table. Once the federal election is out of the way and hopefully a Liberal-Nationals government is re-elected, then hopefully we will see some of the Labor premiers showing more cooperation and collaboration so that we can get through this together as a nation, as a collective of communities. 19:07 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I want to thank the member for Warringah for pointing out through this motion the deficiencies and the lack of support for certain industries in the government's COVID response. The thing that I have with the government's COVID response is that it reflects the ideology of the Liberal-National parties rather than support for Australians who need it. You need look no further than JobKeeper. It was poorly designed and it was paid to companies that did not qualify for the payments. Companies that were making record profits, that were issuing bonuses to their executives, that were handing out dividends to their shareholders were getting JobKeeper, whilst other Australians were lining up in the food queues because they were unlucky in that the company that they worked for didn't qualify for JobKeeper. There was an unevenness in the distribution of the funds and how they were allocated to particular Australian companies. The issue of what industries got JobKeeper is also a deficiency. This government paid JobKeeper to casinos, but universities missed out. They supported gambling, but they didn't give education support through JobKeeper. It says everything about this government's philosophy in providing support for particular industries and, through that, for employees in those industries. The arts industry, which we know the L-NP has a philosophical objection to, of course missed out on JobKeeper support as well. Now, I understand that they had to get it out the door quickly, that it needed to be done efficiently and quickly, and Labor supported that. But when the deficiencies and the problems in the scheme were identified—and they were, well and truly, within 12 months of the scheme becoming operational—the government had the opportunity to fix those problems, but they didn't. They didn't take that opportunity to amend the terms of eligibility and say: 'Look, if you're making profits then you don't need JobKeeper. We can use some of that money to pay some of the other companies that haven't qualified and whose employees are missing out.' And there are still many businesses who are struggling to this day, as the economy begins to open up and we begin to recover. The motion moved by the member for Warringah points those out. There's the travel and tourism industry. I have been inundated by calls and emails from travel agents, who I have visited to hear their stories about how they have had to put off staff and how they haven't been able to trade because of government regulations associated with the closed borders. Many of them are still struggling to survive. The arts and live performance industry has been smashed by COVID and yet, once again, many of those businesses didn't qualify for JobKeeper. And many of the employees who were working in casual occupations simply missed out and were forced onto the unemployment queues. They were struggling, joining the food queues just to live and survive. One of the other industries was the amusement, leisure and recreation industry, and this motion points out about the insurance and public liability insurance issue that this particular industry is having at the moment. It's a big issue for a lot of businesses which work in that industry. We're talking about people who work in the show industry, sporting tourism, adventure tourism and the leisure and recreation industries. Many of them simply cannot get public liability insurance because of the tightening of the insurance market at the moment. Recently, in 2020, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman did an inquiry into the issues associated with insurance in this industry. The Australian Amusement, Leisure and Recreation Association submitted to that review that many members were facing closure and/or stranded assets due to the nonavailability of insurance. The small business ombudsman has recommended that the government look at a discretionary mutual fund to address those insurance industry issues and the crisis that we have in the leisure and recreation industry. The way that the scheme would work is that there would be a government contribution of capital, as well as by the industry participants and businesses paying into it. That would entitle them to a certificate of protection and coverage for any public liability issues that come up in the future. Without something like this, I fear that this particular industry is going to be shut down and that thousands of businesses and employees are going to be out of work into the future. So it's something that the government must consider. 19:12 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the most severe global economic crisis since the Great Depression. In April 2020 more than one million Australians lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero. Despite these considerable challenges, our economy remains strong, its fundamentals remain sound and it continues to provide remarkable resilience. In March 2021, Australia became the first advanced economy to have more people in employment than prior to the pandemic. Between May 2020 and June 2021 more than a million jobs were created. The good news is that the economy is now set to recover strongly from the impact of the delta strain, with the Reserve Bank forecasting economic growth to increase to 5.5 per cent next year and the unemployment rate to be sustained at below five per cent for just the second time in 50 years. According to Treasury analysis, 350,000 jobs have been created since the start of September as New South Wales and Victoria emerged from lockdowns. And, despite COVID-19, Australia's unemployment rate is still lower than when Labor left government in 2013. The strong bounce back has been supported by the Morrison government's economic plan, which has protected Australians in lockdown. Significant policy initiatives like JobKeeper; JobMaker Hiring Credit; the JobTrainer fund; the Supporting Apprenticeships and Trainees wage subsidy; the Boosting Apprenticeships Commencements wage subsidy; the Transition to Work program; Industry Training Hubs; and the Youth Jobs PaTH program have all contributed to cushioning the effect of the pandemic. Our recovery plan will also ensure we continue to bounce back strongly as restrictions further ease. Our tax cuts have also seen more than $24 billion flow to 11.5 million Australians since the onset of the pandemic, with $10.2 billion flowing in the September quarter alone, equating to around $900 per person. This support has protected household and business balance sheets, with over $360 billion in private sector savings that weren't there prior to the pandemic. And just in time for the holiday season, too. But some Australians and their businesses have suffered more than most. That's why our government is continuing to provide targeted support to regions and sectors that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. For example, our tourism and trade sectors have been particularly hard hit. That's why we have ongoing support for these critical industries, including $139.6 million for the Supporting Australia's Exhibiting Zoos and Aquariums Program, as well as various co-funding arrangements with state and territory governments for tourism sector programs in their jurisdictions. Also, in the arts and entertainment space, the Morrison government has announced that it will provide extra funding to two proven COVID-19 support measures for arts workers and arts companies, with an additional $20 million to go to Support Act and an additional $15 million to go to the Arts Sustainability Fund. The Morrison Liberal government has provided unprecedented assistance to Australians and Australian businesses throughout the pandemic, and we will continue to back them in as we secure our economic recovery in 2022 and beyond. 19:17 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to thank the member for Warringah for this motion and I want to acknowledge the member for Kingsford Smith, when he said that it showed the priorities of those opposite in the way that they handled this pandemic response, the economic response, particularly when it comes to JobKeeper. It's good example to use, where some companies, including foreign-owned ones, didn't need JobKeeper but got heaps of it whilst Australian small businesses went to the wall. It's no secret that I think those economic supports were lifted too quickly by the federal government, and I spoke many times in this place saying exactly that. The vaccine hadn't rolled out yet and there wasn't enough dedicated quarantine around the country. It was much too early. And when those opposite cut JobKeeper back in March, I was also calling for targeted industry-specific support because we knew that the lockdowns would keep coming and that our community would continue to be affected for a long time to come. We also knew that those lockdowns would keep rolling, because those opposite totally failed to develop a national quarantine framework, as I said—with the exception of Howard Springs, a fantastic facility in the Top End. Well done to all those who've been working there. I had a two-week stay out there myself and they do an excellent job—but we needed more of that. We know that hotels are no good at containing a highly transmissible virus. Even now that we've been able to reach higher vaccination rates and there is some opening of the borders, we're faced with potentially a new variant and we're hoping that our hospitals won't be overwhelmed as people begin to move. But we know that industries continue to need our support, so it's a great initiative by the member for Warringah to bring forward this motion. It's important to note that a number of sectors have copped huge losses and they'll take a while to get back on their feet—that's the reality of it. We saw this in my electorate, in Darwin and Palmerston, in the business events sector. They lost about $30 billion worth of revenue for events that were cancelled in 2020. One example in Darwin is that we were going to host the Developing Northern Australia Conference in August. Everything was ready to go, but the Territory went into a snap lockdown. I was trapped in the ACT lockdown at the time. I really want to commend the organisers of the Developing Northern Australia Conference because, with virtually no notice, they moved it almost totally online and hosted a virtual conference. They did a great job, but there's no denying there was a massive loss of revenue to our local hotels, our hospitality sector and local tourism operators, and so many, many Territorians and their businesses suffered as a result. That's just one event in the past almost two years that we've been battling this pandemic. The Territory's tourism sector has suffered the worst. It's very seasonal, as honourable members would know, the dry season being the time when a lot of tourism businesses make the majority of their income. But who was locked out? Sydney and Melbourne markets, due to lockdowns. Why? Because hotel quarantine leaked. Why? Because they because there were no dedicated quarantine facilities in those places. For many of our tour operators, their ability to retain their workforces was greatly hindered. The dry season is when the majority of the workers come to the Territory, but, if they can't retain the workers over the wet, it becomes very difficult. How do you keep a business afloat and people employed in the face of such uncertainty? Our national arts sector has been completely smashed, largely unable to tour or to stage shows and having to deal with cancellations. Their workforce was mostly left out of JobKeeper support, so it's been devastating for that sector. The arts got many Australians through the long and dreary months of lockdown, so the least the federal government could do is to acknowledge workers in the arts sector and include them in support schemes. Tourism and the arts sector were very hard hit, and I don't have time to speak about the universities. But Charles Darwin University, through a lack of support, has also done it very hard. The federal government needs to do better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER IPZ There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:23