I won't speak for the full five minutes, but I do think that this report, in terms of the rollout of 5G in this country, is considered an important issue. I want to, at the outset, thank you for the indulgence, Speaker. I also want to commend my colleagues—the member for Dobell and the member for Perth—for their participation, along with other members of this inquiry, into the rollout of 5G in Australia.
This report touched on a number of important issues. Without going through, obviously, the enthusiasm that exists in being able to see the rollout of a new platform for communications in this country, there are a lot of things that will change the way in which industry as well as communities can benefit from this new communications network, which is spelt out in the report. Some of the recommendations, I think, do need to be taken up. Principally, in relation to this last point that I mentioned, is that we do need to ensure that Australian industry actually gets why this new network will be important to the way they operate and how it will improve the efficiency of industry in this country. That is very important.
But there are three elements of this that I particularly want to touch on. Firstly, I don't find myself often favourably reflecting on the comments on former Prime Minister Turnbull, but I do think he's right on the money when he observes that particular nations need to take a very specific interest in the way that we develop capability in this space and believes there is room for cooperation between countries like New Zealand, the UK, US, Japan and Canada in collaborating on the development of the 5G network and working together to do that. I think he's absolutely on the money, and it's one of the things that we've specified in this.
We've also specified that there should be greater consideration given to the supply chain issues that exist. We are dependent entirely on two major vendors, both Ericsson and Nokia. We should find ways to spread out the number of firms that are able to contribute to the rollout of 5G in this country and we should test the arrangements that they have in place in relation to manufacturing. We've made that point in the report.
Finally, we also pick up on the point of skills and that, if we're going to roll out this network across the country and we're going to see industry take advantage with respect to the benefits of this new network, we need to have more people on the ground that are capable of assisting in the rollout. We believe that the government should dedicate greater emphasis on that and also developing an industry fund that will support R&D in relation to 5G in this country.
The final observation I make is this: I think my colleagues that are present here today recognise that committees are successful and capable depending on the level of interaction that all members of the committee dedicate to their work. On this committee, there are a number of members on the other side that do participate, but we've had some notable absences. I think that there should be greater effort made to ensure full participation by all members of the committee. Either they're on there or they're not on there. I would imagine that particularly members of the National Party would want to see vigorous representation on rural and regional communications, and I think they should take up the opportunity to pursue that. Having said that, I thank the secretariat for their support and all the people who submitted to this inquiry. This is a contentious issue for some people, but I think it gave them a platform to air their views quite thoroughly, and that definitely happened on this inquiry. Thank you for your indulgence, Speaker.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill forms part of the government's commitment to protect the rights and entitlements of the Australian flying public and provides greater certainty for air carriers.
In aviation, accidents resulting in death, injury or loss are rare. However, as with any industry, accidents can occur, and it is important to ensure there are appropriate and equitable compensation arrangements in place when they do.
Suitable liability and insurance arrangements facilitate the timely resolution of liability issues and minimise the risk of protracted litigation for both airlines and victims on those rare occasions when things go wrong.
Dedicated aviation liability arrangements are implemented in most countries in recognition of the unique risks associated with civil aviation and the complex task of awarding damages to passengers under civil liability frameworks.
Australia has implemented a strict liability system for domestic travel that imposes liability on the carrier regardless of any fault, negligence or intention; while providing a cap on the maximum amount the carrier will be liable for.
The system also applies to the small number of international flights that are not covered by an international agreement on airline liability such as the 1999 Montreal convention.
The framework simplifies the claims process for victims and minimises complex litigation. This structure reflects the responsibility placed on carriers and the high standard of systems and controls needed to ensure the safety of passengers and third parties.
These liability limits and associated insurance requirements need to be increased to ensure they keep up with inflation and continue to meet community expectations.
This bill will increase the amount of mandatory insurance carriers are required to obtain.
The revised insurance requirement will match the increase to the liability cap which was implemented when the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Regulations 2019 came into effect on 1 October 2019, with the revised liability figures to also be included in the principle act.
The bill also includes a series of more technical amendments.
Expanded regulation-making powers will ensure that the quantum of mandatory insurance can be increased by regulation.
The new regulation-making powers will also provide the ability to ensure that the liability caps and required insurance amounts can be increased as appropriate, more efficiently, potentially through an automatic indexation arrangement. The government will consult stakeholders further before finalising a mechanism in this regard.
The new regulation-making powers will also provide the ability to establish a mechanism to expand the type of risks that carriers are required to insure, to potentially include so called 'war risks'. Again, the government will consult further before expanding the scope of any mandatory insurance requirements.
Another technical amendment clarifies that a carrier, and servants and agents of the carrier, share the same scope of liability. This amendment reflects suggestions from stakeholders that it was appropriate to provide additional clarity on this point.
Stakeholders have also proposed a range of further technical amendments to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 on issues such as a right of contribution and the process by which damages are assessed.
The government is intending to consult further on these and other issues.
In summary, the amendments in this bill will assist to further protect the rights and entitlements of the Australian public, and the carriers involved in or affected by air accidents.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Agricultural exports are an economic powerhouse for Australia and are expected to be worth around $43 billion in 2019-20.
We are one of the top 10 agricultural exporting countries in the world, exporting around two-thirds of our agricultural production each year.
Strengthening the competitiveness and productivity of Australia's agriculture sector is a key commitment of this government.
We want our agricultural industries to be able to capitalise on the opportunities that flow from growth in our region and globally, and we want to support the National Farmers Federation goal to grow Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030.
To help us achieve this, we need to ensure we have appropriate regulatory settings to enable exports to grow and in turn to help drive productivity and increase returns at the farm gate.
This bill will facilitate agricultural exports for the emerging medicinal cannabis and hemp industries. It will remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and ensure legitimate exporters of narcotic goods are supported to access emerging export markets.
This bill will allow certification of legitimate exports of narcotic goods. It is critical that our trading partners continue to have confidence in the safety and integrity of Australian produce.
This bill will enable the growth of export markets for hemp and medicinal cannabis industries. The bill will support the initiatives of the government to reduce red tape, bust congestion in regulation and enable agricultural industries to come out firing, after the threat of COVID-19 has passed.
For Australian farmers, reliable access to overseas markets means increased profitability and certainty for further investment in their properties and people.
For the Australian economy, it means more jobs, more exports, and higher incomes in a competitive and profitable agricultural sector.
For Australians, it means stronger regional communities and a more prosperous and productive Australia.
The bill is just one of the initiatives that the government is progressing to modernise the systems that underpin our very valuable agricultural exports. This is a crucial step that removes unnecessary regulatory barriers and supports the Australian agricultural sector as it continues to grow.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I understand it's the wish of the House to grant leave for the debate to be resumed at a later hour this day.
I move:
That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. The ayes have it. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Sorry, I wasn't in the House at the time. I understood the issue of leave was to be put later and it was not agreed with the government on that issue.
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
Hang on. We hear one point of order at a time.
Sorry, I had to run here. I apologise.
Take a moment. It's okay. Don't cough!
What I believe was just stated to the House was that you'd been advised or were of the belief that leave was being granted for this to be resumed at a later hour today.
Yes.
The government have put that proposition to the Labor Party, to the opposition. We have not agreed to it. We have agreed to it on other bills where the government have made the case as to why they are urgent. They have not made that case on this bill, therefore the opposition's view is that this should be dealt with in the normal way, which would allow for it to be listed tomorrow.
I'll hear from the minister on this.
I do respect what the Manager of Opposition Business has put, but you did ask and you did put it to the House, and there were two voices that said yes to the motion that was put. Effectively, it was voted on, and there were no dissenting voices.
I'll just make a couple of points before I call the Manager of Opposition Business. I'm obviously not party to any discussions between the government and the opposition. As I said, I'm only guided, and I understood it was the wish of the House. The minister is right: he then moved the motion, and I put the motion, but in the situation we're in I'd just say to all members that a degree of cooperation is important. If there is going to be a disagreement, you should be clear on that. Before we take the next step, I will say: the minister is right, but clearly, had the Manager of Opposition Business been here—and it's not his fault he's not here all the time—a different course would have occurred. Yes, you're right: I've seen it happen in the reverse. I think it's a bit hard on the two members who aren't privy to the negotiations to imply that they were in agreement when I read out, 'I understand it's the wish of the House'. I'm not quite sure which step you want to take now, but I'm going to call the Manager of Opposition Business.
I'd seek leave for the question to be put again, as the standing orders allow, if there's agreement from the House, where there has been a misunderstanding.
Minister?
I accept that. That's fair.
Okay. I'll put the question again, and that is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
Can you state the question?
Sure. The minister moved that leave be granted for the debate to be resumed at a later hour this day.
Mr Burke interjecting—
He sought leave. He moved that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. That was the motion.
And that is now what's being put.
That is what was put and is now being re-put.
Can I speak on the motion now that the question has been stated?
Okay. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Thanks very much, Mr Speaker.
Have you got your breath back?
It's better than it was. Although I don't think it's quite the week for the government to be making criticisms of whether people are getting their words out at the dispatch box!
I'll just say to the Minister for Education, his office isn't that close. Be fair.
He was seriously puffing.
He must have moved quickly.
I did move quickly. These weeks are functioning entirely on cooperation. The government, for different suspensions, including the one that was moved yesterday, does not have an absolute majority. And, if the parliament were to sit, the government would be incapable of having an absolute majority. With that in mind, that's why there is a high degree of cooperation being sought from the opposition and being granted by the opposition.
The government put forward two other pieces of legislation where they sought our cooperation and they made a case for why they were urgent. The first of those was the legislation that went through yesterday with respect to the privacy protections for the COVIDSafe app. The case was made as to why it was urgent, and the opposition accepted that case and facilitated debate. We made sure yesterday that by the time it got to past 7 o'clock the member for Kennedy was the only speaker remaining. When he concluded his remarks there was no need for a gag; there was no need for that sort of obstruction to happen in the House. We simply withdrew the additional speakers we had on the list, the minister was able to provide his comments-in-reply and it was done. Similarly, later today we will deal with an aged-care bill where the government have explained the reasons why that is urgent. The urgency of the aged-care bill doesn't go to issues necessarily related to COVID-19. It's urgent for a different reason, but the government has made the case as to why it's urgent, and we've heard that and we've cooperated.
With respect to the Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020, this is a bill that has been hanging around for a very long time, has been spoken about for a very long time—the shadow minister for agriculture has mentioned in dispatches how long this issue has been around—and has never been considered urgent and was never even introduced into the parliament until now. Why there is a sudden urgency for this to get through the House of Representatives in one day when the government have had the issue in front of them for something like a year or more and have never bothered to introduce it before is a case that needs to be made. The government haven't made that case. They've simply said: 'Yes, we want it through. Let's make it urgent'. It's not whether the bill has merit or not; there are lots of bills that have merit that the opposition supports, and I suspect this will be one of them. But the issue of something passing through the parliament in a single day requires the issue to be of a different gravity. There is a reason why the standing orders say that after a bill is introduced you don't go straight into the debate on it. To move that we debate it immediately is a big call. It's a big call that when the government makes the case, we cooperate. We have proof of that yesterday and proof of that again today. But, on this one, they haven't made the case or sought to make the case as to why it's urgent. It is not unreasonable, at all, for this parliament to expect that when a piece of legislation is introduced it will lay on the table for at least a day before we then discuss it and we then debate it. To have a situation where this is put urgently to us without that case being made—it's simply not reasonable and it's not in the spirit of how the parliament has been operating in weeks like this.
In different weeks I may express different levels of outrage over this sort of behaviour, but, can I tell you, in the context of us all being nice and calm to each other, this is high outrage. It really is unreasonable. I don't blame the minister at the table, but my office had been advised that any attempt by the government to bring it on today would happen after all the introductions had been dealt with. That was the advice that had come through to me. So to then find not only it being introduced without making the case but that the minister introducing the bill, had, I presume, been advised by someone else to move that motion immediately, is contrary to what we'd been told and is contrary to any reasonable case that had been made.
I don't know if this has something to do with negotiations on other issues in the Senate. I don't know if there's some other reason why the government might have a political objective to push this through so quickly, but if there's a policy case for this being urgent you would have thought that sometime in the last 12 months they would have introduced the legislation. You would have thought, in the whole period that we've had where the issue has been alive, that they would have bothered to draft the legislation. I can't see what's happened in the last few weeks that means that an issue, that, for a long time, has been, 'Yes, we'll get around to it,' is suddenly, 'We're doing this today and it must be completed today.' Unless the government wants to start playing games with the level of cooperation that has been shown in this parliament, I would advise the government very strongly: when you make the case for something being urgent we have proven that we will be cooperative and we will be responsible; when the case is not made, it is unreasonable of the government to use its numbers on a contingency motion, and to use its numbers in various resolutions in this way, in a parliament that is only meeting at the moment because of cooperation. Don't take the goodwill when you want it and then trash it the moment the sittings are underway.
An honourable member interjecting—
If nothing else, I've proven I spend more time with music than I do with health! I've clarified that! But the case has to be made, and this does matter. It goes to the whole operation of the parliament. I can't stress that enough. On the policy issue itself, the shadow minister for agriculture will be able to make the case more strongly than me. But, in terms of the processes of the House, don't take the cooperation when it's offered and then refuse a simple opposition request that you need to make the case for urgency.
I was not as informed as the Manager of Opposition Business may be, when he wasn't here. If it was of such importance, I would have thought that he would be here to make sure of the protocols. In essence, I was surprised when no-one was here, and that's why I simply thought that it was going to continue.
Let me say why it's very important that this legislation does need to go through. This is an emerging industry, and, at the moment, under the current legislation, the department of agriculture can't issue certificates. What we have seen in this heightened environment since COVID-19 is that trading partners want certainty and, if you are unable to tick off and give that certainty around the protocols and certification of our products as we send them out, then we put at risk and at jeopardy the livelihoods of Australian farmers. This is an emerging industry, and we did not want to see what we've seen in other agricultural industries, particularly barley and the red meat sector, at the moment. We did not want to see that the protocols were not being adhered to. We were simply working in good faith, in essence, with our department of agricultural giving assurances to our trading partners, rather than being able to support it through legislation—a structured process.
This is about us understanding the global community that we're in at the moment and the heightened concern about the provenance of what's being exported. This is a sensible action for a government to take to protect the agricultural sector. We're doing that quickly to make sure we're protecting the livelihoods of Australian farmers, and we should be proud of the fact that they're diversifying into narcotic goods that can be exported safely. This is an opportunity for Australia to lead the world, and that is why there is the urgency of us putting this bill in today to this parliament: for this parliament to demonstrate to Australian farmers and to the world that we will lead them and we will lead them out of COVID-19.
I'm sorry, I can't give the call to the member for Hunter, because the minister's moved the motion and he's now closed the debate. It's the equivalent of the end of a second reading debate. I would have been able to give the call earlier, but I can't now the minister has closed the debate. I'm sorry. The member for Hunter?
I respectfully agree that that is of course the correct ruling. I'm asking the minister whether he'd provide leave for me to make a short statement.
In a sign of good faith, yes, I give leave.
I suspected that the minister would. I respect the minister. We have a very good working relationship, and the opposition certainly wants to work with him on this issue. But we understand that procedural issues like this go well beyond the remit of the minister responsible for the bill, and it is obvious to me that there is a broader tactical issue at hand here, particularly given—and I correct the minister—that we were given other information about when this debate would take place this morning. It was wrong of the minister—and I do understand that he probably didn't understand the situation—to be critical of the Manager of Opposition Business for not being in here. We were clearly told—and we checked this only 10 minutes ago—that this debate would not take place until much later this morning. So, it was wrong for the minister to be critical of the Manager of Opposition Business. And I thank the member for Watson for his contribution in my absence, because he encapsulated the issue very, very well.
I only rise to speak as the agricultural spokesperson to reinforce our determination on every occasion to facilitate the interests of the agriculture sector and in particular the export sector. It is very topical at the moment, with the threat of tariffs on our barley producers and of course the suspension, or cancellation—or however it might be described—of the licences for our meat processors and their export markets into China, our largest trading partner. So, let me make it clear that we support the bill that's being debated in this House today. We will support every measure that further facilitates export opportunities for Australia's growers and producers, and indeed manufacturers. It's often said, and it is true, that our growers and producers are the most efficient in the world, and they earn for us much of the foreign exchange that we rely upon in this country to build national wealth and to maintain our living standards.
I am a great supporter, as are many, many of my colleagues on this side, of medicinal hemp and hemp products generally. Hemp is an outstanding and environmentally friendly crop, and medicinal hemp is so important to so many Australians and people around the world. We understand that these measures are important to ensure that the trade with the United States continues. But this issue has been going on for a number of years now. Up until now it has been dealt with by way of side letters—in other words, up until now the United States has been satisfied to accept a letter guaranteeing that the phytosanitary certificates are valid, notwithstanding the fact that the Export Control Act in its definition of goods prohibited the export of narcotic goods. They've been accepting those side letters for a long time now, as I understand it and as I am advised by both the minister and the department. But for some reason, I expect legitimately, there is growing concern that there's not sufficient security around the side letter as a guarantor of the phytosanitary standards of the product. They want that fixed, and the only way to fix that is of course to amend the Export Control Act to remove the ban on narcotics in the definition of goods under that act.
We understand that absolutely. That's why we will be supporting this bill. But I think it was only a week ago, or maybe a little bit more, that the Manager of Opposition Business contacted me to advise me that the Attorney-General and Leader of the House had asked that we consider facilitating this bill in all its stages through the House and indeed the parliament. As the Manager of Opposition Business has indicated, we are always up for that—somewhat reluctantly, because when the government of the day does this we have to circumvent many of our own internal processes. Those opposite should understand this, because many of them have been on the opposition benches in the past. Like those who sit opposite, we do have a shadow cabinet, and in their case a cabinet. We do have caucus committees. We do have the caucus itself, and processes to go through. When we're asked to facilitate bills like this then obviously we often have to circumvent those processes, and of course it denies us the same length of opportunity to further canvass, research and discuss the matters that are coming before the House.
So whenever we do this, we do it with reluctance, but we always do it, under the guise of cooperation and to take the opportunity to act in the national interest and in this case in the interests of our growers, and we don't hesitate. But on this occasion, in the week that has passed since the Manager of Opposition Business contacted me, despite asking on a number of occasions I have received no compelling case or no persuasive reason that this bill—given that this matter has been going on for a number of years—needs passage through this parliament this week.
The minister had an opportunity again today to provide those persuasive reasons. He's not done so. He could have been more specific about the business interests at hand here. He could have been more specific about volume of export, value of export and where the key export markets are within the United States. I've had some insight into that personally. But remember, this is the people's House, and others will be voting on these bills. Others will be voting for or against the facilitation of these bills, and members of this place—including those who sit on the government benches—are entitled to know more about what they are voting on. I had a briefing with the department. I always have the greatest respect for our departmental officers, and I always respect the confidential nature of those briefings, and I'm not going to share any of it here today. But it was clear to me that those departmental officers were a little reluctant to share information about this bill and the reason for the need for the parliament to facilitate it. Certainly, both the minister and the Leader of the House have not been very forthcoming in better explaining why it is that this is so necessary this week.
So let me be clear: we want to do everything we can to support our growers. We want to do everything we can to support this industry. If the government tells us very, very clearly and gives us an explanation as to why this bill needs to go through the parliament this week, we will support the facilitation of this bill through this parliament this week. But the government, despite all our requests has failed to do so. It has failed to do so on an issue that's been with us since—I just can't think which—2018 or 2019. I think it's 2018. It's been with us for all of that time. I'm told that the US authorities gave a warning when we first started exporting this product that, while they would accept the side letter as a guarantor of the phytosanitary strengths of the product, that the side letter can't be forever and that they would need further assurances and guarantees. That means, of course, that this legislation would need to be amended. So the government have had two or three years to do that but, mysteriously, suddenly, it now has to be done this week, at a time when the parliament's time is so precious and at a time when we're dealing with an international pandemic—the biggest economic challenge this country has ever faced. This is a time when we really need to be dealing with those issues very regularly. It's a time when our major trading partner is starting to cut off our exports to their market, and the government wants to take up our time and the parliament's time. They want us to circumvent our political processes in this place but they're not prepared to tell us why. It's not good enough to say, 'Well we need to do this because we need to provide the guarantees our international customers are looking for.' That's fine, we understand that. But why, after all this time, this week? Why do we have to go through this extraordinary process of suspending standing orders and facilitating all the stages of this bill through this House. We just don't understand why that is the case.
There is still an opportunity for the minister to jump to his feet and provide us with the answers to those questions. There is a precedent here: while we're always prepared to facilitate bills when there is a good reason to, we don't like it because it sets a precedent—it gets too easy for the government to start governing in that way on a regular basis. There has to be a good reason and we've not been given that reason. So there is an opportunity for the minister to provide those persuasive answers, and we stand ready to hear them and to facilitate this bill if he's capable of doing so.
The member for Hunter's time has expired. I'm now going to put the question moved by the minister. The question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I have great pleasure in moving the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020. The Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020 provides for export charges to be imposed on dairy cattle and sets the rate of provision on a per head basis on the export of dairy cattle.
A range of statutory agricultural levies and charges are currently collected and disbursed on behalf of Australia's primary industries. These levies and charges are imposed at the request of relevant industries to enable the funding of essential services, including research and development (R&D) and marketing, through the 15 research and development corporations.
The livestock export industry has requested government to impose this statutory charge on dairy cattle exports of $6 per head of dairy cattle exported. This will replace the current voluntary $6 per head charge on exported dairy cattle which industry has identified is undercollected and is not sufficient to meet the needs of the sector.
The Australian Livestock Export Corporation (LiveCorp), as the research and development corporation which receives livestock export industry charges, will use the funds to meet the marketing and research and development needs of the dairy cattle export sector. This includes the funding of the Dairy Cattle Export Program, which aims to improve research and development specific to dairy cattle exports, focusing on animal health and welfare, supply chain efficiency and regulatory performance and market access for dairy cattle exports.
Australia is a supplier of quality dairy cattle to the world, with Australian dairy cattle held in high regard due to their ability to consistently produce high-quality fresh milk. Through the export of Australian dairy cattle to other markets, Australian farmers and exporters are helping to develop dairy herds while establishing strong relationships with key trading partners and our regional neighbours.
Australia is a world leader in animal welfare practices and our involvement in the livestock export trade provides us with the opportunity to influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries.
The Australian livestock export industry is a valuable industry that supports the livelihoods of our rural and regional communities across Australia. The Australian livestock export industry contributes over $1.8 billion annually to the Australian economy and provides employment for many Australians either directly or in associated industries. Export of dairy cattle is an important alternate source of income for many dairy farmers, particularly those affected by drought and the current global pandemic. The dairy cattle export industry is valued at over $200 million, with over 100,000 cattle exported in 2019 to a number of markets, including China, Indonesia, Pakistan and Japan.
This government is committed to supporting the goal of agriculture being a $100 billion industry by 2030. Getting the most from our investment in research and development and marketing is an important component to seeing this goal succeed.
This bill introduces amendments to the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 to provide for export charges to be imposed on dairy cattle and set the rate of provision on a per head basis on the export of dairy cattle. The current export charge on beef and breeder cattle remains unchanged.
These measures will enable appropriate funding to be made available for marketing and R&D activities for the dairy cattle export sector, to ensure a competitive, sustainable industry for the future.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Keeping Australian communities safe from those who seek to do us harm is, and always will be, the government's No. 1 priority.
An important way the government achieves this is by ensuring that our national security agencies have the powers they need to work in an increasingly complex national security environment.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is facing a wider range of security challenges than at any time in its 70-year history. As the director-general recently noted in his recent annual threat assessment, the number of terrorism leads ASIO is investigating has doubled since this time last year. The director-general also noted that the threat to Australia from foreign interference and espionage is higher now than it was at the height of the Cold War.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 will modernise ASIO's powers and, in doing so, improve ASIO's capacity to respond to these threats.
The bill does this in two ways. First, the bill repeals ASIO's existing questioning and detention warrant framework contained in Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979(ASIO Act), and introduces a reformed compulsory questioning framework.
Second, the bill aligns the approval process for ASIO to use non-intrusive tracking devices with that of law enforcement agencies under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and modernises the definition of tracking device to ensure ASIO is able to use the latest and safest technology to perform its functions.
Amendments to ASIO's compulsory questioning framework
ASIO's questioning and detention powers were introduced in 2003 in response to the growing threat from terrorism after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States.
These powers enable ASIO, upon obtaining a warrant, to question a person under compulsion to obtain intelligence in relation to terrorism, including a person with knowledge of but not directly involved in a terrorism matter.
ASIO has used these powers sparingly, with the last questioning warrant being used in 2010. No questioning and detention warrants have ever been sought by ASIO.
But although they are rarely used, these powers have produced valuable intelligence that could not have been obtained through other methods.
ASIO's compulsory questioning powers remain a valuable intelligence collection tool, particularly in light of challenges posed by modern technology, such as encryption.
In 2018, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) reviewed these powers and recommended that ASIO retain a compulsory questioning power, but that the detention power should be repealed.
The committee also recommended that the compulsory questioning power be reformed and, in doing so, that consideration could be given to:
The government accepted the committee's recommendations, and the bill will implement these important measures to ensure these powers are fit for purpose in the current security environment.
Importantly, the bill will retain the existing safeguards and reporting requirements of the current questioning framework. To this end, the bill retains provisions permitting the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to be present at questioning and to raise concerns with the prescribed authority, who may then choose to suspend questioning in response.
The bill will retain the role of the prescribed authority as an independent person overseeing the execution of the warrant.
The bill also strengthens the right to legal representation during questioning. The bill ensures that a subject may contact a lawyer at any time during questioning, subject to very limited exceptions.
In the case of minors, it will be mandatory that a lawyer be present at all times during questioning of a minor, and the bill also provides that a parent or guardian may also be present.
Amendments to the surveillance device framework
I turn now to the amendments to ASIO's surveillance device framework.
There is an increasing trend towards less sophisticated attack planning by small groups or lone actors using easily acquired weapons, who can move rapidly from planning to action.
The current authorisation level for the use of tracking devices does not provide ASIO with the operational agility it requires in this evolving security environment. It also increases risks to officer safety by requiring ASIO officers to conduct physical surveillance of potentially dangerous targets in circumstances where there may not be sufficient time to go through the current lengthy authorisation process to use a tracking device.
Currently, in order to use a surveillance device ASIO must obtain a warrant from the Attorney-General. The bill proposes changing this arrangement to allow non-intrusive tracking devices, such as a device placed on a vehicle, or in a person's bag, to be authorised internally by a delegated senior ASIO officer.
Devices that require ASIO officers to do something more intrusive, that would otherwise be unlawful, such as where a property or vehicle needs to be entered, will still need to be authorised by the Attorney-General.
This change will bring ASIO in to line with law enforcement agencies, which are permitted to internally authorise non-intrusive tracking devices under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004.
The ability to internally authorise the use of tracking devices will enable ASIO to better respond to security threats, and in turn ensure that ASIO is better placed to protect Australians.
The internal authorisation framework will include numerous safeguards, such as oversight and reporting, while providing ASIO with capabilities to deal with the changing threat environment.
Closing remarks
In conclusion, this bill will ensure that ASIO has the powers it needs to deal with current and emerging threats to our nation's security.
The Morrison government is committed to ensuring our security agencies have the powers they need to operate effectively in an increasingly challenging and complex national security environment. I am sure that this sentiment is shared by all members in this chamber.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am pleased to introduce the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020.
This bill will implement the government's commitment to require large businesses and government enterprises with a total annual income of over $100 million to report on their small business payment terms and times.
We are facing unprecedented challenges as we respond to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The global and the domestic economic environment has deteriorated and we now expect the economic shock to be deep, wide, and long. Now, more than ever, we need to support small businesses.
We know that small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities and the backbone of the Australian economy. With the impact of COVID-19 it is even more important that large businesses, as stewards of their supply chains, pay small businesses promptly.
Instead, while some large businesses are doing the right thing, others are taking longer to pay their bills, worsening cash flow for small businesses who desperately need the money that they are owed.
The Prime Minister has been very clear on what large businesses need to do in the current environment. They need to support workers by keeping them employed, with appropriate leave arrangements, as needed. They need to pay small business suppliers promptly, even ahead of time.
The actions they take now will say more about those companies, their corporate values and the integrity of their brand, than anything else they've likely done as an organisation.
Research shows that in 2017-18, payments from large to small business were worth around $281 billion with $77 billion of these payments paid later than 30 days. When payments were paid late, the average length of time for small businesses to be paid was 63 days.
Longer payment times hurt small business cash flow and this harms their ability to hire, invest and grow. Cash-constrained small businesses are often forced to seek out expensive forms of financing in order to sustain their business operations. Late payments also have a flow-on effect across the economy as small businesses paid more slowly, pay their suppliers more slowly in turn.
If all large businesses in Australia paid small businesses within 30 days, it would result in a transfer of working capital from large to small businesses of approximately $7 billion and create an overall net benefit to the Australian economy of $313 million per year and around $2.6 billion over 10 years.
With the Commonwealth awarding contracts worth $16.7 billion to small and medium enterprises in 2018-19, the government recognised it needs to lead the way on good payment practices. That's why we have already adopted a range of measures to improve payment times. Since July 2019, Commonwealth agencies have paid invoices for contracts up to $1 million within 20 calendar days or paid interest on any late payments. This captures approximately 95 per cent of procurement contracts entered into by the Commonwealth.
In addition, from 1 January 2020, e-invoicing capable government agencies have paid e-invoices valued up to $1 million within five days. If they don't, they pay interest. Commonwealth agencies will be progressively coming on board with e-invoicing capability throughout 2020.
Now it's time for big business to step up. The Payment Times Reporting Bill will require large businesses to report on how quickly they say they will pay and when they actually pay their small business suppliers. Small business suppliers for the purposes of the scheme are those businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million.
Large businesses will also be asked to report on their use of supply chain financing practices. Small businesses need to be armed with information about who they do business with. There are too many incidences of large businesses taking advantage of these arrangements by extending the length of their payment terms, with small businesses being forced to enter into these arrangements where they have to agree to reduce the amount they are paid in order to get paid in a reasonable time.
The bill will bring into effect twice-yearly reporting for around 3,000 large businesses that are incorporated or have a physical presence in an Australian territory or are foreign businesses that carry on an enterprise in Australia.
Commonwealth corporate entities and Commonwealth companies who meet the income threshold will also be required to report. Enterprises such as Australia Post and NBN Co will be required to report their payment practices for the first time.
Information from these payment times reports will be made publicly available on the Payment Times Reports Register, creating an incentive for large businesses to improve their payment performance. Transparency of payment terms, times and supply chain financing practices will allow small business and the public to better identify and engage with companies that pay on time.
Businesses found to be non-compliant with the reporting requirements of this bill will be named as such on the publicly available Payment Times Reports Register.
The bill establishes the Payment Times Reporting Regulator to administer the legislation and monitor and enforce compliance as necessary. The power of the regulator extends to obtaining and publishing information, monitoring, investigating and enforcing civil penalties, as well as directing an entity to undertake an audit of their payment practices on the reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
Significant penalties will be in place to ensure that large businesses comply with the scheme. Penalties will apply for noncompliance, including failure to report or report accurately. For example, there will be penalties for providing misleading information of up to 0.6% of the annual income of the business. These penalties are designed to reflect the seriousness of the government's commitment to addressing the issue of payment times and practices. It will ensure small businesses can rely on the information to make decisions about doing business with particular large businesses.
While the core obligations of reporting entities are specified in the act, more technical and administrative details will be dealt with in the supporting rules. This means the rules can respond more flexibly to changing business and industry practices.
This bill has been informed by and reflects extensive consultation with small and large business as well as industry organisations since early 2019.
I know businesses are always concerned, when regulation is introduced, that the compliance will be onerous.
The reality is that a culture of longer payment times to suppliers has developed and it is holding us back economically.
We have already seen the benefits of our approach to shine a light on bad payment behaviour. Recently a number of large businesses rapidly abandoned payment practices which negatively impacted on small businesses once they were subject to public scrutiny.
The Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 strikes the right balance of providing transparency for small businesses without creating an unnecessary regulatory burden for businesses both large and small.
With the impact of COVID-19 it is now more important than ever that large businesses pay small businesses promptly.
These are extraordinary times for all Australians. The government is acting decisively and responsibly to support the economy to overcome the challenges posed by COVID-19. This bill reflects the government's commitment to support small business and ensure that it continues to play a critical role in driving Australia's future economic growth.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 complements the main bill, the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020.
This bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to specify the circumstances in which certain tax information can be disclosed by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Payment Times Reporting Regulator as established in the main bill.
The disclosure of tax information is necessary for the administration and operation of the new reporting framework and will provide the regulator with information about entities that will be required to report.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill now be read a second time.
This bill makes minor technical and administrative amendments to social services portfolio legislation and consequential amendments to other legislation. This bill amends secrecy provisions in social services portfolio legislation to require the Department of Social Services and Services Australia to comply with compulsory notices issued by royal commissioners where such notices cover information protected by those secrecy provisions.
Whilst the Department of Social Services and Services Australia choose to comply with Royal Commission notices that seek access to information covered by secrecy provisions, it is appropriate for the department and Services Australia to be compelled to provide information, rather than having a discretion to do so. This will safeguard the provision of information to allow the important work of the royal commission. Royal commissions must use any information provided in response to a compulsory notice in accordance with the Royal Commissions Act 1902.
The bill will make minor amendments to two offence provisions in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 relating to the reckless provision of false or misleading documents, or the reckless making of false or misleading statements, to clarify that the offences can apply where Services Australia assess a claim by using an automated process.
The bill will also include numerous amendments that will remove obsolete provisions, correct errors, update legislation and improve the operation of legislation.
Correcting errors, providing clarification and repealing counterproductive, unnecessary or redundant provisions assists with ensuring the law is easily accessible, while continuing to deliver on policy outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill now be read a second time.
This bill amends legislation as a result of Services Australia being established on 1 February 2020 as an Executive Agency under the Public Service Act 1999. The bill also makes related governance changes. Schedule 1 to the bill changes current references to Services Australia, the Department of Human Services, or the secretary of that department. The references will now be to the Executive Agency of Services Australia, or the CEO of Services Australia. These amendments will ensure that legislation continues to support service delivery and administrative decision-making by Services Australia as a new executive agency.
Schedule 2 to the bill makes governance changes relating to Services Australia. The CEO of Services Australia will perform the existing statutory roles of Chief Executive Centrelink, Chief Executive Medicare and Child Support Registrar. Those three offices are currently filled by separate Senior Executive Service officers in Services Australia.
Services Australia was established to play a key role in more efficiently and effectively delivering the services that Australians rely on. Having the CEO fill those key statutory offices will sharpen the service delivery focus of Services Australia and simplify lines of accountability.
The bill will amend the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997 to prohibit a person from using the name Services Australia (for example, as part of a business name) if that falsely implies a connection to Services Australia or Australian government service delivery.
The bill will amend the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997 and the Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973 to require the Chief Executive Centrelink and Chief Executive Medicare to comply with any limitations on sub-delegation imposed by the delegator. For example, when the Secretary of the Department of Social Services delegates a power to the Chief Executive Centrelink, the secretary could direct that the Chief Executive Centrelink must not sub-delegate that power to any Services Australia employee below a certain APS classification level.
The Chief Executive Centrelink and Chief Executive Medicare could also independently give directions when delegating or sub-delegating a power. For example, the Chief Executive Centrelink could delegate a particular power generally to all Services Australia officers above a certain APS classification level but direct that officers can only exercise that power if it's necessary to perform the functions of their specific role.
In many respects this bill provides the formal foundations for Services Australia.
The Prime Minister has made clear his intent for the establishment of this new Executive Agency: excellence in service delivery for the Australian government.
In August last year, the Prime Minister stood in the Great Hall of Parliament House, a stone's throw from this very chamber.
He addressed the nation's Public Service asking for them to refocus their effort on serving Australians.
He said:
So as we gather here in this Great Hall, I want to remind you of a poignant feature of this house of democracy.
This is one of the few parliamentary buildings in the world where you don't have to walk up steps to enter it.
Our Parliament isn't a Parliament over the people or above them, but one that people, that Australians, can freely and easily approach.
The Prime Minister said he wanted this to be a metaphor for how Australians see their government.
In my portfolio this has provided a beacon for how we want to deliver services for Australians.
When the Prime Minister announced the establishment of Services Australia, it wasn't simply a rebrand or a rename.
We wanted to make it clear to the public, and the Public Service, that the priority of government is excellence in service delivery.
He said we want government to be easier for Australians. We want it to be much easier,
because government services are the services Australians rely on and we want them to access those services, as easily as they can and in as informed a way as possible.
So this bill puts in place the foundations of an agency that will be and has been there for Australians in need.
We could not then have known just how vital this focus would become.
In the face of the coronavirus we have had to take extraordinary steps to protect Australians.
As we have insulated Australians from the impacts of the virus we have had to make significant economic and social sacrifices.
These changes have seen Australians forgo those quintessential Aussie pastimes like hanging at the beach, going to the footy or down to the pub.
But perhaps most significantly and most tragically these actions have resulted in a demand for government social supports not seen in this country since the Great Depression.
Indeed, the immediacy and scale of this demand is surely without precedent in the history of our Commonwealth.
As Minister for Government Services I have seen how Australians have reached out in record numbers and how Services Australia has delivered with a relentless focus on serving their fellow Australians, living out the expectation set by the Prime Minister when he outlined his vision for the Public Service only months ago.
In the face of significant challenges Services Australia has been a steady support for Australians in need.
Throughout the coronavirus crisis, staff from Services Australia have been working around the clock—literally 24/7—to deliver new and improved income support measures and to fast-track the Australian government's coronavirus financial support.
You only need to see the beautiful pictures of chalk drawings outside our service centres thanking our service centre staff to recognise the gratitude of Australians for these hardworking public servants, who so often live in the communities they support.
As the Prime Minister has said, 2020, for most Australians, will be the toughest year they may live through.
We all know the national cabinet in late March took extreme health measures to get on top of the coronavirus.
But we have to also acknowledge the impact this necessary treatment has had on our communities.
We have seen Australians lose their jobs, lose hours of work. We've seen businesses that have been forced to close.
These have been heartbreaking events in our nation's history and story.
In the face of an invidious challenge, the government has sought to chart a course through what has been an incredibly difficult time.
On 23 March this year, following the decisions made by national cabinet to close cafes, restaurants, gyms and so many parts of our economy, we saw thousands of Australians queueing at Centrelink offices across the country, seeking assistance and unsure of their future.
The queues that we saw outside Centrelink and the challenges and frustrations people have had in gaining access were a sheer function of the extraordinary and overwhelming demand for support across our country.
The scale of the need reflected the whole-of-society public health effort we had to take to keep us all safe from the virus.
Services Australia faced massive and unprecedented demands on our digital channels including myGov and massive demand on telephony channels as people sought assistance and information.
Services Australia faced what appeared to be an insurmountable task of providing social supports to over a million Australians made unemployed almost overnight.
Hundreds of thousands of these Australians had never interacted with the Australian social support system in their lives.
Many—over 100,000—were without Services Australia customer reference numbers and without any understanding of how to access supports further complicating what was already a mammoth task in terms of scale.
But I am proud to say Services Australia, in the face of the most significant demand for social supports since the Great Depression, faced that challenge and exceeded expectations enabled by the structural changes codified in this Bill
In the early morning as the queues started to form we took immediate action and that effort continues as we speak.
In the days leading up to 23 March, we took steps to boost the capacity of the myGov website to ensure it could support the huge volume of concurrent users.
Though it is now clear that the need was exceeded reflecting the historic tragedy of this moment in our national story.
In those moments we saw the great frustration, anxiety and worry faced by thousands of Australians.
No system is built to deal with the circumstances and events that we are now facing as a nation.
We have, as we said we would, worked night and day to build more capacity into all our systems.
Australians can be assured that no resource has been spared to ensure that we have systems in place to support them in their time of great need.
The arrangements codified in this bill provided sharper lines of accountability and decision-making. This was vital in driving a relentless focus on getting help where it was needed at speed.
With hard work and decisive action, within days we rapidly reduced the queues of new jobseekers outside our service centres; we registered hundreds of thousands of Australians online; we enhanced and improved our digital channels; and we made rapid changes to processes ensuring Australians in need would not miss out through the intention to claim registration process.
Within weeks we made impressive strides in process simplification and digital processing, keeping Australians safe at home and getting them help faster.
This included enabling people to establish their identity online, providing customer reference numbers via myGov and introducing a simplified online claim form, which people can complete in about 20 minutes, as opposed to the previous average of about 55 minutes.
These changes may sound small but these process innovations have made all the difference to getting help where it is needed at speed.
Australians can now obtain a CRN and apply for JobSeeker all online through myGov, something successive governments have been trying to deliver for years. Services Australia has delivered this in just four weeks.
In the face of this unprecedented demand we've surged thousands of extra staff redirecting people from within Services Australia, across the Public Service and from service delivery partners—totalling around 12,000 people including the extra 5,000 Services Australia staff the Prime Minister announced in March.
I had time to meet some of these frontline staff in recent weeks just down the road from here in Tuggeranong. Their commitment to the task is inspiring. It is clear this surge has been getting support to Australians in need.
I thank all the staff, especially those hardworking Services Australia staff who have made a vocation of government service delivery—many for decades. Without you we would have been lost as a nation.
And so through the hard work of thousands of Australians serving their community, within approximately 50 days, we've processed as many JobSeeker claims as we normally would in two years. It ahs been an extraordinary achievement by the Public Service officers within Services Australia.
More than 800,000 Australians who have lost their jobs are today receiving financial assistance from the Australian government thanks to the work of these dedicated public servants.
That's 800,000 Australians with greater certainty in an uncertain time and 800,000 Australians with a firmer footing. It is a truly wonderful thing.
As the payment infrastructure of government, Services Australia has also been charged with delivering the Australian government's economic support payments.
We've successfully delivered without issue the first of the government's additional supporting payments to Australians in need.
More than $5.1 billion in $750 economic support payments has hit the bank accounts of 6.8 million eligible Australians. A second round of economic support payments will roll out in July.
Services Australia has also implemented a number of changes to Medicare processes so there is no need for Australians to come into an office for any Medicare related business.
All Medicare related claims, changes or inquiries can now be done online or over the phone. This includes newborn enrolments, re-enrolments for people returning to Australia, and linking Medicare cards to myGov.
They are working around the clock to allow patients to access payments and services, including essential medicines, and health professionals to claim for services. This includes telehealth, video conferencing, telephony, and pathology testing for COVID-19.
We've implemented 279 new services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, some within hours of announcement, to support recent policy changes, and as of last Sunday (10 May), almost half a billion dollars ($479.8 million) has been spent on these COVID-specific Medicare services alone, to support 5½ million (5.4 million) Australians.
These services give health professionals flexibility to provide medical care, and essential medicines minimising the risk of infection to health professionals and other patients in waiting rooms—helping to keep us all safe.
In addition, through changes to the existing aged-care payment systems, Services Australia is delivering additional payments worth hundreds of millions of dollars to support the aged-care sector.
These payments include a new COVID-19 subsidy, and temporary increases to a number of current viability supplements to support aged-care workers, providers and residents.
This additional funding will support around 1,800 providers of residential care and home care and their staff, and around 350,000 care recipients.
Through Medicare, the PBS and aged care, Services Australia works to support all Australians, when they need it, at some of the most critical moments of their lives.
Another area we've taken considerable strides in has been our digital channels.
I am proud to say that our digital channels today can support vastly more Australians than at any time in history.
In 2019, about 571,000 people accessed myGov every day, and we have acted quickly to ensure our systems can now support an average of 1.7 million logins on every business day in April. That's a million extra Australians every day logging in to myGov.
Our busiest day, 25 March, had almost three million people logging into their myGov account, compared to the previous busy day of 1.8 million logins in July last year during tax peak time.
For an authenticated online platform, myGov now has the largest capacity in Australia.
Mobilising technology to support Australians has taken on a new level of complexity and importance as we fight the coronavirus.
As Australians have turned to their government, we've had to step up to ensure services are delivered, whether it is financial payments to people who find themselves out of work, new communications tools to get information on coronavirus, or a technology solution to help health professionals to contain the virus.
Services Australia has been working closely throughout the crisis with the Digital Transformation Agency leveraging technology to help Australians—this close collaboration enabled by the Prime Minister vesting all service delivery within one portfolio.
The Department of Health turned to the DTA to build and manage the COVIDSafe health app.
Entrusting the DTA to build the app showed an enormous amount of respect and acknowledgement for the transformational digital capabilities inherent in the DTA—which has also rapidly transformed Australia.gov.au into a pandemic information website and developed the Australian government WhatsApp channel.
The COVIDSafe health app will help our frontline health workers stop the spread of the virus in our community. The app is the product of close collaboration across the Australian government including with the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, the Department of Health, and of course our close industry partners like the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre.
This app will save lives and livelihoods.
As the Prime Minister has said, the app is a critical element of the road back to normality.
Australians are already adopting the app at rates exceeding expectations.
It will make a difference and would not exist without the great work done by the DTA.
Like the DTA, Services Australia has also stepped up to deliver during the pandemic.
Many Australians have never needed financial assistance from the government before, let alone ever needed to contact Centrelink.
Faced with these challenges, Services Australia has done a fabulous job in delivering.
Conclusion
So with this bill we put in place the formal foundations for Services Australia. The bill puts in place the legislative underpinnings of an executive agency that has already demonstrated the capacity to deliver for Australians in great need, living out the Prime Minister's vision for service delivery in the Morrison government.
We could not have foreseen at the outset of that undertaking just how important that objective would be—it's a commitment that has assumed a new chapter of importance in our national story.
Indeed, that we have already achieved so much through Services Australia preceding the introduction of the bill is testament to the challenges we have faced over recent months, including our response to the bushfires, in which Services Australia played a key role.
I am sure that in this time of great need Services Australia has imprinted its role in public service.
The commitment to being there for Australians has never been more important than it is now.
So, we will continue the hard work of improving our government services and continue to deliver the Prime Minister's vison for Services Australia—the foundations of which this bill sets out.
We will continue to equip the hardworking staff of Services Australia with the tools they need to carry on with the important work of serving their communities that they live in and that they love.
As we reflect on this time it's right that we hold up those government services staff in the pantheon of professionals that have helped keep Australians going during the crisis, alongside our nurses, our doctors, our truckies, our police and our ambos.
These Australians have been there for their community, and Australians can be assured that we've taken every possible step to support them at this time of need.
So I say thank you to Services Australia staff for their passion and dedication in what you have achieved for Australians so far and for what we will do together into the future.
The commitment I have seen from you has remained unshakeable and I commend you all for all the incredible efforts you have put in so far.
While we have accomplished much, I fear the road will be long—but we will not stop in our collective efforts to meet expectations and to continue to build the trust of Australians.
While this bill will lay the legislative foundations for Services Australia it is abundantly clear the agency is already living out its purpose.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill will support the traditional owners of Jabiru, the Mirarr people, to lead the transition of Jabiru from a mining town to a tourism town and regional service centre via a new township lease.
Land security is economic security and it helps drive opportunities for Indigenous Australians to support community development and prosperity. It means generations of traditional owners can benefit from the land and help maintain the ongoing cultural connection with the land.
With the closure of the nearby Ranger uranium mine by January 2021 and the expiry of existing Jabiru leasing arrangements in June 2021, the Mirarr traditional owners have developed a masterplan setting out their vision for Jabiru as a world-leading ecologically sustainable, economically and socially vibrant community where traditional Aboriginal culture, the local economy, the tourist industry and the natural environment flourish.
We are introducing this bill to support the Mirarr's vision. It forms part of the Australian government's $216 million commitment to revitalising Jabiru and Kakadu National Park, which will bring business opportunities and jobs to our iconic Top End.
The bill supports the Future of Jabiru memorandum of understanding, which was signed on 14 August 2019 between the Australian government, the Northern Territory government, Energy Resources of Australia Limited and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation to guide implementation of the Jabiru Masterplan.
A key element of the Jabiru Masterplan is making the town Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and providing for a long-term township lease.
Township leasing provides individual property rights that drive economic development by establishing a clear, transparent and efficient land administration system. This ensures certainty for individuals, businesses and lending institutions seeking investment opportunities.
As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential that we foster an environment where we can enable more jobs and economic growth to ensure prosperity for all Indigenous Australians.
This bill is economic empowerment.
It is entrusting Indigenous Australians to make decisions that will benefit their communities and their people.
Land security is economic security.
And from economic security comes the ability to put in place the foundations that will lead to economic growth, job opportunity and better security for Indigenous Australians.
The Land Rights Act was amended in 2013 to provide a specific handback-leaseback arrangement for Jabiru, including for a township lease to be held by the Commonwealth through the Executive Director of Township Leasing. The Land Rights Act provides for an approved entity to hold township leases. The Commonwealth entity was approved in 2007 and in 2016 the first community entity was approved to hold the Gunyangara township lease.
New township leases can be held by either the Executive Director of Township Leasing or an approved local community entity. Many township leases held by the Executive Director of Township Leasing include transfer provisions to transition to a community entity at traditional owners' request.
This bill makes changes to the Land Rights Act to make the Jabiru township lease consistent with other township leases in the Northern Territory. It will allow the Jabiru head lease to be held by either a community entity or the Commonwealth for a term of between 40 and 99 years.
It will also make other technical amendments. These other amendments clarify that the new township lease will not automatically extend the term of existing Jabiru subleases beyond the term of the current town head lease, and remove redundant Jabiru leasing provisions.
The bill makes a minor consequential amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, to ensure people will be able to use or develop land in Jabiru that is subleased to them by the head lessee.
I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Mirarr traditional owners. Theirs has been a decades' long struggle to secure the recognition and opportunity to forge a future guided by their own aspirations.
In February last year, the Parliament passed amendments scheduling four parcels of land as Aboriginal land in the Kakadu National Park surrounding Jabiru. Negotiations are now underway with the traditional owners of Kakadu to secure a lease back arrangement with the Director of National Parks.
These amendments complement those by giving effect to a leasing arrangement for the traditional owners of Jabiru. Traditional owners right across Kakadu National Park will be in control of the decisions that impact on them and their families for generations to come.
The Prime Minister reflected in his 2020 Closing the Gap address that to rob a person of their right to take responsibility is to deny them their liberty. He made it clear that we must 'restore the right to take responsibility, the right to make decisions and the right to step up. It must be accompanied by a willingness to push decisions down to the people who are closest to them.'
We are embracing this change and I am confident that the Mirarr people will now finally be able to achieve their social, cultural and economic independence. They will be a beacon for others. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I present legislation to the House that is designed to improve the wellbeing of veterans and their families.
The wellbeing bill addresses three key elements—it implements the government's commitment to create a Veteran Family Advocate, announced by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, me and the member for Herbert, Phil Thompson, on 5 February this year; it provides changes to better support the transition from ADF service to civilian employment; and, finally, it ensures all recipients of the gold card are treated equally in terms of their benefits.
Earlier this year, the government announced two key roles—the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, which will be complemented by the Veteran Family Advocate.
The government intends to bring forward legislation to establish the national commissioner later this year, while this bill will establish the Veteran Family Advocate as a new commissioner to work as part of the Repatriation Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.
These commissions are responsible for supporting the administration of veterans' legislation and providing advice to the minister and government in relation to these acts.
The Veteran Family Advocate will work with veterans' families to build our understanding of risk and protective factors relating to the wellbeing of veterans and their families, particularly during their transition from the Australian Defence Force.
They will be responsible for directly engaging with the families of veterans, to help shape policy, improve the design of all veteran programs and services, including mental health support and services.
In addition to performing the statutory function of representing the perspectives of veterans' families within the commissions, they will:
The Veteran Family Advocate will support the Department of Veterans' Affairs in implementing the government's commitment to enhance the health and wellbeing of the veteran community.
They will do this by ensuring that every part of our veteran support system is focused on veterans' mental health and suicide prevention.
Only families can understand how a veteran feels at a particular moment and the nature of the particular problems their loved ones face.
The government cannot solve the complex problems faced by veterans without the assistance of their families.
It is the start of a partnership between these commissions and the families of veterans.
We all want to support veterans to the best of our ability, whether we are family or government.
By working together we believe we can achieve better results for our veterans.
Schedule 2 of the bill facilitates flexibility in the way programs can be designed to assist the transition from the ADF to the civilian workforce.
This will allow for the established of new programs, such as the Support for Employment Program through the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Regulations 2020.
The regulations will contain the details of the employment assistance or benefits, as well as who they will be provided to and in what circumstances they can be provided.
Once established through the regulations, this program will provide eligible veterans with both pre- and post-employment assistance.
This includes career advice, coaching, assistance with skills translation, resume and interview preparation, and coaching to adapt to the structure and styles of communication in civilian employment.
This will ensure similar employment support is available to recently transitioned veterans as is currently available to transitioning Australian Defence Force members.
Schedule 3 of this bill rectifies an unintended omission that has meant that the energy supplement has not been payable to some gold card holders because they are covered under different legislation.
It extends the provision of the energy supplement to Australian participants in the British nuclear tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force and Australian residents who worked as part of Australian surgical medical teams in Vietnam, ensuring that all gold card holders are treated consistently.
Our veterans were prepared to make great sacrifices when we needed them. As the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant states: 'For what they have done, this we will do.'
This bill supports the wellbeing of veterans, their families and the wider veteran community.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers on the Morrison government's election promise to give Australians greater flexibility to contribute to their superannuation as they approach retirement.
This government recognises the realities of the modern Australian workplace—a workplace that has become more flexible than ever before.
Far more Australians are taking career breaks or working part time to raise children; and in particular, we are seeing an unprecedented number of women rejoining the workforce. Many people are choosing to work longer, often part time—choosing to maintain a connection to their professional lives.
And as our workplaces evolve, so too must plans for retirement.
With this great progress comes an imperative for government. We must ensure our super system is equipped with the same flexibility as our workplaces.
The superannuation bring-forward arrangement already provides flexibility in the superannuation system to allow individuals to make up to three years worth of non-concessional contributions to their superannuation in a single year.
This bill therefore amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to extend access to the superannuation bring-forward arrangements to people aged 65 and 66 from 1 July 2020 to better reflect the changing nature of work.
Through this measure, the Morrison government is helping older Australians to boost their retirement savings, especially if they have returned to the workforce, by giving them greater flexibility to make superannuation contributions as they enter retirement.
It also aligns the cut-off age of 67 for the bring-forward arrangements with the eligibility age for the pension, which is scheduled to reach 67 on 1 July 2023.
The measure is part of a broader package announced in the 2019-20 budget context. The remaining measures will
The government will give effect to these remaining measures by amending the relevant regulations. Full details of the measures are contained in the EM.
By fulfilling our election commitment through this bill, the Morrison government is continuing to ensure all Australians have additional flexibility in how they save as they transition to retirement. I therefore commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This omnibus bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, includes a series of tax measures, including a measure to amend the hybrid mismatch rules, continuing the Morrison government's work on combating multinational tax avoidance while ensuring that compliance burdens are kept to a minimum. The bill also allows employers to report information already required for child support under Single Touch Payroll, further streamlining employer reporting obligations. The bill establishes a deductible gift recipient general category for men's sheds and women's sheds and includes a number of other organisations on the list of deductible gift recipients. The bill also includes a measure providing funding for Australia's continued financial support of the World Bank. Finally, this bill will also allow the ATO to share critical JobKeeper related information with the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure employers comply with the scheme.
In more detail, schedule 1 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, continuing again the government's commitment to tackling multinational tax avoidance by improving Australia's hybrid mismatch rules, which are based on one of 15 actions from the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project.
The hybrid mismatch rules are designed to prevent multinational companies from exploiting differences in the tax treatment of instruments or entities between jurisdictions which enable those companies to defer or reduce tax.
The amendments in this bill will ensure that the hybrid mismatch rules operate as intended and help to ensure the integrity of Australia's income tax laws and their application to multinational enterprises. The amendments achieve this by making technical changes to the rules which clarify their operation and prevent the rules from applying in inappropriate circumstances.
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to broaden the information employers can voluntarily report under the Single Touch Payroll rules to include employer withholding of child support deductions and child support garnishee amounts. This measure will further streamline employer reporting to government, demonstrating the efficiency gains for employers that are provided by Single Touch Payroll.
Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to establish a deductible gift recipient general category for men's sheds and women's sheds. This will enable sheds to more easily access DGR status from 1 July 2020, which in turn helps them attract public financial support for their very important activities. The Morrison government fully supports the important work undertaken by men's sheds and women's sheds, and this is a demonstration of that.
Donors to DGR endorsed sheds can claim, once these amendments are made, an income tax deduction for donations of $2 or more. The DGR tax arrangements are intended to encourage philanthropy and provide additional support for the not-for-profit sector.
There are currently over 1,000 men's sheds and around 20 women's sheds. The number of sheds is growing, as the movement gains support around the country for the benefits that it provides our community.
Eligibility for endorsement in this new DGR category requires sheds to demonstrate that their activities advance mental health and prevent or relieve social isolation.
Schedule 4 of the bill amends the International Finance Corporation Act 1955 and International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to effect obligations that the World Bank's International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation have under this bill. Both of these play a vital role in providing financial assistance and advisory services to middle- and low-income developing countries.
This assistance creates significant benefits throughout our Indo-Pacific region, allowing countries to reduce poverty and build shared prosperity through investment in much-needed physical infrastructure and improved social outcomes.
The IBRD and IFC periodically raise capital to fund their activities by issuing new shares to member countries, including Australia.
However, our participation in these capital raisings is a costly and time-consuming process, requiring the drafting and introduction of new legislation for each instance where Australia subscribes to an IBRD or IFC capital increase.
These amendments therefore will streamline the process by creating a clear legislative framework for Australia to enter into agreements, or amend existing agreements, to subscribe to any capital increases. The amendments also establish standing special appropriations that will facilitate payments that Australia has committed to in subscribing to capital increases.
As these types of purchases of shares in the World Bank Group constitute a formal international treaty action, they will always be subject to oversight and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
The passage of these amendments will also enable Australia to make its $154 million contribution to the IBRD's latest capital raising that was announced in October 2018.
Schedule 5 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include C.E.W. Bean Foundation, Governor Phillip International Scholarship Trust, High Resolves, Australian Academy of Law, Foundation Broken Hill, Motherless Daughters, Superannuation Consumers' Centre and The Headstone Project (Tasmania) on the list of DGRs. This will allow members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to these eight organisations.
Finally, schedule 6 to the bill allows the Australian Taxation Office to share JobKeeper-related information with the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Access to this information will help the Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman address JobKeeper-related compliance issues, in relation to obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009. This measure, of course, will help the JobKeeper scheme operate efficiently and equitably.
Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill, along with the APRA levy imposition bills being introduced alongside it, will ensure the government's cost recovery arrangements for APRA continue to operate effectively. These bills will do this by ensuring the Treasurer has adequate flexibility to set the levies at a level required for institutions to pay their required share, and by ensuring the Commonwealth can continue to collect relevant costs for its regulatory activities in the financial sector. Both of these changes, of course, reflect the evolving environment we find ourselves in.
In introducing this bill today, we are delivering on a commitment made to review the methodology of APRA levies and address legislative barriers to their effective operation.
Since 1998, when the APRA Act and the levy imposition acts set the current levy arrangements, the role of APRA has obviously expanded and increased. Additionally, other agencies have taken on a role in regulating the financial sector, the cost of which should be borne by those institutions that bring about the need for that regulation.
Legislation is currently preventing the largest banks from paying the appropriate share of the cost of APRA's regulation.
The APRA industry funding bill and the levy imposition bills will fix these issues.
Schedule 1 of the bill expands the conditions under which levy money is payable to the Commonwealth in respect of regulation of prudentially regulated entities to also include consumer outcomes.
The levy imposition bills increase the statutory cap on levy collections for APRA's direct supervisory work on institutions from $1½ million, as set back in 2005, to $10 million, subject to indexation which uses the latest available CPI data.
These bills will ensure there are no regulatory barriers to all institutions paying their appropriate share and to bearing the costs of regulatory activities undertaken by the Commonwealth agencies in relation to APRA regulated entities, which aim to promote consumer outcomes.
In closing, these bills will ensure the framework of the APRA levies keeps pace with the evolving regulatory environment and the size of the industry.
The full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill complements the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 by ensuring the Treasurer has adequate flexibility to set the levies at a level required for authorised deposit-taking institutions to pay their appropriate amount.
Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill complements the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 by ensuring the Treasurer has adequate flexibility to set the levies at a level required for non-operating holding companies to pay the appropriate share.
Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill complements the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 by ensuring the Treasurer has adequate flexibility to set the levies at a level required for institutions in the general insurance industry to pay their appropriate share. Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill complements the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 by ensuring the Treasurer has adequate flexibility to set the levies at a level required for institutions in the life insurance industry to pay their appropriate share. Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill complements the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 by ensuring the Treasurer has adequate flexibility to set the levies at a level required for retirement savings account providers to pay their appropriate share. Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill complements the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 by ensuring the Treasurer has adequate flexibility to set the levies at a level required for institutions in the superannuation industry to pay their appropriate share. Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020 makes technical amendments to provisions of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 dealing with the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island.
Amendments made to the act in 2018 authorised the Supreme Court to sit on the Australian mainland in the exercise of its civil and criminal jurisdiction. These amendments allowed for a matter to be heard and a jury to be empanelled in another state or territory. The measures were modelled on similar amendments made for Christmas Island in 1987 and were intended to ensure trials can be conducted fairly, improving community confidence in the Norfolk Island justice system.
The amendments in the bill address some technical issues with respect to these provisions regulating off-island sittings of the Supreme Court and also clarify the basis under which travelling allowances are determined for its judges.
These amendments will enhance the effective administration of the Norfolk Island justice system.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I'm introducing the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020.
This bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to introduce a new type of leave which can be utilised by permanent residents of aged-care homes in particular emergency situations.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring that all older Australians have access to high-quality aged-care services whilst ensuring that they are treated with respect and dignity. Integral to this is the empowering of aged-care residents to make their own decisions about their emotional wellbeing and physical health and safety.
This is particularly relevant in emergency situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. If a resident, or their family, is concerned that the current health emergency is impacting on the safe provision of residential aged care, they have the right to choose to take leave from the aged-care home without incurring financial burden and without the fear of losing their room.
In the current environment, permanent residents of an aged-care home are entitled to take up to 52 days per year of what is known as social leave. When a resident exceeds their 52 days of social leave, the aged-care provider no longer receives a subsidy payment for that resident. Therefore, in order to retain their place within the aged-care home, the aged-care provider charges a fee to the resident.
The current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the inadequacy of these leave provisions. Many permanent aged-care residents are seeking to temporarily relocate to stay with family and reduce their risk of exposure to the virus. For these residents, the only options available are to use their social leave allocation or remain in the aged-care home.
The difficulty is that many residents will exceed their social leave before they are ready to return to the aged-care home. If they choose to remain on leave, the additional charges that may be incurred to secure their room place a significant and unnecessary financial burden on families, carers and residents. In many cases, residents may simply not be able to afford the additional charges and therefore cannot take the leave they desire.
The government has received a large number of representations about this issue. The isolation, lack of visitation and inability to stay with family for the duration of the current COVID-19 pandemic has caused great anxiety for a significant number of aged-care residents and their families. Many residents, and their families, are fearful of the risk of contracting or spreading the virus whilst in an aged-care home.
The amendments in this bill introduce a new emergency leave type for permanent aged-care residents, which will be activated during pandemics, natural disasters and other large-scale emergency situations as determined by the government.
This new leave type will not be available on a regular basis. Once activated, the emergency leave will only be available for a set period, as determined by the government, and will be applied either nationally or to a specific area or service. This will ensure the flexibility needed to allow government to address situations such as floods, bushfire emergencies or future instances of isolated or regional outbreaks of COVID-19.
In light of the current emergency, provision is being made to apply these changes retrospectively to 1 April 2020. This will ensure that residents who have already been financially impacted by the need to take leave from their aged-care home will be adequately covered. It will also ensure providers are not financially disadvantaged.
This bill ensures that permanent aged-care residents and their families are supported to make decisions about personal safety in emergency situations, and not suffer unnecessary financial burden as a result. It also ensures that, following an emergency, residents are still able to use their social leave entitlement to maintain their normal visiting and special events routine with their families and friends, which is important for emotional and mental health.
This change is in the best interests of all older Australians and the broader community by supporting a resident's right to make their own decisions about their care.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
I move:
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2020.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring that our community has access to medical and hygiene equipment needed to treat, diagnose and prevent the spread of coronavirus. The customs tariff proposal that I've just tabled inserts a new concessional item into schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995. This new concessional item, No. 57, provides a free rate of customs duty for eligible medical and hygiene products needed to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Item 57 has a retrospective commencement. It applies to imported goods for which the time for working out the rate of duties is between 1 February 2020 and 31 July 2020. Item 57 applies to goods prescribed by the by-law. The new by-law prescribes goods including critical equipment such as masks, gloves, face shields, gowns, goggles, test kits, certain disinfectants and soap.
Item 57 applies to the eligible prescribed goods regardless of their origin. This means importers who previously needed to prove origin under one of our free trade agreements can now access the same free rate of duty without the compliance costs associated with claiming preferential tariff treatment. This will temporarily simplify the import process and ensure these vital goods get to where they are needed most. These goods are essential to safeguard our healthcare professionals and essential workers, and we thank them for the magnificent work they are doing right across Australia. They also are required as we begin to relax the restrictions the government has applied to combat the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This customs tariff proposal is a targeted and proportionate measure to support Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other countries have taken similar steps to temporarily remove or reduce custom duties on medical and hygiene products to support the availability of these goods. By introducing this measure, the government is helping to ensure that Australia can secure supplies of these essential goods for our community.
Just in conclusion, I thank all the Australian Border Force staff for the incredible and amazing work they're doing, and Commissioner Mike Outram for leading this magnificent team of people who have just done an incredible job of protecting Australians.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—On behalf of the member for Flynn I present report No. 12 of the Standing Committee on Petitions.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PETITIONS COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 12
13 May 2020
M embers of the committee
Chair Mr Ken O'Dowd MP Deputy Chair Hon Justine Elliot MP
Mrs Bridget Archer MP Ms Lisa Chesters MP Ms Gladys Liu MP
Mr Julian Simmonds MP Mr James Stevens MP
Ms Susan Templeman MP
Report relating to the consideration of petitions and matters relating to the petitions system
The committee met in private session on 25 March.
1. The committee resolved to present the following petitions in accordance with standing order 207:
From 1 petitioner - requesting a ban for travel to and from Korea during COVID-19 (EN1359)
From 58 petitioners - requesting safe houses and support for victims of domestic violence (EN1360)
From 1 petitioner - requesting for the sale of nicotine based vaping products to be legalised (EN1362)
From 1 petitioner - requesting a trial of two new road safety strategies
(EN1366)
From 3 petitioners - requesting for a right to repair on goods purchased
(EN1367)
From 1 petitioner – requesting support for the Brimbank Girls and Women in Sport 2020 Agenda (EN1368)
From 5 petitioners - requesting an increase for the single aged pension
(EN1370)
From 2 petitioners - requesting a change to the manufacturing of certain vehicle parts (EN1374)
From 2 petitioners - requesting that schools and universities be shut down during COVID-19 (EN1375)
From 1 petitioner - requesting the removal of GST on accredited exercise physiologists (EN1376)
From 14 petitioners - requesting a ban on all single use plastic items
(EN1377)
From 1,341 petitioners - requesting that the processing time for 887 visas be shortened (EN1378)
From 2 petitioners – requesting a change to taxation (EN1380)
From 4 petitioners - requesting a tax deduction or subsidy for electric vehicles
(EN1381)
From 8 petitioners - requesting changes to the cashless welfare card scheme
(EN1382)
From 1 petitioner - requesting the closure of Australia's borders and a ban on large crowds during COVID-19 (EN1384)
From 2 petitioners - requesting the closure of Australia's borders during COVID-19 (EN1385)
From 5 petitioners – requesting a temporary ban on international flights
(EN1386)
From 17 petitioners - requesting financial relief for the events industry during COVID-19 (EN1387)
From 5 petitioners - requesting that schools and universities be closed during the COVID-19 (EN1388)
From 2 petitioners - requesting for the House to state support for the use of face masks to minimise the spread of COVID-19 (EN1389)
From 11 petitioners – requesting for the COVID-19 stimulus package to also benefit live entertainers (EN1391)
From 1 petitioner - requesting that AFL season be postponed due to COVID-19
(EN1393)
From 1 petitioner - requesting that schools and universities be closed temporarily during COVID-19 (EN1395)
From 2 petitioners - requesting that all non-essential work, travel and education be shutdown to contain COVID-19 (EN1396)
From 2 petitioners - requesting a mandate to quarantine all international arrivals (EN1398)
From 33 petitioners - requesting for the suspension of education institutions during COVID-19 (EN1399)
From 2 petitioners - requesting that businesses enforce working from home during COVID-19(EN1400)
From 11 petitioners - requesting that Australia is placed in a temporary lockdown during COVID-19 (EN1401)
From 13 petitioners - requesting that Australia is placed in a temporary lockdown and bills are frozen during COVID-19 (EN1402)
From 12 petitioners – requesting that outstanding HELP debts be cancelled
(EN1403)
From 12 petitioners - requesting support for venues during COVID-19
(EN1405)
From 2 petitioners - requesting fully subsidised childcare during COVID-19 (EN1413)
From 10,188 petitioners - requesting a COVID-19 financial stimulus package for the Australian events industry (EN1414)
From 7 petitioners - requesting that the House deny visitors from the US from entering Australia during COVID-19 (EN1415)
From 1,040 petitioners - requesting a COVID-19 federal aid package for the travel industry (EN1416)
Mr Ken O'Dowd
Chair—Petitions Committee
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report 4 of 2020, incorporating a dissenting report, and Human rights scrutiny report of COVID-19 legislation: report 5 of 2020.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' fourth and fifth scrutiny reports of 2020, which were tabled out of session on 9 and 29 April 2020 respectively. These reports contain a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
Report 4 of 2020 contains the committee's consideration of 14 bills introduced into the parliament between 24 February to 5 March 2020, and legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 6 February and 4 March 2020. It contains the committee's concluding comments in relation to 13 bills and four instruments. Regrettably, half of the committee, comprising all members from the Australian Labor Party and the Greens, issued dissenting comments to the committee's conclusions regarding the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity No. 2) Bill 2019. The dissenting members concluded a number of measures in the bill are likely to be incompatible with the right to freedom of association. I encourage my fellow members, the government and others to examine the full report, including the dissenting comments.
The committee's scrutiny report 5 of 2020 is dedicated to an examination of legislation made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes consideration of COVID-19 related bills tabled in the parliament between 23 March and 8 April 2020, and legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 21 January and 21 April 2020.
In this scrutiny report, the committee provides an overview of Australia's international human rights obligations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a particular focus on the operation of the Biosecurity Act 2015. The committee has found that legislation developed in response to the pandemic is likely to promote and protect the rights to life and health, noting that the right to life requires Australia to take positive measures to protect life and the right to health requires Australia to take steps to prevent, treat and control epidemic diseases. However, the committee has also noted that many of the steps taken in response to the pandemic may also engage and limit a number of other human rights, including the right to privacy, freedom of movement, liberty, and equality and non-discrimination. These rights may be permissibly limited, where limitations pursue a legitimate objective—keeping people alive—and are rationally connected to that objective, and are proportionate. Further information is required to assess this in relation to 17 legislative instruments and one bill, as set out in this report. I encourage my fellow members, the government and others to examine this important report closely.
The role of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee during this unprecedented crisis is even more important than usual. When governments all around the world are restricting the freedoms of their citizens, including the Australian government, it is crucial that laws designed to restrict those freedoms are thoroughly scrutinised in a bipartisan manner. It is also important that when these restrictions are no longer necessary—hopefully—the freedoms and human rights of Australians are returned, and that any tardiness in so returning is called out.
The committee will continue to regularly report on all legislation, both COVID-19 related and other legislation, during these challenging times. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 4 of 2020 and Report 5 of 2020 to the House.
by leave—Today I rise to speak on scrutiny reports 4 and 5 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 2020. It is a privilege to be a member of this committee and to contribute to ensuring that all bills and legislative instruments passed by this parliament are consistent with Australia's commitment to human rights. This work is especially important at the current time, given the nation's fight against coronavirus which has resulted in the most comprehensive restriction of liberties that many of us have ever experienced. For many weeks now, Australians have had their movements constrained, businesses have closed or gone into hibernation and five million people have stopped working. The toll has been great, with the necessary separation of family and friends. The challenges posed by the coronavirus have clearly demonstrated circumstances where the limitation of certain human rights, such as the curtailing of our freedoms, is not only acceptable but a moral and legal imperative. It has shown that in certain situations some human rights need to take precedence over others for the benefit of the nation.
For the better part of this year the scales have rightly tipped in favour of public health concerns in an attempt to preserve the right to life and health. This is an extraordinarily difficult balancing act made all the more difficult by the reproductive rate of this pandemic. I have many people in Mallee who have expressed their gratitude for the exemplary leadership shown by this government—particularly the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Health—and the leaders of state and territory governments as well as the chief and deputy medical officers for their swift action in responding to this unprecedented crisis. I also want to acknowledge our brave healthcare and aged-care workers and all other essential frontline service and personnel who continue to risk their health and wellbeing to keep us safe.
The reports introduced today contain the committee's consideration of a number of bills and legislative instruments introduced to parliament this year. Report 4 of 2020 considers 14 bills introduced into the parliament between 24 February and 5 March and legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 6 February and 4 March. It contains the committee's concluding comments in relation to 13 bills and four instruments, including the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019.
Report 5 of 2020 is dedicated to an examination of legislation made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which I will focus on today. This report includes consideration of COVID-19 related bills tabled in parliament between 23 March and 8 April and the legislative instruments listed on the Federal Register of Legislation between 21 January and 21 April. A number of the measures considered in Report 5 of 2020 have taken under powers set out in the Biosecurity Act 2015. This act is the primary means for the Australian government to manage the risk of diseases entering Australia and causing harm to human health. The act can grant the Minister for Health extraordinary powers if a human biosecurity emergency exists. Such an emergency was declared in Australia in relation to COVID-19 on 18 March 2020. By virtue of their implementation we can already see how these measures present unique considerations for this parliament and the human rights committee. Many of the measures introduced through the Biosecurity Act 2015 and through parliament engage with human rights in significant ways. Such limitations may be permissible if they are shown to pursue a legitimate objective, are rationally connected to that objective and are proportionate in achieving that objective. The limitations imposed by a number of measures considered by the committee are by-products of the intent to promote and protect the right to life and health for individuals residing in this country.
The preservation of life is clearly a legitimate objective, but questions remain as to the necessity and proportionality of the measures seeking to achieve this aim. Given the significance of these questions and the potential impact these measures may have on human rights, the committee has sought further advice from the relevant ministers in relation to measures outlined in the report before making concluding remarks about their compatibility with Australia's human rights commitments.
As Australians and other permanent and temporary residents continue to be tested by the coronavirus and the restrictions we have put in place, questions surrounding human rights will continue to prevail. For this reason, ministers are considering these questions seriously and will feed back to the committee in due course. I look forward to contributing further to the work of the human rights committee as we navigate these difficult circumstances.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to introduce a new type of leave that permanent residential aged-care residents may utilise during situations such as natural disasters, pandemics, or other large-scale emergencies that can impact the safe provision of residential aged care and/or the safety of the resident. Once an emergency situation has been determined, as we heard from the minister, the leave would be applied to a specific area such as national, state, territory, aged-care planning district, or an individual service. This leave is for a specified time period and provides for a level of flexibility needed to allow the Commonwealth to address situations such as floods and bushfire emergencies, or future instances of isolated or regional outbreaks of COVID-19.
Under each of the above mentioned acts permanent aged-care residents are currently entitled to take 52 days of non-hospital related leave known as 'social leave' within a financial year. When an aged-care resident exceeds their annual social leave entitlement the aged-care home no longer receives the Commonwealth residential care subsidy for that person, meaning that the provider then needs to pass those costs on to the resident or their family. The emergency leave under these changes would not be limited to a number of days or a specific time frame. Indeed, the minister can deem the length of time the emergency remains in place as well as an end date.
There is no financial impact for the government by the proposed amendments. We're assured that any costs associated with updates to the aged-care payment system will be funded from existing programs. We're also assured, and it has been included in the legislation, that each declaration made by a minister, or his or her delegate, will be tabled as a disallowable instrument so there can be further oversight when this emergency leave provision is, indeed, enacted.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for aged care for the sharing of information and the briefings that he has provided me regarding outbreaks of COVID-19 in residential aged-care facilities and impacted aged-care workers around the country. I've also had an ability to be briefed on this bill. Indeed, we're pleased that the government has listened to Labor about some of these issues, such as social leave. I want to thank the colleagues on this side of the House who lobbied the minister in relation to this and brought to our attention the concerns around families and loved ones who have residents who are on social leave. It is an issue that we have raised directly with the minister, because we knew that there would be an ongoing financial burden for many Australian families who are caring for their loved ones at home while they've taken them out of residential homes during this period.
We're told there are currently around 500 Australian families caring for their loved ones under these social leave arrangements. With the COVID-19 pandemic many family members have made the decision to continue caring for their loved ones in their own home and not to return to the residential aged-care facility to receive this care. This has resulted—and will result—in many older Australians passing the capped 52 day social leave arrangements that we currently have. The consumer, the resident or their family, is required to pay the government subsidy of $230 per resident per day to save their place in the residential aged-care facility that they are taking leave from so that they can go back into that facility when the pandemic is over. For many families and consumers this is a cost that they're unable to sustain. Amending these acts will ensure that the family or consumer will not take on this unnecessary financial burden if they have passed the 52 day social leave arrangements.
I'm pleased that there will be a retrospective date of 1 April 2020 for the social leave, so that all families can be covered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It's understood that the Commonwealth is continuing to pay the subsidy to those residents accessing social leave from 1 July 2020 as well, and we also welcome this. At this stage, we're told there will be no end date put forward for the current COVID-19 pandemic in relation to this emergency social leave. However, we'll continue to monitor this as we enter the new financial year and we see the regulation tabled by the minister.
We acknowledge the difficult and challenging times for residents, their families, and of course those who support and care for older Australians—all of the aged-care workers during this time. The COVID-19 virus has had a significant impact on residential and home care of older Australians. It has, sadly, infected residents and aged-care workers and claimed lives. Our deepest sympathies go to all the families who have lost loved ones.
Labor has tried to be very constructive and put forward our ideas during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to aged care and when it comes to supporting older Australians and the aged-care workforce. We've made the suggestions around the social leave which this bill takes up. We asked the government to consider expanding the Community Visitors Scheme, and I'm pleased that they did that. This is contacting older Australians in facilities or at home. We asked them to consider further support for aged-care workers who were too frightened to turn up to work, in some cases because they didn't have access to PPE or proper training to do the work that was being asked of them.
The government has now introduced a retention bonus, that the minister referred to today, which we're pleased about. But, of course, we're not pleased that some aged-care workers have been excluded from this bonus and we think it needs to be equitable. We've also raised our concerns around what has happened in the Dorothy Henderson Lodge and more recently in Newmarch House. I was concerned to hear that there were more infections in Newmarch House announced today. To date, indeed, there are around 71 infections associated with this facility—37 residents, 34 staff and, sadly, we've seen some deaths.
We have called for the royal commission into aged care that is currently working in Australia to look at and do a special investigation into Newmarch House. The commissioners have written back to me to say that they will look at it—perhaps not in a special investigative way but it would be included in their final report. I would ask that the government consider a special investigation into what has occurred at Newmarch House. We need to learn from this so that we don't have another outbreak of this kind.
In conclusion, I want to say this bill will make a difference to families who have a loved one in residential aged care. We're pleased that the families will not have to bear any further financial burden as they care and support their loved ones who are unable to return to their residential aged-care home at this point in time of the pandemic. As I've said earlier, in our view there are still some things the government needs to do. We'll continue to be constructive and we'll continue to offer advice to the government on what we think it needs to do better. I am also pleased that the government has listened to some of our concerns and acted.
I also want to take this opportunity to put on record again, as I did yesterday, our thanks to all of our aged-care workers, who continue to work tirelessly throughout this COVID pandemic and worked tirelessly prior to the pandemic. We all know that, prior to this pandemic, there was a crisis in aged care so bad that the government called a royal commission. It has been in charge of aged care for seven years. It essentially called a royal commission into itself. It has not been doing a good enough job, and it has been letting the workers in aged care down. It needs to do better.
To the aged-care workers I say: we know it's been a tough and challenging time for you and for your families, but we appreciate the work that you do, we value the work that you do and we say a thankyou for all the work that you do to care for and support older Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
I stand in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. Our aged-care sector has been under unprecedented pressure over the recent months with the challenges brought on by coronavirus. Aged-care facilities are responsible for caring for some of our most vulnerable in the community. We have seen several examples of how devastating a widespread outbreak of coronavirus would be for our older Australians.
An integral part of ensuring older Australians are treated with dignity and respect in the aged-care sector is empowering them with the ability to choose their level of care as well as allowing them to make decisions about their own physical and mental health. This is particularly significant when facing an emergency such as a pandemic or the recent bushfires.
In response to feedback from residents of aged-care facilities, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 allows residents in aged-care facilities to choose to take leave from their aged-care home for the period of the emergency without incurring a financial penalty and without fear of losing their placement. Currently, under the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997, government subsidy payments cease to aged-care providers if a resident takes more than 52 days of social leave in a financial year. We've seen that many families have sought to take on the care of their loved ones and remove them from aged-care facilities not only during the coronavirus pandemic but also during the bushfire season. Currently, these residents have been eroding their social leave balance, and many have exhausted the allocation of 52 days entirely. This results in residents remaining in their aged-care facility, which may not be the best choice for their mental health or mean they incur significant extra costs to retain their place. This is particularly concerning where limited visitation by family members is leading to social isolation.
The amendments in this bill introduce a new type of emergency leave for permanent aged-care residents which will be activated during pandemics, natural disasters and other large-scale emergency situations, as determined by the government. It is important to note that this leave will be available for only a limited period and in exceptional circumstances. The current emergency period will be marked from 1 April 2020 to ensure that residents who have already been impacted by the pandemic will be able to receive financial assistance. It also provides financial certainty for aged-care providers in an already challenging time for these operators. I support this bill for the steps that it takes to prioritise the social and mental wellbeing of older Australians and the recognition it gives to the importance of choice and flexibility in the aged-care sector.
In addition to efforts to provide additional leave for residents of aged-care facilities, I commend the minister for the other measures taken to facilitate social support for residents in aged-care facilities during the pandemic. This includes the development of the Aged Care Visitor Access Code to provide assurance for families of residents that the health and safety of their relatives is being prioritised while allowing visitors to continue to provide support for residents. This is especially important for the continuity of care for patients with dementia. The code provides for the screening of visitors, provides dedicated visiting spaces where possible, limits the number of visitors and limits requirements for visitors to have had flu shots.
The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 is an important mechanism to provide the dignity of choice for aged-care residents during this difficult time while also prioritising the mental and social wellbeing of residents. I commend the bill to the House.
Labor supports the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. It's a good idea to introduce a new type of leave that permanent residential aged-care residents can utilise during situations such as natural disasters, pandemics or other large-scale emergencies that can affect the safe provision of residential aged care and, indeed, the safety of the resident.
I don't blame many families for wanting to have their loved ones home with them during this terrible time. The shadow minister has outlined the measures that have been taken by the government and also where we think the gaps are. I thank her for outlining that. The reason many families of loved ones in aged care want to take them home during this time is that the coronavirus has highlighted the longstanding flaws in the aged-care system. When we look back on Australia's response to the pandemic, the catastrophic situations unfolding at Newmarch House and Dorothy Henderson Lodge will surely stand out as specific failures.
In the case of Newmarch, after scores of infections and tragic deaths—which we've just heard have, unfortunately, increased—the regulator finally stepped in, forcing Anglicare to appoint a government approved manager and threatening to revoke its licence. They were allowed to refuse extra staffing and oversight. Why is that so?
Why were relatives left distraught and desperate for news when none was forthcoming? It's been reported that families felt excluded from significant medical decisions and further reports of failure of care. We wouldn't know what was happening inside, as the regulator had suspended spot checks during this time. We've heard that testing of staff was delayed and that infected residents were not isolated from others. It was only when the situation became absolutely dire that the minister insisted on intervention. The shadow minister, the member for Franklin, called for the situation to be investigated by the royal commission, and it will be. That is a good thing, and I congratulate her.
The minister has said that this poor example is not indicative of the sector at large, and it's true. It seems that the Australian aged-care sector has been spared the full extent of what we've witnessed overseas, but it doesn't mean that we can take our eyes off the ball or that we don't consider the impact of what the control measures have had on the sector. I'd like to read a section of an article published by Dr Sarah Holland-Batt, a well known advocate for better aged care. She writes:
While Australian aged care has been spared the full extent of the horrors that have unfolded overseas, we cannot become complacent. Federal Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck told Sky News this week that if the royal commission focused its attention on Newmarch House, 'they’re not doing a service to the aged-care sector because I think that across the board they’ve done quite well'. This rose-tinted assessment may prove naive.
While the sector—with the tragic exceptions of Dorothy Henderson Lodge in Sydney’s Macquarie Park and Newmarch House—appears to have controlled the spread effectively so far, we don’t yet know what the effect of time-consuming infection control measures has been on the standard of basic care. We don’t know how well providers have responded to the significant vacuum left by volunteer carers and relatives, who usually supplement their workforce by helping feed residents and undertaking other duties. We don’t know how residents’ mental health and wellbeing—already areas of grave concern—have been affected during punitive lockdowns, in which residents have been cooped up in their rooms, isolated and lonely. We don’t know whether the already alarming prevalence of physical and chemical restraint has increased further because of additional pressures on staffing.
These are all good points, and ones which we should be tuned into acutely and be keeping our eye on during this time.
We don't blame the nurses and carers, of course, in the sector. We thank them, as the shadow minister has done. Rather, we look to the abysmally slow governmental and regulatory response, because we know that workers in the sector and the sector at large have started behind the eight ball. We've had years of neglect from this government that led to a crisis in the sector, a crisis that led to a royal commission. Alarm bells should have been pealing madly when the COVID crisis began, with the possible consequences for the elderly in aged care—a cohort that we knew was most vulnerable to the virus. We should have known because the royal commission has laid bare the issues plaguing Australian aged care, including chronic understaffing. I've had personal experience of what that is like in an aged-care facility, where, as a nurse, you are trying to feed a couple of patients while keeping an eye on a wandering patient who's at risk of falling, and you're looking out for other staff members to make sure that they themselves aren't struggling with a resident's issue. It may be that you have to leap up and stop feeding your clients because you have to help elsewhere. I know what it's like to have inadequate staff training and skill mix in facilities. Aged care is not babysitting, nor is it simply someone's home—like they were coping independently in their own house. They are in a nursing home because they need nursing care, care that is often complex. They need hygiene care, sure, but there is caring for wounds and medical conditions like diabetes or cardiac problems, or, more seriously— and, sadly, more often—dementia. All of this requires skills—high-level skills—to deal with. And providers of aged-care services enter into a contract to manage all of this. They agree to manage these conditions as best they can for their clients. They have a duty of care to do so.
The royal commission has laid bare an issue of overreliance on chemical and physical restraints, often as a direct result of understaffing or lack of clinical expertise. The system is plagued by a total lack of transparency and accountability. Providers, sure, have been given extra funds—as an example, they've been given extra funds to deal with this crisis—but we don't know where those funds have gone. They're not necessarily tied to quality care and they're not necessarily tied to the provision of PPE. We don't know where those funds have gone. Have they gone to cross-subsidising other parts of the business, or have they been tucked away in the Cayman Islands? We don't know because there is no accountability and no transparency of taxpayers' funding. All of these things have led to overall neglect, and none of these issues would have gone away during the coronavirus crisis. Rather, it would all have been exacerbated under an already very tired system.
I have stood in this place before and said that the workforce is one of the most crucial parts of fixing our broken aged-care system. We've heard time and time again that staff want more time to care. It has emerged as a key issue of the aged-care royal commission, and it is something that the wonderful aged-care unions—the United Workers Union, the ANMF and HACSU—have been raising for years. Staffing numbers, skill mix and staff training, qualifications and experience are key concerns which negatively impact on the ability of staff to provide quality care for all residents. This is true in normal times, let alone during a health crisis. The impetus to get this right is huge. We must have a quality workforce that sees aged-care workers getting the respect and dignity they deserve. As I said, it is not babysitting. COVID-19 has highlighted that this is a system that lacks accountability and transparency, as I said before. All funding that goes to aged care must go with tighter regulations to ensure that providers put money to better care. It's a simple premise.
Again, I too would like to thank all the workers who have struggled though this difficult time, doing the best that they can—the carers, the nurses and everybody in aged care. Unfortunately, the government's inaction and neglect of the system over years has helped exacerbate what is a terrible situation right now. It's time that the government put real effort and real resources into fixing the aged-care crisis.
I'd first like to thank and acknowledge the workers, carers and nurses of Newmarch House in my electorate of Lindsay for the extraordinary work they have been doing over the last few weeks, looking after the residents and the families of Newmarch. The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 ensures that our older Australians have access to high-quality aged-care services whilst ensuring they are treated with respect and dignity. These are such concerning times for everyone, none more so than people in our aged-care facilities across our country. I know firsthand that, if coronavirus enters an aged-care facility, the results can be devastating. In these situations, not only is the immediate health risk a concern; so is the mental health of residents who are isolated from loved ones for extensive periods.
Even in a facility that is free from coronavirus—and, thankfully, this has been most facilities in our country—the isolation due to restricted access is difficult for both residents and their families. Window visits are no substitute for face-to-face contact and, if residents want to be able to be at home with their families for this time, they should be allowed to. This bill is essential in giving them this freedom of choice. We should be empowering residents in aged-care facilities to make their own decisions regarding their emotional wellbeing, physical health and safety. The families of residents need a greater say, and that's why this bill is so important. During emergency situations such as the coronavirus pandemic, if a resident or their family are concerned about the current health emergency in an aged-care facility or if they're worried there is an impact on the safe provision of aged care, this gives them the choice to take leave from the aged-care home and, more importantly, they can do so without incurring a financial burden and they don't have to worry about potentially losing their room.
In many parts of Australia and particularly in Lindsay, the coronavirus pandemic and also the recent bushfire season have demonstrated that there is a gap in leave entitlements of aged-care residents, particularly during emergency situations. This can be distressing for families who only want the best outcomes for the residents living in these facilities. Having spoken to many families impacted by coronavirus in Newmarch House, I know this will be a welcome step.
Under the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997, subsidy payments to aged-care providers cease if a resident takes more than 52 days of social leave in a financial year. Providers are then able to pass on the equivalent cost of the subsidy payment to residents. Introducing this bill means that the many aged-care residents who want to stay at home with their families and loved ones due to the risk of contracting coronavirus or the isolation caused by this pandemic will now have the option to do so.
In my maiden speech I spoke about the importance of taking care of our older Australians, and it's now more important than ever that we do so. Working in community housing, I saw many older people who were experiencing loneliness, which concerned me greatly. It is so important as people get older that they have a support network with their family or friends in the community and that they have that choice to be at home with their loved ones. I worry for people who in their old age don't have that, especially when they need it most. Currently for many residents the only option is to use their social leave allocation or they will have to remain in the aged-care facility. This is what we saw during the devastating bushfire crisis and what we have seen during this coronavirus pandemic. This will mean that many residents will exceed their social leave before they are ready to return to the facility. If they choose to stay with their families on leave, they will incur this further cost to keep their place at the aged-care home, placing further financial hardship on them or their families during an already difficult and stressful time. Because of this, residents may not be able to afford the additional charges or they may not be able to take leave with their families.
The government has received a large number of representations about this issue, and recently the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck; the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, Janet Anderson; and I held a teleconference with families of residents of Newmarch House. We spoke about many things on this teleconference, including the immediate action required within Newmarch at the time, and many families also expressed, as they have with me, the need for more chases in aged care. For residents in many situations the families' experience of not being able to protect and take care of their loved ones is frustrating and heartbreaking. The isolation, the lack of visitation and inability to stay with family for the duration of the current coronavirus pandemic has caused great anxiety for a significant number of aged-care residents and families.
Many residents and families are fearful of the risk of contracting or spreading the virus while in an aged-care home, and the amendments in this bill introduce a new emergency leave type for permanent aged-care residents. This can be activated during pandemics, natural disasters and other large-scale emergencies as determined by the government. The leave will be available for a set period and can apply nationally or to a specific area. We now have flexibility, and this will come into effect retrospectively from 1 April 2020 to ensure that residents and families who have been financially impacted during this coronavirus pandemic will be supported. The bill ensures that permanent aged-care residents and their families are supported to make decisions about personal safety in emergency situations and not suffer that unnecessary financial burden as a result. Following an emergency, residents are still able to use their social leave entitlement to maintain their normal visiting and special events routine with their family and friends, which is important for their emotional and mental health.
It has been a privilege to support the residents and families of Newmarch House and support my community through this very difficult time. I also support wholeheartedly the introduction of this very important bill.
I rise to support the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020, which allows a new type of leave that permanent residential aged-care residents and their families can use during situations such as natural disasters, pandemics and other large-scale emergencies. For a region that faces fire and floods as well as disease outbreaks like coronavirus, this flexibility is needed and will reduce the financial burden on people. There are around 500 Australian families currently caring for their loved ones under these so-called social leave arrangements. With the COVID-19 pandemic many family members have made the decision to continue caring for their loved ones in their own home and not to return to a residential facility. The result of this is that many Australians will pass the 52-day cap mark for social leave arrangements and will therefore be required to pay the government subsidy of around $230 a day to save their place in the residential aged-care facility that they're taking leave from. For many families this is just unsustainable. So I welcome the flexibility in the scheme that this legislation provides for and the application of it retrospectively to 1 April so that families are covered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. I understand it will continue until July at this stage.
Whether to leave your family member in aged care at this time or remove them has been much on the mind of families of aged-care residents. I particularly feel the anguish of the decision because in our family we've had to make the decision for my 90-year-old father to go into aged care in recent weeks. These are really hard decisions for families to make, especially at this time.
The challenge for aged-care providers and the concern for family members who have someone in aged care is even higher in the electorate of Macquarie, with many connections to the Newmarch facility, which is just near us. Newmarch is sadly the Ruby Princess of the western suburbs. It lies just outside my electorate, but some of its residents come from my electorate, including one of those who's died. What's more, a number of my constituents have someone they love, a family member or a friend, living in Newmarch. Sadly, 16 people have been reported by the New South Wales government as dying as a result of COVID-19 while in Newmarch, while another two have died after being cleared of COVID. It's impossible to imagine the sadness of those families, and it's distressing to hear their experiences of not being able to be by the side of the person they loved as they died. This is a terrible toll, and it has created enormous anxiety and distress for the families of the remaining residents, particularly for those with positive tests. We learn today that now 34 staff have tested positive and 37 residents have positive tests. For these people and their families it's a waiting game that you would not wish on anybody.
Liz Lane from Bligh Park has been a frequent visitor in the past to Newmarch, where her mother, Rose, lives. She has described to me the early days of the crisis, with phones ringing out and very little communication coming from the facility to family members. They're very concerned, especially in those early days, about how their loved ones were facing the isolation and the lockdown. That concern continues. We understand that there are staffing issues when people test positive, with so many requiring isolation, but families have found it incredibly stressful. They tell me they absolutely appreciate the work that staff are doing. They know they're facing exceptional circumstances, but at the same time they're worrying about the virus and the care that their family member is receiving. Many of these people are used to being in Newmarch regularly to assist the person that they love. As Liz says, the first visit with her mother with a big wire fence between them, each in a mask, probably didn't provide very much comfort to her mum, who absolutely hated wearing the mask.
I do want to thank the minister for listening to the experiences of people like Liz and for listening to my concerns and providing information to me. But it is impossible not to have questions. How did this situation get so out of control and take so long to bring under control? That's assuming that the worst is over. Labor certainly welcomes action at Newmarch House to improve the standard of care for residents, but we're deeply concerned at how long it has taken for this to happen. The first case of COVID-19 at Newmarch House was reported on 11 April. The government must explain why it took so long to act while so many people at Newmarch have been infected and, as we learned today, continue to be infected and have tragically died.
This is exactly why a full investigation into what's gone wrong is so important. Labor is very pleased to see that the aged care royal commission is looking into what's happened at Newmarch House, which is what we called for. Only the Royal commission has the necessary investigative powers to get to the bottom of what's happened with ongoing reports of infection control failures. The residents of Newmarch House, their families, their loved ones and the staff who work there and continue to work there deserve answers.
All Australians must be assured that in Australia we have the very best infection control practices in aged care. Every aged-care facility right now is hypervigilant, but unless we really understand what's led to the problems at Newmarch, there's always a danger that the same mistakes are made.
I know that there is just a limited opportunity to speak on this bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020, so I will try to keep my comments very brief. I am delighted to speak in support of this amendment. As my colleague the member for Franklin made very clear, it is an important amendment that will assist families, particularly those who have taken people who are otherwise permanent residents in aged-care facilities home. I've got many such examples in my electorate of Newcastle. So these are really sensible amendments that will take that terrible financial burden off families who have made those difficult decisions about how best to care for their loved ones during this COVID-19 pandemic. This legislation will provide for a level of flexibility not just for COVID-19 but also for any future emergencies that we might face, such as floods and bushfires and natural disasters, which unfortunately we're all too familiar with in Australia.
Without going into the detail of this bill, the current legislation only allows permanent aged-care residents to have up to 52 days of non-hospital-related leave, otherwise known as social leave, in any financial year. When that limit is exceeded, the cost is borne by the resident or their family members. This was the situation that faced my constituent Jennifer, who contacted me to say that she had made the decision to take her 92-year-old mother out of residential aged care and care for her at home throughout the pandemic. She did not want to take her back to the aged-care facility whilst the virus was active. She was just about to hit that 52-day limit, the social leave cap, when she reached out to me. She and her family were just simply not in a position to be able to pay $230 a day to hold a place in that aged-care facility. This was the most diabolical and wicked of problems for any family to solve.
I reached out to the minister's office. I've had fabulous assistance from the shadow minister. I really thank the member for Franklin for her negotiations on this issue. This amendment is going to release the massive pressure that's on Jennifer's family and many others in our community right now. When I did flag with Jennifer that I thought there was some good news coming—that we were very hopeful following our discussions with government—she broke down into tears and couldn't have been more thankful. It's moments like that when you realise the profound impact that lawmaking in this place has for people and their lives. So we're delighted to be able to support this measure.
Aged-care providers have been impacted by and are under incredible pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic in the same way as families have been. I entirely associate myself with our shadow minister and other Labor members when speaking to this bill and expressing their heartfelt thanks and appreciation of the extraordinary work done under incredible pressure by aged-care staff and management. Indeed, I want to give a special shout-out to Viv Allanson, the CEO of Maroba care in my electorate, who since day one has played a very strong leadership role in our community. She was incredibly diligent about infection control. She was watching very closely what was happening not too far away in other aged-care facilities and, indeed, what was happening in the US. She was very determined, as I'm sure most of our aged-care providers were, not to allow that to happen in the aged-care facility she was managing.
These are difficult conversations to have with family members. There was some pressure at different times. Families really want to be able to have a lot more access. The Prime Minister made some remarks that left some of my providers feeling very unsupported for a period of time. I needed to reassure them that this wasn't by any means a quick opening up of all nursing home doors. I am very pleased to report that, despite that initial concern about the comments of the Prime Minister and the Chief Medical Officer, providers I've talked to are very happy that the industry and government have now arrived at an agreed code, which balances the rights of families to see their loved ones with the critical need to protect residents from the virus. There's also great appreciation that an opportunity for review has been built into the code.
The costs of compliance and managing visits are incredibly high, so whilst our aged-care facilities are thankful and appreciative of the $900-per-bed payment from the government, this will not—and we should not pretend otherwise—cover the incredible financial burden caused by COVID-19 for them. I join with the member for Franklin and other members on this side of the House in calling for expanding the eligibility for the aged-care retention bonus to all workers in aged care. There are people doing the cleaning and laundry work in nursing homes who are currently not eligible for that bonus, and that is not fair. It needs to be corrected.
Finally, on a very lovely note, I was able to establish a penpal club in my electorate that connected residents of aged-care facilities who were feeling isolated with young students who were home schooling. They reported to me great excitement about crossing generational modes of correspondence. Young students are using the very old-fashioned method of writing letters instead of emailing one another. That has provided joy to both young Novocastrians and our elders in aged care. I'm really delighted to have played a small role in facilitating that joy.
I too rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. I do so with great pleasure. This is an important amendment. Mother's Day last Sunday must have been particularly hard for thousands of mothers in aged-care facilities. For many it would have meant for the first time seeing their children and grandchildren through a pane of glass or a cold, flat screen on this special day—horrible, but necessary. It's likely that these restrictions have prevented widespread outbreaks in our aged-care facilities to date, but indeed the cruellest irony of this pandemic is that the best way to love someone is to keep away from them. The heartbreak for families is profound.
The coronavirus pandemic is testing the aged-care sector in ways it could never have imagined. Facilities have plans in place for infectious diseases, such as influenza or a gastro outbreak. Coronavirus makes these pale in comparison. These times call for exceptional courage on all fronts. Older Australians living in aged-care facilities, having seen a lifetime of ups and downs, are now the ones most vulnerable to this pandemic. The aged-care workforce, working part time or casually—and many are from overseas—are doing hard work with dedication and care. Like so many other members of this place, I add my words of thanks and gratitude to them.
The aged-care facility management are making tough calls, balancing the respect and dignity of their residents with the care and protection of them and their staff. I know how this feels. Prior to coming to this place I was on the board of such an aged-care facility—St Catherine's aged care in Wangaratta—and I know that balancing the needs of residents, the needs of families and the compelling needs for protection is very difficult indeed.
Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
ABS data shows that in my seat of Corangamite job losses due to COVID have reached almost 10 per cent, ranging from 8.6 per cent in Torquay, 11.8 per cent in Lorne-Anglesea to 13.33 per cent in the Otways. In recent data, the Otways is the fourth-worst affected area for job losses in Australia, and Lorne-Anglesea comes in 10th.
Yesterday I received an email from Andrew and Maria Devlin, who run Southern Anchorage Retreat at Twelve Apostles. They are one of an alarming number of hospitality and tourism businesses that may simply go under. The Devlins are a partnership but, because of that, only one of them qualifies for JobKeeper. As Andrew explains: 'Our case is not unique. Our neighbour runs a partnership but only qualifies for one JobKeeper, and is also trying to pay loans and look after two children.' Andrew also sees inequity. His wife's hairdresser has three employees who normally earn $400 a week and are now receiving $750 a week. She also claims a 10K Victorian grant, JobKeeper and is working full time.
As Labor has repeatedly pointed out, the government's JobKeeper subsidies, while necessary, are unnuanced and badly targeted. The government must fix JobKeeper for these businesses, keep JobKeeper for some until November and continue support for regional areas unlikely to recover quickly, like the Great Ocean Road and the Otways. Thank you.
The Joondalup and Wanneroo communities have displayed remarkable resilience through the coronavirus crisis, adapting, improving and showing ingenuity in the face of a dire situation without parallel in our lifetime. More importantly, the empathy, compassion, generosity and care shown to our neighbours, healthcare workers and vulnerable people within our community reflect the true character and spirit of our community. Together we face the massive task of rebuilding our local economy and playing our essential part in the economic recovery of Australia.
I look forward to working with the Joondalup and Wanneroo business associations to support local business by encouraging our community to make a concerted effort to buy local and buy Australian made where possible. Locally, construction work on infrastructure projects worth more than $1 billion is scheduled to commence within the year, providing economic stimulus. This includes the expansion of the Joondalup Health Campus, the widening of the Mitchell Freeway and an extension to Alkimos, construction of the Ocean Reef Marina breakwater, and extension of the northern suburbs to Yanchep.
I'm committed to working with state and local governments to streamline planning approvals, remove bureaucratic red tape, and fast-track more commercial projects. (Time expired.)
I rise to speak on the need for investment in essential infrastructure projects to kickstart our economy in the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic. This is by far the greatest health crisis that I've witnessed in my medical generation, and the many medical generations before me. We often hear that unemployment will be around the 10 per cent mark. When we factor in the JobKeeper payment, the number of Australians who are out of work is really far, far higher. I fear that when this level of government support is wound back, as many on the other side want to do, and if it's done too soon, businesses will collapse and the number of individuals on jobseeker will rise exponentially. Unemployment in Macarthur was already higher than the national average and underemployment is rife. Macarthur, like many areas, has been hit hard, and I fear recovery will be slow.
The New South Wales and Commonwealth governments need to bring forward spending on a number of worthy infrastructure projects in order to get people back into work and to inject money into our struggling communities. The government should finally commit to providing a rail link from the new Western Sydney Airport to Macarthur. The Leppington line is ideal: it's a corridor already preserved, and it should proceed forthwith. They've been dragging their feet on this front inexplicably. We need jobs and economic stimulation in my electorate of Macarthur and through the country. The Leppington rail line is essential.
Our local hospitals are also at breaking point, and it's time that our outpatient services were dramatically improved. Thank you.
I rise today to acknowledge and thank the community in my electorate of Curtin for their response to COVID-19. Over the last couple of months we've all had to make some quite extraordinary changes to our lives so that we can slow the growth and beat the virus. As I said in my first speech, Curtin is home to hardworking, strong and resilient people—people who care for each other, are generous and open-hearted. True to form, the Curtin community has stepped up to the challenges. Most importantly, we have looked out for each other.
Many of our local businesses have adapted their operating models to continue to operate in some way and continue to keep people employed. Our community groups have taken active steps to stay connected with people through technology, videoconferencing and other things. The University of Western Australia made significant quantities of hand sanitiser and made them available to the most vulnerable in our community. The Telethon Kids Institute is playing a vital role in the health response. Our public and private hospitals—indeed, all of our health professionals—have just got on with the job; they have confidently and quietly stepped up to the crisis. Our schools and schoolteachers have continued to educate our children. Our local newspaper, the Subiaco Post, has taken a leading role in promoting local businesses and local initiatives.
We've also seen local residents assisting those who are vulnerable with various tasks, including grocery shopping, welfare calls, garden maintenance and donating essential items. I am proud and honoured to represent the people of Curtin.
I'd like to stand up here today and lend my voice, along with the member for Moore, who's my neighbour in Western Australia, in showing appreciation for the communities of Wanneroo and Joondalup as well as the other communities situated within the Cowan electorate.
I've got 90 seconds to express the gratitude of a nation. It hardly seems enough to capture, in a matter of seconds, our appreciation of those men and women who went about their daily tasks, putting their own lives at risk, to keep us safe: healthcare workers, early childhood educators, aged-care workers, police officers, firefighters, first responders, ambulance drivers, transport workers, retail workers, teachers and school staff, hospital administrators, Services Australia, Medicare workers, and security guards. They often get left out, the security guards, but they have to go about their daily tasks as well. There are too many to mention them all, but all are deserving of our thanks. And I think the best way to thank them is to take this opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that in the past we haven't always valued them as they should be valued. We haven't acknowledged their contributions with remuneration that reflects their value.
We live in new and uncertain times. We can't bomb our way out of this, we can't shoot our way out of this, we can't arrest our way out of this and we can't legislate our way out of this. We need a new way of looking at those people who have kept us safe through this and will keep us safe going forward.
Those who serve in this House and the other place all have a high view of this country. We've all taken an oath to serve the Australian people and we want the best for Australia—an Australia that is competitive, prosperous, respected and sovereign—so it is troubling when prominent Australians talk our country down in public to the watching world. I refer to the comments made this morning by Ms Helen Sawczak, the National CEO of the Australia China Business Council, in a Huawei online discussion. In that discussion she described 'little Australia' as a 'shag on a rock'. This demonstrated, in my view, a low estimation of our country. She denigrated our security and law enforcement agencies, suggesting that their concerns around Australia's security run contrary to our economic interests and that, if they were managing our economic interests, 'this country would go down the gurgler'.
As Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I'd like to make clear my full support for the ASIO Director-General, Mike Burgess, the ASIS Director-General, Paul Symon, the AFP Commissioner, Reece Kershaw, and the people they lead, who devote their time and energy to keeping the Australian people safe. I know who I'd rather have watching my back.
Labor supported the introduction of JobKeeper not because it was perfect but because it was absolutely crucial. We all witnessed the queues snaking around our communities. I'm next to a Centrelink, and for days people just stood patiently in that line, occasionally knocking on my office door—because we had to close it due to COVID—and certainly ringing us. It has been an incredible time, and seeing those people queuing is something that I think none of us ever thought we would see. My father used to tell me stories about the divvy lines in the Depression. I'm sure that if he were alive today he would have been so sad to see those lines.
JobKeeper is far from perfect, and my office has been flooded with calls from people—employers and employees—who are very confused. Some are casuals, like Melissa's daughter, who was hired as a casual beautician on 2 March last year. She missed out by one arbitrary day. Sole traders have been falling through the cracks. They feel forgotten. Angela from my electorate has had a really tough year. The summer bushfires pretty much wiped out her photography business, and she got a permanent part-time job. Then COVID absolutely killed her business, and she found out from the ATO that she couldn't get JobKeeper because of her one-day-a-week job. Times are tough. We really need to keep our eye on the ball with this. (Time expired)
We've often heard, over recent weeks, the phrase 'We are all in this together' but the reality is that that is not true. There is a substantial minority of the Australian population who are bearing the full brunt of the restrictions in place because of the COVID-19 crisis. That small minority are bearing the hardship for us all. So, with that, I call on our state governments, our premiers, to lift the restrictions as soon as they can. As to any restriction that remains in place, it must be backed by full medical reasons; otherwise it should be lifted to get people back to work.
We cannot take the attitude of saying we will wait until things are safe, because that means never. We cannot have 100 per cent safety, and often the pain and suffering and ill effects on health from the lockdowns can be worse than the virus itself. Now is the time to get Australians back to work. We've already had a 20 per cent decline in the hours worked. That is far too much. So I call on our state premiers: lift the restrictions and allow Australians to get back to work.
I want to acknowledge that last month people around the world celebrated Yom Ha'atzmaut, the creation of the state of Israel; however, this week Palestinians and their friends commemorate the Nakba, when, in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced and lost their homes, and many were killed. Since 1948, we've continued to see pervasive human rights abuses committed against Palestinian people. These abuses affect every aspect of their lives. Now we're seeing Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu actively undermining a two-state solution that could deliver peace and security to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Netanyahu intends to unilaterally implement parts of Trump's so-called peace plan, even though it's been rejected by Palestine and has almost no support globally. Netanyahu's plan includes the annexation of large swathes of the West Bank.
Yet, in the face of these proposed serious violations of international law, from an Israeli PM who is still indicted on serious corruption charges, the Australian government not only remains quiet but actively tries to block investigations of war crimes in Palestine through the International Criminal Court. It's time for Australia to speak up, especially as Mike Pompeo flies in to Israel. It's time to vocally oppose any illegal annexation and make it clear that there will be serious diplomatic consequences should it occur, just as there have been for other illegal annexations of territory.
As a great friend of teachers and, like all of us, great friends of the state government, I've been somewhat disappointed by the evidence-free policy solo flights that we've seen in return-to-school policies. While national cabinet worked on the way in, it has fractured on the way out. I want to see evidence driving school attendance. That's not what's happened, and I'm most concerned about the vulnerable children. My city—the first to survey every vulnerable family—found that only five per cent of those children were at school and over 50 per cent of them are unable to learn at home or are doing no learning.
This period, we must make sure, is as short as possible. This period must be founded in evidence. And to our teachers—who are beleaguered at having to juggle many balls in the air doing home and school based learning—thank you for the extra work you're putting in to look after our children. But we now know that over half of vulnerable children are getting no education, and any blizzard of SIM cards will not fix it.
We want our children protected and educated. We know that parents know where our children really belong: their education is in front of a teacher. It's self-evident. Stop making out that parents are slack, lazy and lifestyle parents because they're turning up to school hoping to enrol their children.
To those mothers who had their children torn out of classrooms and told to sit in the principal's office and wait for a lecture, for those who are the parents of special education children, those with ASD and those with special needs told they couldn't attend because they weren't vulnerable, that is a disgrace. I hope that period is sent back to history quickly. (Time expired)
Today I rise to congratulate the government on the work to date on the COVID-19 pandemic, and I particularly congratulate them on the increase to jobseeker and the introduction of JobKeeper. Both these decisions demonstrated, I thought, an understanding that the federal government needed to do two things: provide support for people; and provide economic stimulus. Imagine my disappointment then to find yesterday that that spirit was not shown by some Liberal MPs—some perhaps in the chamber now—when they announced they wanted to cut back these programs quietly and silently to journalists on a telephone. They weren't brave enough to put their name to it.
The member for Mackellar, however, was brave enough at least to put his name to it. But he must understand he's championing cruelty and removal of stimulus when Australians are struggling and the economy is spiralling. This is lunacy in the face of the economic downturn that will have ramifications beyond the virus. While industries like building and construction will slow over the coming months, in home building, we're told, the pipeline will dry up. Workers in these industries will need support weeks and months from now when their work stops. And, without the dual levers of support and stimulus, the economic pain will extend and deepen. This is incredibly important in electorates like mine where we need our tradies to have money in their pockets when our shops reopen. I call on the government members not to drink the snapback Kool Aid. (Time expired)
The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown up numerous challenges, but none as insidious as the rise of cyberbullying and online image based abuse. Our eSafety Commissioner is reporting a 40 per cent increase in online abuse, including 21 per cent increase in cyberbullying, spikes in online child abuse material and an 86 per cent increase in image based abuse. COVID-19 has triggered a spike in online scams intended to defraud socially-isolated seniors, hijack identities and spread misinformation. This behaviour is abhorrent all the time, but the rise of exploitation as more people are stuck at home and seeking company and connection via the internet is extremely worrying.
Our eSafety Commissioner has released a dedicated COVID-19 e-safety booklet with specific tips for this time when children are spending more time at home and online. We can protect our kids by talking to them about online safety to help them make good choices. Tips for parents include using online devices in open areas of the home, checking privacy settings and knowing what apps our kids are using. Parents and all of us need to keep an eye out for unwanted online contact and know how to respond, and you can find those details at esafety.gov.au.
As we face the COVID health crisis, the economic recovery, and provide mental health support, we must also tackle the increase in online harm. We must protect our kids and vulnerable seniors, and the increase in online harm that we currently face requires greater attention from us all. Thank you.
When Frankston's PARC closed its doors in March because of social-distancing requirements, 300 employees were left facing months without income. Now, because the government refuses to include employees of local government subsidiaries in JobKeeper, 259 locals have lost their jobs—many aren't eligible for jobseeker. All of them have lost job security. An important community asset has lost its connection with almost all of its staff.
The Treasurer can fix this with the stroke of a pen. I've written to him twice asking him to do so. The Frankston City Council have written to him—no response at all; nothing for the benefit of my community. The Peninsula campus of Monash University, at the centre of education, employment and economic activity for my community, and key to our vision for our future, has seen a reduction of almost 50 per cent in business student enrolments alone because of the pandemic. Without federal government help, universities have predicted 21,000 jobs will be lost in the next six months alone. For every dollar lost to universities, the community will lose close to $2 supporting employment in every other sector. Dunkley needs Monash University to be covered by the JobKeeper scheme. We need PARC to be covered by the JobKeeper scheme.
Five million workers are currently covered by JobKeeper, and the government had planned on six million. Now is not the time to pocket that undersubscription. Now is the time to extend employment and income security to workers and businesses in Dunkley currently excluded from JobKeeper.
I would like to speak on a topic that is lighter, happier and relevant to all of us. On Sunday, like so many lucky mums around Australia, I received phone calls from my children wishing me a happy Mother's Day. I must admit that it was challenging not being able to see them in person due to the coronavirus. But whether it's over lunch or via a phone call it's always nice to get some acknowledgement of your hard work from your kids.
One of the greatest joys of motherhood is celebrating your children's achievements, so I hope you will indulge me. When I came to this country 35 years ago, I began my working life by waiting tables. Now my children—my son Derek and daughter Sally—have studied at Harvard and Princeton, respectively, and have begun successful corporate careers. Both of them represented Australia in chess, and Sally also happens to have represented Australia in ultimate Frisbee—my electorate of Chisholm is home to many fantastic sports clubs, including Box Hill Chess Club in Ashwood and Eastern Ultimate Frisbee in Blackburn North, if anyone is looking to play.
I want to extend my gratitude to all mums around Australia for all that they do, and my love to those who have found this year's Mother's Day especially tough in Victoria.
On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith, I wish to thank and pay tribute to all of our communities' essential workers that have continued to go to work during this difficult period and are getting our nation through. Australia's success in reducing the rate of COVID-19 infection has been built by Australians being responsible, cooperating and staying at home.
But for many Australians, staying at home and staying safe is not an option. They need to go to work to continue to keep our country running. In doing so, they are risking their own health and safety, and for that they deserve our praise and respect. So I thank all of our aged-care workers, early childhood educators, teachers, emergency services workers, transport workers, cleaners, construction workers, hairdressers, security workers and many others—in particular, those who are working on the frontline of our healthcare system: our doctors, nurses, medical researchers, allied health professionals and administrators. You deserve particular praise.
I also want to pay tribute to and thank all of our Centrelink workers who have helped Australians during this difficult period, many of them negotiating Centrelink for the first time in their lives. Your professionalism and care are deserving of praise. Many of these workers who have got us through this difficult period are highly skilled but are relatively low paid and on award wages. I hope now that as a nation we see the value of the work in these industries and that in the future we pay these workers what they are truly worth in our society. Thank you to all of our essential workers.
I rise today to acknowledge those who are being impacted on the frontline of the pandemic—the healthcare workers, the aged-care workers, the teachers, the parents, the students and, of course, small business owners, who have shown resilience and persevered through this very, very difficult time.
I also want to share some local examples of community service that I have witnessed across Reid, from Rhodes to Chiswick to Strathfield. Many people are doing it tough right now, but Reid has countless community groups who are providing access to food, clothing and essential items for those in need. I'd like to acknowledge St. Merkorious Charity in Rhodes, St Paul's Anglican church in Burwood, St Bede's Anglican church in Drummoyne and Strathfield Girls High School, which has collected essential items and food to be distributed by the local meals-on-wheels service. Other groups have focused on maintaining social wellbeing, like the Drummoyne Community Centre, which has been delivering puzzles and activities for vulnerable residents in isolation. Then there are locals, like Phil Dye, who has been holding live concerts for residents in Chiswick to listen to from their balconies.
The list goes on. These acts of service and kindness make me so proud to represent Reid. It is important to celebrate the best of the Australian spirit in times of adversity and acknowledge the good work being done in our community.
When people think of the arts sector they often think of celebrities. But, of course, 92,000 Queenslanders are directly or indirectly employed in the creative workforce. Data released last week showed that the arts and recreation services have experienced some of the worst job losses during COVID-19. Live Performance Australia estimates the COVID-19 impacts on Queensland's live performance industry over a three-month-ban period would result in the loss of $79 million in ticket sales.
Griffith is home to many of Queensland's major arts venues, but the federal government has been lacklustre in supporting them. For every dollar the Queensland government is investing in our major performing arts organisations this year, the federal LNP government chips in just 81c, whereas in New South Wales the federal LNP government invests $3.93 for every dollar provided by the New South Wales government. Arts organisations in Queensland are missing out, including Home of the Arts on the Gold Coast, the Cairns Performing Arts Centre, Logan Entertainment Centre and the Indigenous Knowledge Centres of Queensland. Queensland Theatre has been hit hard by the coronavirus crisis, but what's devastating is that they're excluded from accessing vital government support like the cashflow boost or JobKeeper. Queenslanders have unnecessarily lost their jobs while their New South Wales counterparts are receiving help from the government. Queenslanders need our fair share of funding now.
The last few weeks have been challenging for all of us, but my community has been hit particularly hard by coronavirus. But we're taking the initiative, keeping connected and working together.
The work doesn't stop; I have convened meetings with small businesses, community organisations, schools and families in Lindsay, and brought along some ministers for their expertise. Ensuring that local kids have the best access to education is so important to me, and the federal Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, joined school principals and me for a first-of-its-kind teleconference in Australia. We discussed supporting local students, social-distancing measures and how schools can prepare and adapt during the pandemic.
The Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Michaelia Cash, and I met with small business owners in Lindsay and discussed how we are supporting our business community and helping Australians to get back to work after coronavirus. We talked about the future of manufacturing in Australia and backing Western Sydney manufacturing, because we have such a great opportunity there if we're willing to fight for it.
Last Friday, the Indigenous and community organisations in my community met with the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, to hear about their coronavirus experiences and the work they're doing on the ground. We discussed education, mental health and the impact of social isolation on our young people. And, very importantly, the Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Richard Colbeck, and I met with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner and families and residents of Newmarch House. We talked about the Commonwealth's response in providing assistance to these—
The member's time has concluded.
I rise today to briefly speak about the disability workforce and their contribution during the pandemic. I acknowledge that Australians with disability, their carers and loved ones, and the service providers who have worked so hard, have all contributed to keeping people with disability safe. But today I want to pay particular tribute to the disability workforce itself.
The disability workforce work in people's homes, they work in employment programs, they work in the community and disability enterprises, and they work hands-on—very close. They work with Australians with complex needs: they feed, they shower, they toilet, they put to bed and they get up and dress every morning Australians with disability. They are front and centre in the lives of people with disability. In many ways they are a second pair of limbs or eyes and ears—literally. They find it hard to follow the protocols which the rest of us have the opportunity to practice because the people they care for can't practice the safety protocols.
But, regardless of the crisis, Australia's disability workforce have turned up every day. They are skilled and they are excellent. They number about 100,000. They are low paid, but they've been at the back of the health queue for PPE and the like. They have not received a retention bonus; they're casual, they're contract, they're part-time, and they've been unemployed through the day program closures. JobKeeper hasn't covered all of them, but today, at the very least, we can salute the contribution of our disability workforce.
During my maiden speech in this parliament I referred to a Darling Downs community leader, a great friend and an Indigenous elder, Uncle Darby McCarthy. Sadly, he passed away last week. He was a real gentleman, gracious and engaging, often reflecting on his life and sporting prowess. Above all though, he talked of the joy of his family; the challenges particularly for young Indigenous Australians, on which he was so focused; and his unrelenting confidence in reaching full reconciliation. To quote him: 'We must continue to work to achieve it in the knowledge that, if we can't, our black babies and our white babies will.'
He was born in Cunnamulla, a very proud descendant of the Mithika people. His career as a jockey took him from Thargomindah to three Stradbrokes, the Brisbane Cup and the Doomben 10,000, and he had a successful career riding across Europe, including in Paris and at the Royal Ascot. He was installed into the Queensland Racing Hall of Fame in 2004.
Darby's contribution to the Toowoomba community was profound, including as Indigenous advisor to our University of Southern Queensland, and he spent years as the chair of the Indigenous elders body for our courts. He was awarded an OAM in 2016 for his services to the Indigenous community in and around Toowoomba. In their notice of Uncle Darby's upcoming family funeral, his family quoted: 'Legend has gone into the Dreamtime but never forgotten.'
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry will be absent from question time today; the Minister for Home Affairs will answer any questions on her behalf. The Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia will be absent; the Deputy Prime Minister will answer on his behalf. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time; the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education will be absent; the Minister for Education will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government will be absent; the Minister for Health will answer questions on his behalf. And the Minister for International Development and the Pacific and Assistant Defence Minister will be absent; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Minister for Health. The Australian Psychological Society, headspace and other experts say many Australians will need more than 10 mental health consultations to cope with the flow-on effects of COVID-19. To the government's credit it adopted Labor's suggestion to increase the cap on Medicare mental health services in response to this summer's bushfires. Will it do the same in relation to COVID-19?
One of the things we have done is invest very strongly in health. There has actually been a range of inputs, and I thank the opposition for their input, and I thank all of those who have contributed. In relation to mental health and the coronavirus epidemic in Australia, in particular we've invested $669 million in telehealth. I'm advised 47.7 per cent of all consultations in the previous week with regard to standard mental health items were conducted over the phone. In addition to that, what we've also seen is that general telehealth items have very significantly been for mental health. So it doesn't have to be confined to the particular mechanism which the member outlines. What we have opened up with telehealth is a much broader ability to access services.
In conjunction with the services provided through telehealth, we have also made sure that there are specific psychological and psychiatric items that have also been made available. On top of that, there was a $74 million investment focusing on support services for people mostly online or through telehealth through organisations such as the Black Dog Institute for healthcare workers, Orygen for young people, Lifeline, Kids' Helpline and so many other different support groups. In particular, Beyond Blue has led the coronavirus activity.
Where there are proposals, the government will always consider them, but what we have done already is—on the advice of the mental health officers; the Chief Medical Officer; and, in particular, the CEO of the National Mental Health Commission and the Prime Minister's Suicide Prevention Adviser, Christine Morgan—establish the arrangements which are in place, and these have been critical to help save lives and protect lives during what is a difficult period. Where there are proposals, we'll always review them, but what we have done so far has been, I would say, potentially world-leading. In particular, the national cabinet will be considering the national mental health pandemic plan this week. We are making very good progress with the states, and I want to thank the Prime Minister for his support and his leadership in drawing that into the national cabinet.
My question is to the Prime Minister. We've all seen that Australians are stepping up to meet the health and economic challenges of the coronavirus pandemic. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan to fight the virus and its economic effects is backing Australians in?
I thank the member for Curtin for her question, and can I commend her on this past year that she's been elected to this place almost now for the great work that she's done—and the many other members that have joined us since that last election.
Despite the tremendous challenges that our country faces, I and my government are very optimistic about Australia's future. We're very positive about this future. Some months ago I said Australians were strong but that strength would be put to the test in the weeks and months to follow. Australians are passing that test of strength each and every day. As we work through the many challenges that they have faced individually, personally, in their own lives, amongst their own families, in their own communities, in their own businesses, workplaces or wherever they may be, they are confronting and dealing with the challenges in a very uniquely Australian way, proving to the world, as we said when we gathered here soon after the outbreak of the COVID crisis, that we're demonstrating as a nation how effective a nation such as ours, a liberal democratic nation, can be in responding to the coronavirus. We're showing the way around the world with the success that Australians have been able to achieve.
They have confidence because we have a plan and that plan is working, but the job is not done. We're fighting the virus; flattening the curve, as the Minister for Health set out earlier today in his ministerial statement; extending the economic lifeline connecting to Australians to help them cross that bridge to the other side, as the Treasurer set out yesterday in his ministerial statement; buying us much needed time so now we are able to reopen the economy and the society, based on the important protections that we have put in place. We're building up our health system, scaling up our ICU capacity, expanding our testing regime and the COVIDSafe app, which we continue to encourage Australians each and every day to use, so we can reopen.
Building confidence and momentum then follows from that, as does resetting for growth in a post-COVID world. And Australians are more confident. Today's Westpac index of consumer confidence demonstrated this: a 16.4 per cent jump, the highest in 50 years, rebounding back from the terrible blow to confidence that was inflicted as a result of the COVID crisis. The ANZ confidence index is rebounding some 70 per cent from the big falls that we saw some several weeks ago, as Australians are feeling more confident—because they have confidence in the plan and the way forward. But ultimately they have confidence in themselves, their communities and their strength, and that is the key to Australia's success in combating this crisis and it will continue to be. We are in this together and Australians are succeeding together.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his claim that businesses, the economy and his budget will snap back?
I have every confidence in Australian businesses—and it's more than confidence in Australian businesses—to rebuild on the other side of this crisis; I have confidence in businesses being at the centre of our economy and in the regrowth that we will see in our economy that will support the incomes and livelihoods of Australians, not just now but in the decades into the future. Because as Liberals and Nationals we have never believed that government should be at the centre of the economy, that Australians should see a future for themselves only being dependent on the support of other taxpayers—but seeing their own livelihoods being supported by businesses investing and creating jobs, some 1.5 million jobs created over these last 6½ years. And those jobs have been decimated by this terrible COVID crisis that has hit the world. But, in the same way, when we came to government and we rebuilt the nation's finances and we rebuilt the strength of the economy—and that led to 1.5 million Australians getting into jobs—Australians can have confidence that, on the other side of this crisis, the government can apply the same discipline, the same faith, and the same confidence in Australians and the businesses and the enterprising spirit and the innovative nature that we've seen as businesses have adapted in this crisis.
Now, the Leader of the Opposition may want to engage in the semantics of this, but I can tell you what I'm engaged in, Mr Speaker, and that is the fortitude and the strength of the Australian people and the strength of the Australian economy, even still in the midst of this crisis, even still with the delivery of the single largest income support this country has ever seen. Ratings agencies around the world know that we've got this covered. And it's true that, as we've sought to raise the finances necessary to pay for that economic lifeline to Australians, then finance around the world has subscribed to our bonds over and over and over again. And the reason for that is people have confidence in this country. I have confidence in this country. And I believe this country will bounce back and bounce strongly under the leadership of this government.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is supporting communities and industries during the coronavirus pandemic through the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund?
I thank the hardworking member for Mallee for her question. She and her Victorian electorate are resilient people, and regional Australian people are always resilient. They have an air of optimism and positivity and hope about them, and they have to because, whenever we have a crisis befall our nation, whether it's drought—I know the Minister for Agriculture's electorate of Maranoa has endured it for seven years. Whether it's bushfires and our summer from hell, which affected so many electorates, so many parts of regional Australia, or whether it's floods, which followed the bushfires in some parts, or now, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic. Regional Australians through all of that come out the other side because of their resilience, because of their fighting spirit. They are, of course, responsible for the food, the fibre and the export revenue that our nation nobly holds so dear.
As the member for Mallee well knows, when our regions are strong, so too is our nation. And this has never been more apparent than right now. As part of the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund, a billion dollar fund set aside to ensure that industries get through to the other side, we've seen the uptake of assistance available and it's going to help regional Australians so much.
Justin Pirrottina, the president of the Geraldton Professional Fishermen's Association and a Geraldton lobster fisherman, said in support of this initiative: 'It's a step in the right direction, it started things moving, has got boats back on the water and people back in jobs. We hope that every week we can start fitting a little bit more in as trade ramps back up.' I know this is just as important in Western Australia as it is in the Victorian electorate that the member for Mallee represents so proudly. It's a perfect example of real benefits, from a genuine fund, flowing to industry to help them preserve and protect livelihoods, jobs and workers' ability to go to work. Because we know that so many businesses have, unfortunately, had to shut their doors. Mark Ryan, Chief Executive Officer of Tassal, a Tasmanian based salmon farming company—they employ a thousand people—said: 'This means Australian farmers'—he's talking about this initiative—'and fishers can continue supporting their workforces, confidently operate their essential services during these uncertain times, and also show leadership in Australia's recovery ahead.'
This government is also showing leadership, and I know the parliament, moreover, is showing leadership to get through COVID-19. And I know that billion dollar fund is helping so many regional Australians get through this. They've been hard hit. They've been hard hit by so much in recent times, but they will get by because of their positivity, because of their optimism and because of their renowned resilience.
My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the government doing to assist barley growers and red meat producers affected by recent trade restrictions announced by China and to protect the thousands of jobs currently at risk, including abattoir workers in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales?
Like all members of this chamber, we hold concerns for the way this issue is being progressed at this point in time. This is a matter that the government has been raising now for a considerable period of time and, in fact, I've done so on several occasions in my direct meetings with the Premier Li Keqiang, most recently late last year. So this is an issue, as the member would be aware, that has been running for some time in relation to antidumping. Of course, we reject any suggestion of those matters being relevant to Australia's exports, particularly of barley.
Australian agriculture is not one that is supported by subsidy. It is one supported by the ingenuity and good management of the Australian agricultural sector, so any suggestion that Australia's agricultural exports are the subject of some sort of government subsidisation is completely and utterly rejected. And these are the very points that we make directly as part of the comprehensive strategic partnership that was able to be concluded by this government many years ago. And we are continuing to use the channels of that relationship and that partnership to progress these matters, as well as directly with the relevant authorities in China, regarding their antidumping review in relation to barley. Similarly, the matters in relation to abattoirs are also being progressed. Those matters relate to what are claimed to be paperwork and administration issues in relation to Australia's meat exports, and we will continue to advocate and set out Australia's case very, very clearly.
Let me be very clear about one thing: Australia stands very firmly behind our agricultural producers and we also stand firmly about where we see the role of the Australian economy in the broader world. We have great confidence in our outward look as a trading nation, and we engage with all partners in good faith with the purpose of ensuring the increase in global trade. That is the basis for our relationship with the Chinese government. When it comes to our comprehensive strategic partnership, it works across many different areas. It has been a highly successful agreement, but, from time to time, there will be differences of views about those issues, and we'll seek to progress them in a very constructive way in the national interest—always in the national interest.
Treasurer, cannot the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and a development bank fund ready-to-go industry and infrastructure for Australia to build its way out of the COVID depression—manufacturing, industry and agriculture. North Queensland is shovel ready and COVID free. Hells Gates Dam, the Galilee rail line and the CopperString electrification project are not absorb-money projects but are make-money projects, to show you and I are trendy back in black, highway to hell. Treasurer, cough up the money. Make money.
Just before I call the Treasurer, the only part of it that was a question was the 'can' at the start. The Treasurer has the call.
I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. First, I'd like to say that the government, through its $100 billion 10-year infrastructure pipeline, is making a record investment in infrastructure. When it comes to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—the minister for energy, who is responsible for it, may want to add to this answer—it has already made commitments of some $8 billion with the projects with a value of over $28 billion as of the end of March 2020. With respect to the CopperString Project, in 2019 the government announced $4.7 million to assist with the costs of feasibility work for that project, which is a proposed transition line between Mount Isa and Hughenden. In terms of the CopperString Project, as you know, it will allow major users in the Mount Isa region to access reliable and affordable energy from the National Electricity Market.
With respect to Hells Gate Dam, the government has paid the first tranche of funding for the project, with initial planning and design work focusing at the Big Rocks Weir area at Charters Towers. I'd ask if the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction would like to add to that answer?
I strongly praise the member for Kennedy not just for his support for aka daka but for his support for a strong mining and processing industry and energy sector in North Queensland. Of course, that's important not just to North Queensland but to all of Australia.
Now, as the Treasurer said, last year we committed $4.7 million to a feasibility study on CopperString. It's an important project, because it offers the potential to link Mount Isa into the National Electricity Market to provide more affordable and reliable energy electricity for Mount Isa and the important industry that takes place in Mount Isa. It also offers opportunity to provide competitive energy for projects along that corridor all the way from Mount Isa through to Hughenden and Townsville. That $4.7 million is there for preparatory work and environmental impact assessment and so on in the feasibility stages.
Can I also draw the member's attention to our commitment recently to a new billion dollar Grid Reliability Fund to be administered by the CEFC, as you mentioned in your question. That billion dollar Grid Reliability Fund is very focused on transmission projects that are making energy more affordable, more secure and more reliable for places like Mount Isa. I strongly encourage you and the proponents of the projects to continue your discussions with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Morrison government's comprehensive range of economic measures are protecting lives and livelihoods as we build a bridge to recovery?
I thank the member for Boothby for her question and acknowledge her deep background and experience, particularly working for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and as a journalist prior to entering this place. She, like other members of this House and across the nation, know the significance of the economic shock that has occurred both globally and domestically as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. We've seen some 33 million jobless claims being made in the United States. We've seen here in Australia the Treasury forecast GDP to fall by some 10 per cent and unemployment to rise to some 10 per cent, and we've seen the information that I detailed in the House yesterday: new house sales falling dramatically and new motor vehicle sales falling dramatically as well as falls in consumption and in business investment.
We have made some $320 billion of financial commitments, and central to our financial commitments has been the JobKeeper program—a record wage subsidy that will assist in maintaining the formal connection between employers and employees, for example Central Audio Visual. This is a family owned business in South Australia, in Adelaide, that provides TV screens, lecterns and microphones for conferences, expos, AGMs and sporting events. Ashlea Malcolm, from that business, contacted the member for Boothby and said that as a result of the limits on outdoor and indoor gatherings they lost thousands of dollars worth of bookings within hours. With no income, they had to make the heartbreaking decision to stand down all their staff without pay, and their hardworking and loyal staff were left without income.
According to Ashlea Malcolm, the JobKeeper package has helped save their business. She said that it has 'acted like a glue for small business owners and employees'. They've spent the last six weeks devising in-house training programs to upskill their technical crew, and they've spoken about the mental health advantages that it's had for their staff to be on the JobKeeper program. They've also benefited from the cashflow boost, as well as the arrangements that we have been discussing with the banks to provide deferrals of loan repayments. Ashlea Malcolm says to the member for Boothby—and it's important for this House to recognise this—that, given that their industry relies on large gatherings, they'll be one of the last to return to normal but they're fortunate that the concerns of small business owners were listened to and acted upon by the Morrison government.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister with the COVID recovery when he was complacent in the lead-up to the bushfires, despite the clear warnings from experts, and, months after the bushfires, debris is still there and, more importantly, survivors are still living in caravans and showering in community halls?
I thank the member for his question. This government put in place the National Bushfire Recovery Fund in January of this year; $2 billion was set aside to support the work of the National Bushfire Recovery Agency. That fund was intended to acquit some $500 million by 30 June this year. We estimate that the figure will exceed $1 billion by 30 June this year. Small business support grants of some $10,000 have now been provided to over 170,000 small businesses right across the bushfire-affected areas. In total, small business support has been over $200 million, to support those small businesses that were so devastated.
There have also been some 1.5 million approvals for small businesses—up to $50,000 for small businesses that are seeking support. Primary producer grants have been provided to the tune of some $127 million to primary producers who are affected by these arrangements. The work is being done to clean debris, and that is estimated to cost over half a billion dollars—over $500 million. And as was reported earlier this week, South Australia will have largely completed that task very, very shortly. New South Wales, who are managing that work, will have completed that task by the end of June, as I indicated to this House earlier this year. And in Victoria, we understand, that task will be completed by August this year.
As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the matters of accommodation for those who were affected are matters that are handled by the states and territories, and we have not received—to the best of my knowledge and on my advice—any request, outstanding, for the Commonwealth to provide support for accommodation in these communities. I look to the Minister for Emergency Management, and he indicates that that is the case. We will deal with crises every time they impact on this country, and we'll do it methodically and steadily, and Australians are seeing that in action. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to politicise these things, that is a matter for him.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting the mental health of Australians during the pandemic?
I want to thank the member for Reid, not just for her interest in this particular question but also for her lifetime of professional service, in particular supporting mental health as a child psychologist. One of the things that she and so many people in this place would know is the stress, the challenge for mental health that the pandemic has brought. It could be stress brought on by health conditions or the fear that those health conditions may bring to someone's family. It could be the stress of somebody feeling isolation and loneliness, which can have such a profound impact. Or it could be the economic stress of losing one's job or having it threatened, or the challenge of running and owning a small business when cash flow dries up. That's why the support mechanisms such as JobKeeper and Jobseeker have been so important. But I do want to acknowledge in particular the stress that small businesses have felt, as COSBOA related to me only today, throughout the course of this pandemic.
Having said that, there are critical steps that we are taking to support Australians, and I do thank the opposition for their support, and I thank all the members on this side of the chamber for their deep engagement on these questions.
We came into the pandemic having invested over $730 million in youth mental health a year ago this week, thanks to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister together. There was $76 million for bushfire recovery mental health, and $64 million through Beyond Blue for suicide prevention with a particular focus on those who have self-harmed previously or those who have suffered the loss of a loved one. Against that background, I mentioned before the $74 million which we have invested. As part of that, we specifically focused on the young and the old—almost $7 million through headspace for services to the young, and $10 million for older Australians to focus on their needs as they suffer from potential fears, isolation, loneliness. All of these things have helped to build our response.
More broadly, I mentioned telehealth earlier but, as we go forwards from this moment, we have the mental health pandemic plan which the Prime Minister is taking forward to the national cabinet. We also have a commitment to work on those telehealth reforms and to provide these services going forward.
For the first time in Australia, today we announced a deputy chief medical officer for mental health, Dr Ruth Vine, a former chief psychiatrist in Victoria and somebody who will carry forward the passions, the commitment and the concerns of Australians everywhere for better, stronger mental healthcare.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain why a university student working a $100 shift per week receives the full $1,500 JobKeeper wage subsidy, but their full-time university tutor, with three kids to support, is not eligible?
With respect to universities, we set out very clearly that they would be subject to the threshold tests of 30 per cent and 50 per cent, depending on their turnover. But we also made the decision, as a government, to provide Commonwealth grants to the universities to ensure that they are receiving money equivalent to what their enrolments would have been pre-COVID. That's some $18 billion we will see in government support for the sector over this year—that's very substantial indeed.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister provide an update on the government's support for aged-care providers and residents in response to the coronavirus pandemic?
I want to thank the member for Lindsay. Of all the members in this place during the course of the pandemic, in many ways the member for Lindsay has had one of the most difficult and heart-wrenching jobs. She has been a constant aid, support, contact and advocate for the families of Newmarch House. We know that since the house was infected with coronavirus—and, unfortunately, it had spread far through that house before the first diagnosis—that 18 lives have been lost, 16 of which have, so far, been attributed directly to coronavirus. I want to commend the member for Lindsay on her work, advocacy and passion, and acting as a bridge for residents with both state and Commonwealth governments.
More broadly, we know the challenge across Australia. In the UK, the United States, France, Spain, Italy and Canada we have seen the immense tragedy and loss in what they call 'care homes' And even with the tragedy of Newmarch and Dorothy Henderson Lodge, one of the things that has happened in Australia is that we have had an extraordinary outcome where our aged-care workers, our carers, all those involved, have helped to protect our most frail, most vulnerable Australians. Over 2,700 residential care homes and less than one per cent of those has had a coronavirus infection. That is almost inconceivable. That is so far ahead of our best-case scenario two months ago that it is an unimaginable achievement. I want to thank everybody in the aged-care sector for their incredible dedication.
We've supported the work of bringing together a code led by the minister for aged care, Senator Colbeck, with the protections around people coming into homes and difficult restrictions which have saved lives. We're boosting the ventilator capacity to 7½ thousand units in Australia. We then backed that with funding: $850 million, which has included over $240 million for our aged-care workers to have retention bonuses to recognise their work as they have stayed on during the course of this pandemic. They've stayed on and provided service and support. We've provided emergency assistance and we've provided support for the providers themselves. All of these things have come together. There has been tragedy and loss and we must mourn each one of those lives, but we must recognise the extraordinary protection that Australians have given to their frail, elderly loved ones.
Can the Treasurer explain why an 18-year-old living at home who's been working a shift a week at a McDonald's franchise receives the full $1,500 JobKeeper wage subsidy, but a full-time Australian worker at dnata, providing catering services to Qantas, with a mortgage to repay, is not eligible?
Firstly, let me say, we very much understand the difficult circumstances that businesses and workers right across the country are facing with this coronavirus pandemic. As the honourable member said himself in this House yesterday: this is a health crisis that has created an economic crisis. And we responded with the $130 billion JobKeeper program. We set out very clearly what the criteria for eligibility under that program were—including for full-time workers, part-time workers, long-term casuals—based on an established definition in the Fair Work Act. As well, we effectively doubled the jobseeker payment, the old Newstart, to $1,100 a fortnight. We have taken unprecedented economic steps. Some people will be eligible for the jobseeker program and others will be eligible for the JobKeeper program. More than one million Australians are on the jobseeker program and when it comes to the JobKeeper program over 800,000 businesses have formally enrolled, representing 5½ million Australian workers.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please update the House on the extraordinary efforts of Australia manufacturers in producing critical equipment to support Australians through the coronavirus pandemic?
I thank the very fine member for Wentworth for that question. Very early on our government was hoping for the best but diligently preparing for the worst. So far the work that we have done, that we have all done, has ensured that our nation was spared the rapid increase in cases that we have seen globally. Of course, it's a long road and we are not there yet. But the work that has been done by so many people has meant that we are in a position that many of us could not have imagined we would have been in several months ago. But we cannot and we will not be complacent.
A number of months ago many Australians would not have known what PPE stood for, but personal protective equipment has now been on the frontline of our defence and it's been in the headlines right across the world. When the health minister came to me very early on and asked what we could do to ensure that we had the essential medical supplies that we needed, and that our frontline health workers in particular were protected, my mind immediately went to Australian manufacturing and to our Australian manufacturers. It's fair to say that there was a lot of scepticism at the start about whether or not Australian manufacturers would be able to meet the demands that were being put on them. But I have always had confidence in Australian manufacturing and Australian manufacturers, and I was very confident that they would be able to step up, and that's exactly what they have done.
Many of us are aware of the outstanding successes that we have achieved with the manufacture of medical masks—surgical masks—where we have increased capacity from a couple of million to over 200 million. But there's also an amazing story to be told about ventilators. We did have a manufacturer here in Australia, ResMed. My department and I have worked around the clock with them and many other manufacturers to meet the needs that we identified. ResMed have delivered 5½ thousand ventilators ahead of schedule, which is just fantastic.
Also, Victoria's Grey Innovation is leading a consortium of about 30 Australian manufacturers and they are producing 2,000 ventilators. So for those out there who didn't think that we could do this, I am very happy to say that you were wrong, because not only did we believe that we could do this, it's actually happened right across Australia. So hats off and a big thank you to Australian manufacturers. Well done to them. This is congratulations to our Australian manufacturers. I think everyone in this entire chamber should be very proud of the great work that they have done. It is a credit to our Australian manufacturers. Thank you and well done.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. Will the government develop a housing construction industry stimulus plan to keep Australia's almost one million bricklayers, carpenters, electricians and lots of other workers in the housing construction industry in a job?
I thank the member for his question. Obviously those businesses that are engaged in the housing industry—the minister's right, it's a big industry with over one million employees—have, importantly, been supported by the JobKeeper package, $130 billion. The Treasurer has outlined today just how important that has been for so many businesses. In addition, one of the first things we did was announce $1.3 billion to support apprentices—50 per cent of the wage for apprentices. A huge beneficiary of that program are businesses in the residential and other construction industries.
In addition to all of that, at the beginning of this year we put in place the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which has increased demand for new homes particularly. If there are customers for those homes there are building sites to work on for all of the people that the minister spoke about. So far under the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme we have had about 8,800 new homes, or people who are now beneficiaries of a guarantee who are able to go out and search for their first property with a deposit of as little as five per cent.
In addition to all of that, we set up the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which has channelled $1.3 billion into social and affordable housing projects. One point three billion dollars has already flowed into social and affordable housing projects, which of course stimulates the industry.
What I would say to the shadow minister is that what the industry does not need, what it absolutely does not need, are Labor's housing taxes, which are still your policy. They are still Labor policy. All of the groups that I suspect the shadow minister is talking to campaign ferociously against that, because of how devastating it would be for their businesses, how devastating it would be for the millions of workers that the shadow minister spoke about. So what the residential construction industry doesn't agree on right now—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The minister can pause for a second and the member for Lalor will stop interjecting. Ministers are entitled to compare and contrast to a very limited degree, which he has done. But the question did not ask for alternative policies in anyway so he needs bring himself back to the question, which was whether the government will deliver a stimulus plan.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The truth does hurt. In the end we have made huge investments into the industry. We have already, as I say, brought forward demand by the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, a scheme that the Labor Party also opposed—albeit for about an hour. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation has delivered over 1,500 new dwellings just this year, supporting our community housing providers.
We have gotten ahead of the curve. We have made these investments. We are supporting the businesses in the industry and the one million people who work in it, and we will continue to provide that support.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Would the Attorney outline to the House how the Morrison government is working to assist businesses and their employees to have the confidence to return to work in a COVID-safe Australia?
I thank the member for Bowman for his question and for his interest in this area. As the Treasurer noted today, there are now 835,000 businesses, which employ more than 5.5 million workers, formally enrolled in the JobKeeper program. The JobKeeper program includes key changes inserted temporarily into the Fair Work Act to allow greater flexibility in directions on hours, the duties of employees and the location of work. I think it's testament to the cooperation and common sense that's occurring in workplaces right across Australia, and also to the simplicity of the design principles, some of which have been raised today—the flat rate of the fee, using existing delivery and assessment mechanisms through the ATO, the centralisation of the changes to the Fair Work Act—that, when you consider the scale, the spread and the number of people who now fall inside of those changes to the Fair Work Act, and of the JobKeeper program, there have been only 265 complaints made to the Fair Work Commission regarding those changes. When you consider how small that number is in comparison to the scale of the changes and the number of people who are brought within this system, that is actually quite a remarkable early achievement.
The next thing that we have to work on as we reanimate parts of the economy is getting everyone back to work safely. That's whether or not you're part of the JobKeeper program, whether or not you've been part of the changes to hospitality, restaurants or clerks awards that the government has supported the process for.
What I'd like to do is draw the attention of the House and the Australian public to the Safe Work Australia website, safeworkaustralia.gov.au. There are conventional obligations, under occupational health and safety laws, for businesses to put appropriate measures in place to ensure a safe working environment. In the COVID-19 recovery phase, those conventional requirements to ensure a safe working environment are going to be in the context of the very unconventional facts of life that we now experience: social distancing, advanced hygiene, appropriate advanced cleaning practices and a range of other responses. What has been the response? The national cabinet has adopted the national COVID-19 safe workplace principles. The workplace health and safety part of the Safe Work Australia website has been totally rebuilt. What it now consists of is a central hub of guidance, tools and information kits across 23 industry sectors, starting with aged care and ending with warehousing and logistics. There are 22 workplace health and safety topics related to COVID-19. There are now 1,300 individual webpages which can provide specific detailed information for businesses planning their way out of this crisis. I note that the thirst for this sort of information is clear. It's being responded to. There've been 1.7 million page views of that rebuilt website this month. We implore working Australians to get out and look at the webpage, and we'll get back to work.
My question is to the Treasurer. Figures released today show annual wages growth slowed to a two-year low in the first quarter of this year, before the worst of the coronavirus outbreak. Is this the kind of economy the government wants to snap back to?
As I said in the House yesterday, there will be an impact on household consumption and on household savings. There will be an impact on wages. There will be a significant impact across the economy. But I want to point out to the member for Rankin that under this government the minimum wage has gone up every year, and the reality is—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
The Member for Rankin is getting angry. He is angry because he's irrelevant to the debate. He was talking down the economy before the crisis, he's now talking down the economy through the crisis and he'll be talking down the economy after the crisis. The Australian people understand and trust the coalition to manage the economy better than Labor ever will.
My question is to the acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is keeping Australians safe and united in Australia's response to the coronavirus? And will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting the Chinese Australian community, including in my electorate of Chisholm?
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and also for her outstanding leadership in her electorate and, indeed, throughout the Australian Chinese community, particularly in the last couple of months. In times of adversity, Australians often shine, and I think we've absolutely seen that this year—first, in our response to the fires and, second, in relation to Australia's response to the pandemic. This absolutely includes the responses we've seen from our multicultural communities.
I have to say that I was absolutely blown away by the generosity of multicultural communities after the bushfires, in terms of how much money they raised, the food distribution and the like. But, equally, they have been incredible in their response to this pandemic, and I'd particularly like to make mention of the Australian Chinese community in this regard because, in some respects, they were on the front line of the pandemic very early on. They were the ones who first went into self-isolation. They were the ones who were returning home from family visits to China. As the Prime Minister himself has said in relation to that, it was through their care, their commitment and their patience that Australia was protected in that first wave, and I think that's absolutely right.
The government has gone to extraordinary efforts to indicate our support to our multicultural communities to communicate with them. We have translated all of the key fact sheets into 63 different languages and disseminated them broadly. We've had over 2,000 engagements with individual multicultural leaders in the last two months alone. I've regularly communicated through the multicultural media, both individually and collectively. In each one of those engagements, our message has been the same. Our message has been that we are there to support them; to communicate to them what support is available individually and what support is available for their businesses; to communicate to them about what the social-distancing requirements are; to thank them for the extraordinary efforts in getting control of this pandemic; and, sadly, though, in recent times, to also point out and reassure them that racism has no place in this country and that we're on their side, if there are any instances of racism, and that they should rightly report it and call it out, as we have been doing.
We live in the greatest multicultural country in the world bar none, and when the chips are down in this country all Australians chip in and we have absolutely seen that this year from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, all religions and all ethnicities. I just so thank the multicultural committees for the effort. They've been such a big part of getting to this stage of the pandemic and they will be an equally important part in the recovery.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister tell the House on 27 February that in relation to sports rorts 'authority for these decisions was the Minister for Sport' when in fact the Audit Office has told the parliament that the Prime Minister's office told the Minister for Sport's office: 'It was expected that the minister would write to the Prime Minister to seek authority on the approved projects'?
I refer the member to my many statements on this in the House. The authority for making the decisions in relation to that program was the Minister for Sport. That is the fact, Mr Speaker. It may be inconvenient to the opposition, but that is the fact. The only authority sought from the Prime Minister's office and from me was in relation to announcements.
My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Minister for Government Services. Will the minister update the House on what the Morrison government has done to ensure Australians get the support they need during the corona crisis, particularly through Services Australia?
I thank the member for Groom for all his hard work over the last few months as we have dealt with unprecedented demand and significant new challenges that everyone in this House is having to step up to. Staff from Services Australia likewise have stepped up to this challenge and have been working around the clock to deliver new and improved income support measures and fast-tracking our coronavirus financial support. This extraordinary effort by Services Australia has seen an additional 12,000 staff from either outside or within—as in redeployed within the Australian Public Service—recruited and trained in call centres and claims processing, and indeed even in this building, as the Speaker said yesterday.
We've worked to ensure stability of core systems. myGov has now increased in current capacity from 6,000 to 300,000 users—work that was done in a matter of days. We've made it much simpler for Australians to get financial support and crucially reduced the need for Australian citizens to pop into a Services Australia shopfront.
Before the coronavirus pandemic, 570,000 Australians used to access myGov every day; today, it's 1.7 million. Indeed, from 16 March to 21 April, there were 50 million logins to myGov by Australian citizens. The biggest day to date has seen three million logins to myGov. The preceding biggest day was tax time last year at 1.8 million.
We've also taken massive strides in process simplification and updating digital processes. From 25 March you could lodge your intent to claim online. Over the last three weeks we've allowed people to establish their digital identity and get a customer reference number—normally having to go into a shop centre, that can now be done online. Indeed, as at last night, 204,000 Australians had created a customer reference number online.
We've streamlined the jobseeker payment to just 20 questions, halving the time it takes someone to complete that. And, in a bit over 50 days from 16 March, Services Australia processed 1.1 million claims, which is the same number of claims the agency normally does in a two-year period.
The agency's paid $5.2 billion in the first round of $750 economic support payments to seven million Australians, and the $550 supplement has now been paid to more than 1.9 million recipients. On top of this, all of the business-as-usual work has continued and yesterday BAU claims were less than the same period in the preceding year.
All of this is due to the extraordinary hard work of public servants in Services Australia, and can I say a very large thank you to all of them for the hard work that they've done.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How many workers are missing out on childcare places because the government is spending $500 million less on child care than they budgeted for?
I thank the shadow minister for her question, because it's an incredibly important question. Before I go to the heart of it, can I once again just express for all those early educators who have made sure that the childcare sector has been able to offer services right through this pandemic my thanks and the thanks of all of us here in the House, because it's been incredibly important.
I will now just step through for the shadow minister what we've done to fund child care through the last couple of months of the pandemic. We are providing $1.6 billion for free child care this quarter, supporting around one million families. And, importantly, because it was calibrated to work with JobKeeper, we're also providing $1 billion to the sector through JobKeeper. That means we've got $2.6 billion supporting 13,000 services and their staff to stay open and be employed. And that has been incredibly important because, if you look at what has happened around the world, there hasn't been that type of assistance provided. So we stand, against every other comparison internationally, as a gold star in protecting our childcare sector through this pandemic.
I will let the shadow minister know what Paul Mondo, the Australian Childcare Alliance president, said in April 2020: 'The significance of this cannot be underestimated. The day before this emergency package was announced by the Prime Minister and Minister Tehan, a survey showed that up to 30 per cent of our members would be forced to close their centres within days.' As of today, we have 98 per cent of services open and we are seeing attendances continue to rise. Between 40 and 60 per cent on average is the attendance that we're getting. So, rather than the sector collapsing, we have a sector that now is ready and prepared to grow with the economy as we come out of this pandemic.
I say to the shadow minister: this is something that she should support. What the sector has been able to do in managing itself through this pandemic is something that all Australians should be proud of, and I stand ready to work with the sector over the coming weeks and months to make sure that it can continue to grow as we emerge from this pandemic.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing. Will the minister outline for the House how the Morrison government's JobKeeper payment is helping Australian businesses stay in business?
I thank the member for Hughes for his question. No doubt the member for Hughes is a champion of many causes, but the small businesses in his electorate—indeed, all businesses in his electorate and everyone who is working hard each and every day—are who he backs. It's wonderful to report that, yes, the JobKeeper payment has been something that has been spoken about in this House many times, and rightly so. As the Treasurer has outlined on a number of occasions, the enthusiastic take-up of this program has been something that is perhaps unsurprising, but the way in which it is being administered and the way in which it has been rolled out have provided an extraordinary lifeline now for 850,000 Australian businesses. Those 850,000 businesses cover some 5.7 million employees, and both of those numbers are growing.
It's been an extraordinary effort to get to this point, and for those 850,000 businesses, covering 5.7 million employees, the average time that they are waiting to receive their JobKeeper payments is about two to three days. To add to what the Minister for Government Services has said: that has been and has relied upon a huge effort from our Public Service—in this case I want to say a huge effort from the employees and the leadership of the Australian Taxation Office.
Indeed, in my daily reports from the ATO, it's extraordinary to see the volume of traffic that they have been assisting Australian taxpayers with. For example, the average call volume in the last couple of weeks has been 87,000 phone calls a day that they have been attending to. They have extended their hours to very late at night and all weekend. To put that into some context, at this time last year they were attending to 35,000 calls a day, so it has more than doubled. That has relied upon the extraordinary commitment of our members of the ATO, who have delivered for those Australian businesses.
Just before Question Time I was speaking to the Mayor of Melbourne, and we were talking about a range of topics. One of the things that she said to me about the impact it's had on businesses that she has spoken to is that it is obviously not just the direct support and confidence. For those businesses that have tried to pivot—say, food businesses that have moved to takeaway—it has supported that pivot of their business model, because obviously their employees have a largely subsidised wage. So the JobKeeper support that we are providing has been exceptionally important and will continue to be exceptionally important, and I again want to thank our public servants, who have delivered this in such a quick fashion for Australian businesses.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Natalie operates a childcare centre in Maroubra in my electorate and employs eight people. Her revenue has halved since the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, and only five of her employees are eligible for JobKeeper. She's had to turn away eight children so far. How are Australian mums and dads meant to go back to work if they can't get access to child care for their children?
I thank the member for his question. It is a very important question because we do want to make sure that the sector can continue to grow as we come out of the pandemic. What we put in place was a significant package to enable the sector to get through the pandemic, and it included free child care. It had three priority areas that we wanted to achieve through this, including making sure parents stayed engaged with their childcare centre so that, when we came out of this pandemic, they would be able to go back to that centre as they went back into employment. When we announced this, we said that we would have a four-week review process. That four-week review process has taken place, and we are now looking at that review and will have further refinements to play.
As you know, when you make a significant change like we did—we paused the existing system and in the space of days put in place a new system. We knew at that time that there would be certain unintended consequences that we would have to work through, and that's why we put a four-week review process in place. But I stand here today thanking the childcare sector for the way that they cooperated with the government in putting the new system in place. I also thank all those departmental officials who worked tirelessly to help us put this new scheme in place. It was those efforts which mean we stand here today and can say quite proudly that 98 per cent of the childcare sector is open, is operating and is looking after those children to make sure that they get the care and education that they deserve, despite what we've been through with the coronavirus pandemic. This is something that all of us, all of us in this House, should be incredibly proud of. In particular, there are those early childhood educators who have provided those services. They stayed open to make sure that those essential service workers could get the care that they needed for their children and that those vulnerable children could continue to get the care that they needed. If we had seen mass closures of the sector—and that is what was going to happen; Paul Mondo, who I quoted before, said that that was going to happen—those vulnerable children would not have gotten that care, those essential service workers would not have gotten that care and, as a nation, we would not have dealt with this pandemic as well as we should have. So this package was incredibly important for this nation, and I look forward to continuing to work with the sector as we come out of the pandemic to make sure that the childcare sector continues to thrive.
My question is for the Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's work to fix the NBN has enabled Australians to work and learn from home during the coronavirus pandemic.
I thank the member for Forde, who has a longstanding interest in the National Broadband Network and in seeing Australians get the broadband services that they need. As we know, COVID-19 essentially came out of nowhere, and suddenly millions of Australians were needing, just about overnight, to work and study from home. Just when our nation needed it, the NBN was there to deliver Australians the reliable and affordable broadband that they needed. When you've got, typically, mum, dad and a couple of kids at home, working and studying with perhaps four separate laptops all going at once, you need a reliable broadband connection. When you're videoconferencing and you need to have high upload speeds as well as download speeds, that's where you need a good broadband connection. When there's increased demand for streaming video and for games, that's when you need a good broadband connection.
The historical record shows that when we came to government in 2013 we made a decision to drive the rollout of the NBN as fast and as hard as we could. Thanks to that decision, today there are 11.3 million premises able to connect and seven million premises are connected. We're seeing premises connected increasing by between 30,000 and 40,000 a week, and over 80 per cent of new customers are taking a 50 megabits per second or higher plan. If we had not made the decision we made in 2013, there would have been at this time around 3.5 million fewer premises able to connect to the NBN. That decision we made in 2013 has been key to Australians working and studying from home—being able to do that with the benefit of having a National Broadband Network connection.
The NBN has also held up well when it comes to the sharp jump in traffic, with peak traffic up 53 per cent last Friday compared to the same day last week in February. I want to acknowledge everybody at the NBN, everybody across the entire telecommunications sector, who has worked so hard. The NBN's provided 40 per cent additional capacity to its service providers at no extra cost. We've seen the SVOD providers, Netflix and others, agree to reduce their bit rate to deliver more capacity. We've got NBN providing extra capacity at no charge and upgrades to GP clinics to support telehealth. The NBN has been a critical part of Australia's response to COVID-19, and I thank them for what they've done.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
If I may, I want to clarify an answer that I gave earlier today in response to the Leader of the Opposition, in relation to the statistics. There has been $170 million in $10,000 small business support grants made to 17,000 small businesses in relation to the 'black summer' bushfires. There has also been $40 million in small business recovery grants of up to $50,000 made to 1,400 small businesses, and there has been over $108 million in primary producer recovery grants of up to $75,000 made to over 1,700 primary producers.
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.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
The manager may proceed.
Thank you. Yesterday, during debate on an amendment I had moved which would have demanded the government produce a new sitting calendar, the Leader of the House claimed that statements I had personally made were inaccurate by claiming that, in private meetings which I had personally attended, the government had, and I quote the Leader of the House, 'clearly explained there will be additional sitting weeks'. This statement is false. While I would normally not disclose the conduct of private meetings, given the Leader of the House has made this false statement about me to the House, I wish to confirm the following four points: (1), in the meeting with the leadership of the government on 7 May 2020 the government did not state that it would provide additional sitting weeks, but merely that it might; (2), this was to be based on an assessment that would be taken 'a couple of days' after parliament had risen, based on whether there had been an outbreak of COVID-19 as a result of these sittings; (3), given the virus has an incubation period of weeks, not days, this position was always absurd; and (4), the minister's misrepresentation of my statements also presumes the government has been forthcoming with accurate information at these meetings, which is challenged by the fact that, on issues as straightforward as whether they would be changes to JobKeeper, the government has provided information at these meetings that was proven to be false the very next day.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the government to fund their promise of free child care.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Free child care for every worker does make a great headline for the Prime Minister, and even more so when he said that all Australians still working were considered essential workers. It is not surprising that families who were watching TV around Australia all assumed, reasonably, from this announcement that they would receive free child care. And of course Labor had been calling for a rescue package, because that's something that needed to be done. When the COVID crisis hit a lot of services were looking at a difficult future, and something did need to be done to stop them going broke.
Of course Labor welcomed the rescue package that the minister announced. We thought it was a bit of a change of attitude; this was the minister who, at the last election, when Labor announced more support for early learning and care, got on radio and called it 'communism'—communism to invest in our early educators and communism to invest in our children. That is what this minister said. So I, like many people on this side of the House, was surprised to see the headline about free child care. I thought: 'Wow! He has had a conversion. He really could come onto our side now and actually join us!'
But the problem with this fancy headline is that the government didn't fund it and, as a result, has created winners, but a lot of losers. The government did turn off the childcare subsidy scheme, and told services they were now to receive 50 per cent of their revenue. They banned services from receiving any other income from families and they asked services to cobble this together with JobKeeper. They introduced complicated rules around JobKeeper and deliberately excluded many, many workers and services from receiving it—workers who had been on visas, workers in places that had been run by local government and workers in places that had been run by charities. This has been particularly devastating in Victoria and Tasmania, making many unviable.
Then, to fix this problem—because, as the minister said, the government knew there were going to be unintended consequences—the government said they would create an exceptional circumstances fund. The only exceptional thing about this fund is the number of applications being rejected. I am hearing from many services that they wait weeks and weeks for a response, desperately trying to keep their services going—desperately cutting hours, desperately cutting staff—and hoping to hear a positive result about their exceptional circumstances application. But then they finally get the answer, and it's just no. There's no explanation and no justification; just no. There is one exception to this: it seems that if a service speaks out to the media about their rejection they do get a call the next day from the department, saying that their application has been reviewed and they now have the funding.
So my office has been flooded with calls and emails from early learning services from around the country who are struggling to keep their doors open after their funding has been slashed. These services are now cutting opening hours, cutting staff or cutting places to try to balance the books. One of the examples we heard today was from First Class Learning Centre in Maroubra. They have had to turn away eight children under Scott Morrison's so-called free child care because their revenue has been halved, and only five of their eight staff are eligible for JobKeeper.
I've also heard from many families who are being denied places, including healthcare workers who have been asked to come back from maternity leave early to help with the crisis—they are needed. Quite frankly, it is pretty concerning when you hear story after story. These parents have been on waiting lists for up to a year. As soon as they find out they're pregnant they get onto that waiting list and they are actually waiting to come back to work, only to find out a week or two weeks before they're ready to go back to work that because of the government's cuts to the funding they're no longer able to have a place. I've heard countless stories where, instead of being able to get child care, parents have had to make the difficult decision to put their children with their grandparents. That's even though they know and are worried about the risk this will be for the grandparents, who are often a lot older and more vulnerable when it comes to COVID-19. This is the difficult decision they are having to make because this government announced free child care but did not fund it.
Jessica, from Queanbeyan, also hasn't been able to find a place for her child and so now has to take her son to work with her. How is this so-called free child care helping Jessica? I've spoken to family day care educators, who didn't suffer a large drop in enrolments but who are now expected by the government to work for half the pay because they can't access JobKeeper. One family day care educator said to me that they're running at a 70 per cent loss and are still waiting on an exceptional funding circumstances answer four weeks later. It's no wonder the sector is seriously struggling to deliver the Prime Minister's free child care commitment when they're expected to do this with a lot less funding.
The government is spending less on child care than they would have under business as usual. Indeed, in the December 2019 budget update, less than six months ago, the government said it was on track to spend $8.3 billion on the childcare subsidy. That works out to be about $2.1 billion a quarter of funding from the government. So when we hear the government say that they've put $1.6 billion worth of funding into a rescue package, that's actually less than they had budgeted to spend on child care. Please: when this government does their spin about the childcare subsidy we always have to look deeper.
Another example is the Tiny Tots Child Care Centre in Brisbane which was so angry and upset about this that they put up signs saying, 'ScoMo thinks we're only worth $5.99 an hour'. They certainly would not agree with the minister's comments in here that the government is valuing them. They certainly don't believe what the government say in their empty rhetoric about how early educators have done a great job when, from their perspective, they're not being paid any more than babysitters. Quite frankly, it's time the government started looking at this policy seriously.
Of course, the government's response has been to blame providers. We have seen strongly worded communications to providers, threatening their funding if they don't provide enough places and hours for the community. They've set up a new hotline for informers, for families—'If the centres don't provide enough child care, then ring up and dob those centres in.' Right around the country there are families that cannot find child care. I know that members from our side of the parliament are getting inundated by families that cannot find care. When the minister was confronted by these families he said—and this was his solution—'Call my ministerial office.' I encourage those families to give him a call, because this is a systemic problem right around the country.
We on this side of the House always believe that early learning is one of the best investments a government can make. We've always been the party that believes in better quality, better access and better affordability. This will be incredibly important in the future. We are seeing families returning to work—whether that's from maternity leave or getting a job as we emerge out of this crisis. It would be a tragedy if they could not return to work not because of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on their jobs but because they couldn't find a childcare place. If the government doesn't seriously address this and fund free child care properly, we will see this acting as a handbrake on economic recovery.
It is not good enough that the government just sits on its hands and says, 'We always knew that there would be unintended consequences.' Well, address these unintended consequences. Help those families who are desperately trying to find a place. Help those centres that are doing their very best under very difficult circumstances to actually get on with the job rather than worrying week to week whether they will be able to make ends meet, whether they will be able to keep their doors open, whether they will have to cut their hours and whether they will have to lay off educators. These are the real decisions that are being made right now in centres and services around this country. They are at breaking point.
I hope the minister does not break his promise. He promised free child care to every working Australian. He promised child care to those disadvantaged children in our community. It is high time that this government delivers on that promise and funds free child care.
I would like to start by giving the departmental perspective to this claim that somehow the government is not funding the early childhood sector. I'd like to put this issue to bed. In response to a journalist's inquiry around the government not funding the sector to the level it was funded before we went into COVID-19, the department said:
The Department cannot validate the claim the Government is spending $400 million less this quarter. Under the Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package, the sector is expected to receive $1.6 billion over the coming three months from taxpayer subsidies. This plan complements more than $1 billion the sector is expected to receive through our new JobKeeper payment. Under the pre-existing system, the sector was estimated to receive $1.3 billion if current revenues and subsidies had continued.
That is from the department. It completely puts to bed this idea that we are underfunding the sector at the moment. The $1.6 billion plus $1 billion is $2.6 billion.
Government members interjecting—
I see the shadow minister. This is from the department: 'The Department cannot validate the claim that the Government is spending $400 million less this quarter.' That's pretty straightforward. It's pretty clear what the department is saying about your claims. What did the government do? What did we have to respond to? I mentioned this earlier in question time. The Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package was designed to support the sector as we headed into the coronavirus pandemic. We were seeing mass withdrawal of children from the sector. In some instances it was forecast that we would see 30 per cent of the sector close. That would have not only led to the sector staring into the abyss about its future and how it was going to cope with this pandemic but also meant that the sector would not have been there to support Australian families and children as we began to emerge from the pandemic.
I thank the sector and the representatives of the sector who worked with the government incredibly cooperatively, collaboratively and discreetly, given the significance of what was being undertaken. The government had to design a new package which would carry the sector through the pandemic. I think it would be fair to say that at the time most people thought we were looking at six months at a minimum to carry the sector through the pandemic. Fortunately, with the way that we have been able to flatten the curve, literally less than two months on we are seeing our economy beginning to ease restrictions, which means that families are going to be able to get back to work and the sector is now looking at a very different picture to the one a couple of months ago. As a matter of fact, rather than seeing demand diminish, as we were, we are now seeing demand begin to increase. So literally five weeks after we announced our package we are now looking at how we can help the sector deal with increased demand.
When we put the package in place we announced that we would have a review after four weeks. That review has been undertaken by the department, and it landed on my desk yesterday. We are now, as a government, looking at that review. Obviously we will consult further with the sector and see what further actions we need to take to ensure that the sector can continue to thrive as we come out of the pandemic.
But I would say this to the shadow minister: rather than criticising a response that has meant that we have a sector ready to work with the government, ready to work with our economy to ensure that parents can get the care that they need, you should be taking a much more constructive approach. What the sector has done over the last couple of months is quite extraordinary. It has meant that while we were in the depths of dealing with the pandemic essential service workers were able to get their children cared for. We saw the sector respond to the government's initiative and remain open. As we stand here today, 98 per cent of services are open—quite a remarkable achievement. By staying open, not only have they been able to care for those essential service workers but also they've been able to maintain a relationship with parents who had withdrawn their children or who, due to unemployment caused by the pandemic, had said, 'Well, I don't know whether we'll be able to continue with that care.' So, they've been able to maintain that relationship, which is incredibly important.
Equally as important, they've been able to maintain care for vulnerable children throughout this pandemic. We know that stresses and pressures have been put on families right across the board, and the fact that we've had a sector that has been there for those vulnerable children right through these two months is, once again, extraordinarily important for what we were seeking to do by working with the sector to get this outcome. So, once again I thank those early-childhood workers, because by remaining open you have been able to achieve the three priorities that the government wanted achieved through this. If there had been those closures, the impact on essential services workers, on vulnerable children and on those parents who had withdrawn their children would have been completely different to what we are looking at now. We have been able to meet the objectives that we set out to achieve.
What does this mean now, going forward? The fact that 98 per cent of the sector is open, operating, fulfilling their roles means that we can now work with the sector as we come out of this pandemic, and that is what we will do. I am extremely confident that, working collaboratively with the sector, we'll be able to put the right decisions in place so the sector can meet the demand that will be required going forward, and that is what we want to achieve. We want to make sure that as people go back to work their children can get the care they need, that they can get the education they need.
As we monitor demand, we will monitor the system that we have in place. And we have to understand that demand varies across the economy at the moment. In some places we're seeing demand of around 45 to 65 per cent. In other areas we're seeing demand at much higher levels. And then in other areas, sadly, where the devastation of the pandemic is at its worst, we're seeing demand below 45 per cent in some instances. So, it is quite a complex situation that we are now looking at. And I will say once again: my view is that you work collaboratively with people, you look at the complex issues, you design your policy to make sure that is takes account of that, and we will ensure that our childcare sector grows with the Australian economy, provides that education and care that parents need as we come out of this pandemic.
I look forward to staying in touch with the shadow minister as we work through this. I look forward to advising her of the steps we're taking, the policies we're putting place. In the end, we want to make sure that we are providing the care and the education that our children need, and I'm sure everyone in this House wants to ensure that that care and that education is there for Australian children.
On 20 April this year I received an email from Andrew, a local from my electorate, expressing his concern about the government's new childcare policy. It reads: 'I thought I'd let you know there is an annoying flaw in the Child Care Subsidy plan which has created a system where I cannot get any child care for my child and will probably have to quit my job to look after him. The system has been set up so no childcare centre can take new enrolments, as they cannot be sure they will be paid for that child.'
Unfortunately, Andrew's situation is not unique. Many Australian workers and their families are being locked out of our childcare system at the moment because of this government's ill-conceived COVID-19 response to childcare and the fact that they haven't properly planned for this pandemic. 'Free child care for everybody' was a great headline, but the reality in the suburbs, in the childcare centres, is very far from that headline. It was a bold initiative for the government to proclaim that there would be free child care for everyone. The problem is that the government didn't fund that promise and that commitment. Most childcare providers and family day care providers are struggling to keep staff on. They're struggling to keep children in their care and keep their centres open.
The problem is becoming more and more acute as many of the states begin to lift some of the restrictions that we've all been living under for the past few weeks and to encourage workers to return to work. I ask the government: how can someone return to work, return to their job, if they can't get their children into child care at this point in time because of the policy that you've put in place?
Many childcare providers are cutting back hours for children and not taking any new enrolments because they simply cannot afford to under this scheme that's been set up by this government. That's because the government's childcare response is based on the premise that providers will be able to access the JobKeeper program for all of their staff. The reality is that that is not the case in the suburbs and in centres throughout the country. The reality is that many workers are not able to access JobKeeper for a range of reasons, so they're forced to keep these staff on, potentially at a loss, to care for children. Is it any wonder that they're turning away new entrants and children from their childcare centres throughout the country?
Natalie, who runs the First Class Early Learning Centre in my electorate, runs two centres. She's got a total of 16 early childhood educators. Only 10 of them are eligible for the JobKeeper wage subsidy. With families returning to work and children returning to care, Natalie needs all of her staff on the job to care for and educate the children in care. How is she supposed to do that when only 10 of them are receiving the subsidy and when they can't charge fees during this period? This is placing enormous stress on those centres and is affecting the hours of care that they can provide for children. And, of course, it's prohibiting them from taking on new cases in their centres. It's not just childcare centres that are affected; it's family day care centres as well. On 6 April, I received an email from Jasmine Harrington. Jasmine operates a centre in Botany in my electorate. She wrote, 'The recent announcement of free childcare is not only misleading, it is having a significant impact on my business, my family and my wellbeing.'
The government declared early in this pandemic that child care was an essential service and that it wanted centres to remain open to ensure that healthcare workers, particularly, could continue to go to work and their children could get the care that they deserved. The trouble is that the government didn't properly fund it. As the shadow minister said, they've underfunded the program by close to half a billion dollars. and that's the reason children are being locked out of child care in this country at the moment. That's the reason centres aren't able to provide the necessary care for some of these essential workers and other workers that are returning to work during this difficult period. The government has a responsibility to fix this problem and fix it as soon as it can.
Fix it? They already are. We just heard from the minister who pointed out that there's a four-week review. Remember that, in early education and care, this was a unique piece of crisis policy worldwide that kept 98 per cent of education open right across this great country. There are 13,000 childcare centres out there, many of which would probably have been imperilled had there not been this quick intervention. Obviously it's a complicated system in Australia given that so much of the provision of childcare services is in the private sector. It's quite easy when the government owns every sector, isn't it? But Australia and its unique quality of high-standard early education—uniquely, in the OECD, open to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds—had a unique challenge. The overwhelming majority of early education providers are private businesses that make private, mercantile decisions on something as important as early learning. But they do it so very well. It's a very complicated sector. Centres are run by church groups and state governments. Some have state governments as landlords. There's great variation. So, when you come up with a crisis response which is effectively switching off that very, very complicated system, coming up with something that could actually meet the needs of all those different kinds of centres was incredibly challenging. That's why we've got a responsive policy situation and a four-week review in front of the minister and the department right now to find solutions.
But what was often understated—and I know this from personal experience of speaking with centres that wrote to parents and pointed it out—was that, while JobKeeper played a significant supplementational role with nearly a billion dollars going into the sector, a lot of that money went into the pockets of staff. Many of those staff were only doing small shifts per fortnight. Many of them were just permanent part-time workers who actually did better with JobKeeper. So those funds, self-evidently, didn't go to running the centres themselves. That is the heart of the concern from many centres who said that 'taking 50 per cent of the hourly cap or the fee total, whichever is the lesser' has left them technically in a position of lower liquidity to run the centre. And, although it was very rarely discussed—and I can see the opposition raising their eyebrows as I point it out—that's exactly why there is a special circumstances supplementary fund. It was created explicitly for that reason.
We know that up to $10,000 is available to potentially nearly 3,000, centres that find themselves in a situation where they aren't financially in the same position as they were before the crisis. There are plenty of businesses out there that are not in the same position as they were before the crisis. Let's just start with that antecedent point. Secondly, that fund is there for that purpose. It's responsive. It's fast. It's an easy process to go through, unless you're a Labor MP. It's fairly self-evident that the special circumstances are absolutely there in smaller communities in particular and for those in the centre of cities where their rent payments are higher. And, of course, that's a solution that is ready and able to solve those uncertainties until, of course, a four-week review occurs. It's easy to chortle when you're in the opposition. But, for many of these small businesses who never see a Labor MP, it's fantastic to have some interest from the other side of the chamber in something other than signing up their damn staff to be union members. You're finally taking an interest in the quality side—
Opposition members interjecting—
I accept that the shadow minister has vetted a few, but I tell that you're flat out getting a Labor MP to show up to a childcare centre for the damn Christmas party. For goodness sake, show up. Put some books under your wing and show up to an early education centre and talk not just to those you're trying to sign up to the unions but to those who run the business. There are many centres and they range from mom-and-pop enterprises through to Goodstart Early Learning. There are very different circumstances. But those special circumstances supplementary funds are there to give a tailored response to centres that need it. And do you know what? Even after that, there will be this four-week review and the findings from it. So let's be honest: it's not blemish free. Let's be honest: it's not an unchallenging environment. But let's be frank. This is a government that acted early and in fact swiftly and decisively in COVID in a way that many other governments refused to do. I was in the UK in early March as they sat there, anchovy like, in their House of Commons in the middle of a COVID catastrophe; whereas this government had already acted—acted for early learning and care; acted for the economy; and acted for employees who just wanted to keep a connection to their workplace. And I tell you what, when we pull all of those interventions together, this will be a nation very proud of what this government has achieved with the COVID crisis.
I want to thank the member for Kingston for moving this important motion, bringing this to the attention of the parliament, though it did make me feel somewhat sorry for the minister who's gone from being stalked in this place by Jenny Macklin to being stalked in this place by the member for Kingston. It almost made me feel sorry for him. But this moment before us is an historic moment. It's a time that many, many Australians will be feeling the weight of uncertainty—uncertainty about their healthcare situation, frail relatives, their economic situation, what their community will look like after COVID-19; and what next week will bring, what next month will bring and what next year will look like.
The stress of this uncertainty is not just a bother. It's not just troublesome. It isn't a mere irritation. This uncertainty is corrosive, and its seriousness is reflected in growing levels of mental distress that I'm sure all members of this chamber are seeing firsthand in their electorate. Government's role in the face of this anxiety, this uncertainty, now is to offer support, not spin. It's to offer certainty, not hollow headlines. It's to lessen the chaos and uncertainty that surrounds the people that we represent by delivering responsible solutions.
One way of doing this is to properly fund Australia's childcare providers. Child care is fundamental to Australian families. It's the foundation of so much of our modern economy. But right now the sector is suffering and the social bonds that it offers are stretched very thin. 'Free child care for working parents' read the headlines early last month, which sounded like great news for Australian families. But apparently those headlines should have had an asterisk next to them, because they came with a catch. They came with a bit of fine print. 'It will be a system which means parents will get their children cared for for free,' the education minister said. 'You do not have to worry about trying to look for new child care for your children.' Except almost six weeks later that's exactly what many parents are worrying about as childcare centres struggle to maintain regular hours or even to keep the doors open.
In my electorate, I know of childcare centres that have been forced to reduce their staff because of loss of revenue. They've been forced to make other agonising decisions. They've had to tell some parents to reduce the number of days their children receive care. And, if the parents don't, then they'll have to enforce rationing of days themselves. I know we've heard a lot of wartime metaphors and analogies in this place, but that is taking things too far. It's unnecessary. There's one parent in my electorate even who has told me that they want to be able to pay more so that their child can receive child care but have been told that it's just not possible.
This reality for Australian parents is a world away from the headlines. In April the government announced $1.6 billion in funding to support free child care. This figure was misleading. Without context, it might seem generous, but $1.6 billion is less than the government was budgeting to spend on the childcare subsidy before the pandemic struck. The devil is always in the detail with this government.
The government's funding for childcare providers restricts them to just half of their pre-pandemic revenues, which has had the unsurprising consequence of reducing services and putting great strain on these centres. Whilst some childcare providers can theoretically access JobKeeper and an additional top-up fund, there have been delays and difficulties in doing so. It's hard to overstate the importance of the childcare centre in any moment, but especially now as some of these coronavirus restrictions are being lifted and people are trying to return to going about something of a modicum of what they were doing before the pandemic.
The Prime Minister has emphasised the urgent importance of reopening our society. He's emphasised the snapback. The Prime Minister said:
You can stay under the doona forever and you'll never face any danger, but we've got to get out from under the doona at some time. And if not now then when?
But the government doesn't seem to understand parents can't go back to work if they don't get child care, and they won't get child care unless childcare providers are supported and properly funded. It doesn't matter how many good headlines are generated, if childcare centres are forced to turn children away. It doesn't matter how much rhetoric is deployed about the importance of workers and employment if those with jobs are prevented from acquitting them because they must stay home to look after their children.
This Prime Minister has spoken about the economy snapping back, as if everything was fine before the pandemic. He seems to have forgotten that there can be no snapping back for businesses that fold during this crisis. It was an extraordinary performance from the Prime Minister in question time today when we asked him about his snapback policy. Indeed, it went past snapback and started to sound a lot like 'fight back', complete with the ranting ideology that we saw from the opposition leader in 1993. Ideology is back.
The Prime Minister told anxious Australians, 'Don't look to government to cure your anxiety. Business will save you.' The Morrison government needs to understand that this crisis isn't even close to done, and that Australians expect their government to be there for them in these times of uncertainty. (Time expired)
The government is providing $1.6 billion this quarter through the new Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package, supporting close to one million families doing it tough during the COVID-19 pandemic by providing free child care. The government is also providing approximately $1 billion in JobKeeper payments this quarter to the childcare sector. This adds to $2.6 billion, which is more than $1.9 billion budgeted, to spend in business in usual times. This package is providing hip-pocket relief to families across the country, including in my electorate of Mallee, while also ensuring 98 per cent of the 13,000 early learning and childcare services can keep their doors open and make it through the other side of this crisis.
This plan was designed to provide certainty to our early childhood educators and childcare services at a time when enrolments and attendance are highly unpredictable. It also gives parents certainty that, through all of the recent disruptions, they will have access to the childcare services they need. Having said that, the review is very welcome. I am very aware in Mallee of particular childcare centres that have struggled to make this work. The plan was designed to provide certainty.
The relief package provides consistent payments, even if attendance decreases. This has provided financial stability for service providers who are facing uncertain attendances. This relief package complements other government initiatives, including JobKeeper. Eligible employers are receiving a further $1,500 per fortnight per employee to subsidise wages and reduce costs. This subsidy is extremely important because approximately 60 per cent of costs for childcare services relate to staff wages. The JobKeeper payment goes a long way towards retaining staff. The Australian tax office is working with providers to ensure that as many eligible services as possible can receive these payments. It's true that some services do not qualify for the JobKeeper payment, but the government is supporting these services with exceptional circumstances supplementary payments that are built into the relief package. This supplementary payment supports services that are part of non-government schools, large charities and not-for-profits, as well as those operated by local councils. It is also provided in instances where there has been an increase in the level of care provided compared to the reference period. This means that if services have more children attending now than during the reference period they can apply to receive a higher payment. Providers of family day care and in-home care services can also apply for supplementary payments on behalf of contracted sole trader educators, provided these educators apply for an ABN by 1 June 2020.
Eligible employers are being further supported through the cashflow boost payment, with up to $100,000 helping these businesses to stay open and provide continuity of service to families. The relief package is assisting over 98 per cent of the 13,000 childcare services to keep their doors open across Australia, including more than 1,000 services located in regional and remote communities.
The Australian Childcare Alliance has backed the relief package, describing it as, 'an extraordinary measure that will help struggling providers keep their doors open to vulnerable children and those parents who need to keep working.' The alliance said that 30 per cent of childcare providers faced closure in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the package due to massive withdrawals of enrolments. Dramatic falls in attendance due to COVID-19 threatened the viability of the sector and provided the impetus to develop a solution. The childcare sector told the government in no uncertain terms that operators would go out of business, workers would lose their jobs and families would lose their childcare service altogether without government action.
Childcare services are vital in my electorate of Mallee. I've spoken to families, local councils and childcare providers from my electorate, including Montessori Beginnings in Mildura and Little Swans Early Learning in Swan Hill. I've listened to their feedback on this package. And I've been working closely with Minister Tehan to make sure he is informed. I know that Minister Tehan, and the entire Morrison-McCormack government, is working towards positive outcomes for millions of Australian children and families, while ensuring that the 13,000 childcare services across the country are supported through these unprecedented times.
In answer to those opposite, the government has funded free childcare services. With over $2.6 billion in funding we are assisting 13,000 early learning and childcare providers and we are supporting around one million families with free services during this pandemic.
There's no doubt that at the end of this we'll look back at all the lessons that have been learned and we'll go through all the woulda, coulda, shouldas of all of this. I think one lesson that we're going to learn from all of this is that a single one-size-fits-all approach inevitably, and most of the time unintentionally, creates inequality and leaves some people out. I think that's been one of the biggest lessons and we've particularly seen that with JobKeeper.
To my mind, I think this should be a caveat that pre-empts any kind of policy development. You start off developing policy with an understanding that a one-size-fits-all approach inevitably leads to inequality and leaves people out, and, dare I say, even more so during times of crisis when the necessity to act quickly can often lead us into a temptation to implement measures without extensive consultation or without comprehensive consideration. I think that this is the case that we have here with the government's 'free childcare' that was announced with much fanfare and within the electorate of Cowan it was very much welcomed. But, unfortunately, it has not resulted in free childcare and has left many parents without an option for childcare at all.
The government's changes here in the childcare space restrict providers to 50 per cent of their revenue as of the beginning of March, which means that providers now have no incentive, or even capacity, to take new enrolments or allow parents to increase their hours. So parents who took their children out and now want to go back to work have no means of doing that if they cannot find childcare. But more than that, to keep their doors open with a 50 per cent reduction in revenue early learning providers are left with no choice but to reduce staff, cut their hours and deny new families or cancel existing enrolments. This has been a huge issue throughout the entire electorate of Cowan.
I'd like to read some excerpts from the emails and the contacts that I've had from childcare providers throughout Cowan about their experiences with 'free childcare'. The first piece of correspondence comes from a parent who said that they, 'would like to take their three-year-old child out of day care' but they had to give two weeks notice. They have 'lost their place and are now unable to find another place in child care'. I had quite a few of these.
Let me go to the childcare providers themselves. One said, 'I had a very successful business before all this happened. I had full enrolments and my business sustained itself. Since this has happened my service is no longer viable to be run for the hours and days it previously was. All my parents want to pay me. I have a doctor, police officer, psychologist and parents who are other essential workers on my books. They have lost no income and feel it is so unfair that I have to transfer the fees back, as the government has said it is illegal for me to accept their fees.' Another childcare provider wrote to me and said, 'With enrolments decreasing daily the childcare subsidy will offer very little to business sustainability during a closure. We are being bled dry.' These are the words I have here in black and white from a childcare provider, 'We are being bled dry.' Yet another one says, 'As a result of mass withdrawals this week from my centre due to the coronavirus crisis, I've immediately lost family fee revenue as well as the childcare subsidy, which together allow my business to remain viable.' And yet another one, 'With a business that has been operating for less than 12 months we're not entitled to JobKeeper. It's most likely the child care will close', and it goes on and on.
The fact is that the inequality that's been created has been created not just for the childcare providers but also for the parents who now either have no child care or no childcare options all.
I'd like to finish by saying we need to really take this opportunity to value our childcare sector and value our childcare workers. I hope this is a wake-up call to really value them.
Ultimately, I'm pleased that my friend the member for Kingston has brought forward this MPI on child care today, because it allows us in this House the opportunity to interrogate a little bit further a claim that she made during question time, which, now that we have heard from the minister in detail, has been proven to be completely false. The figures that the member for Kingston is using are wrong. The minister spoke about the fact that our independent public servants have looked at the claim and simply can't substantiate it. So, what's the answer to that? She's fudged the figures. She's stuffed them up. She's made them up. Take your pick, because we've got independent public servants who are saying that they don't know how she could possibly have reached that conclusion, not after the Morrison government put $1.6 billion as part of this childcare package on top of the $1 billion the childcare sector is accessing as part of the JobKeeper payment. The claims that the member for Kingston is making about the figures are just wrong. They're simply wrong. The minister said it, the independent public servants verify it, and still—
Opposition members interjecting—
If the member for Kingston still stands by her figures, she might like to go into more detail about how she came to them, because there is an entire department of experts who do this for a living who can't do the same maths as her and who can't get the same figures that she does. I would put it to the House that the reason for that is that she's got her maths wrong. Labor are not allowing facts to get in the way of the story they want to tell. It's important to judge this program by its results, as you should judge all programs and all of the funding that we have put in place to help people through COVID-19. Let's judge it on its results.
At a time when restrictions were being put in place, as people were working from home or not working at all and therefore pulling their kids out of child care because it was a cost that they could no longer afford, the childcare sector was in crisis and facing imminent collapse. Instead of that scenario, what have we got? We've got 98 per cent of centres open. Ninety-eight per cent of centres are open and operating for the assistance of their community and to help us as we undertake the economic recovery. Before the package, the sector acknowledged that they were in deep, deep trouble and facing crisis and collapse; on the other side of the package, 98 per cent of centres are still open. It seems like it's hit the mark—very much so. The centres are still operating and underway.
What's even more hypocritical about the member for Kingston's claims—and Labor's claims—on this issue is that she stands in this place and says, 'I speak on behalf of parents who would like to put their kids into care so that they can return to work.' Well, I wish she would give that message to her Labor Premier friends around the country, who have been slow and lethargic to reopen schools, as opposed to childcare centres, which have been operating this entire time—these wonderful frontline workers who have been supporting and helping our kids, educating our kids, and looking after our kids throughout the COVID-19 crisis, despite concerns about their own health. In contrast, we've had Labor premiers, despite clear health advice saying that schools are able to open and operate so that parents can get back to work and don't have to homeschool, saying, 'We choose not to take the health advice.' Explain that hypocrisy to me. If she's so concerned about working parents, maybe the member for Kingston would like to stand up and explain why she hasn't fronted up to her Labor premiers and said, 'The health advice is that these schools can be open. Let's get them open.'
What you saw with this package is the Morrison government and Minister Tehan acting decisively to support the childcare sector and working families in our electorates around Australia during a time of crisis. They acted decisively. They injected extra funding into the system—$1.6 billion on top of the billion dollars they are accessing via the JobKeeper payment—in order to keep those jobs in place, in order to keep our kids looked after during this global pandemic. (Time expired)
The coalition's childcare system was a failure even before we got to COVID-19. Their so-called once-in-a-generation system left one in four families worse off and reduced access to early education and care for 279,000 families. The government boasted that they were driving down the cost of child care, but childcare fees are already out of control in the new system. At the start of 2020, fees had gone up by 7.2 per cent in the previous 12 months and 34 per cent in seven years under the coalition. That's the starting point, and it's a mess. The government have absolutely no idea and no plan on how to bring childcare fees under control.
Last year, the Minister for Education labelled Labor's plans for taxpayer funded early education as 'communism', and then COVID-19 hit. Suddenly, free child care sounded like a good idea—simple, easy. But, in true coalition style, free child care isn't all it's cracked up to be. Under the COVID package, and despite free child care, this government will actually save $300 million this year compared to what they would have spent in the same period in normal circumstances. Here's why. If you were a provider who had maintained enrolments and income as at the first week of March this year, all of a sudden you are only getting 50 per cent of that amount. To get that 50 per cent, you have to cover free child care for existing clients and you can't charge a gap fee—even to those who maintain their jobs—to cover any deficit between the government subsidy and your actual cost. We now know that not all of a provider's staff are likely to be eligible for the JobKeeper payment if, indeed, the provider qualifies at all. If your staff are international students or other temporary visa holders, or casuals of less than 12 months, they don't qualify, and many centres run by charities, local government or independent schools don't qualify for the JobKeeper payment at all. My office has heard numerous stories of providers having to cut staff and hours to keep afloat.
In a panic, the government set up an exceptional circumstances fund to assist those struggling with the new regime. Well, we aren't hearing of many—or any—providers getting funding through this exceptional circumstances fund. For example, the Bannockburn childcare centre in my electorate applied for funding because, as a service run by the Golden Plains Shire Council, they don't qualify for JobKeeper. Last Saturday they got a rejection letter for their application for supplementary funding. This Monday they are reluctantly cutting the hours of all staff to 20 per cent. And they're not alone. Why should some parents, who simply by accident of location sent their children to a government-run service, suffer a huge disadvantage compared to those parents who send their kids to eligible services?
Those with an existing childcare place were supposed to be the real winners under the government's COVID-19 package. They would receive free child care. But even these parents have been reporting that their places have been cut to minimal hours in order for providers to survive. I'll give you two examples that have come to my office. Both mums were seeking places in centres run by national company G8 Education. One of the mums was a doctor on the Bellarine Peninsula. She was distraught because she needed to return to work as a GP in May. After the package was announced, she was rung immediately by the Great Beginnings centre in Curlewis and told she no longer had a place, despite the fact they had capacity and her other child was already attending the same centre.
Another parent in the same situation is Tamara Sorensen, who was scheduled to return to her work in a bank office in Bellarine this week. She wrote to me saying: 'For some time prior to COVID-19 I have had my 11-month-old enrolled at Leopold World of Learning. When contacting them to organise orientation last week, I was advised that Grace has a place but can't attend. When speaking with the Leopold centre it was made clear this is not a health related issue, but a company decision due to the government funding package.'
Thankfully, after we got some publicity for both cases, these parents were offered casual places for their children by the G8 centres, but their good fortune doesn't change the impact of this package on thousands of other parents. I'm not blaming the providers. I'm blaming the chaotic, dysfunctional policy of the Morrison government that has put them in this position. What sort of policy creates such a disincentive for providers to take on new children or create such barriers to parents trying to re-enter the workforce or increase their hours of work? (Time expired.)
I'm proud of the proactive support that the Morrison government has shown to the important early childcare sector during the past few months of the COVID crisis. Of course now that the acute emergency is past, it is time to review the situation, and I am pleased that the Minister for Education has already completed this review and it about to announce the next steps.
But of course the opposition are not content with the lengths taken and the swift action shown by the Morrison government during this unprecedented time. It is easy to complain when you have the benefit of hindsight. But in so doing, we risk missing the fact that the coronavirus has resulted in a pandemic of unprecedented proportions globally. It is extraordinary that so much has been delivered by the Morrison government with an eye firmly on the principles of saving both lives and livelihoods.
More than that, we've shown that we value our littlest Australians and the special care they need in those critical early years. We knew that we had to support the sector to support our children in those crucial developmental years. We knew that if we did not step in, the childcare sector would have been decimated. And by keeping childcare centres open and providing fee-free child care, we've helped Australian families as we face this global pandemic together—just like we said we would. We knew going into this pandemic that our response was going to hinge on the availability of our essential workers to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. We were going to have to ask them to put themselves on the line to keep Australians healthy during this time.
Let's just wind back two months. Across the country the childcare sector was facing a decrease in activity that was simply not sustainable. Parents were pulling their children out of child care at speed. The childcare sector was in freefall. A survey in the first week of April 2020 conducted by the Australian Childcare Alliance showed 30 per cent of providers faced closure due to a massive shock withdrawal of families, either from fear or unemployment, and another 25 per cent were not sure they would ever recover once the virus crisis had passed. The government recognised it was vital we kept the childcare sector afloat and invested heavily by providing the $1.6 billion Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package. This provides for one million Australian families to receive fee-free child care. Just as importantly, it has meant that 98 per cent of current services have stayed open. Free child care for parents and a sector that has survived an unprecedented crisis.
To make up for any gap between what the centres were receiving and their outgoing costs, we delivered almost $1 billion in JobKeeper payments to the childcare sector workers to keep them supported during this time. We wanted to make sure that parents stayed engaged with the same childcare centre so that children, parents and centre operators could return to normal as soon as possible. As parents, we all know how important it is that our children have continuity of care.
Our four-week process is a mechanism to ensure that the system is being reviewed and that we can then deliver what we need to deliver. This review is so important, and these measures were decided as the curve was moving up. We had to act quickly. Now, due to the leadership of the Morrison government, the curve is moving downwards. We've started to ease restrictions and start our economy again, and people are returning to work faster than anticipated. That is a good problem to have. We need to ensure that we have the parameters right as we move forward, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Education about what those parameters will be.
The childcare sector was in the brink of collapse, and the success of our program has kept this sector alive. In fact, we know from our industry experts that our response is the envy of the world. It is the fact that we've cared for the most critical sector and for our most critical citizens: our children. It was vitally important for the health and welfare of our youngest Australians that we acted swiftly, and we did, and I'm incredibly proud of it.
I had services within Higgins who rang me up, desperate and crying that they were going to lose their businesses because they didn't think they were going to survive this crisis. As Australians, we should be proud that we've all worked together to deliver in a swift and appropriate way.
The discussion has concluded.
I move:
That business intervening before notice No. 13, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
():
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report by 7 December 2020:
Whether the present level of regulation applying to Australia's growing class action industry is impacting fair and equitable outcomes for plaintiffs, with particular reference to the following:
(1) what evidence is available regarding the quantum of fees, costs and commissions earned by litigation funders and the treatment of that income;
(2) the impact of litigation funding on the damages and other compensation received by class members in class actions funded by litigation funders;
(3) the potential impact of proposals to allow contingency fees and whether this could lead to less financially viable outcomes for plaintiffs;
(4) the financial and organisational relationship between litigation funders and lawyers acting for plaintiffs in funded litigation and whether these relationships have the capacity to impact on plaintiff lawyers' duties to their clients;
(5) the Australian financial services regulatory regime and its application to litigation funding;
(6) the regulation and oversight of the litigation funding industry and litigation funding agreements;
(7) the application of common fund orders and similar arrangements in class actions;
(8) factors driving the increasing prevalence of class action proceedings in Australia;
(9) what evidence is becoming available with respect to the present and potential future impact of class actions on the Australian economy;
(10) the effect of unilateral legislative and regulatory changes to class action procedure and litigation funding;
(11) the consequences of allowing Australian lawyers to enter into contingency fee agreements or a court to make a costs order based on the percentage of any judgment or settlement;
(12) the potential impact of Australia's current class action industry on vulnerable Australian business already suffering the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic;
(13) evidence of any other developments in Australia's rapidly evolving class action industry since the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into class action proceedings and third-party litigation funders; and
(14) any matters related to these terms of reference.
Many times opposite members recently have spoken about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, and we're about to find out how real that commitment to parliamentary scrutiny is. The shadow Attorney-General told us very recently that parliamentary scrutiny was fundamental to the health of our democracy, and of course one of the great engines of parliamentary scrutiny is the parliamentary committee systems. One of the great parliamentary committees is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.
The subject of the scrutiny with respect to this motion is the class action litigation funding industry. This isn't a matter of marginal importance and a matter where there are slightly unusual or unorthodox practices going on that can be simply explained. The things that are happening in the class action industry with respect to litigation funding are actually quite remarkable, and those things require some high degree of scrutiny by this parliament.
First and foremost amongst those things that require a high degree of scrutiny are the absolutely jaw-dropping financial returns that are routinely being reported in the class action industry fuelled by litigation funding. Those returns are absolutely inexplicable in terms of normal returns on any sort of regularised or institutional investment instrument, and they are totally without any precedent in the Australian legal sector. It's the case right now that with great regularity this industry is demonstrating outcomes that cannot be said to be consistent with the interest of justice of the litigants whose interests are supposed to be represented by the actions in question. In fact, so remarkable are the happenings in the class action industry fuelled by litigation funding that it is unfathomable, I think, that any person who professes a commitment to parliamentary scrutiny could vote against holding a multiparty parliamentary inquiry by a respected joint standing committee into the class action industry fuelled by litigation funding.
In fact it seems that the central argument of the shadow Attorney-General appears to be that the parliamentary inquiry by the joint standing committee would be an attack on people seeking to access justice. Leaving aside that that is not, nor would it ever be, the purpose of seeking further and better understanding through parliament of the remarkable occurrences in this industry, we simply want the committee to consider whether the outcomes that we are routinely seeing in the class action litigation funding fuelled industry are in the interests of the people that are meant to be represented. Are the operation of the class action industry and its outcomes consistent with principles of justice, and are they in the best interests of individual litigants? They are the questions that we are seeking to get answers, with respect to, by virtue of this parliamentary committee.
There are three broad issues that require scrutiny here. The first is an undeniable fact, and that is that better scrutiny and understanding needs to attach to the utterly remarkable growth that has occurred in the class action industry in Australia. The class action industry in Australia is growing at an unprecedented rate. Federal Court data shows that the class action industry filings have increased by 325 per cent in the last decade. Other reports have indicated that class actions have tripled in the last seven years across Australia. So there are, firstly, real and unanswered questions arising as to why this is happening and why it is happening at such a rapid rate. What are the policy settings and what have been the changes that might be contributing to that phenomenal growth in the class action industry? And what is the link between that growth and litigation funding? Without more, that is a legitimate and compelling line of inquiry for this parliament and its committee.
The second real question then follows is whether Australia's class action framework is in its real world operation and in real world outcomes actually working for everyday Australians; and whether the class action industry fuelled by litigation funders is operating optimally? Is it operating in the best interests of the plaintiffs whose interests it is supposed to advance? On this question, it's critical to note that much of the growth appears to have been driven wholly or substantively by the prevalence of litigation funders in the class action industry. They now financially underwrite a massive amount of the class action industry in Australia. They essentially operate as equity investment vehicles where the majority of class action is fuelled.
Between 2008 and 2012, 40 per cent of finalised Federal Court class actions received third-party funding. Between 2017 and 2018, 77 per cent of class actions finalised in the Federal Court were backed by litigation funding. In fact a pivotal point of policy change that appears to have coincided with that rapid increase in the activity of litigation funders in the Australian system was that the previous Labor government made the decision to exempt all litigation funders from any form of meaningful regulatory oversight in 2013.
In 2009 the full Federal Court of Australia determined quite accurately that litigation funders were in fact offering a managed investment scheme. The consequences of that decision would have been that such schemes would have ordinarily and in normal circumstances quite properly attracted sensible regulatory oversight under Australia's Corporations Law but for that 2013 exemption. So it seems a legitimate thing to inquire into the link between that exemption as a policy document and the growth in litigation funding in the class action industry. In fact, we would say that to deny parliament the opportunity to better understand that linkage—and to what extent that 2013 decision has come to create the remarkable circumstances we have now seen exhibited in this industry—would not be in the best interests of the parliamentary scrutiny to which the opposition say they so dearly and closely adhere.
The third issue is perhaps the most remarkable feature of the class-action industry and the involvement of litigation funders, and that is that there are eye-wateringly high returns being received by litigation funders. In fact, those returns are at times absolutely staggering when considered in light of the investment that was initially put in. They raise real questions which this parliamentary committee can seek to answer; namely, whether the staggering returns for litigation funders are coming at the expense of plaintiffs. And there is just more and more undeniable evidence of the profits that are being returned to litigation funders that requires parliamentary scrutiny. It actually means that less money ends up with the mums and the dads and the ordinary Australians who might be plaintiffs in a class action. We cannot deny this parliament, through its committee, the opportunity to inquire into that remarkable feature of litigation funding in the class-action industry.
The Australian Law Reform Commission found that the median return to members of litigation-funding backed class actions was 51 per cent. When the litigation funders weren't involved, the median return was 85 per cent. So litigation funders get involved and the median return is much lower—the people who are actually the plaintiffs in these matters are worse off. There is a growing body of evidence that something about the operation of the system around litigation-funded class-actions is, effectively, transferring enormous amounts of money from the pockets of everyday Australians and providing huge returns to litigation funders. Why would we not inquire into that phenomenon?
In fact, just look at what the courts have said. Completely independent assessments by our completely independent Australian courts have been increasingly critical of these returns to litigation funders. In a settlement reached last year in the case of Tredrea v KPMG Financial Advisory Services—that's a telling example—the class action against KPMG concerned advice given to shareholders during a takeover. It was brought by Piper Alderman, funded by Litigation Capital Management, in the New South Wales Supreme Court. The judge questioned the legal bill and fee and said the funder's 30 per cent cut was arguably excessive—he described it as stratospheric—and provided a return of tens of thousands of per cent when compared to the funds that were actually expended in the case.
There are now just too many cases where the returns to plaintiffs would leave ordinary Australians just scratching their heads. Why would we not scrutinise this? In the Murray Goulburn case, the class action was brought by Slater and Gordon in the Federal Court against Murray Goulburn regarding financial forecasts. The judge said the funder's 32 per cent commission was 'not fair and reasonable'. The court eventually approved a 25 per cent commission. That 25 per cent commission netted a 390 per cent return to the litigation funders, which was explained in their own half-yearly results. So that was a decreased return that still provided a 390 per cent return on the invested capital. In the CIMIC case, approved in April last year, a foreign funder and Maurice Blackburn took approximately 60 per cent of the settlement, leaving their clients to fight over the remainder. Unbelievably, the funder in that case originally proposed a commission payment of double what they actually got.
In 2014, in Fitzgerald v CLBL Insurance, 300 former employees of Huon Corporation sued for unpaid workers' entitlements. They received absolutely nothing from the final settlement. The entire $5 million settlement went to lawyers, administrators and the litigation funders. So bad was the injustice in that case, it prompted the National Union of Workers to make a submission to the Victorian inquiry into litigation funding. The National Union of Workers said in their submission:
It is clear to us that some form of market regulation needs to occur to prevent this result from occurring again.
Because they got nothing—nothing. Why would we not have these questions asked and answered by a parliamentary committee? What possible reason could there be for not asking and answering those questions?
There's a matter recently where a settlement has been proposed around PFAS and Defence bases in Australia, a settlement which many members of this government have worked very hard to ensure occurs. The proposal is to take more than $50 million in commissions, and the lawyers propose to recap $30 million in fees—so an astonishing 40 per cent of the settlement would be swallowed up in legal fees and commissions, leaving the class members to fight over what is left. One class member in that proposed PFAS settlement said, 'We're looking at a pittance. But the funder has made a fortune.'
So what possible reason could there be for opposing this type of scrutiny? In the shadow Attorney-General's press release, he says:
Litigation funding and class actions provide a vital path to justice for ordinary Australians …
He then goes on in the next paragraph to say:
Just last November the Federal Court ruled in favour of the three lead applicants in a class action of more than 1,350 women who sued Johnson & Johnson … for negligence.
That's correct. Nothing in this parliamentary process of scrutiny proposes an end to class actions or litigation funding; we want to know why the returns to the litigation funders appear to be so excessive. But what is wrong with this example—and I'll read it again:
Litigation funding and class actions provide a vital path to justice for ordinary Australians …
And then the shadow Attorney-General gives his prime example of litigation funding and class actions providing a vital pathway to justice for ordinary Australians being the Federal Court ruling in the Johnson & Johnson matter. The only problem is: it wasn't a litigation-funded matter. Now, that does seem to be something of a weak argument as to why you wouldn't have parliamentary scrutiny into litigation funders—I don't know who at bar chambers was researching that, but it was poorly done.
This has to be looked into. One foreign funder is reported to have raised $100 million recently, with a substantial portion of that capital earmarked to be deployed inside our class-action system in Australia against vulnerable Australian businesses arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Can you believe that?
Another litigation funder has recently pointed out to shareholders that, during a previous pandemic—this is what it's boasting about—that litigation funder's company share price actually grew strongly, rising by 164 per cent during the SARS outbreak in 2003. So we have a massive amount of evidence of excessive returns because of litigation funders' explosive growth in funding class actions. We see the warning signs of that equity investment vehicle being used here to drive litigation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. We've got a government who simply want a parliamentary committee to look into, inquire and ask and answer questions on this issue, and we have an opposition that opposes that motion for parliamentary committee scrutiny. Let's hear why.
I'll say again, although the Attorney-General has already read out from my media release yesterday, that litigation funding and class actions provide a vital path to justice for ordinary Australians trying to uphold their rights against wealthy defendants with vastly greater resources. I did give as an example in that media release yesterday when we saw this inquiry was about to be launched that, just last November, the Federal Court ruled in favour of the three lead applicants in a class action of more than 1,350 women who sued Johnson & Johnson and two subsidiaries for negligence in relation to pelvic mesh implants. These were hundreds of Australian women left in debilitating pain for years because of a faulty product banding together through a class action to achieve some measure of justice. Just like many, many litigants, they would not have been able to obtain redress and they would not have been able to obtain justice were it not for the class action process.
I waited through those 15 minutes of the Attorney-General's rant against class actions generally and against litigation funders to hear him refer to the government's own inquiry report which we have been waiting 17 months for a response to. That's the really pathetic thing about this hapless government—having commissioned the Law Reform Commission to do an inquiry into litigation funding and class actions, they have not yet, 17 months on, responded to the detailed recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report. That's because they didn't like the outcome.
Does anyone think it's a coincidence that this new inquiry into class actions—and, make no mistake, this is not confined to litigation funding; this is a general inquiry with very broad terms of reference into class actions as well—to be carried out by a government dominated committee was first proposed by the Attorney-General in the first week of March, just days after some 10,000 victims of the Morrison government's cruel robodebt scheme signed up to a class action to sue the government for the harm this terrible, illegal scheme inflicted on them? I'd remind the House that the robodebt scheme is not only cruel; the Federal Court has found it to be unlawful. Under that scheme, the Morrison government sought to intimidate innocent and vulnerable Australians into paying debts they did not owe. Perversely, the Morrison government has called this extortion racket an 'economic measure'. And now, rather than taking responsibility for its unlawful conduct, the Morrison government wants to make it harder for victims of robodebt to seek redress.
When Australian consumers are ripped off and injured by predatory companies selling dodgy financial products and dangerous consumer items, the Morrison government would also like to deny those Australian consumers any legal recourse unless they have millions of dollars lying around to pay for a legal action against a huge company with limitless legal resources.
There's been a lot of commentary in recent days about this proposed inquiry, and lots of dodgy statistics have been thrown around by those opposite and just today by the Attorney-General. But, contrary to government claims—and they need to listen to this—research by the commercial law firm Allens found that the total number of class action filings was actually down 20 per cent in 2019, and shareholder class actions, which the government seem to have a particular concern about, were actually down 63 per cent last year. So far this year—this is another matter that has featured in their publicity—we're only aware of three new shareholder class actions, none of which relate to COVID-19 matters.
Significantly, the biggest source of new class action cases in 2019 came from consumer actions arising from the banking royal commission, the same royal commission that the government voted against 26 times. The government had been crying for years that there was no point in inquiring into misconduct by the banks because there was nothing to see. But, to the surprise of nobody but the government, the inquiry revealed a litany of abuse by the big banks against their customers, against ordinary Australians who trusted them. The Morrison government then wrung their hands and cried crocodile tears, saying, 'How could we have known?' Then they got their marketing people into gear. The Prime Minister talked about a 'tough response'. This Prime Minister does like to talk tough, but he's delivered little more than a few focus-group-tested lines.
Now the Morrison government are delaying action again because they say they're too busy with COVID-19. But apparently they're not so busy they can't launch a new inquiry to stymie class actions against predatory companies, because, for them, that's a priority.
In opposing this inquiry, Labor's not suggesting that the legal regime governing class action proceedings is perfect. But we do not need another inquiry to tell us how to improve it. What we need is some actual governing by this hapless government and an actual response to the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry that this government commissioned and which got one mention in the Attorney-General's 15-minute speech today. After a comprehensive inquiry lasting a year, involving consultations with some 60 key stakeholders, the Australian Law Reform Commission—
An honourable member interjecting—
Indeed, it was. It was a very long report. The Australian Law Reform Commission completed its 339-page report on class action proceedings and third-party litigation funders in December 2018. It was this government that commissioned that report, this government that received that report on 21 December 2018 and, in January 2019, this government that said that it would carefully consider each of the report's 24 recommendations and provide a response. So where is the government's response? You might have thought that the Attorney-General would provide it today, but it's nowhere—17 months and not a word. Why? Because that independent report by the Australian Law Reform Commission into the same subject matter as this new referral to a parliamentary inquiry didn't give the government the answers that it wanted. Even today the Attorney-General is not responding to the lengthy report of the government's own inquiry.
We've also seen that the government has tried to claim that this new inquiry is urgent because of the increased risk of shareholder class actions against listed companies for breach of continuous disclosure requirements during the COVID-19 crisis. But why then has the government ignored, for some 17 months, the 2018 recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission:
The Australian Government should commission a review of the legal and economic impact of the operation, enforcement, and effects of continuous disclosure obligations and those relating to misleading and deceptive conduct contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).
It's abundantly clear that the government's agenda in establishing this new inquiry is far broader and far more ideologically driven than the discreet issue of reform to the class action regime in relation to litigation funding or reform in relation to shareholder actions against listed companies for breach of continuous disclosure obligations, nor is the COVID-19 pandemic the reason for this government's inquiry. If they refer to it, it is simply an excuse.
If the impetus for this inquiry really was the narrow and specific purpose of responding to the risk of predatory actions against listed companies during the COVID-19 crisis, then Labor would, as always, be willing to engage in a constructive way, but that is not what this inquiry is about. So I say again, while Labor does not oppose sensible law reform and believes reform must be an ongoing task, the Australian Law Reform Commission completed a comprehensive report in relation to the matters that are the subject of this proposed parliamentary inquiry less than 18 months ago. What we now need is a comprehensive response from the Morrison government to the commission's 339-page report and to its 24 recommendations for reform. Labor does not support this government-controlled parliamentary inquiry created to stack the deck against ordinary Australians trying to uphold their rights in court.
I move:
That all words after "7 December 2020" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whether the government has acted too slowly in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry".
We have an extraordinary situation unfolding in the chamber today where the Attorney-General, the First Law Officer of this country, brings to this House a motion calling for further scrutiny and further interrogation of an issue which has been subject to a report by the Law Reform Commission of this country.
We believe that there is a need for more sunlight, for more scrutiny and for more interrogation of reports that have been given to this government. We believe that there is a need—now, more than ever—for there to be scrutiny and interrogation of why this government has failed to implement the 76 recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. In fact, we are at 15 months, today, since the Hayne commission handed to the Treasurer and the government of this country 76 recommendations. How many of those recommendations have been implemented to date? Of 76, any guesses? Is it half? Is it half of the 76? Is it a third? Is it a third?
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
I hear the assistant minister over there. Maybe he's informed. He is, after all, the Assistant Treasurer of this country. Perhaps he can give us a help as to how many of the 76. Well, it's not a half. It's not a third. It's not even 10 per cent. Six of the 76 recommendations have been fully implemented. And as we go into a circumstance where Australian households and Australian businesses now, more than ever, are requiring financial protections, are requiring greater oversight and are requiring that the recommendations of this once-in-a-decade royal commission be implemented, we've got the government playing parlour games. We've got the government delaying the implementation. We're not surprised; they did vote 27 times against the royal commission. They're dragging their feet on the implementation of its recommendations.
Now, people might be asking, 'What is the impact of the failure of the government to introduce these recommendations and to legislate for these recommendations?' Well that is, indeed, what an inquiry is needed for, but let me just give you an example of some of the things. We have just come through a season of bushfires, hail, and floods, and yet the government, through all of this, failed to implement the recommended changes to drag insurance contracts into the remit of the unfair contracts legislation. You'd think, at a time when households and businesses throughout the country, are struggling with their insurance claims, now, more than ever, they need the protection of unfair contracts legislation. You'd think that, when they are struggling to have their claims managed properly, we would have the claims management process, as recommended by the Hayne royal commission, brought within the regulation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. These are the sorts of things that the government has dragged the chain on.
Over 16,000 vulnerable Australians have been sold a dud funeral insurance product—that is, a product that they will most likely never get to claim on and a product in which they are paying more in premiums than they will ever be able to redraw in terms of a benefit. It's still lawful to be selling these products, because the government has done absolutely nothing to implement that recommendation of the royal commission. There is actually a bit of a war going on in social media today, because the hapless assistant minister for financial services has failed to convince her own side to introduce legislation to reform financial planning legislation in this country.
It's extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary. A decision was made in August last year to make some reforms to the education arrangements for financial planners, agreed to by Labor. The bills were introduced into this House in February, yet here we are in May and they still can't get the legislation through the Senate. If they can't get this sort of legislation, which has bipartisan agreement, through the Senate, how on earth are they going to get legislation through a parliament where there's disagreement? This is an absolute joke. They are trying to shed blame home to Labor because of their own hopeless management, and they can't organise a legislative agenda.
This is the sort of government we are dealing with. The Prime Minister stood here yesterday and said that we need to instil confidence in Australian business and the Australian people. Well, one way of instilling confidence in the Australian business community and the Australian people would be to legislate the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. That is now 15 months overdue, and we have implemented only six of the 76 recommendations. Labor says that this is a matter worthy of interrogation and investigation. If the government wants to spend some time inquiring into something, then how about we have an inquiry into this?
Instead, for reasons best known to themselves, they've decided to launch yet another inquiry into class actions in this country. But I tell you this: they are no friends of consumers, and they are no friends of ordinary battling men and women who have struggled to have their legitimate complaints against unfair product distribution in this country dealt with. If you're a poor, struggling small business, if you're an ordinary consumer, the only way you're ever going to get your day in court is if you can join with other members in a class action and have the ability to pool your resources and have your day in court. Make no mistake about it: this motion and this inquiry is designed to rob those consumers—ordinary battlers, whether a small business or an ordinary consumer—of their ability to pool their resources and join in a class action to have their day in court. It's extraordinary. At a time when there are so many challenges, the government decides that this is the most important thing they need to bring before the House today.
So, we call on all members of this House to reject the proposition put forward by the Attorney-General and vote instead for the amendment moved by me and seconded in this place to ensure that we can have a proper inquiry into the things that are needed, and that is the government's failure to implement the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. I will say it again, because members in this place need to know this. In the middle of an economic and financial crisis, after sitting on the recommendations of the royal commission for 15 months, just six of the 76 recommendations of the Hayne royal commission have been implemented. This is not an A. This is not an A minus. This is not a B. This is not a C. This is not a D. This is an F—a capital-F fail. The people of Australia deserve better than that. If this government had any pride, instead of moving this silly motion before the House today they'd be coming into the House and explaining why they have done such an appalling job of doing what they committed to do when they received that report. The right thing to do is to reject the proposition put by the Attorney-General and vote instead in favour of the amendment I have moved.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. This government will go for anything to avoid scrutiny around the royal commission and the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission. What's more important to the average Australian: an inquiry into corporate litigation funders, or looking at why this government is dragging its heels and not delivering on the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission? These are recommendations that affect and have the potential to affect the livelihoods of millions of Australians. Anything to avoid scrutiny regarding the royal commission.
We all know that this government has form when it comes to the Australian public getting a peek into what's actually going on in financial services in this country, being provided a bit of sunlight into what's been going on in the corporate world in this country and some solutions and recommendations. It was this Prime Minister and this government that voted 26 times against the establishment of a royal commission into banking and financial services in this country, because they didn't want the Australian public to know exactly what happened in this industry. Millions of Australians were ripped off in the banking and financial services sector over the course of the last decade, yet this government voted on 26 occasions to deny a royal commission into what was really going on in that industry. It happened only when the banks actually rolled over and wrote to the then Treasurer, as he was—the now Prime Minister—and said: 'You know what? It's okay; we'll have a royal commission.' They saw that the public outcry about what was going on in banking and financial services was too much, that it was doing damage to their business model, and they agreed to a royal commission into banking and financial services. It was only when they rolled over, when the banks gave the Prime Minister—the Treasurer, as he was then—the tick of approval to move into an inquiry that they actually got on with it. It wasn't anything to do with looking at what was actually happening in the industry. It wasn't anything to do with dealing with some of the problems and actually looking at what the problems were for the average Australian mortgage holder or the average Australian bank customer or someone who has shares in a particular financial institution. No: it was because the banks gave the government the green light to launch the royal commission.
In the words of the royal commissioner, some of the most shocking greed and unconscionable conduct in financial services in this country was uncovered through that inquiry; 76 fulsome recommendations were made about what needs to happen to restore confidence in banking and financial services in this country. What's been the government's response to date? Well, only six of those recommendations have been fully implemented—a shocking record. Almost 18 months after the inquiry findings were handed down, and with the urgency attached to those recommendations in many respects—urgency recommended by the commissioner—the recommendations haven't been dealt with. Only six of them have been fully implemented.
The royal commission uncovered some shocking behaviour. We all remember what went on in the Commonwealth Bank in the wealth management scandal that was uncovered by the Commonwealth Bank. The regulators missed that. It took whistleblowers actually walking into the offices of ASIC and demanding that they conduct an inquiry into what was going on in the Commonwealth Bank before anyone acted. No-one on that side took up the issue on behalf of the people who were being ripped off by the Commonwealth Bank at the time. It took whistleblowers to actually walk into ASIC and to get the media involved before anyone actually saw what was going on in banking and financial services in this country. Then we followed it up with CommInsure. We saw what was going on in the insurance industry, particularly around life insurance, and some of the outdated definitions that were being used in this country.
Of course, it went beyond the Commonwealth Bank. The regulators decided that it was time to look beyond the Commonwealth Bank and see what was actually going on in some other banking and financial services areas of the economy. This uncovered the fact that this wasn't peculiar or unique to the Commonwealth Bank. It was happening across all financial services in this country. We saw the fees-for-no-service scandal and all the other big four banks and many other financial institutions dragged into the financial services mess in this country at the time. That was what was going on, and that was being ignored by this government when they voted 26 times to deny a royal commission.
Many of these recommendations contain comments from the royal commissioner about their urgency—the fact that they should be implemented and legislated as quickly as possible. Yet this government is still dragging its feet, with only six of those recommendations being implemented. Some of them relate to really important legislative changes that will provide important support and protection for consumers in Australia. They relate to things like best-interest duty for mortgage brokers to make sure that our mortgage industry and people who are seeking to buy homes are protected in this country. Then there are unfair contract terms in financial services and insurance contracts throughout the country. We've seen some of that recently in this pandemic. It's vitally important that protections for consumers, around unfair contract terms in insurance contracts, are implemented as quickly as possible.
We've seen over the course of this pandemic that some insurers have tried it on, if you like, in terms of reducing coverage for people relating to the pandemic. One of those areas was trade credit insurance. A particular insurer was looking to cancel or reduce trade credit insurance policies related to the pandemic. It was only after the opposition asked questions and highlighted this in the media that they backed down and changed their policy on that. If you had in operation an unfair contracts term regime in the insurance industry, some of those events may not occur.
The royal commissioner saw that the sale of add-on insurance was a key issue in people being ripped off around insurance contracts throughout the country. There was urgency associated with that. That still hasn't been implemented. The changes to funeral insurance that were recommended still haven't been implemented. And the list goes on.
Many of these important recommendations of the banking royal commission still have not been implemented by the government. They're dragging their heels on it, yet they come into this parliament wanting to refer this to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It's really a ruse for an issue that's not a big issue and has actually ensured that many Australians have access to justice when they otherwise wouldn't have access to justice because they can't afford the cost of litigation in taking their case against large corporations in this country. The shadow Attorney-General has pointed out some cases where that's very important.
What's more important to Australians: looking at corporate litigation funding or why this government is dragging its heels on dealing with the recommendations of the banking royal commission? I know what most people in my electorate think. They want action on those banking royal commission recommendations. They want to know why, after 18 months, only six of the 76 recommendations of the banking royal commission have been implemented by this government. They want to know why, after those very strong words in that report from the banking royal commissioner, they still don't have adequate protection from fraud and misconduct in banking and financial services in this country.
We all know why. Because the government's heart is not in it. Their heart has never been in it when it comes to the banking royal commission. They voted against it 26 times and they voted against ensuring scrutiny of banking services in this country. Now they're dragging their feet on delivering those recommendations and ensuring that Australian consumers get the protections that they deserve. That is why members of this parliament should support the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam.
I want to bring a human face to this. I actually want to pay tribute to the Attorney-General as he exits the chamber. He was the first person in this hapless government to provide some urgency and action surrounding the PFAS class action that my community had endured for years before they saw any action. It was a mess. The member for Pearce, the Attorney-General, knows that it was a mess. I can take you back to 2015, when my community first learnt that their ground, their bodies and the very water that they drank had been contaminated by perfluoroalkyl substances. These things are commonly known as foams. When they were used, they were used in good conscience by the Defence Force in the hope of putting out plane fires. A plane fire burns at over 800 degrees Celsius. It's not an easy thing to extinguish. When they decided they would use these chemicals that were developed by DuPont and 3M over the years, they anticipated that they would save lives, not knowing that these chemicals, which form very strong carbonate chain bonds, are incredibly difficult to destroy. They are now known and tagged as the forever chemicals.
When my community learned that the forever chemical PFAS was in the ground, in the water and in their blood, they could not believe it. The Newcastle Herald ran a story on 4 September 2015—'Contaminated'. Skull and crossbones littered the front page, and my community panicked. Professional fishers in the Hunter River—the mighty Hunter—were banned from fishing. People were told, 'Don't drink your water, don't eat the eggs from your chickens and, whatever you do, look after yourselves.' It was deemed the red zone; it was a catastrophe.
And from that point forward my community fought. They fought their own government. It was through no fault of their own—they hadn't done anything wrong. It wasn't as if they'd read the bottle and hadn't followed the manufacturer's instructions; it was none of that. They had woken up one morning into a nightmare of a life, where they'd been poisoned by their own government—by the very agency that was tasked with their defence. They had been let down over decades—not just one, two or three months; we're talking about a span of 30 years where this accumulated in the ground. They could not seek justice. They were absolutely determined that they would win.
Do you know what they did? They organised a class action. They were the first group in Australia to do so. They had the wit, the wherewithal and the determination to organise themselves, and they did. They sought a funder. They sought litigation funding to help them fund their class action, because they knew they couldn't go up against the might of the Defence Force and the Australian government. They needed help, they looked seriously for that help and they got that help. It has taken four long years, but just in the last few months, under a mediation, they have been able to negotiate a settlement.
I can say that if it weren't for Dentons, who were formerly Gadens, who ran their defence, and IMF Bentham, who funded them—the litigation funders—that class action would never have got off the ground. Those people spent months, weeks and hours in the homes of our class action members. They worked absolutely tirelessly for my community and they continued to prosecute the case. Right up until the eleventh hour they dragged the Defence lawyers to the mediation table. I stood—not here, but in my regular place—in parliament and asked this very question of the Prime Minister: when are we going to see justice for the people of Williamtown? He looked me in the eye and said, 'The member knows well that we are in mediation at the moment.' It was that mediation through a class action which saw ordinary people get some justice which was so sorely overdue for them. So when I come into the chamber today and hear the member for Bradfield shouting, 'Oh, you're friends of litigation funders,' do you know what? In the instance of my community and PFAS, I am, because without those funders we would not have been able to see justice for the ordinary people.
And I want to speak about some of these ordinary people. One man, who I won't name, was just incredible. He came to me and said: 'Meryl, I saved my whole life to get a few acres. All I wanted to have was a lemon tree, like my grandma had, and half a dozen chooks, and I love to grow my own vegetables. I've worked hard all my life; I've hardly taken a sickie and I've done that: I've been able to buy five acres. I've got a lemon tree, I've got my chooks and I've got my veggies. And now I can't eat the eggs, I can't have juice from those lemons and I can't grow those vegetables. My property is worth nothing. No-one wants to buy it and not a bank will lend a dollar.'
Another story: again, it's about chickens. It's amazing, I know that everyone is getting into chooks at the moment with COVID-19! I was at the regular little shopping centre in Raymond Terrace, and a young girl was sitting there. It was one of the school nights—a Thursday night. She had a bag of chicken food on the table at the food court with her mum and dad. I came up and said: 'How are you going? You've got your chook food.' She said, 'Yeah, I've got my chook food, Meryl.' I said, 'You must love those chickens.' She said: 'Yeah, well, I feed them but we can't eat the eggs and I don't want dad to chop their heads off. But I know it's expensive to feed them.' This was a young girl in primary school, saying to me: 'I've got my chickens, they're still pets. We don't want to kill them but we can't eat their eggs anymore.'
Those are just two tiny examples of how people's lives were fractured. They've been decimated by what we would consider to be a shameful act. But they still couldn't get justice from their own government. We went through Ministers Payne, Pine and Price, and then it got flicked to the Prime Minister's office. Then we had a task force and two inquiries, with very legitimate recommendations. That was all cast aside—all turned asunder. No-one would listen to my community. But let me say that when the lawyers came knocking and the class action kicked off, that government over there sat up very straight and took a lot of notice. They came with their chequebook in the end, because they knew they were facing the scales of Madam Justice, and those scales of justice were tipped well against them in this instance.
So it's the hide of this government to come in here and try to rip the carpet out from under justice and say, 'Oh, we really need to check this out.' My goodness me! The temerity of a government that cannot understand when ordinary people need to the fight. Labor takes up the fight for ordinary people. I've taken up the fight for the ordinary people in my electorate who wanted extraordinary justice.
An opposition member interjecting—
I hear my colleague saying that I'm incandescent with rage! It is one of my favourite sayings when I really am incandescent with rage! To anyone who has ever—no, I won't say that word in the parliament, so I'll say something else! It's to anyone who has ever been treated poorly by a power bigger than they are—by a bank, by a government department or by a big company—and think that there is just no way they'll ever get justice. Do you know what? Sometimes class actions get justice. We see that now with the member for Maribyrnong helping with a wonderful class action about robodebt. We know that tens of thousands of people felt that they had been wronged, and now thousands of people have signed up for that class action.
This government doesn't like class actions because class actions represent the little people getting their foot in the door of the big end of town. Class actions represent the little person being given a chance to see their rights in the spotlight. And maybe they do get a little bit of recompense and maybe the litigation funders do get to make some money from the hours and work that they've put in. But, at the end of the day, justice prevails. When people get their day in court, they feel as though they have been heard and taken notice of. This government only takes notice of what it wants to take notice of, and I say: let them take notice of what we're doing now. (Time expired)
I rise in support of the amendment. Australians who are listening to parliament and the debate at the moment must be thinking, 'Surely the government must have a reason to refer class actions and the way in which some of them are funded to a parliamentary committee. And, on the surface of it, isn't it good to always ask questions and examine how things happen?' But, listening to the Attorney-General suddenly find religion about the need for transparency in parliament, I have to say that that immediately started to make me suspicious. This is a government that doesn't want parliament to sit despite Labor doing everything it can. This is a government that wants teachers to be teaching and wants everyone to be back to work, except themselves. They want to wait until August. So, when I hear the Attorney-General say that they want more transparency, I become suspicious. I say to the Australian people in relation to this debate: this is a government which doesn't want parliament to sit, doesn't believe in a national anti-corruption commission and already has a Law Reform Commission report on the very matter that it wants to take up parliament's time with, even though it hasn't done anything with that report for 17 months. And now, all of a sudden, this government has found religion on class actions.
I think it is warranted to look at the circumstances which have resulted in this sudden 'on the road to Damascus' conversion by a government that notoriously doesn't support an anti-corruption commission and has done nothing on that, and doesn't support the parliament resuming before 11 August unless Labor, the media and the people put such pressure on that you will be able to see their fingernail marks on the marble of the parliamentary hallways as they're dragged into parliament. All of a sudden they are outraged on behalf of ordinary Australians because they don't like the way some class actions are funded. Again, the Attorney-General got my hackles up when he said, 'This is a situation in these class actions where money is being transferred from Australians to lawyers or litigation funders.' First of all, class actions are promoted by people who don't have the means to seek recompense or justice in their own right and they're actually seeking, in the case mentioned in the member for Paterson's fantastic contribution, to have their environment and their land cleaned up, their house values addressed and to be compensated for the mistakes of government.
There's another class action underway at this very moment which is not funded by litigation funders, but this government is resisting. So, on the one hand, they want to have an inquiry into class actions; on the other hand, when confronted with a class action, they don't want to settle the matter even though they've already conceded liability. For the benefit of Australians who are listening, I mention that the matter to which I refer is called, for want of a better expression, the robodebt class action. A conservative government has, for a number of years, used a computer algorithm to assert that hundreds of thousands of Australians owed debts to the Commonwealth without any evidence other than a computer program saying, 'You owe the money.' This program has proven to be faulty, but it took years and years for the government to listen to reports of the faults in the system. In the intervening time, people took their own lives due to pressure, according to the parents of people who received the debt notices. Thousands of people have had their reputations besmirched by an unjust enrichment scheme run by a government that think they can get away with sending letters of demand to poor and vulnerable Australians because they think these people can't stand up and fight back.
Now it's been exposed through documents leaked to The Guardian Australia that this government and its cabinet has already this year and late last year deliberated on what to do about a class action which was launched by Gordon Legal seeking recompense for tens of thousands of people. The government has said in these documents that 449,500 refunds are in the scope of the faulty system and that they're going to investigate 80,000 of these to see if money is owed. They're not even disputing that the hundreds of thousands of others within this collective cohort of 450,000 unjust enrichment claims made by the government are wrong. They accept that hundreds of thousands of claims are wrong, but they only accept that because of legal action—and it's not through the class action alone. The Victorian Legal Aid Commission did a great job running the initial cases, but this government obfuscated and denied responsibility for invalidly raising debts against hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens. Australians listening to this parliamentary debate may say, 'Why has this matter burned so brightly?' Labor believes that this government cannot be trusted when it comes to plaintiffs and victims asserting their legal right to compensation from vested interests, from government and from people who have taken advantage—through product negligence, through the unjust enrichment of this government or, in the case of the PFAS class action, through the contamination of land. When I hear the Attorney-General say that, as a matter of principle, he is against transferring money from Australians to vested interests, I ask: then why on earth have they taken four years to concede that robodebt is wrong and why on earth are they now saying they shouldn't have to pay interest on the money they've taken from Australians? When you owe the tax office money, the tax office charges you interest, but this government, which has unjustly enriched itself and taken money from ordinary, vulnerable citizens, has said in the leaked document that they're not going to settle a class action if they have to pay interest to the victims. The case of robodebt is not a class action that is funded by litigation funders. We've got a lot of people in the government who say they're the true libertarians and they believe in small government, yet they have said nothing about the government robbing the people. And that's what robodebt was. It was an abuse of power. Invalid debts were raised by the Commonwealth against hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens. Is this government so lacking in shame that it thinks it can simply get away with perpetuating the raising of invalid debts against hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians?
I heard the Attorney-General say that what motivates him to make this great point of principle about having an inquiry into class actions is that he doesn't believe in the transfer of money from ordinary Australians. What on earth have he and his colleagues been presiding over for the last four years if not the unfair transfer of money from ordinary Australians?
The robodebt class action is due for mediation on 4 and 5 June. A hearing is set down for 20 July. If the government really believe they don't want to line the pockets of lawyers, if the government really believe they don't want to see unjust enrichment against Australians, why won't they release the advice that they're relying upon? Why won't they resolve and mediate the matters with the tens of thousands of people who they've ripped off? Why are they insisting on going through a court process on the basis that they don't want to pay interest on moneys that were unjustly enriched. Why is it that they stubbornly insist on taking it to court and forcing a class action when they cannot concede negligence in the matter?
I would say to Australians listening to this debate: do not trust the government when they say they want scrutiny, because in fact their record indicates anything but scrutiny. They don't support reform of electoral donations, they don't support doing anything meaningful about a national anticorruption commission, they didn't support the banking royal commission, they don't really want parliament to be heard and they don't like the idea that Australians without great financial resources can use the mechanism of a class action to seek justice. Time indicates to us, bitter experience has taught us, that unless you stand up to this government they'll run right over the top of you. Robodebt was running over the top of people for four years. Addressing it took individual citizens, legal aid commissions and, now, a class action.
When the government say that that they're interested in transparency, you know that it's only the case when they've been forced to, or when they're on the back foot, or, indeed, when they don't want you to look at what they're really doing. Before they put their referral up, they should resolve the class actions which are underway. They should seek settlement with the people of Australia from whom they've unjustly enriched the coffers of the government.
It is almost beyond comment that today we have an Attorney-General supporting an inquiry into class actions with an argument that is somehow about parliamentary scrutiny and integrity, when the Manager of Opposition Business had to stand up and correct the record because the same Attorney-General misrepresented him in the parliament. It's galling. If it hadn't happened in front of all of us today, I'm not sure any of us would believe that anyone would have the gall to act in that manner.
If the Australian people want to know why class actions matter, I'll give them one word: asbestos. How many Australians had to suffer with mesothelioma? How many Australians didn't have anywhere near the financial resources, on their own, to take on the giant legal firms, let alone the manufacturers of asbestos, and couldn't have done it without a class action?
I'm proud to be on this side of the parliament in a party of people who stand up for, and have a history of standing up for, those people who need to be represented. If the government actually cared about reforms to the legal sector, if they cared about having a legal sector that looked after vulnerable people the most, then instead of taking up time today with this ridiculous motion and a pretence of caring about parliamentary scrutiny they'd spend a lot more time working out how to give greater systemic support to community legal centres and Legal Aid centres across Australia. It's not enough, in a time of a pandemic, to say, 'At the moment we'll give you some more money,' but then leave a sector that looks after the most vulnerable Australians scratching day to day for enough resources to do what it does.
In my professional career before coming to this place and now as the member for Dunkley, I have seen over and over again what community legal centres do for the most vulnerable in our community, for the people who are most in need. If we want to talk about doing something really important during this pandemic, something that would contribute to an Australia that is better at looking after the most vulnerable once we're through it, we should look at how we can give long-term support to community legal centres like the Peninsula Community Legal Centre. It has continued to work outstandingly long hours to support people in Frankston and the broader Bayside and peninsula area when they've been stuck at home with partners who are violent, with little to no opportunity to get out and get advice about their legal rights, because of the social restrictions. It has supported people when they've lost their jobs and haven't been able to pay the rent, month to month, and they don't know what to do and they need legal advice. It has been there when people's businesses, which they've built up over 25 to 30 years and which have been the heart of themselves and their families, have been destroyed in the blink of an eye. Those people have never thought before that they would need to access government support and have nowhere to go. The Peninsula Community Legal Centre were there for them.
When people who have been homeless long term on our streets, with mental health issues and other health issues, and they have had to work out how to protect themselves from coronavirus—when they're told to socially distance and that the best thing they can do is stay at home, but they have no home to go to—who have they turned to for help? The Peninsula Community Legal Centre. When people have had to go to court during this time, and they can't leave home to go and meet with a lawyer to get advice, who have they turned to for advice and representation? The Peninsula Community Legal Centre.
If the government wanted to do something to address the fact that in our communities too many young people go straight from the residential childcare system to the juvenile justice system and the criminal justice system, we'd be looking into that. We wouldn't be having motions for referrals to inquire into class actions where battling Australians are able to band together to take on the big giants that they couldn't do on their own. If we had an Attorney-General that really cared about parliamentary scrutiny then he wouldn't have shut down the Leader of the Opposition every time he moved a motion to discuss something that the Prime Minister doesn't like. If we had an Attorney-General that really cared about parliamentary scrutiny then he'd make sure that his government responds to recommendations of royal commissions and responds to recommendations of parliamentary committees when they hand down reports and implements them. But instead we have a culture warrior who wants to stir up controversy, who thinks that perhaps this is a good way to have a whack at those law firms who stand up for people that need someone in their corner when they need it and it does a disservice. It does a disservice to our democracy, it does a disservice to this parliament and it does a disservice to this government.
We should be here talking about the parts of the legal system and the justice system that don't that work for the people who need them. We should be here talking about long-term systemic reforms, which include proper funding to legal aid commissions, to community legal centres, to all of those pro bono services out there that are helping domestic violence victims, people who can't find affordable housing, people who at the moment can't work out how they're going to feed their children, people who need to go to VCAT to challenge a government decision that was ultra vires—to challenge a government decision which has caused them deep and ongoing pain—but they can't afford to do so. That's what this place should be talking about. That's what our responsibility is.
It should be to the never-ending shame of the current Attorney-General that that's not what his focus is all the time, let alone now when all of those issues aren't bubbling below the surface. They're on top of the surface. All of these issues aren't just the sort of communities that Labor people represent, who have long-term and systemic disadvantage, all of those issues are being faced by people who never thought that they would face them in their lifetimes.
Everyone should be equal before the law, but we know that the law doesn't always treat people equally. We cannot have a system where people who have money and resources get the benefits of a legal system and people who don't have money and don't have resources don't. That's why we have class actions, that's why we have community legal centres, that's why we have legal aid commissions and that's what we in this place should be looking to support.
It's rare that you get a debate on a committee referral that in fact brings together the differences across this chamber in such a cohesive way. Effectively what we're dealing with here today are two different approaches as to what should happen for the same parliamentary committee. Those two different approaches are saying, 'Let's look at two different issues.' Both issues involve victims. The first deals with victims of the banking industry. The second deals with victims from a range of different circumstances where were it not for litigation funding arrangements they would never get access to justice. It just wouldn't happen for them. We're dealing with those two areas and they're both about victims. In both areas reports have already been done and in both areas the government doesn't want to implement the recommendations of those reports.
This afternoon—through two votes that will come up before we finish tonight—the government is effectively going to try to bury two reports. They're going to try and bury the banking royal commission report and they're going to try and bury the Law Reform Commission's report into litigation funding. Given that that's what they're going to do isn't it interesting the way the Leader of the House, in his capacity as Attorney-General, commenced this debate? His words were: 'We're about to find out how real that commitment to parliamentary scrutiny is.' You bet he's right. Never have truer words been spoken and it's not that often that true words have been spoken by this bloke of late. You'll think there'll always be a whole lot of members of parliament here who don't really like the chamber much. Ordinarily one of those people who really hates the parliament is not made Leader of the House. That's new ground. To vote against the House sitting, in additional sittings, and to vote against giving us a new sitting calendar, which should've happened this morning—in that vote, okay, the government had a position. In making the case against my amendment the Leader of the House couldn't come up with an argument against the House sitting without abusing the forms of the House and misrepresenting me and misrepresenting a meeting that his own Prime Minister was present at.
I'm not precious about it because I was the one speaking, but in terms of the forms of the House there are protocols that have been around for a long time and I've always observed them. If I'm going to get stuck into a member of the other side in a speech and they're not likely to be in the chamber—it's an adjournment speech or something like that—I always pick up the phone and let them know. It's a longstanding tradition in this place. You don't hold back. Often they don't want to come into the chamber for it but you let them know it's happening. The exception, of course, is whatever happens in question time or immediately after question time, because there's an expectation that all members will be here. That's why that's when we normally raise issues of misrepresentation.
In terms of the disrespect to the importance of the democracy of this place, I thought it was breathtaking today that, as the Leader of the House was being called out for misleading the House, he walked out of the chamber. In terms of how this place is meant to run, that's just extraordinary. I thought that would have been his peak moment of hypocrisy for the day, but I'd underestimated him. I'd underestimated him badly because we were told, at the beginning of his speech, that we were about to find out how real the commitment to parliamentary scrutiny is. How true those words are. The Law Reform Commission has already reported. Let's not forget that, when the government wanted to set up that Law Reform Commission inquiry, when George Brandis was doing it, they were doing it with an eye to, 'How can we clamp down on litigation funding?' But they didn't get the report that they wanted. So this reference is not about scrutiny; it's about burying scrutiny. It's not a reference to find out what's going on; it's that they got a report they didn't like so they now want a report they can control, and a House of Representatives committee is a committee they can control. So the whole purpose of the inquiry and the reference that's been moved today by the Attorney-General is that the government, some years ago, asked for scrutiny, they got it and they didn't like it and so now they want this reference to get rid of the scrutiny that happened so that they can have a different committee report to refer to. This is where the real test is that we need to apply to this government and the job that they have. All these reports mean nothing if you don't implement them. The government's reference is entirely to prevent the Law Reform Commission recommendations from ever being implemented. That's why they are making it. It's to get rid of the Law Reform Commission and to make sure those recommendations are never implemented.
Similarly, they are going as slowly as they can on implementing the recommendations of the banking royal commission. The member for Whitlam has already referred to this—of the 76 recommendations, six have now been fully implemented. In terms of the job of this parliament, if the test is scrutiny, what should we be doing? Should we be making sure that recommendations, once given, are implemented, or should we be burying recommendations?
The Labor amendment moved by the member for Whitlam and seconded by the member for Kingsford Smith aims to do one very simple thing. There is a report from the banking royal commission, a commission that the government resisted. I remember being here on that one night when we took control of the floor. I remember the different members of parliament, including the now Prime Minister back when he was ambitious for the then Prime Minister, making sure that they kept the debate going as long as possible while they tried to get back the members who'd gone home early. Incidentally, one of them was the Leader of the House. They did everything they could to stop the royal commission from happening, and now, when asked about it, the Prime Minister says, 'Oh, well, I initiated it.' Well, it's not much good if you don't want to implement it.
The other job that this parliament could be doing is to take the Law Reform Commission recommendations and have a mechanism to try to make sure that they never happen. So we have a choice. Do we believe any of these reports matter? Do we believe we should ever be adopting and implementing recommendations that are given to us, or should the government, effectively, be able to control what recommendations are given to it and, if it doesn't like what comes to it, it can go out advice shopping?
If the Labor amendment is carried, there will be scrutiny in this parliament. If it is defeated and the government motion is carried in its original form then the scrutiny that was done by the Law Reform Commission will be buried. So, at a time when the government have been trying to stop parliament from sitting, when it does sit, they have made sure that on any occasion when the Leader of the Opposition seeks leave to move a motion that leave is not given—unprecedented already. Then, if he moves that standing orders be suspended, they immediately move that he be no further heard. This parliament at the moment is less than it's ever been. It really is. And that's through an active decision of the Prime Minister of this country and the Leader of the House. We're about to decide whether we want to make it even worse. Do we now want to use our committees for scrutiny or for burying scrutiny? That's the decision the parliament's about to make.
We should have seen the Leader of the House come in and move to have a clear plan for sitting days for the rest of this year. That is, clearly, the No. 1 priority that he should be fulfilling in his role as Leader of the House. Instead, we got a referral for an inquiry that it's clear that a number of members of the government have already prejudged. We have read in the paper that they already have a very firm view on this matter. This is not a matter that the government actually need to hold any form of inquiry into. They're simply prosecuting their own view about denying certain members of our community access to justice.
As the member for Dunkley said, we should be having a discussion about more support for legal aid. We should be having a discussion about more support for organisations like the Consumer Credit Legal Service based in my electorate of Perth which services all Western Australia, making sure that Western Australians can assert their legal rights. As the Manager of Opposition Business just pointed out, there is already a 339-page report on a number of the matters which the government is seeking to engage the committee on which I serve to inquire into. That is a committee that already has a large schedule of work ahead of it. Indeed, it is a schedule of work the committee has been delayed in completing, and it has had to seek extensions from the Senate on occasion. The government would seek to never respond to the work of professionals, the work of lawyers, the work of people who submit to inquiries—the government would never even bother to respond to those inquiries. It is disrespectful of our entire parliamentary process. People who put their submissions in to an inquiry that the government initiates and says, 'We want to know what you think,' expect that, ultimately, they would also find out what the government thinks about those issues. If you've got a report from 2017—339 pages where there was never a proper government response—that is incredibly disrespectful not just to this parliament and not just to the processes that we ask people to participate in but to people who give their time. For most people who submit to parliamentary inquires—or to the Law Reform Commission, in this case—it's something they do on top of their existing work. They find the time to write submissions and to appear before committees.
As we've also seen with the delay for the banking royal commission, any excuse is a good excuse for this government, when it comes to delaying action on the banking royal commission. It would be a shame to see this motion, if the amendments that are before us are defeated, be used as another form of excuse for delaying the banking royal commission.
The Manager of Opposition Business talked about the Leader of the House. It is probably timely to remind people and, indeed, remind some of the Leader of the House's coalition colleagues, of his record as Treasurer in Western Australia when he served in the state parliament. He was the one who set Western Australia on the course to a $39 billion to $40 billion debt, the largest debt in Western Australia's history. Although, maybe looking at the government's financial management here, that might not be as surprising as it was for many Western Australians, who couldn't believe that someone who would often tell us all how smart he was would make such terrible judgements betting—not predicting, but betting—that somehow Western Australia's share of GST would increase. Of course, we know that didn't happen for another seven years from when he made that very ill-informed bet. I remember the now Leader of the House, when he was the member for Bateman many, many years ago, used to put out letters criticising the then Western Australian Labor Treasurer, Eric Ripper, a lovely gentleman, for having too big a surplus.
That was a long time ago, but the form of some of the Western Australian Liberals—the stock from which the Leader of the House comes—has also been on show in recent days. We saw the WA Liberal leader, Liza Harvey, trying to attack the WA Labor government but, in fact, she ended up issuing an attack on the federal Liberal government when she said, on foreign affairs and trade matters, 'Don't leave it up to the federal government.' I'd be the first to say don't leave it up to the federal government on many things. Indeed, I wouldn't leave it up to the federal government on this matter we're debating today. But to say don't leave it up to them on foreign affairs and trade matters, which are definitely within the powers of the Commonwealth,. was an extraordinary attack—a huge vote of no confidence in the foreign minister and a huge vote of no confidence in the trade minister. I hoped that someone, one of the Western Australian Liberals, might have picked up the phone to her and said, 'This was an incredibly inappropriate intervention.'
Returning to this matter that we're discussing now, litigation funding is a vital part of the paths to justice for many people. People don't go out there saying, 'I really want to be part of some litigation funding exercise.' They do it because it's the only path, for many, to quality legal representation and a fair chance of success through our legal system. Again, if this government has already prejudged the outcome of this inquiry, as I read in some media the other day, then maybe it is just wasting time with this referral. When we get to this sort of ideology, we are seeing a snapback to this government leading through ideology rather than leading through purpose and the national interest.
This government has always hated collective action. They've always had a problem with working people banding together—or, indeed, people of little means banding together—to assert their interests. That's what this is an attack on again today. In my electorate of Perth, we still have queues at Morley Centrelink of people waiting to get onto the job seeker payment. Businesses have been told that the government is going to look at recasting when and how—the rules that these businesses have just complied with—to access JobKeeper. It is hugely concerning that this is the sort of tactic and stunt that the government would seek to pull.
When I came into this place and delivered my first speech, I spoke of the fact that justice delayed is justice denied, but also that justice that is inaccessible is no justice at all. These are two issues that arise in the debate here about this referral this evening.
I want to focus, firstly, on the issue of justice delayed. On the Labor side of politics, we were calling for three years or more for a royal commission into our banking and financial services sector. The government voted against that many, many times—26 times, in fact. The Attorney-General came in here and placed this referral motion to look into this issue of class actions and related litigation funding. Since that time, we have debated not just the referral but the amendment moved by Labor that, instead of that issue, we should have an inquiry as to why we have not yet proceeded with the recommendations from the royal commission, and how we can proceed with the recommendations from the royal commission. For an hour we've been debating that, and not one government member has come in to this chamber to in any way defend the position of the government or explain to us why dealing with these royal commission recommendations is not more important when, clearly, to people all across the nation, they are fundamentally important. These are very serious issues and they go to the ordinary people of Australia's capacity to get access to justice—justice in the way in which they have been dealt with and will continue to be dealt with by their banks and financial services providers. Not one government member, in over an hour of debate, has bothered to come in here and explain to us why the amendment moved by Labor is wrong. Clearly, it is the right way forward.
Let's also look at the issue that the government has decided to refer to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, a matter that has been dealt with time and time again by law reform commissions. I point out it's not just the Australian Law Reform Commission—which has covered this extensively in its more than 330-page report with many, many recommendations for government that the government's decided to completely ignore. This is an issue that has been dealt with by the WA Law Reform Commission and the Law Council of Australia. It's been looked into by the Bar Association and the Western Australia Law Society, of which I'm a former president. It is an issue that has been looked at by many access-to-justice bodies around the nation as well.
I will admit that at first blush as an early lawyer, class actions had a bit of a whiff to me. But one of the things I have come to learn through my practice in the legal profession—when I was a board member of a community legal centre; when I was the chair of Law Access, our pro bono referral service within Western Australia; in my time on the Law Society; and in my time as a director of the Law Council of Australia—is this: many, many Australians' capacity to access justice is completely denied to them because they cannot afford to access justice. The capacity for small, Mum and Dad, ordinary working Australians to be able to access justice against those that have done the wrong thing to them, especially when it's not just to them as an individual but to them as part of a broader group, is enabled by the opportunity of representative proceedings. It is enabled by the opportunity of a class action, and it is enabled by access to litigation funding to permit that action to go forward. We can find countless examples of ordinary Mum and Dad shareholders who have been able to get access to at least some justice because they have been able to bring a class action against a company that has done the wrong thing by them, against directors who have done the wrong thing by the company that they invested in, against a business that has done the wrong thing by them, not financially, but by causing harm through pollution or poisoning or other matters that have occurred. There are so many different examples.
As the member for Paterson has already gone through, it is not just being able to bring the action but also being able to mediate that action and find a just solution for those people who, on their own, would never be able to bring that sort of action to find justice. I'm not saying that these systems are perfect in the way they operate in the Federal Court of Australia or in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and they are different everywhere and there are different requirements around litigation funding, but the point is: this has all been inquired into. There are already numerous reports and, in particular, there is the Australian Law Reform Commission report that goes directly to these issues. The government should not be referring another matter off to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. What it should be doing is getting on with implementing those recommendations. It should be getting on with making sure that we have fair and equitable access to justice for everyone in this nation through class actions as well as through other means.
I do commend the Attorney-General for providing additional funding to community legal services as a result of this COVID-19 crisis that we are facing now. That is a very good thing. But it stands out as a diamond in the rough of the history of this government when it comes to funding legal assistance services, community legal centres and other access-to-justice mechanisms. It's like they have never seen an access-to-justice mechanism that they don't hate and want to make sure is strangled and not given the funding that it needs. Government will be at the other end of these pieces of litigation. It will be the case that individual citizens in this country will come together to take actions—for example, robo-debt actions—against governments when they get it wrong. It should not be from governments strangling those opportunities down that those people who have been oppressed by government, who have been ripped off by government, are denied access to justice against their own government.
This government should be getting on with the task of implementing those recommendations, not holding another inquiry. I was a member of the Corporations and Financial Services Committee during the last parliament. We had a multi-partisan, unanimous report on whistleblower reforms that should be implemented by this parliament—agreed to by Labor members, Liberal members, Green members and Xenophon party members. Has the government gone forward with implementing any of those recommendations of a unanimous report? No, it hasn't done that. So why would I have any confidence about what would now go through this committee inquiry process, when this committee's own reports are now banking up for the government to get on with implementing? This is just a way of deferring and getting away from actually doing the work of government in this area and doing the things that it should otherwise be doing.
As I mentioned before, it is worthwhile remembering again, as we come to the end of our considerations on this issue, that Labor has put forward a very clear and deserved amendment about instead focusing the attentions of this committee on the things that need to be dealt with coming out of the banking royal commission. We have now been discussing that for over an hour and not one government member has come in here to justify why they think the class action inquiry should take priority. More importantly, not one government member has come in here to tell us why the recommendations coming out of the banking royal commission should not take priority. And that's because there is no reason. That's because the government members—those in the chamber, those not in the chamber—know that Labor is right about this. They know ordinary Australians are sitting at home and looking at what government is doing and what government has said it would do. The government tried to avoid having this royal commission for so long, and now it's tried to hug itself closely to take ownership of the great work that the royal commission did. If the government is so proud of that, why doesn't it pull its finger out and actually get on with seeing those recommendations implemented?
We tried to work with the government in the first half of the calendar year, before we even got to the last election, to prioritise those changes and recommendations being legislated. But, no, the government didn't want to do that. We tried to work with the government at the end of last year to try to get them legislated. No, the government didn't want to do that. We have been the most accommodating opposition on this issue that you could ever find. We have tried to prioritise the things that the government said it wanted to prioritise and then wouldn't prioritise. And now you can't even justify your position. No-one has even come in here and bothered to try to explain why you think that these matters should now not be prioritised, and that silence speaks absolute volumes. It tells us everything we need to know about this government.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam be disagreed to.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Report into supported independent living.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme relating to the committee's inquiry into supported independent living, known as SIL. SIL is a category of funding and supports under the NDIS. In essence, SIL refers to assistance with and supervision of daily tasks in the home to support participants to develop the capacity to live as independently as possible.
Under the state funded disability support framework that existed prior to the NDIS, funding was provided directly to operators of group homes and assisted-living facilities. Supports were often tied to residence in group homes, and people with disability often had little choice in relation to the people and organisations that provided their supports or those with whom they lived. These arrangements are coming to an end, and more innovative funding and support models are being developed under the NDIS. SIL is one of these models.
In the view of the committee, SIL has the potential to deliver transformational benefits to NDIS participants by supporting them to develop the skills needed for independent living and by helping to maximise community participation. However, the committee has heard from submitters and witnesses that the current SIL regime is not living up to its promise and suffers from a number of issues, with the potential to undermine choice and control for participants and to affect the financial viability of providers. This is of particular concern, given the significant portion of total NDIS funding committed to SIL supports and the fact that a substantial number of participants accessing SIL have higher or more complex needs.
The committee appreciates that the National Disability Insurance Agency has made a number of enhancements to the SIL regime, and has several further initiatives in train. However, a number of issues associated with the access to and the delivery of SIL supports persist. Some of these must be remedied as a matter of urgency. The committee's report makes 45 recommendations to improve the operation of the SIL regime. These focus on access to SIL for participants and providers, living arrangements for participants with SIL, the vacancy management process, funding for SIL and other issues including access for supports in thin markets, decision support and advocacy. Ultimately the recommendations aim to maximise choice and control for participants consistent with the underpinning principles of the NDIS and to maximise financial and other hardship for participants and providers.
As the committee has continued to meet during the current restrictions relating to the COVID virus, I'll say something in relation to that for a moment. COVID-19 has created unprecedented risk and uncertainty around the globe and has forced major changes to the ways in which people interact and do business. The committee appreciates that this pandemic creates particular risks for more vulnerable people, including people with disability who have access to supports under the NDIS. The committee notes that the NDIA has announced a series of measures to address risks to participants associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. These include working with supermarket retailers to ensure that participants have priority access to home delivery services, conducting plan reviews by phone or email and automatically extending plans by 365 days. The NDIA has also announced a suite of measures to support providers. These include advanced payment to assist with temporary cost increases, requiring 10 business days to cancel services, temporarily increasing price limits for certain core and capacity-building supports, introducing new support coordination items into the support catalogue and increasing flexibility in how participants may use funds in their plans. The government has also worked to ensure access to personal protective equipment for participants and providers. Access to personal protective equipment will be prioritised for NDIS providers who deliver personal care and for other activities requiring close physical contact. Additional information regarding the NDIS response to COVID-19, including regular updates, can be found on the agency's website.
The committee emphasises that the NDIA and the government must continue to develop and implement measures to ensure participants continue to receive the supports they require during these challenging times while ensuring that risks of exposure to COVID-19 are minimised if not eliminated. The committee has been monitoring the operation of the scheme over the past few weeks and months, in particular with regular briefings from the National Disability Insurance Agency and from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission as well as from the Department of Social Services, and we'll continue to do this as part of our general oversight of the NDIS.
Finally, I wish to thank all those who participated in the inquiry. In particular I'd like to acknowledge the participants, families and carers who attended hearings and town hall sessions to share their personal experiences. The testimony of those with lived experience is crucial to identifying issues and making improvements to the NDIS. And I thank the secretariat, led by Bonnie Allen, for all their sterling work in the production of this and other reports. With these comments, I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I welcome this report on supported independent living and I commend the work of the committee members, including the members for Canberra and Corangamite, the Senator for Queensland Anthony Chisholm, the Senator for Tasmania Carol Brown and the government members, but in particular I acknowledge the good faith and diligent work of the committee chair, the member for Menzies.
The background to the report into supported independent living I think comes about because the implementation of the NDIS over the last six to seven years—I'm concerned that supported independent living has been drifting, this part of the NDIS. This is why the work of the joint standing committee is so important. I think there are challenges with the supported independent living program, and the 45 recommendations here provide a road map for significant improvement.
Supported independent living is one of the philosophical underpinnings of the whole National Disability Insurance Scheme. When I was involved in helping set up the NDIS, people with disabilities had been moved out of institutions, which was a good thing, but I don't know if there'd been sufficient thought given in the various jurisdictions about how to provide the best support for independent living. Too many accommodation options were the response to crisis. Too many accommodation options in supported independent living were the response to the midnight anxiety of what would happen to a beloved child when their ageing carer could no longer look after them. There were too many accommodations at the start of the NDIS which were not the right fit for people.
We still see thousands of people under the age of 65 with profound and severe disability stuck in nursing homes. We see accommodation options where people are put into group homes when they don't necessarily get on well with the other people who are in those houses. We see a lot of the carer systems quite overwhelmed at times, and a lot of families have reported to me feeling at loggerheads with the people providing the care because they feel that it's not sufficiently individualised to their own beloved person who the carers are looking after.
The aim of the NDIS was to provide packages of support and give people choice and control. I think with supported independent living what this committee has done is recognise that the goal of treating people as equal citizens and the goal of providing empowered care and control are not yet being sufficiently achieved. Funding for SIL, supported independent living, provides assistance with and supervision of daily tasks in the home. The program we're talking about, having said where the idea has come from, is designed to provide an NDIS participant with the capacity to live as independently as possible. As the report notes though, while only a relatively small number of the total 364,000 participants of the NDIS access SIL funding, the funding for these SIL packages does actually represent a substantial portion of the total committed funds of the NDIS. In other words, these are expensive but they're important.
What we have seen is the gradual journey from institutionalisation to group homes to more individualised living. But I think there are legitimate concerns. Since re-immersing myself in the world of disability following the election, many people have come to me—and I think the committee has articulated this very well through its research and report—and said that the current SIL regime suffers from various issues with the potential to undermine choice and control of participants and to affect the financial viability of providers. The financial status of a person should not be a barrier to accessing the NDIS or receiving support.
As this report notes, evidence submitted in support of an SIL application says that the application, the evidence, can be overlooked by the National Disability Insurance Agency in some cases. Participants complain to me, and this committee captures the same complaints, the planners may be failing to reflect the relevant evidence in a participant's plans. Or to put it in very plain English: families go and talk to the planners and then some of them receive plans which bear no relationship to the conversation people thought they were having with the planners. So the NDIA must implement the measures outlined here to address these issues as a matter of urgency. SIL is fundamental to the successful philosophy of the NDIS. It is an expensive part of the NDIS, but it is fundamental and necessary, so it behoves us to make sure that these resources are being allocated in a way that does provide choice and control.
The fact that there are 45 recommendations shows that, for all the sugar-coating, SIL is not working as it should be. There is too much red tape. Everything takes too long. I just want to explain, very briefly, the cycle of how someone with profound or severe disability can get supported independent living packages. First of all, they've got to get specialist disability accommodation. That's a separate pool of resources. Once they've lined up the property they're going to live in they then get the tick-off from the NDIA to access the supported independent living package, which is from another pool. But this process is taking too long, and there are consequences to this process taking too long. You've got people who invest in the new properties to build the appropriate accommodation. Now, some of them are big property developers with deep pockets, but others might be mum and dad investors and still others might be not-for-profits. The problem is if they then organise a team to provide this supported independent living—you've got to line up a group of workers; it's quite often seven by 24 coverage each week. So you invest in the property—you're not getting a return yet because you don't have a tenant or participant in it—you've then got to assemble an SIL team to look after you, and then the NDIA reviews all of this. The problem is that's triple handling, and this is leading to too long, too long, too long delays. I've spoken with families who've invested and who are frustrated. Bizarrely, in a very tight property market, the vacancy rate for special disability accommodation can go up from 15 to 20 per cent. Those vacancy rates don't exist in any other part of social housing, so there is clearly a problem.
SIL was meant to support the shift from one of the worst aspects of the old status quo, which was group homes. But it somehow appears the NDIA, in some cases—there are success stories too; it's not all doom and gloom—appears to encourage, if not require, participants with SIL to live in congregate settings. We know of several providers who have gone under because SIL participants have higher complex needs and, for operational costs, staff ratios are higher, and it just hasn't worked. People with disability don't all want to live in a cookie-cutter group home, and they bring with them a package of support, through the generously funded NDIS, which should allow that choice, but with the red tape and the triple handling it's simply taking too long.
These recommendations are therefore necessary and welcome. They should be put promptly into effect. It's part of the keyhole surgery which Labor is advocating, and this joint standing committee is also putting up. It is doing the work of proposing reforms to the NDIS. But my concern is that as we come out of the coronavirus situation the people with disability will get pushed down the queue again.
There are two big problems that we're encountering, and which this report will have to, as the NDIA, implement and address. One is that people with disability feel that the NDIS will be less generous, so if you don't spend all your money in the 12 months or the period of the plan then what you haven't spent you lose. They're worried there will be a contraction. They're worried the red tape and the delays that this report is trying to address will then become used as an excuse to decrease people's choice and control, to decrease the funding which is there. They're also worried, of course, about where the workforce for SIL is going to come from in the future.
But, having acknowledged all of that, this is a good report. The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme proves that the parliament can work when people work together. We urge the government to expedite the recommendations in this report and to take that broader approach. They've said the right things about NDIS not being cut back, but we saw $4.6 billion taken from the NDIS in 2018-19 budget. There is an anxiety out there that, despite all this keyhole surgery we're doing through these reports, there will be elements in the government, in the executive as opposed to the parliamentarians, that will just simply wind it all back. That's why I think this report is another useful contribution. But we don't just need keyhole surgery; we also need to embrace the philosophy of the NDIS of choice and control.
Does the member for Menzies wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the following reports: Examination of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission annual report 2017-18 and Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2017-18.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Firstly, on the ACIC report, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has a statutory duty to monitor and review the performance of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or the ACIC, by examining each of its annual reports. The committee is pleased to present its latest report on the ACIC annual report for 2017-18. The committee acknowledges the work undertaken by the ACIC throughout the year, understands an integrated picture of crime that is impacting Australia and acknowledges the results that it achieved in 2017-18. The ACIC's intelligence guided several strategies and responses to crime in Australia in the reporting periods, including the establishment of the national Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, led by the Australian Border Force; the Department of Home Affairs approaches to illegal labour hire syndicates, visa migration fraud and visa fraud in the education sector; and, separately, 14 operations conducted in locations across Australia based on data from the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program.
That Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program gives us a far greater insight into the problems that we have with illicit drugs in our country. The ACIC estimates that expenditure in this country on illicit drugs is $12 billion. That's the equivalent of almost $1,200 in every Australian household being spent on illicit drugs over a year. All of us in our electorates see the problems that we have, especially with crystal methamphetamine, and the wastewater reports show that the current strategies are not working. We need to continue to think outside the box about what we can do to tackle that problem.
The other issue that the wastewater analysis shows is that our war against cigarette smoking is failing, even though we've had the high rates of excise and duty continuing to increase the retail price. We've actually had a decline in sales of legal cigarettes, which we can monitor and manage and get a real, exact figure, through excise and duties. The illegal sale of tobacco we can only estimate. If we look at that latest data from the wastewater programs, we see that we are actually having an increase in nicotine, an increase in cigarette smoking. So, we need to be very careful about the duty increases and excise increases so that we are not turbocharging an illegal black market, which is actually increasing in size and undoing the good work in other areas.
Separately, on the AFP annual reports of 2017, the committee commends the work of the AFP as outlined in its annual report. In particular, there are three things of specific note. During this period the AFP delivered public value for money by providing a return on investment of $16 for every dollar invested in combatting transnational crime; 98 per cent of the investigations that went to court resulted in at least one conviction; and the results of the satisfaction survey of the AFP's partners and stakeholders showed satisfaction of around 98 per cent for the past seven years.
I think across our society there is great respect for our police forces, including the AFP. But we need to be very careful going forward about some of the unintended consequences that we have had from some of the more-restrictive prohibitions during the COVID crisis. Our police have been given the task of enforcing that legislation. With some of the legislation we are seeing paddleboarders being arrested. We are seeing people sitting in the park by themselves being questioned and harassed by police. We are seeing people playing backyard cricket being arrested. We have seen a lone swimmer at Bondi who dived in off the rocks being tackled by the police. All these images that we see on our social media and on our TVs have the effect of undermining the public's support for our police forces, and that does an enormous amount of damage.
So, one thing we need to be careful about and learn from this current crisis is that whenever we put prohibitions in place we ask our police forces to enforce them. We've got to think about how they will do it and how that will be perceived by the public. If that loss of reputation, that loss of support happens to our police forces, it is a very heavy price that we will pay in our society.
I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. Mother's Day, last Sunday, must have been particularly hard for thousands of mums in aged-care facilities. For many, it would have meant, for the first time, seeing their children and grandchildren through a pane of glass or a cold flat screen on this special day—horrible, but necessary. It's likely that these restrictions have prevented widespread outbreaks in our aged-care facilities to date. But it is indeed the cruellest irony of this pandemic that the best way to love someone is to stay away from them. The heartbreak for families has been profound.
The coronavirus pandemic is testing the aged-care sector in ways that it could never have imagined. Facilities have plans in place for infectious disease, such as influenza or gastro outbreaks. Coronavirus makes these pale in comparison. These times, however, call for exceptional courage on all fronts. Older Australians living in aged-care facilities, having seen a lifetime of ups and downs, are now the ones most vulnerable to the pandemic. The aged-care workforce, working part-time or casually, and many from overseas, are doing hard work with dedication and with care, and I thank them. And the aged-care facility management are making tough calls, balancing the respect and dignity of their residents with the care and protection of them and their staff. I've been on such a board. I was formerly on the board of St Catherine's aged care in Wangaratta and I know very well the difficult decisions that these boards have had to make in order to keep our aged and most vulnerable people safe—doing that while knowing that they were breaking the hearts of the people who so very much want to visit them.
I've received many calls from constituents about visiting their loved ones in aged-care facilities. At the end of March, the crisis seemed like it was on a trajectory to match the worst of what we'd witnessed overseas. Responding to the urgency of the crisis, providers set their own rules—in some cases, stopping visits completely. For many, this sudden change felt like a door being slammed shut. Families of residents were in tears on the phone, distressed and confused about why they were being denied entry. It seemed too much. This was likewise upsetting for residents, who look forward to seeing their families on a regular basis to share stories, show photos and, in better times, hold hands and have such a dearly beloved hug.
Older Australians in aged care disproportionately experience loneliness. Loneliness in aged-care facilities is devastating, and this, of course, has been made so much worse by the necessary interventions of this pandemic. Social distancing has made that unbearable for many. In addition, with group gatherings and external excursions cancelled, visits in these circumstances would have been more important than ever. For our loved ones with cognitive challenges, the confusion must be absolutely terrible.
I'm glad to see that the industry led aged-care visitor access code, released yesterday, establishes a nationally consistent approach to continuing visits while managing the risks of COVID-19. This 13-point code will be reviewed in three weeks, which is important, as the consultation time frame was, understandably, very short. This code includes, as it should, a human rights approach to care which both protects and respects residents and their families. Importantly, the principles maintain that visits can take place in a number of ways, including using technology; through windows, courtyards and balconies; and in person upon arrangement. The digital divide, however, is very real for older people. FaceTime and Zoom are not intuitive if you're not a regular user or indeed if you don't have access to an iPad, an iPhone or any other device. Of course, nothing can replace seeing your loved ones face to face. My hope is that this code will clear up the confusion which has caused so much angst and distress.
As this virus is likely to last many more months we need to move beyond a kneejerk response, appropriate at the time, towards measures that are sustainable and compassionate over the long term. My truest hope, though, is that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will bring about true reform across the sector that reduces variation across our aged-care facilities. There should not be an A team and a B team on this. It should be consistent, high-quality care.
I am pleased to support this bill. This bill introduces a new type of leave that will enable providers to remain eligible for the residential aged-care subsidy in declared emergency situations. This means that approved providers cannot decide to charge aged-care residents a fee during declared emergencies to reserve their place in an aged-care service. This change increases flexibility in aged-care services, which is so important in uncertain times. We all want our family to be safe, to be well cared for, to be healthy and to live in an environment where they feel comfortable, relaxed, loved and free. As we've seen, coronavirus outbreaks can be highly disruptive to the routines of our aged-care residents. These changes can be stressful and can cause concern about the residents' physical and mental health and wellbeing. This change makes it easier for residents to decide to leave the aged-care service and temporarily relocate to another place if they're concerned about their safety when there is a declared emergency. This also allows them to use their remaining allocation of social leave to maintain normal visiting and special events with families.
I am so pleased to see that the bill ensures that providers are no worse off but ensures they continue to receive the residential subsidy while residents are taking this emergency leave. This is crucial, especially to rural health services, such as those in my electorate, that run residential aged-care facilities and run on very slim margins.
While the coronavirus pandemic is the emergency at the forefront of our mind, this bill also notes that an emergency may include a natural disaster. This is an important inclusion for communities in my electorate that experienced the devastating 'black summer' bushfires. For residents who wish to evacuate from a service with their families during an impending fire front, they should not have to draw down their social leave just to be safe, and this bill guarantees that is no longer the case. During these recent bushfires, Corryong Health, with its aged-care facility, came under direct attack, with flames only 300 metres away. What followed was immense fortitude shown by the service and its residents as the service experienced days-long blackouts, no phone reception, restricted access to water and significant workforce shortages as staff evacuated their families or left to defend their own homes and farms. Once the fire front passed, the 37 residents were convoyed out through the blackened landscape and temporarily rehomed in Yarrawonga and Numurkah aged-care facilities, returning to Corryong three weeks later. This extraordinary feat was undertaken by Corryong Health staff, with Ambulance Victoria and the SES. Credit is due to Yarrawonga Health and the Numurkah district health service for making the residents feel welcome, loved, safe and secure during their stay.
When bushfires are approaching an aged-care centre and a town is being evacuated, this is exactly the circumstance in which the minister should exercise his powers under this new bill. Like all of us, aged-care residents should have the freedom to choose to leave their homes when they're in danger so they can have certainty over what happens next. This bill would remove any financial burden that would dissuade them from doing so, and I congratulate the minister on this amendment. The residential aged-care service of which I speak is run by Corryong Health, which serves the stunning and isolated town of Corryong and its surrounds. I was pleased to host Minister Hunt on his visit to Corryong in January when he heard firsthand what this service will need to keeps its residents and patients safe and secure in the next disaster. This includes an emergency fail-safe telecommunications system, an emergency water supply for firefighting—extraordinary, really—in their hospital, potable water and funding for capital works. Unfortunately, though, there's been little substantial progress on these proposals since that visit, and I will continue to work with the minister to ensure that funding for these crucial supports, including the residential aged-care service, can be secured.
So what to do next? Despite the sense of optimism we might be feeling today with the easing of social-distancing restrictions, we know that the coronavirus will have a long tail, possibly stretching out for years. While the aged-care sector provides high levels of care and protection for its residents, those residents are also the most vulnerable to the disease. Now is the time for the government to look ahead, plan for the future, and address other aspects of the aged-care system that the coronavirus will exacerbate.
A particular concern to me is the integrity of the aged care package assessment and service delivery. In response to coronavirus, many aged-care assessment providers have replaced in-person assessments with telehealth or phone based assessments to protect the health of both the assessors and the clients. But in-home visits are actually what's needed and are, ultimately, critical to ensuring that vulnerable people receive the care that they need. Assessment teams are highly trained to identify the physical, emotional and social needs of clients, as well as identifying instances of elder or financial abuse. It's impossible to fully deliver this over a phone. So we need a plan, and we need it soon, to ensure that people are assessed to get the support they need.
Concerningly, I have heard that some in-home aged-care residents are refusing visits from nurses and allied health professionals due to fear of infection. If continuity of care is disrupted for a long period, we risk deterioration in the health of older Australians, possibly causing an increased risk of hospitalisation. Older people should not be making do. They need to be confident that they can get the medical care that they need without jeopardising their health. And, likewise, the nurses and allied health professionals who treat them need adequate protection to do their jobs effectively and safely.
I've written to the Prime Minister sharing these concerns and he's assured me that his government will continue to review its response to the situation as it evolves, in order to ensure that older Australians are receiving the right support. I welcome the government's investments to date and encourage the government to continue for looking for opportunities to improve the system of aged care.
This brings me to home care package wait times. Our focus now is on the coronavirus, but we cannot wait for the crisis to pass to fix the waiting times for home care packages. The smartest way to keep ageing Australians safe from coronavirus is to let them stay in their homes, where they're comfortable and secure. If supports are in place, they don't need to enter residential aged care and become exposed to coronavirus or encounter the enormous stress of an outbreak or the necessary change in routine this might bring. Why isn't reducing the shamefully long wait for home care packages part of the government's coronavirus response? The wait time is still over 12 months for the highest level packages. In the quarter to December 2019, over 104,000 people were still waiting for their approved home care package. While they wait for the government to deliver what has been agreed to give them, their health may deteriorate. They may be hospitalised as there's simply no other way to get their care. We can't afford a bigger sickness burden on our hospitals at this time. Their families are doing the best they can to care for them, while maybe struggling themselves. While COVID-19 specific aged-care measures have been significant, the government needs to do more. It controls the levers. It can clear the waitlist. There cannot be any more excuses. It can and must do this to close the loop on the protection of our older people.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. I am supportive of the intent of this amendment, which allows residents to take leave from their aged-care facility during an emergency, such as the one we are in currently, and for the provider to retain eligibility for the residential care subsidy. The bill will compensate residential care providers by maintaining eligibility for relevant subsidies and will reduce financial pressure on those providers in emergency situations. The bill will also provide relief for the residents so that if they depart their facility during an emergency, they will not be liable for additional fees to reserve their place. This is a fair policy. But I do fear for some facilities who may have higher costs due to their location or services offered. They may suffer greater financial impact than others. As we discovered with the impact of the recently-introduced childcare legislation, well-intentioned policy can create dire circumstances for those in the industry.
Regarding the current funding provided to aged-care providers, many are saying that the costs that they are incurring as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic far outweigh the additional support that has been provided by the government, and many of them report not yet having received any additional funding. The increased costs include the need for personal protective equipment, the additional cleaning services, the technology to maintain family connections, and the need to pay staff on sick leave as well as those who are backfilling. I've spoken to a number of aged-care providers in Warringah and some have claimed that they are yet to receive any additional funds. Nor have they been contacted by the Department of Health via the usual channels with any advice on how to access the funding. It's a timely reminder to the government that when press conferences are held and public announcements are made, certain expectations follow and are created. I urge the government to remember that well-intentioned promises are commendable, but they must be followed up with speedy and accurate action.
I understand that some $52.9 million of the funding is to be provided via a grant under the COVID-19 Aged Care Support Program. However, as the minister has stated publicly, the government has announced nearly $850 million in funding for the sector. I would appreciate the minister's advice on this matter and will be writing to him accordingly to raise the issue.
There's no doubt this period has created unprecedented strain on our aged-care facilities in Warringah and on the individuals who call them home. Like many of my parliamentary colleagues, I'm sure, my electorate office has received phone calls and emails from those with loved ones who are housed in aged-care facilities. There was, of course, no one consistent line. Some are asking for stricter restrictions, some are asking for a relaxation. All are concerned.
In speaking with those who manage these facilities in Warringah, it's clear that their absolute No. 1 priority is keeping their residents safe, and I commend them and their workforces for the amazing work they're doing to make that happen. To the credit of the facilities in Warringah, with the steps they have put in place, including the provision of PPE and extra staffing, there have not been any cases of COVID-19 locally, and that's how we want it to stay. For those who manage those spaces, those who work there, those who live there and those who have loved ones there, that is a consistent theme: to keep COVID-19 out and to keep the residents safe.
That includes nurturing their mental health, of course, as this age group are particularly vulnerable to the virus. For weeks, and sometimes months, many of our elderly have been isolated from their loved ones. This has led to severe mental deterioration for some individuals. For aged-care facilities within Warringah, this has been difficult. They regard the mental health of their patrons and residents as of the utmost importance, and I've been very pleased to see the innovations and programs they have implemented, and the approaches put in place to address the mental health needs of their residents. I encourage the industry and the government to retain that focus on mental health for this vulnerable section of our community. It's one of the reasons I was pleased to see the industry come to an agreement collectively on the access code of conduct. In doing so, they recognised that, yes, the healthcare needs of residents and staff are important—most important. But we must also find a way to cater for the emotional and compassionate needs of the residents—maintaining good physical health does not necessarily mean we have to sacrifice emotional health.
When this access code was still a draft and placed on public exhibition, I immediately let my community know and I encouraged them to submit their feedback. There was a very tight time frame for comment from providers and users alike, and, while the comments and assessments of the code were diverse, it was clear that all were driven by the need to keep these facilities as safe as possible—even if it meant that contact with friends and family had to be compromised or rethought. Now that the code has been released, I've provided a copy to the aged-care facilities in my electorate and I'll consult with them to provide feedback. The code's 13 principles are a good foundation and will be reviewed later this month. It's now even more imperative that the government funding promised to these facilities and this sector arrives in a timely manner to help facilitate the implementation of the code.
I join with many of my parliamentary colleagues who have taken this opportunity to thank the nurses, the orderlies and other staff of aged-care facilities who are at the frontline of care, who are working long shifts and putting their own health on the line to attend to our elderly and vulnerable. We can't imagine the thoughts they must have each morning as they get ready for work, or the thoughts they have each night as they return home to their families or loved ones, uncertain if it was the day their luck changed and that maybe they had been exposed to the virus. These nurses and other staff are daily walking that line between life and death, and it is here that I would like to raise the issue of nursing ratios.
During the 2019 election campaign, I supported a call for better nursing ratios within our healthcare facilities, including aged-care centres, and I remain true to that commitment. We need to make sure that these vital workers—essential workers—do not become exhausted workers, hollow workers, broken workers. They need to be able to focus on providing the highest standard of attention and medical assistance to those in their care, and when the ratios are unworkable they simply become stretched beyond their capabilities.
I commend the work of my crossbench colleague, who unfortunately cannot be here due to the crisis, the member for Mayo, who has previously tabled legislation regarding staffing ratios, specifically in aged-care facilities. Her bill, introduced in 2018, aimed to provide greater transparency for families moving loved ones into residential care. The intent of that bill was to require aged-care facilities to disclose staffing ratios on the My Aged Care website, and there were mandatory time frames for reporting any changes. That bill was warmly welcomed by numerous organisations, including National Seniors Australia, the Council on the Ageing Australia and the nurses and midwives association. Sadly, her noble attempts were ultimately unsuccessful in creating that much needed change, but I think it's timely for this government to be reminded of that important measure. I call on the government now to revisit this issue of staffing ratios.
This pandemic has shone a light on systemic problems within the age-care system. As we emerge from the crisis, we must put aged-care reform at the heart of our recovery. In my electorate of Warringah aged care is a key issue, with 15.7 per cent of the total population aged over 65—and this proportion is growing. I've spoken with the CEOs of several aged-care facilities in Warringah, and they've told me that families are emotional and frustrated because they have taken the right steps but they're not getting the help they need. They feel guilt because they can't supply the care their loved ones require, and the wait for home-care packages is far too long and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Families wait for up to two years for their home-care package following an initial assessment. By this time their parent's condition has deteriorated and the family can no longer cope in caring for them, so the difficult decision is made to placed their loved one into an aged-care facility.
At a time when we are focusing on encouraging Australians to stay home, this must be a priority for the government. The elderly deserve respectful, affordable, accessible and safe aged-care options that are offered in a timely manner. We want aged care that promotes independence and wellbeing, with choices so that people can stay at home longer while being healthy and connected, and more options for a suitable mix of home health and medical support being available.
It's important when we talk about this sector to also consider the needs of carers. Residential respite is a key issue for those who provide full-time care to their loved ones. Carers, of all people, need to be able to plan ahead for the huge logistics involved in preparing for an absence. I have received multiple letters requesting clarification of the government's policy on residential respite. I ask that the government consider the proposal that the subsidy for residential respite be allowed to be used towards having a resident carer in the patient's home. In the words of my constituent: 'Imagine not being able to plan or look forward to your next break from work, which is not just nine to five, five days a week, but is actually 24-hours a day, seven day a week, 365 days a year, with no weekends, and is both physically and emotionally draining to the point of desperation.' We should not forget that, like child care, the burden of this unpaid and unrecognised labour falls disproportionately on women. In this regard, I'll continue to advocate for greater gender equality and balance in caring arrangements.
I support this bill and its efforts to provide flexibility under emergency circumstances. But we also need to ensure that crisis funding that was promised is adequate and arrives for providers to ensure essential services are delivered and to facilitate the implementation of the code. We also need to look forward to our recovery and to ensure we address systematic problems in our aged-care system and the unnecessary burden on our carers.
In conclusion, I refer to the ongoing Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The intent of this bill reflects one of the key systematic problems identified by that commission in their interim report released last year—namely, that the current system is designed around transactions, not relationships or care. This bill seeks to introduce an element of compassion, reflecting the importance of relationships and the need for care at a time when our elderly are vulnerable and their families need it most. While the proceedings of the royal commission have been placed on hold due to the crisis, there's no denying that its work has taken on even greater importance. This pandemic has shone an even greater light on the sector, and I, like many in Warringah and indeed across Australia, will be eagerly anticipating the outcomes and recommendations the royal commission will hand down. I'm sure the government will take heed of those findings, and I encourage them to implement any eventual recommendations in full and with haste.
To the staff of Warringah's aged-care facilities, I say thank you so much for the work you are doing in such challenging times. I say to the residents of those facilities, some of whom I visited prior to the crisis, and your loved ones, that I can assure you this parliament is doing all it can to ensure you are protected, nurtured and empowered at this difficult time.
I will make the summing-up speech on behalf of the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. The Australian population is ageing, and senior Australians and their families deserve to be treated with respect and dignity whilst receiving high-quality aged-care services. Integral to this is the empowerment of aged-care residents to make their own decisions about their emotional wellbeing and physical health and safety.
During difficult and challenging times, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, it is vital that senior Australians are supported in their right to exercise choice about their care. The COVID-19 emergency has highlighted a gap in existing residential aged-care leave provisions when faced with a large-scale emergency. Currently, permanent aged-care residents are entitled to up to 52 days of social leave each financial year. If a resident exceeds their 52 days of leave, they are required to then pay a significant fee to retain their place within their aged-care home.
During the current pandemic, many permanent residents have indicated they wish to temporarily relocate to stay with family in order to reduce their risk of exposure to COVID-19. These residents currently have no other option but to use their social leave allocation, which will likely run out before they are ready to return to their aged-care home. If they choose to remain on leave, the additional charges that will be incurred to secure their room will place a significant and unnecessary financial burden on them or their families. In many cases, residents may simply not be able to afford the additional charges and therefore will be forced to return to a home or possibly forfeit their place.
The isolation, lack of visitation and inability to stay with family for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic have caused cognitive decline and anxiety for a significant number of aged-care residents. Many residents and their families are fearful of contracting or spreading the virus whilst in an aged-care home, yet due to the limited leave provisions available they are unable to exercise their right to manage their own health and wellbeing. The new leave type being introduced through this bill will ensure residents have access to appropriate leave during emergency situations and this will not see them financially disadvantaged or losing other leave entitlements for situations completely out of their control. This change is in the best interests of all older Australians and the broader community and supports the residents, and in turn their families and carers, to make their own decisions about their personal safety and care. I thank members for their contribution to this bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I'm a great supporter of the hemp industry. We have many friendship groups in this place—I'd argue probably too many—but we don't have a parliamentary friendship group for hemp. I suggest we have one one day, but before I pursue that issue I'd like to start a campaign to change the name of hemp because I had reinforced in my mind again today that, whenever you talk about hemp, people automatically think about marijuana. Of course, low-THC hemp is not marijuana. You can't smoke it and it will give you no hit. Hemp as a product is too often misrepresented and misunderstood. I think we should reflect on the name of hemp and think about something which would be more marketable to the Australian people and, indeed, those who live beyond our shores. Back in the 1930s the industry was knocked around because church groups started a campaign against hemp, mainly because of a misunderstanding of low-THC hemp. Humans have been cultivating and using hemp for industrial and clothing purposes for 50,000 years. Of course, today we are still using it for medicinal purposes, which is very important. I, like many others in this place, remain a great supporter of medicinal cannabis. Hemp is also used for oil, clothing and personal protection equipment, which is very topical throughout the time of this COVID-19 crisis. It's even a superfood. You can have it in your smoothie or on your weeties, although, sadly, not always legally everywhere, which is another issue. It should be legal to ingest in all states of Australia.
Hemp is an environmentally friendly crop. It's relatively good for our soils and uses relatively low levels of water, so it is an ecofriendly product. As a parliament we should do all we can to encourage the further development of the hemp industry, in terms of the crop and the yield; in terms of exporting, which is what we will be talking about this evening; and, just as importantly, in terms of value adding here in Australia. The bill we're talking about tonight is one that is considered will facilitate the export of hemp seed, which will then be turned into a crop in Kentucky in the United States, and, in turn, be turned into industrial fibre to manufacture products, clothing and PPE products in the United States. That is a good thing, but I'd also like to see us growing and manufacturing the product here in Australia.
The Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020, which we're dealing with tonight, makes an important amendment to the definition of 'goods' under the Export Control Act. To export a plant product or an animal product to another country, that country, to protect its biosecurity system, expects the product to be certified as free of pests and disease. We issue the importing country with a phytosanitary certificate to assure that country that it is free of pests and disease. But curiously, and for some time, the act has defined 'goods' as those not including narcotics. Even though this hemp is low THC, by any definition it could be described as a narcotic. Therefore, the certificate we issue, in this case to the United States, is questionable in terms of its legal validity because the hemp is technically a narcotic. What the government is proposing to do is change that definition so that this narcotic can be exported with a certificate that the importing country can be confident is valid.
There was a fuss here this morning because the government was trying to facilitate all stages of this bill through the House in one day. We were given notice of this only last week. We've been trying to procure from government ministers a good reason as to why the bill should be dealt with in one day, because we're always concerned about precedent. Rushing these things through this parliament can never be a good thing in any case, but it does require the Labor Party to truncate its usual processes. We don't like doing that, and, when we do it, it's about precedent, so, we prefer not to do it if we don't have to. We're still struggling to get the reasons from the government, but we absolutely support this bill. We think it's a good thing and we stand ready to support it. I do have a second reading amendment, though, and I take this opportunity to move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government’s failure to provide a strategic plan for the agriculture industry, including fisheries and forestry, and rural and regional communities who continue to be impacted by drought, bushfires and COVID-19”.
We are more than happy to support this bill, and we stand absolutely ready to support it. As I said, one of the things that's been missing in our conversations with the government, and something I've taken upon myself to clarify today, is exactly why this bill is being rushed through the parliament now.
There is no doubt that the initial beneficiary of this amendment is one particular company. I think that the trade name for this purpose is Hemp Black. Hemp Black is the brainchild of a fellow by the name of Barry Lambert. Barry Lambert is a successful Australian. He is a regional boy. He grew up on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. He made his name and fortune in the financial service sector. But, to his great credit, he has used his wealth to make very generous donations to further research on medicinal cannabis. He has a granddaughter who had a very grave illness, a rare illness, so he has devoted his life to assisting his son and his partner and the grandchild, so full credit goes to him. I was speaking to Barry today, and, happily, I'm able to report that she's done quite well. So, I don't in any way question Barry tonight, or his intentions. I had a good conversation with him today, and he's doing amazing things in overseas markets with these various hemp projects. I just want to make that clear.
But at no time has the government been prepared to be forthcoming with us about Barry or his company. It's been more about, 'Well, these are important markets, and we need to ensure that we can have access to them.' I've had quite vague responses from the government about how much is going to which market et cetera. I would have been very much happier if the government had just said to us, 'Well, this is about Barry Lambert's company, actually; he needs to get these hemp seeds on a plane to Kentucky in time for the season so that they can grow mature and be used in his industrial processes.' For some strange reason the government chose not to disclose that. If they'd disclosed that earlier then we would have felt far more comfortable about facilitating this bill through the House.
But we want to make sure that Barry's company gets that certificate to export—that phytosanitary approval—as quickly as possible so that he can meet his commercial needs, and we'll certainly be doing our very best to do so. We absolutely support what the government's trying to do, and the government has assured the opposition that, while narcotics will be removed from the Export Control Act, all the other bills that people might be concerned about with respect to narcotics being exported will maintain the definition. This applies only to the validity of that phytosanitary certificate, and on government advice I am more than relaxed about that. I think that's a good thing.
I talked about hemp as a crop, which brings us to agriculture more generally, and the importance of agriculture to our regions—something that is also topical today and this week, because of the decision of the government of China to cause some problems for Australian exporters of barley and of course in the red meat sector. Regional Australia is doing it tough and has been doing it tough now for some time. It's been through probably the worst drought in our history, a drought that continues in a significant number of regions in our country. A lot of people believe that the drought has broken. For some, yes, happily it has, but not for everyone. Then of course there were the bushfires, probably the worst bushfires in our history, which have ravaged regional communities at the same time that they were still suffering drought, and now of course there is COVID-19. For regional areas it's been a triple whammy. COVID-19 has affected all of us, everywhere—city, country, north, south, east and west. But it's the regional areas that had the triple whammy of drought, bushfire and COVID-19. All of us together need to fully appreciate that, to think about it on a regular basis and talk regularly about how we're going to help regional Australia recover and rebuild.
I remind the House that in some ways COVID-19 has been even tougher on regional communities than it has on our city cousins—and I am not in any way understating the impact on our city cousins; of course denser populations have caused higher rates of infection. But in the regions we've lost much of our workforce. Agriculture, particularly horticulture, are very heavily dependent on backpacker labour, for example, and a number of other temporary visa holders. That workforce has in large part collapsed. We've lost our business. I'm the member for Hunter, where we make the best wines in the world, without doubt. I know that the member for Nicholls will not challenge me on that! I will take this opportunity to say that I will try to facilitate his contribution this evening; I think that's what he's asking me.
We are so largely dependent on the visitor economy—all those Sydney people coming to drink our wine, attend our concerts, take a balloon ride, get married, or whatever it might be. They come in very large numbers, and of course for many, many weeks now they have not been coming. When I was a young bloke and we wanted to see a band, for example, we all went to Sydney. Happily, Sydney now comes to us, and we're very, very happy about that. But our visitor economy is bleeding; it's hurting very, very badly. We've lost our regional media. Our newspapers are gone—12 newspapers in the Hunter region just don't exist today. We hope they'll be back, but that's having an impact on regional towns and communities as well. The list is really long, actually. The impacts on regional Australia, in very many ways, are exacerbated.
The agriculture sector—I suppose that's what this bill is all about, given we're talking about seedlings for industrial hemp. This government's had seven years to do something for the agriculture sector. God, we've had some debates in here about it over the course of the last seven years. But the agriculture sector is still a vibrant one, an innovative one, an efficient one and one still heavily engaged with export markets. That's a very good thing. But it's also a sector that's not without its problems, of course, and a sector which, I believe, is begging for a significant structural reform. It's well known to many in this place that about 80 per cent of agriculture product comes from 20 per cent of the firms. I'm looking at Dr Leigh now, because I thought he might be interested in that. Dr Leigh would be thinking, 'That sounds like a sector that might be in need of some attention and some structural reform.' Is your seat Fenner?
It is Fenner.
I shouldn't be calling him Dr Leigh; I should be calling him by his seat, but I wasn't sure that it was Fenner. According to the ABS, about 59 per cent of entities have a turnover of $200,000 or less. That's not a profit, that's a turnover of $200,000 or less. The member for New England might say there might be some clever accounting in that. I would never say that. I think the point is well made. It's a sector, more than any other, that's been impacted by a changing climate. People think we are a land of abundant water and soil resources. Well, the opposite is true: we are the driest inhabited continent in the world. We have some very good soils, but they are largely limited to certain pockets in the country. Most of the continent is not blessed with good, healthy, productive soils. On that count, we've got a massive misallocation of resources where too many of our national resources are going to places where they produce a low-value product, rather than a high-value product that would give a better return for the growers, for the producers and, indeed, for the economy and the nation. The sector has a huge workforce issue, as I pointed out, now made worse by COVID-19. It's a workforce challenge that's been with the sector for a long, long time. And the sector has been a bit of an underperformer in the commercialisation of innovation.
So it's a sector ripe for reform, but a sector that's had no meaningful reform in the last seven years. There were big promises about an agriculture white paper in the lead-up to the 2013 election. We waited until 2015 to finally receive the agriculture white paper. You don't have to listen to me. Talk to anyone in the industry: it was a dud. It was hailed as a $4 billion agriculture white paper, by the way. I won't waste too much time tonight explaining how the government managed to get it to that number, but they certainly are not fooling our growers and producers. No-one believed there was $4 billion of investment in that white paper back in 2015. I'm just thinking about the member for Nicholls, and I'm about to tell him that I won't give him an opportunity to speak tonight, because if I sit down I won't have an opportunity to revisit my speech, sorry. So you'll have to wait till tomorrow. The agriculture white paper was very disappointing. It's just on the shelves now gathering dust. I challenge the member for Nicholls or anyone else in this place to name one initiative in the agriculture white paper that is operating today for the benefit of our farmers, or to demonstrate where $4 billion was spent. That just didn't happen. It showed some promise in a couple of areas. We're all interested in the concept of multiperil crop insurance, for example, to give growers greater protection from natural challenges, but it was a failure as well. In fact, the government spent more money marketing the multiperil crop insurance initiative than it spent assisting farmers in trying to get better value or to lower the cost of taking out that insurance.
So that was the agricultural white paper. There was a big build-up to it, both before the 2013 election and then as we waited for it to be delivered in 2015, but of course there was nothing. And we're still waiting for the government to tackle some of these reform issues I've spoken about and listed this evening. They love to spin, they love to talk and they love to put the headline numbers on it, but there is never any follow-through.
There could be no better example of that than drought. Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, do you remember the government's response to the drought? It started right back in 2014, when they finally got onto legislating the farm household allowance. That was a process which had begun under the former Labor government but was not completed before the 2013 election. As members in this place know, the farm household allowance was a disaster. The paperwork was a nightmare, people couldn't qualify and it got so bad that the then minister, the member for New England, misled the House by embellishing the capacity of farmers to access the scheme. This event, sadly, led eventually to the dismissal of a highly respected public servant in the then secretary of the Department of Agriculture. This was simply because that secretary stood up for his Public Service workforce, who he felt were being dragged into the mud by the member for New England's attempts to bully his way through and his refusal to recognise his misleading of parliament and, of course, to cover up his doctoring of the Hansard. That was an extraordinary set of events, the likes of which I've never seen in this place.
But then, as the drought grew worse, the government turned, as it always does, to concessional loans. This is how the government claims to be spending $8 billion on drought. It does so by taking account of the capital cost of all loans, lent or not lent, rather than the actual cost of delivering the loans which, of course, is at best the difference between the government's current borrowing rate and the interest rate attached to the loans. It seems that every time this government has a problem it turns to this concessional loans idea, because it allows the government to talk about big numbers while at the same time spending very little money.
We had a drought coordinator, we had a drought envoy, we had a National Drought Summit and we had the Future Drought Fund, which was supposed to be a creature of the Drought Summit but was announced on the morning of the Drought Summit. The government claimed that $5 billion would be spent for our farmers, helping them in drought. But we knew the reality was that there was no $5 billion. What the government was doing was transferring $3.9 billion out of a former Labor government initiative called the Building Australia Fund, designed to fund regional infrastructure projects—important road, bridge and rail projects in our regions—to this new drought fund. So how did they get $5 billion? Well, they say that because they're going to spend very little out of it that it's going to grow to $5 billion in 2026, or something like that—I forget the year now. So they're only going to draw $100 million every year. Let's think about that. I think the National Drought Summit was in October 2019. How much money do you think has been drawn now, Mr Speaker, up until this date, and spent on drought measures? The answer is zero. They got the headlines—a $5 billion drought fund—but not one cent has been spent to assist farmers in drought. I will point out again: the drought remains very, very real for many of our producers and growers.
But the other point is this: not one cent of the drought fund will ever be spent on our farmers, because that's not the idea of the drought fund. The drought fund is designed to be invested in programs that help build resilience in our agriculture sector—not to go to farmers but to go to research bodies and others that might roll out these programs to farming communities, whether it be for soil health, water efficiency, training, innovation or breeding that makes crops more drought-resistant. The list can be very, very long. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Thousands of aviation jobs around Australia have already been lost or are under threat. Many of those are in my electorate. Melbourne Airport directly abuts the electorate of Fraser, and many families in Fraser are currently feeling the stress of the economic shutdown firsthand. This is an industry that has been brought to its knees.
Last week, I met with employees of dnata who have worked for many years for a company that has directly relied upon the aviation industry. These people are confused and angry as to why they have been totally excluded from the JobKeeper program. These are people who have paid their taxes for many years and who have contributed to the community for many years, and now they ask the question: why, because of a technicality as to the ownership of their company, have they been totally excluded from this program?
As a result of them having been excluded from this program, they will receive fewer benefits and, at some point in the future, they will have the additional stress of all of the obligations, of mutual obligation and of all the other burdens that will be placed upon their families at a time when they can least afford it. They've asked me, 'Why are we being treated like this simply because we're falling on the wrong side of an arbitrary line?' I promised them that I would come to Canberra and advocate on their behalf for holes such as this in the scheme to be remedied.
There are also, in my electorate, so many people who work as casual employees—many of them who have worked for years in industries but, perhaps, have gaps in their work experience or perhaps have changed employers. Again, many of these employees ask why they are being totally excluded from the JobKeeper program simply because they fall on the wrong side of an arbitrary requirement that there be 12 months continuous service. Like the dnata employees, these people are going to suffer unnecessary hardship and uncertainty because of a loophole in this program. We supported the JobKeeper program in principle and, in fact, called for it before it was brought in, but these are just two examples of gaps in this program which the government needs to remedy.
Yesterday was the international day of nurses and midwives. I reiterate the tribute that I paid yesterday when I spoke to the nurses and midwives around Australia, including those who are in this chamber and including, as I said yesterday, my father—a nurse for over 30 years. But I want to pay special tribute to not just the nurses but all of the healthcare workers of Fraser tonight.
Healthcare workers have been so critical in flattening the curve in Victoria and beyond—a great success for our community and one that we should vigilantly make sure continues. In addition to the individual healthcare workers throughout Fraser, I would like to pay tribute to Western Health, an organisation that has shown so much leadership over the last few months and has shown such a willingness to innovate.
Western Health has been at the forefront of Victoria's mass-testing program, which has been so critical in providing it with the data that it needs to confidently and cautiously release restrictions. Western Health has been willing to innovate. One example is a program which it has developed with physiotherapists and leading university researchers called Safe Exercise at Home, which shares simple, functional exercises for older people to increase their activities at home.
In addition, another group that stands out are those healthcare workers with immunocompromised family members. I pay special tribute to those healthcare workers who have continued to serve the community even when it places them at additional risk; and indeed to the many members of the broader community who have helped those people be able to stay at work—for example, by providing rooms in their homes, in caravans or rental units for free so that doctors and nurses with immunocompromised family can continue to work. This is an example of not only the healthcare workers sacrificing for our community but the broader sacrifices that have been made by our community more generally which has been so important to the successful eradication of COVID to date.
In my first year as a member of parliament representing my community of Lindsay, I have not been more honoured to be in this position than over the last few weeks where we have also experienced some of the most devastating impacts of coronavirus in our whole country. It is in this time that our most vulnerable have been in need and their families in anguish. To these families, it is that you reached out to me when you needed help and it was our conversations and your determined advocacy that enabled me in turn to be the strongest of advocates for you.
Tonight it is with great privilege and sadness that I share with you a couple of the stories of the loved ones who have been lost in Newmarch House, as expressed to me by their loving family members. Some 18 people have sadly passed away in Newmarch House since coronavirus entered the facility. We hear the numbers in the news, but we must always remember that every life matters. Each of these 18 people had full lives, families who are now grieving and stories. And tonight I stand in this chamber to share just a few of those with you.
Virginia Clarke shared with me the wonderful memories of her father. Ronald Kirby Farrell was born on 28 May 1925 in Roseville. Virginia said Ron was looking forward to celebrating what would have been his 95th birthday this month. At the age of 18 Ron joined the Royal Australian Air Force in 1942 and served for four years in Cairns on the Catalina flying boats until the end of World War II. He returned to Sydney where he married Margot and they had seven children. Ron and Margot built a home in Forestville, and Ron started the very first bushfire volunteer brigade 71 years ago which today is known as the Davidson Rural Fire Brigade.
Ron came to Western Sydney and started the first Probus Club in St Marys. He was also involved in Neighbourhood Watch. He loved his community and was so proud of his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and even great-great grandchildren. He was a proud supporter of the Penrith Panthers and the Sydney Swans, and he also won the footy competition last year at Newmarch House. Remembering her father, Virginia said, 'He was a very loving father, a good provider and always proud of us no matter what we did. We all loved him.'
As we all celebrated Mother's Day over the weekend, sadly, two mothers were lost at Newmarch. Jane Finlay and I have been sharing many calls over these last few weeks. She was the very first person who reached out to me at Newmarch, and we only know each other through this experience but she has shown herself to be a very strong woman just like her mother.
Fay Rendoth has been remembered as a lovely family woman. Fay and her late husband Ken were married for more than 70 years, and two weeks ago would have celebrated their 76th wedding anniversary. Fay has three daughters, eight grandchildren and three great grandchildren and gave a lot to her family. I know Jane is proud of her mother who at 92 fought her way to clear herself of this terrible virus.
Today I received a beautiful letter from a husband who dearly loved his wife. She was born on 4 November 1948 to strict Roman Catholic parents, one of nine children. She and her husband met in May 1968 and married on 4 September 1971, and they had two boys. They held very strong religious beliefs in the Roman Catholic Church and went to mass every Sunday together. Her husband described her as kind and gentle, and she loved her family. She doted on her grandchildren and her daughters-in-law. Every week she visited her daughter-in-law's sick mother in a nursing home. Whilst visiting she would talk to other residents. She would often go up to complete strangers if she saw they were in distress. She gave herself to the church and helped any way she could. For years she held prayer meetings at their own home, and the meetings only finished when she entered Newmarch House in March 2018. In her husband's words, 'I hope this gives you some insight into this very beautiful person.'
To all the families, I want you to know that I am with you and our community is with you. May all the people who have lost their lives to coronavirus in Newmarch House rest in peace, and their families know that our community is with them—prayers, love and comfort.
Recently I heard from a woman in my electorate who changed employers in November last year. Her new employer told her she'd start off as a casual and then transition to permanency. Today, she can't access JobKeeper and says: 'This will have a long and lasting financial impact on our family'. In another family, they told me that their two children, aged 18 and 21, had each been in casual jobs for 11 months. They're ineligible too. A local Turkish restaurant tells me that half their staff were international students who are ineligible for JobKeeper. They're worried they'll have to close and have pleaded to me, 'Save us from folding up.'
Labor supports the JobKeeper wage subsidy scheme. More than that, we called for it. Early in the crisis when other countries had announced wage subsidy schemes, the Prime Minister said it wouldn't work in Australia. It was only under pressure from business, unions and the Labor Party that he changed his mind, recalled parliament and enacted the JobKeeper package. It's the most important thing the government has done. The Reserve Bank expects a 20 per cent fall in hours worked, and for the unemployment rate to be around 10 per cent. Why does a 20 per cent fall in hours only lead to a 10 per cent jobless rate? The answer is JobKeeper. Without it, we'd be looking at unemployment rates at Great Depression levels.
I'm a strong supporter of wage subsidies. One of my PhD thesis papers was on wage subsidies, and my research suggests they work in Britain and in Australia as well. But there are too many gaps in JobKeeper. It excludes a million casuals, temporary migrants, many charity workers, and virtually the entire arts sector. The 4,500 airport workers at dnata are left out. Like the Peanuts cartoon where Lucy keeps pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, this government has changed the rules three times to prevent universities from accessing JobKeeper. Universities are now shedding staff at the very time when we're relying on university researchers to find a cure.
This often happens in recessions. The economic pain has been worst for young people and people with less education. Women have been disproportionately hurt by job losses. A quarter of arts jobs have gone. A third of hospitality jobs. As a reminder of how tough it is to live on unemployment benefits, Melissa Fisher told 10 daily that under the old system she couldn't afford to eat every day. The recent increase in jobseeker payments means she could ensure that she ate fresh vegetables for the first time in years. We need to ensure that disadvantaged Australians are the focus of the national recovery. We can't allow this crisis to create a caste of economic castaways.
We've come a long way since 25 February when the Prime Minister said:
We're not a government that engages extreme fiscal responses.
Since then, the government's announced $323 billion of measures to support business and workers—the largest fiscal package in Australian history. Yesterday it should have been budget day. The Liberal Party isn't selling those Back in Black mugs; we're now staring down a budget bottom line as red as the budget tree. Yesterday, the Treasurer gave us a coughing fit instead of a budget update, so we have to turn to Deloitte Access Economics, who anticipate record-setting deficits of seven per cent of GDP this year and next, and budget deficits until 2024. Having promised in 2013 to run budget surpluses every year, the coalition has delivered only deficits, doubling government debt before COVID and now on track to triple it from 2013.
Already the Prime Minister is denying he ever said the economy would snap back. But there's a bigger issue: snap back to what? Australia entered the crisis with too many signs of stagnation—real wages going backwards, weak growth, record-high household debt, falling business investment, falling productivity, unemployment stuck above five per cent, inequality too high and social mobility too low.
As the Labor leader said on Monday, we've got an opportunity to emerge from this crisis a better nation, one that's more productive, more egalitarian and more connected. We need to open up university places, encourage firms to do more research, build more housing and encourage more start-ups. We need to improve competitiveness, raise teacher quality and assist charities. We need to reduce carbon emissions, rebuild the relationship with China and better prepare for future risks. Australia doesn't need the discredited throwback policies of Work Choices that we saw in the 2014 budget. We need to spring forward to a more productive, egalitarian and connected Australia.(Time expired)
Today I want to rise to put on record my appreciation and thanks for the way that our Central Coast community has really banded together during the coronavirus pandemic. Right across the Central Coast local residents have really followed the advice from the national cabinet that has been required to help save lives and livelihoods, and I really want to say a big thank you. As our community has committed to do its bit to flatten the curve and to stop the spread of the virus, I've heard many stories of people working together and really helping those in need, like the beautiful story of togetherness in isolation reported by the ABC Central Coast about Saint Huberts Island, a suburb in my electorate of Robertson. During the weeks of social isolation, this strongly knit community created driveway music performances to entertain each other. They encouraged socially distanced exercise like kayaking, and they printed flyers to connect vulnerable residents to helpful services to help them get through the challenges of isolation. Lynn Martin, a resident for over 10 years stated that isolation had brought out the best in her neighbourhood, encouraging more community connections even before the restrictions were put in place. I heard Joy Lynn from Umina Beach, a woman in her 70s who, due to a compromised immune system, was unable to leave her home. Joy's neighbours, Heidi and Helen, decided to take turns checking in on her, dropping off groceries and offering a helping hand to make Joy's life easier while she was self-isolating. There are hundreds of stories like these and even more when you include the simple examples of the many other residents who became more creative in the way that they connected to loved ones in the place of a weekly family dinner, a catch up with friends or a birthday celebration.
While the country was responding to—and is still navigating—the economic challenges that this virus has presented, so too were many of our Central Coast businesses. Distillery Botanica and Onyx Coffee Spirits are two distilling businesses in my electorate who decided to use their existing skills and resources to fill the overwhelming demand for hand sanitiser in our region by making their own. The community response to Distillery Botanica's new product was pretty remarkable. There were pictures of people lining up at the Erina distillery as soon as the Mr Black Hand Sanitiser hit their shelves. Other local businesses like Fresko Fruit in Kincumber, Elanora Hotel in East Gosford, BamVino in Erina and many others started delivering to their local areas in place of sitting dining.
Several businesses across the Central Coast also took advantage of the historic $130 billion JobKeeper payment. For instance, the director of the Australian Reptile Park, Tim Faulkner, said that the JobKeeper payment was a game changer for the park. Being a business that simply cannot shut down, the JobKeeper payment allows their staff to still look after the animals and run the facility with the assurance that the business can endure this period until the restrictions are eased.
Through our economic support packages the coalition government is supporting Australians in these challenging times and getting the country working again. That's why our three-step road map to building a COVID-safe Australia is crucial. It provides clear advice for businesses to plan ahead as restrictions ease. We're all aware of the need to get Australians back to work and businesses back up and running, and I know some of the businesses on the Central Coast will enthusiastically be able to open their doors to the public this Friday in line with the social distancing requirements in New South Wales.
Thankfully, 115 people on the Central Coast have recovered from the coronavirus. That is my advice, and I'm advised that there are only two active cases remaining. Over 13,200 people have been tested between our three testing clinics at Gosford, Wyong and Erina. The Erina clinic was the largest of the additional clinics that the federal government established in New South Wales to supplement the work of GPs and state respiratory clinics. It was set up by Central Coast Primary Care and it has enabled an additional 110 people to be tested per day, almost doubling our testing rate on the Central Coast. I'm pleased to say that, since opening, the clinic has been booked out each day and has not yet reported a positive case of coronavirus.
To everyone who has been on the front line—from the doctors and nurses who have worked tirelessly to ensure our hospitals are equipped for this pandemic to our incredible teachers, emergency services, cleaners and retail staff—I want to say a big thank you for your service to our community during these tough times. Our residents have an incredible heart when it comes to assisting our local neighbours and supporting our local business and, while we need to remember that there are still steps we must take on the road out of this pandemic, I know the Central Coast community will continue to do their bit to stop the spread of the coronavirus. (Time expired)
More than one-quarter of all arts and recreation employees have lost their jobs since March, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and many more people have seen their incomes evaporate, their job opportunities disappear, gigs cancelled, productions halted, shows stopped and galleries—like the McClelland Sculpture Park+Gallery in my electorate—closed. Because so many people and so many institutions in the arts sector aren't eligible for JobKeeper, many people have been forced onto the Centrelink queues, to ask for support from friends and families or to apply for the small number of state and federal grants that are available.
It's perhaps too easy to talk about numbers and not realise that beneath those numbers are people—locals. So I want to be the voice today for two locals from Dunkley in the arts sector who represent really strongly the people in my community and across Australia who make such a contribution to our lives. I got off the phone about 15 minutes ago to Rohan Shearn, who lives in Frankston. He produces the Australian Arts Review. He sent me an email in April. This is what he said:
'As you know, we're living in unprecedented times with the pandemic, and as a constituent of Dunkley I'm writing to you seeking your support for an emergency package for arts workers like myself. I was buoyed reading Minister'—he was a little bit hopeful in that; let's say shadow minister—'Burke's opinion piece on the need for support to the arts sector. Over the past week I have seen a sector that I have worked in for more than 20 years decimated due to shutdowns, cancellations and postponements to help slow the spread of the virus. Many friends and colleagues have been severely impacted. They can no longer work.
'My business, the Australian Arts Review, supports the arts sector nationally, writing and reviewing shows, and we rely on advertising. But individual shows in major events such as the Melbourne International Comedy Festival provide significant advertising revenue for us, and in the past week all that ceased because the comedy festival didn't go ahead, and we don't know when venues will reopen or events will start happening again. And while the federal government has been developing stimulus packages for many sectors across the country, to date they've been very quiet on the arts.
'I am asking you'—Rohan wrote to me—'for your support in encouraging your parliamentary colleagues of all persuasions to support a stimulus package for the arts. Some may question why the arts sector needs support over other sectors. The arts sector is, of course, one of the biggest employers of people and brings significant economic benefits. If this goes, where will we be as a community?'
The arts make a contribution that is so much more than the $111 billion economic figure. Although that is reason enough to support the arts, we should also support the arts because it's about Australian faces, Australian voices and Australian stories. It's about being able to visit places and people, to hear about concepts, to have experiences and to see times that we would never be able to reach without the arts. The arts—television, books, theatre, concerts, paintings, sculptures—provoke. They uplift. They challenge. They soothe us. They entertain us. They enrich us.
Recently, local Langwarrin author and literary agent Danielle Brooks was good enough to give me a lot of her time to have a conversation about the value of the arts locally and across Australia. As Danielle says, the arts are going to provide us with a mechanism for how we will understand this time. It's the way, for many people, that we will record this global pandemic. It's the way we will remember the lessons that we've learned from—the arts sector. It's the songs, the movies, the books, the paintings, the poems, the plays and the sculptures that have been made in, and which will be made about, this extraordinary period of isolation—about the financial and emotional stress, about this time of distance from loved ones and the discovery of new ways of living and of deep despair and unexpected joy. That's how we'll understand what we're going through.
So to Rohan, Danielle, the McClelland Sculpture Park+Gallery, musicians, painters, writers, pub owners, venue operators, the Goodfellow Theatre Company in Frankston—to everyone in Dunkley who loves and is a part of the arts—I'm here today to ask my colleagues of all persuasions to support a stimulus package for the arts.
The outbreak of COVID-19 has challenged every Australian. All of us have been affected, and everyone has had to make changes to the way they live their lives. While it has been a difficult time, we have faced it together and we have done so with the confidence that our essential healthcare services will be there to support us through it all.
This period has demonstrated the strength of our healthcare services—their professionalism and their ability to adapt. I want to start by thanking all of our essential health and aged-care workers, who are putting their health at risk daily to care for the most vulnerable members of our community. To the nurses, cleaners, doctors, receptionists and everyone in between: you are all playing a vital role in this crisis which has not gone unnoticed. I thank you all deeply on behalf of the Mallee electorate.
As the seriousness of this pandemic became known, my thoughts turned to our healthcare services in Mallee. I began working closely with healthcare providers and local councils, hearing of the plans and strategies that had to be implemented swiftly across the electorate to respond to COVID-19. I took their concerns directly to the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, asking him to ensure that Mallee was on the map for planned respiratory clinics. Indeed, two have now been implemented and a third announcement is about to be made.
In Mildura, a clinic led by Sunraysia Community Health Services was the first in Victoria to be funded as part of the government's plan to establish 100 respiratory clinics across Australia. By taking pressure off the hospital and local GPs, this clinic has delivered enormous benefits for the community. In just over a month the clinic has triaged 528 telephone consultations which have led to 345 GP appointments and 326 tests for coronavirus. Including Mildura, Mallee will house three of the 100 respiratory clinics and I look forward to making further announcements on the clinics in Horsham and Swan Hill in the near future.
GPs and health providers in Mallee have applauded the $669 million expansion of Medicare subsidised telehealth services. Since 13 March, 8.8 million telehealth services have been delivered by 68,000 providers to 5.1 million patients Australia wide. Telehealth has given the capacity for patients to access health practitioners more readily and in a timely fashion, and therefore has reduced the risk of health practitioners being exposed to the virus and also increased health care. Telehealth has clearly played an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic, but a long-term expansion of telehealth subsidies is needed to address key issues with rural and regional healthcare service delivery. We must continue retaining these subsidies beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to address these issues, and I've spoken to Ministers Hunt and Coulton to express this imperative.
During this pandemic, I have seen aged-care services in Mallee go above and beyond to provide continuity of care to their residents. Long before this pandemic struck the nation I was working closely with aged-care providers in Mallee, hearing their concerns about funding shortfalls and advocating on their behalf. Funding challenges have been further exposed by this virus. I met with Minister Colbeck about this issue, and the additional pressure placed on providers to meet their own PPE needs, and I was very happy to inform providers of the $205 million COVID-19 support package. Providers in regional areas will receive $1,350 per resident under this package. Darren Midgley, CEO of Chaffey Aged Care in Merbein said that this funding would be put to good use in supporting the industry through the COVID-19 pandemic. I will continue to work with aged-care providers in Mallee and with the Minister for Aged Care, Richard Colbeck, to ensure a viable aged-care sector into the future.
Finally, I want to acknowledge everyone in Mallee who has followed the social-distancing advice from the national cabinet, as advised by the chief medical officers and the AHPPC. These isolating measures have been difficult for many in Mallee, including small-business owners who have had no choice but to close their doors. Our strict observance of these rules is exactly why Mallee has had so few cases of COVID-19. On 14 April, Mallee had seen a total of 21 cases and we've had no new cases since that time.
With the relaxation of some restrictions in Victoria, Mallee residents will now have the chance to catch up with family and friends in small groups, and we welcome this change.
House adjourned a t 20 : 00
Good morning. I'm just going to read a quick statement before we kick off with statements by members. I draw your attention to the special arrangements in the Federation Chamber. The most obvious change will be the seating arrangements and the increased space between seats. Seats have been arranged to better satisfy spatial distancing requirements. Please ensure you do not move the seats and kindly observe the capacity limit of the Federation Chamber. Water is available at the usual water tables. Members are asked to collect their own water and are requested to dispose of the empty bottles themselves in the bins. Alternatively, members can bring their own water into the chamber. Hand sanitiser is available at several locations within the chamber. The entry doors to the Federation Chamber will remain open during proceedings. This will reduce the need for members to touch the door handles. However, members should not stand outside the entrances in order to view the proceedings. Finally, you will also note the presence of photographers from the press gallery. Given the historic nature of the current sittings, they've been granted permission to take photos of proceedings in the Federation Chamber for the next two days. I thank all members.
It has been a challenging time, particularly for workers and businesses. Since the government's rollout of the JobKeeper payment and other measures, I decided to start a survey of how the government's support is helping businesses. What we found is that only 67 per cent of the businesses that we surveyed had access to any government support, and it was mostly the JobKeeper payment and the cash flow boost. When it came to the JobKeeper payment, these were some of their comments: 'Poorly communicated, poorly rolled out'; 'Given the short time frame, there was always likely to be problems; however, the government has moved quickly from the position of "We're all in this together" to making businesses bear the brunt of the work and the costs'; 'Confirmation that paying wages in advance is a challenge. It's really scary if we make a mistake, or the payment doesn't come through'; 'So many workers are eligible for JobKeeper, but I don't have the cash flow to pay them in advance. I haven't participated because of this fact.' The government needs to do more to help our businesses, particularly our small businesses. If you want a snap back, you need to ensure that more have access to the JobKeeper payment and that more have the ability to access loans to help those in need.
There's another area of the JobKeeper payment where the government have let the community down, and that's with the universities. I was saddened and very disappointed to read last night that La Trobe University has moved to offer redundancies to their workforce—not all their workers, but they're calling for voluntary redundancies. They said it's because the government did not extend the JobKeeper payment to universities. In fact, the government has changed the rules again and again to actively exclude them. It is this government's fault that workers at La Trobe University in my electorate will now find themselves unemployed, out of a job. I hope the university does not have to go to forced redundancies. As all members know, universities in regional areas are important employers. We want to be a university city in Bendigo. We want to make sure we have that link between universities, research, and our manufacturing sector. However, it will only happen if the government helps Bendigo La Trobe and all universities right now. It is not their fault that they are in this situation. It is because of this health crisis and because governments have moved quickly to close down our economy and our society that they are in this position. Just as the government is helping businesses and not-for-profit organisations, it should help universities like La Trobe. It should help save these hundreds of jobs that we need. To snap back, you need universities. The government should act today and extend the JobKeeper payment. (Time expired)
This year we've seen our lives change and change forever, no more so than in our local schools. Across Australia and in my electorate of Forde teachers and schools have been working hard each and every day to support the students and families in light of the pandemic we're going through. I know that the past couple of weeks have been difficult for all, especially for the parents who are working from home and also trying to help their kids learn. I want to take this opportunity to thank those parents who have gone to great lengths to support their children during what has been a challenging and uncertain time. Equally, the wonderful teachers and schools across my electorate of Forde, which covers parts of Logan City and the Gold Coast, have done a fantastic job for the students that have needed to attend school, especially those in vulnerable situations—which, sadly, is common in parts of my electorate—and also the children of our essential frontline workers, who are doing such a great job at this time. Over the past couple of weeks, we've seen our schools innovate and adapt to these changing circumstances, and I want to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to some of the great schools and teachers who have done some truly amazing things to support our kids.
At Beenleigh State School, they set up a drive-through zone to allow parents to collect home-learning packs and were recently featured on 7News in Brisbane for that initiative. Edens Landing state school had an Anzac Day drive-through service, with students and their families paying tribute in their driveways. The principal, Mr Curran, and the school's Adopt-A-Cop, Aaron, from the local police beat also joined them in their cars. The Cedar Creek State School principal, Mr Meier, has started a new band with the teachers, aptly named The Creekers, which boosts the spirit of students and their families. At Coomera Springs State School, they had a drive-through Mother's Day stall. Eagleby State School has been looking through doing a book and maths game exchange, and, at Eagleby South, Mr Barnes, Mrs Morgan and Mrs Dillon have joined together in songs to cheer up the kids learning from home. Kimberley Park State School and Boronia Heights State School have welcomed their preppies back this week with great fanfare, with the school fences decked out with balloons and decorations. Last, but certainly not least, Mr Evans, one of the teachers at Norfolk Village State School, has starred in a fun video showcasing what it's like to teach at home, starring his dog, Chai.
Our teachers, and our school staff more generally, do an incredible job each and every day. I'm sure they're all eager to see the students return to school but that, most importantly, it's done in a safe way for all involved.
I would like to put on the record of the Parliament of Australia my sincere thanks to the community of Western Australia and, in particular, my constituents in the electorate of Brand. They have observed the social-distancing rules and restrictions that have been placed on our everyday lives. Following these rules has saved lives and kept our community healthy.
The city of Rockingham has the most beautiful beaches in the world, yet, on the hottest days in recent months, we didn't overcrowd those beaches. People did the right thing by each other. They went to the beach and went for a walk or a swim, and then they went home. Because of this, there was no inkling of the overcrowding we have seen elsewhere. Our beaches from Singleton and Golden Bay in the south up to Kwinana Beach in the north are still open, and we continue to enjoy them for what is left of the most beautiful Western Australian summer and autumn.
The community has supported vulnerable people that need our help during these community restriction times. I thank the people of Brand for the wonderful community spirit that has seen us through this crisis and will continue to see us through this crisis. Many have lost their jobs. Businesses have closed, and some, sadly, will never reopen. Some jobs will never come back. Many people will struggle for a long time to come as our devastated economy is rebuilt. So that community spirit we've seen across Rockingham and Kwinana will be called upon again and again for a long time in the future to help those who need our support.
I'd also like to thank the staff of the local government authorities: the City of Kwinana and the City of Rockingham. Both city councils and all the workers have been remarkable in this time of hardship. Many have lost their jobs, unfortunately, because local governments weren't supported through JobKeeper. But, nonetheless, I know the city councils are doing their best to keep these people together. In particular, there is Mayor Carol Adams and new CEO Wayne Jack from Kwinana. Wayne himself was in the process of moving with his family from New Zealand when this happened, but he soldiered on and did get here even with all the restrictions and quarantines, which were, of course, observed. Thanks also to Rockingham Mayor Barry Samuels, to CEO Michael Parker and to Emily Chandler, Karen Lee and Tony Solin at the Rockingham Kwinana Chamber of Commerce.
I'd also like to sincerely thank the staff of all the electorate offices, state and federal, around the country. I thank the staff of ministers and shadow ministers who have helped my office to resolve some very desperate situations that have emerged and continue to emerge through the COVID-19 restrictions. In particular, I'd like to thank my staff: Jacinta Pember, who has coordinated with great patience, effort and diligence all our constituent enquiries; Kate Gurbiel; Rex Tion; Ryan Pavlinovich; Georgia Tree; and Andrew Burrell.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:11 to 10:21
My staff, like so many around the country, have shown a deep commitment to our constituents and the people of Brand, and I'd like to thank them most sincerely on behalf of the whole community.
The current coronavirus crisis has shown Australians at their very best. Yet, disgustingly, there some out there, both from here and abroad, who are seeking to make financial gain off those who are anxious and vulnerable. This is a time when many are fearful for their health and safety and that of their families, but we cannot afford to let our guard down when it comes to scammers pretending to offer much needed help or advice. The ACCC's scamwatch.gov.au website has received over 2,000 coronavirus related scam reports, with over $700,000 in reported losses since the COVID-19 outbreak commenced. To avoid being scammed, it's important that we remember to follow some simple advice: don't click on unexpected documents or hyperlinks in texts, social media messages or emails, even if they appear to come from a trusted source, and never respond to unsolicited messages, emails and phone calls that ask for personal or financial details, even if they claim to be from a reputable organisation or government authority. If you do think you have identified a scam, it's important to visit scamwatch.gov.au to report it so that others aren't caught out. The scammers can be exceptionally convincing, and, importantly, we should all be alerting others, especially our senior Australians, to any scams we come across.
Other ways in which people seek to play on our fears during the crisis include through spreading misinformation about the health aspects of the virus. We are seeing the quacks and the charlatans trying to have their moment in the sun. The case of Pete Evans and the infamous BioCharger has perhaps been the most prominent example we have seen here in Australia. One such false claim which has provoked scores of emails to my office is that the flu vaccination can cause recipients to become more susceptible to coronavirus. To be very clear: the flu vaccine does not contain live viruses and does not weaken our immune system. The reality is that there has never been a more important time to get your flu shots. Getting the flu and coronavirus at the same time could be a very deadly combination indeed. We know the flu is responsible for thousands of deaths each year, and any person trying to convince others to avoid being vaccinated is being recklessly and cruelly irresponsible.
The final pace of this cavalcade of coronavirus nonsense is the claim by conspiracy theorists that 5G radio waves are somehow linked to the virus. This is an absolutely baseless claim which has been refuted time and again by radiation and medical experts. The coronavirus crisis is a time in which we must all be listening to proper health advice, guided by expert health officials. Australia is home to some of the best in the world, and we can be proud of their contribution to the global efforts to fight this virus. So, to all Australians, I urge you to be cautious and alert to anything that seems too good to be true or just an outright lie. We will get through this together based on good science and good advice, which thankfully we have in abundance in our country.
I present certified petition No. EN1412.
The petition read as follows—
Establish a Federal Integrity Commission that upholds the Beechworth Principles
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: In Beechworth in 1853, miners gathered to herald the beginning of a democratic revolution. They sought to reform the broken and imperfect institutions of their country. They called for those institutions to be accountable to the people they represented, to act solely in the public interest, and to be condemned when they failed to do so. The actions of those people changed Australian democracy forever. Now, at a time when faith in our institutions has never been lower and Australians are losing belief in the ability of politics to improve their lives, we invoke the spirit of these early democrats for another great reform – to establish a Federal Integrity Commission, with broad jurisdiction, common rules, appropriate investigative powers, fair public hearings and that is accountable to the people.
We therefore ask the House to: Support the passage of a Bill establishing a Federal Integrity Commission that upholds the Beechworth Principles:
• Broad jurisdiction: Everyone involved in Federal public service must be subject to independent scrutiny.
• Common rules: All persons must be held to a single standard of behaviour.
• Appropriate powers: The Commission must be empowered to fulfil its purpose.
• Fair hearings: Investigations should be conducted openly when in the public interest.
• Accountability to the people: The Commission must remain accountable to public, not political interests.
From 115 citizens
Petition received.
by leave—I also table an uncertified petition on the Beechworth principles as a document for referral to the Petitions Committee.
A short time ago, in late February, I spoke in this place about the genesis of this petition and how the Beechworth principles came to be. I shared the story of William Guest, an innocent young gold-digger from Beechworth who, in 1853, was gunned down in a flagrant misuse of police power that went unchecked. I also shared the story of an impassioned and resolute community of gold-diggers in Beechworth who witnessed this injustice and refused to stand by and let their government respond to perverse breaches of public trust by conducting sham, closed-door inquiries into itself.
This story may have been 167 years ago, but its principles rang true and deep for Australians today—Australians who believe our democracy is straining, Australians who are exhausted from politics prone to corruption, partiality and scandal. Just like 1853, the community has raised its voice again. The Beechworth principles are simple but compelling, calling for a federal integrity commission with five key characteristics: broad jurisdiction to investigate the people it needs to; common rules so that everybody is held to the same standard of behaviour; appropriate powers so that it can actually do its job; fair hearings so that investigations are done openly when in the public interest; and accountability to the people so that the commission answers to public, not political interests.
These five principles stand not as an ultimatum but as an invitation. These five principles are directed at a government that has missed its own deadlines to introduce this bill. Instead of an integrity commission, this government has instead given us bountiful examples of why we need an integrity commission. In 1853 Dr Owens, who led the fearless campaign for an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the shooting of William Guest, asked the people, 'Do you know what representation means? Of course you do.' It's never an accident that one finds oneself on the just side of history. Rather, it is a conscious choice. Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien, here are a set of endorsed and enduring principles upon which this government can do right.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had some unexpected outcomes in my electorate. Many people in Mallee have made the most of social distancing restrictions by refurbishing gardens, sheds, homes and business sites. When we emerge from this lockdown, I think our community assets will be in far better shape than when we entered it. But I want to talk this morning about another refurbishment program, which is exciting for the agricultural show societies in Mallee.
Normally there are around 580 agricultural shows across Australia each year. These shows contribute around $965 million to the economy, and nearly six million Australians attend. Agricultural shows are a yearly highlight in Mallee, and, like so many important events in 2020, they have been postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. I am thrilled today to speak about funding which Minister Littleproud and I have announced this week for three agricultural shows in my electorate through the Commonwealth's Regional Agricultural Show Development Grants Program. Just over $1 million has been allocated to the Mallee towns of Cohuna, Horsham and Natimuk to help show societies refurbish their showgrounds and facilities.
The annual agricultural show is always a big event, and, thanks to this grant, next year's will be even better. All three show society recipients were very excited to receive the good news this week. Graham Pearce told me that the Cohuna and District Agricultural, Pastoral and Horticultural Society will be using their $475,000 to replace the Morton Garner Pavilion at the Cohuna Recreation Reserve. Andrea Cross, from the Horsham Agricultural Society, told me her team will be utilising their $125,000 to undertake works to refurbish the Maydale Pavilion and build a disabled toilet at the Horsham Showgrounds. When I spoke to Judith Bysouth from the Natimuk Agricultural and Pastoral Society, she said their $499,000 will be used to upgrade the multipurpose pavilion at Natimuk Showground, including the development of a grain arcade exhibit which showcases regional farming.
Agricultural shows are the heart and soul of our regional communities. They bring and keep communities together; bridge the divide between country and city; and provide a key injection into the local economy. Upgrading show facilities means more visitors to these regional events, more local employment and more purchases for local businesses. The grants will benefit both agricultural show societies and their regional communities. Once again I congratulate the Cohuna, Horsham and Natimuk show societies for their award-winning submissions and I look forward to attending these shows next year and seeing their completed works.
Yesterday we commemorated International Nurses Day, and it's appropriate we take time to show our appreciation and our gratitude for the extraordinary contribution nursing makes in our community to the wellbeing of people, families and indeed communities as a whole. Now more than ever we should show our appreciation and gratitude for the tireless effort of our nurses and indeed all our health workers during these unprecedented times.
The reality is that, every time they start their shift, they are putting themselves at significant personal risk, and it doesn't end when they leave work, given fears of possible exposures to their families. I think we should show our appreciation for all those involved in our health community as a consequence, particularly this year when we acknowledge that there are many nurses and health workers around the world who have lost their lives treating and caring for patients affected by the coronavirus. Nurses are an integral part of our health service, and we must acknowledge the multifaceted role they provide as caregivers, patient advocates and educators.
What is readily apparent is that our health system only works effectively through the cooperation of all those involved. I therefore take the opportunity to reflect broadly on the invaluable contribution provided by our health workers, including of course not only our nurses but our dedicated doctors, cleaners, lab techs, hospital caterers, support staff, paramedics and the list goes on. Our health workers are doing a tremendous job, and our lives and the lives of those we love are depending on them.
They are working on the frontline to help our community stop the spread of coronavirus under enormous pressure in the most trying of circumstances, and incredibly we've heard stories of health workers being spat upon or abused in the streets simply because they are working on the frontline of this pandemic. Clearly, these are extremely difficult and trying times, which I have no doubt has taken a significant personal and emotional toll on many of our health workers and others on the frontline.
On behalf of a very grateful community, I thank our nurses and all our health workers for their dedication and commitment, particularly during the times of this pandemic. They are making an extraordinary contribution and making a difference for the better of our community. On this 200th anniversary of the birth of Florence Nightingale, best regards to all our nurses and all those who are helping us throughout our health system.
The COVID-19 pandemic has hit all our communities in different ways, and today I would like to take some time to discuss the experience in my community in Bennelong. I think it is very important in a time like this that local stories are not subsumed by the big stories sweeping the world. I have been heartbroken by the damage the pandemic has done to my community but I am heartened and proud of the way the community has responded to these unprecedented challenges.
As many will remember, one of the first and cruellest outbreaks of the virus occurred in Macquarie Park at the Dorothy Henderson Lodge. In early March the first positive test result was returned for a worker at the lodge. It was the first case of untraced community transmission in Australia. This was a terrifying prospect. In the following weeks, tragically, more residents succumbed to the virus. In total, six residents of the community lost their lives. This is a terrible and appalling loss of life and, to the families of those residents who have passed away, I offer my sincere condolences.
Fortunately, we are blessed with wonderful healthcare workers, who rose to the challenge. The staff at the lodge did their utmost to curb the transmission of the virus and manage existing cases. Their vigilance and effort are reflected in the fact cases soon began to decline. I'm proud to inform the House that, as of 1 May, Dorothy Henderson Lodge has been free of coronavirus.
Despite this, it must be remembered that our broader community has felt some of the worst effects of the pandemic. In total, Ryde has experienced some 66 cases, one of the biggest counts in the country. Although we have now seen the number of active cases slowly decline, we cannot grow complacent. There is always the looming prospect of a second wave, which may do far more damage than the first. After all, the vast majority of the deaths that occurred during the Spanish flu last century occurred after the first wave had passed.
Despite these gloomy prospects, I take hope in the small acts of kindness, bravery and generosity which have populated the last few months. Seeing the work some of our community organisations do to help our most marginalised during this particularly challenging period has reminded me of the strong bonds which link us together. I would like to acknowledge the admirable efforts of everybody, from our nurses to our charities to everyday people, for pulling together to help us get through this.
A great man once asked not to be judged in victory but during the uncertainty of battle. Our judgement during this uncertain battle is that, together, we Australians have fought bloody well.
I think I can speak for my electorate of Wills, the people of Wills, and probably for most Australians to say that things have been very tough for all of us. Our daily lives have been turned upside down and many of us have felt fear—been scared about our health or how to make ends meet. The road we're on is going to be a long one and an uncertain one, but I think today we can also say that Australians have shown remarkable resilience, perseverance and spirit. In a sense the crisis has shown our nation's strengths to each other and to the world. We have proved that with collective effort and great sacrifice we can flatten the curve and save lives.
But of course there's still a lot more we need to do to come out stronger on the other side. While the coalition government, with Labor's support, has delivered historic economic stimulus packages to assist people, those very same packages have some flaws. Despite our urgings and our arguments, they have left many Australians out of the payments. Indeed, there's been a lack of urgency coupled with that—the government not acting fast enough to save jobs. Labor called for a wage subsidy weeks before the government finally announced JobKeeper. While welcomed, of course, it was still too late for too many people and for too many small businesses that have hit the wall. I have spoken to many of these small businesses and small business owners in my community. Some are still waiting for their payments. Some are also hitting the wall and having to let people go because they couldn't wait that long period of time, that month or six weeks, for the JobKeeper payments to come through, particularly given the uncertainty about whether they'll get it or not.
I've heard so many other people talk to me about falling between the cracks with respect to the packages. I think the government has made some very unambiguous decisions—potentially we could say ideological decisions—on who they have decided to leave out. A million casual workers. Countless local businesses have struggled because they haven't had the cash flow to be able to wait for JobKeeper to kick in. Workers from the arts and the entertainment sector; those with a disability and carers; charities and the local government sector and people on temporary visas. The crisis has shown that the coalition cannot be trusted to do it right, to not leave millions of the most vulnerable behind or to implement the policy fairly; certainly not without the necessary scrutiny.
There is an opportunity to strengthen Australia as a compassionate country, a nation that looks after everyone no matter what their status or job description. I have already seen in my own community of Wills what people have done for their neighbours, for strangers, for the most vulnerable. During our separation we have really stuck together on that basis. My office has seen a surge of calls, emails and letters from people needing help . We have done our best—with a lot of volunteers, I might add—to help those people through this most difficult period. It's something that's been an important part of being a good local MP.
I rise to commend all Australians on their outstanding work in following the evidence based recommendations that the Prime Minister of Australia and the national cabinet have executed on behalf of us all. We have all seen the devastation of the outbreak that COVID has caused across the world, in particular in the US, Europe and England. But with less than 100 deaths currently in Australia, we are faring better than most. This can be attributed to the strong border protection measures implemented very early on in this outbreak, strict quarantining measures that Australians have engaged with and followed, and the strong physical distancing measures that have been carried out across Australia. We know this has had an effect on all Australians. We have done it because it's been important. Staying home has helped contain the COVID pandemic, so that our fatality rate is now lower than an annual flu season. That's something we should celebrate and feel that we have done the right thing. We are fighting this virus and we are winning, but it is now time to get ahead of a mental health curve that may occur. It is now important to balance the state of the economy with the health of the nation. We cannot forsake the prosperity of Australia; but, more importantly, the mental health of Australians represents a very important aspect of our nation. I'd like to congratulate the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, for putting this front and centre for all Australians. Failure to ease restrictions now that we are in a safe harbour and to keep the economy strong will see a mental health crisis that could be more damaging than the pandemic. Modelling conducted by the University of Sydney has predicted a potential increase of suicides of up to 50 per cent. These are horrifying numbers, which should be taken seriously. With the projected increase of unemployment up to 10 per cent, the significant changes to people's livelihoods and the social distancing required for people with regard to their loved ones mean that mental health professionals have a big job ahead of them.
Our best defence against these outbreaks in our community is by encouraging everyone to use the COVIDSafe app. That is our ticket out of here. We know that there will continue to be cases. Unfortunately, coronavirus will continue to see deaths. But these are proportionate to the measures that we have taken. We need to make sure that we continue to use evidence based approaches. We have seen the worst of the COVID epidemic. We now have the tools at our hands to test, to track and to trace COVID. We need to make sure we continue to use and evidence based approach and to remain calm. We know that when overseas gets a cold or sneezes, we get a cold. We want to make sure that when overseas gets COVID, we stay safe.
Firstly I would like to put on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to all the amazing workers who have continued to serve our community every single day in the face of sometimes quite extraordinary challenges throughout this COVID-19 pandemic—the frontline workers who risk their own health and wellbeing every day in order to protect ours; the educators who help nurture, develop and enrich the lives of our children; but also the unsung heroes of COVID-19, the people who deliver often now to our doors the very things we have needed and relied on during this period of isolation and lockdown; those who have been serving us in supermarkets or the pop-up stores, markets and takeaways; or those local government workers who are diligently maintaining our public spaces and essential services. Many of them have had to adjust to a difficult new environment: modified jobs, reduced hours and, of course, fear that their duties may expose them and their families to the virus. We are living throughout historic and, frankly, catastrophic times. We saw within one week in my home city of Newcastle a collapse of jobs and wages that dwarfs the growth of the last four years. Centrelink lines have spilled out of the office, down the street and around the corner for days on end.
Throughout this crisis, the opposition have worked constructively with the government to get the best outcomes for the nation. The decisions that have been made certainly are not the decisions that a Labor government would always have adopted, but we have never allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We have always been as supportive as possible.
But there is no hiding the fact that the Morrison government's implementation of some elements of the COVID-19 response have been sadly lacking. A case in point is the JobKeeper payment. In recent weeks, I have had been absolutely inundated with calls for information, advice and help around the government's COVID-19 responses in general, but JobKeeper has consistently been the No. 1 issue of concern in my community. Let me be clear: Labor supports the principle of JobKeeper. It was indeed Labor that argued for the dire need for a wage subsidy scheme before this government finally relented. We understand that, unless we protect people's livelihoods, a contagion of cascading disasters could quickly develop, but too many people have missed out on the JobKeeper scheme. We know of the one million casualised workers and people in the arts and entertainment industries, along with those in the retail, accommodation and food sectors, who are all missing out. It needs to fix this and needs to get us back on track.
The past few months have created unprecedented challenges for our country, and as we begin to take the first tentative steps back towards normal life we should be thankful for the strength shown by our civic institutions and the sense of duty and dedication displayed by Australians from all walks of life. I would like in particular to single out several organisations and individuals in my own electorate of Wentworth for special thanks and appreciation.
Organisations such as Our Big Kitchen and the Coalition of the Ageing have worked tirelessly to ensure that the elderly and vulnerable have had access to quality meals without having to leave the house. Similarly, Holdsworth Community Centre and Wayside Chapel have been there for Australians most in need. These organisations have had their own challenges to deal with, including the requirements of social distancing and other health precautions and at times a shortage of volunteers, but they have got through admirably with the generosity and selflessness of dozens of volunteers helping to make their operations work.
I would like to acknowledge the positive role played by Waverley Council and in particular the mayor, Paula Masselos, the general manager, Ross McLeod, all councillors and the entire council staff. They have successfully helped steer the community through a difficult time and in particular have found ways to creatively allow the local community to access the ocean whilst protecting public health through their 'surf and go' and 'swim and go' programs.
I would also like to acknowledge the leadership shown by Woollahra council and in particular Mayor Susan Wynne, the general manager, Gary James, and all councillors and council staff. The council have again found creative ways to ensure people can enjoy the outdoors and harbour but without compromising public health interests through their 'swim and go' program. They have also introduced a range of measures valued at $5 million to help ease the impact of COVID-19 on local small businesses.
Public transport workers, including the bus, ferry and train drivers in my own electorate, have kept our city moving in the strangest circumstances. Our police force have been adapting rapidly to frequently changing restrictions and bearing the brunt of any public backlash. They have behaved with admirable professionalism and courtesy. Our supermarket staff have turned into everyday heroes, working around the clock to keep shelves stocked while adapting to the coronavirus threat.
Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the difficulties being suffered by many small businesses in my electorate and applaud them for the ingenuity and resilience they have shown in adapting to this new world. Coffee shops, restaurants, gyms, beauty salons and many other businesses have suffered significantly through this crisis. But many have found ways to adapt their business models to keep their staff on and to keep serving their customers and clients.
The coronavirus challenge is not over, but my faith in our ability to come out of this stronger is drawn from the strength of everyday Australians and their ability to rise to the occasion. I say thank you to the people of Wentworth for your patience, your cooperation and your diligence in getting us through this crisis.
Our country has a new-found appreciation for essential workers, but I think we also have a new-found appreciation for the fact that every Australian is essential. In that regard, I welcome the commitment by the government today to further expand our focus on mental health, because I think there are far too many Australians who are finding this current period of time just that little bit too much to handle and, as I said, every Australian is an essential part of our community.
My community of Perth has a new-found appreciation for the people who make our society tick. I share the view of the member for Wentworth, who said that our supermarket workers are everyday heroes. They have done so much. I give a shout-out to every Coles and Woolies employee in my electorate and those who are at the IGAs in Highgate, Northbridge, Maylands, Mount Lawley and further afield. These staff have put themselves in harm's way and they have also worked around the clock, many working more hours than they ever have before. Some have told me they have worked harder than they do at Christmas. It has been an incredibly challenging time for them. They have stepped up to the challenge. They deserve not just our appreciation; they also deserve appropriate pay and the protection of their rights and conditions at work. So to all retail workers I say thank you.
We also have an appreciation for the essential service of Australia Post. Australia Post makes sure that we stay connected in more ways, particularly when we can't necessarily be with those people that we love. Indeed, my state of Western Australia has adopted what some people love, which is a hard border. But the reality is that it does mean many families, including mine, are split across different parts of the country at certain times.
Having said that, I note that Australia Post did make the very difficult decision, and one I was incredibly critical of, to close the North Perth post office in the middle of this pandemic. It is ridiculous that you would close an essential service now. I'm not saying the management of the North Perth post office was perfect—far from it. But to close a post office in the middle of a pandemic and lock people's mail and parcels away was just a terrible decision. I wanted to put on record also that I'm grateful Australia Post have since, due to a lot of community pressure, reversed that decision and set up a temporary post office with full postage and mail collection facilities, because it really did leave thousands of people and thousands of businesses in my electorate in a really dire circumstance in April. So I'm grateful that has been resolved.
But now we must talk about what happens next, and the reality is that it's going to be a slow rebuild. It is not going to be a snapback. 'Snapback' should go in the same bin as 'fightback'. We can't snap back to having 100,000 Australians have nowhere to call home. We can't snap back to increasing and increasing casualisation and insecure work. We can't snap back to having hundreds of thousands of Australians in poverty because Newstart is too low.
I rise this morning to urge the reform of the World Health Organization. The Germany magazine Der Spiegel has reported that the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, personally asked the WHO to delay the release of critical information regarding the outbreak of COVID-19. The report was based on information from the BND, the Germany federal intelligence service. It reports that on 21 January President Xi met with World Health Organization Director-General Tedros to request that he withhold information about human-to-human transmission and delay the declaration of a global pandemic. The BND's verdict is harsh. At least four, if not six, weeks have been lost in Beijing's information policy in the fight against the virus, Der Spiegel reported. If this is true, this is a conspiracy against the whole world.
Researchers at the University of Southampton found that if China had acted responsibly and been open about the virus just three weeks earlier it could have reduced the spread of the disease by as much as 95 per cent! These reports are consistent with other evidence that the Chinese communist regime has constantly falsified data and public information about the COVID-19 virus. It has also treated the WHO as a vassal for its own purposes, something consistent, I have to say, with the Chinese Communist Party regime generally.
This is why the approach to exclude Taiwan, in particular, from the WHO was reprehensible. With a population of just 23 million people and situated 180 kilometres off the coast of mainland China, Taiwan was anticipated to report the highest number or the second highest number of COVID-19 cases globally. In fact, at the end of April, it had only 429 confirmed cases and six deaths. That's a country with a population akin to Australia's. We have done a wonderful job in this country in preventing the spread of COVID-19, yet Taiwan had 429 cases and six deaths, and this has been achieved without severe restrictions. As early as 31 December, Taiwan started screening passengers on flights from Wuhan. It no doubt noted the reports of a disease and the fact that the communist regime banned internal travel from Wuhan but not international travel to other countries. Accordingly, Australia's call for an independent investigation into the cause of the outbreak is reasonable and justified and should be supported by all members of this place.
I am so relieved to be back here in the parliament, the Morrison government having relented and allowed parliament to sit before its planned sitting schedule of August in order to allow us to do our work and convey the messages and the urgency of our constituents here to the federal parliament. It is not good enough that the NRL can be back at work in a couple of weeks but we're not expected to return to Canberra until August. Our constituents deserve better. They expect better of their elected representatives and Labor will do everything it can this week to ensure sittings resume and the good business of parliament continues as soon as possible. Before I go on, I'd like to give a shout-out to all of the essential workers of Lilley, who have served us so well during COVID-19. We didn't expect 2020 to look like this, but they have risen to the occasion. Thousands of health workers have served those who are patients with COVID-19, those who are families of patients with COVID-19 and those trying to get by and conduct their business safely. We have thousands of retail workers who have risen to unexpected challenges in 2020. They deserve good pay, they deserve our appreciation, they deserve safe conditions at work and they deserve our support and thanks.
Speaking of support for Australians, I want to convey some of the messaging that my constituents have been raising with me in the past few weeks about the problems with the JobKeeper and jobseeker packages. To give credit where it's due, these things were good initiatives. It was a good idea to raise the rate of jobseeker payment to above the poverty line. It was a good idea to bring the JobKeeper package in to support people continuing a relationship with their employer, throughout COVID-19. But we also have to be humble and acknowledge where these things aren't working as they should, where there are cracks opening and where people are falling through the gaps. Here in the parliament this week we should be fixing up those gaps so that everybody is supported in the weeks and months to come.
With respect to jobseeker, people have been talking about issues with Centrelink, issues with communication, and issues with people not being aware that their partner's income will affect their ability to access jobseeker. This is the result of seven years of cuts to the Centrelink system. It has been hollowed out and there aren't enough people and resources there to support Australians in this time of need.
With respect to JobKeeper and the JobKeeper package, as I said, it's a good thing, but too many people have been left out in the cold by this: 1.1 million casuals still have no support from JobKeeper and, at the moment, no indication from the Treasurer that that is likely to get any better. It's not good enough. Our casuals deserve better. Many are casuals not by choice but by the circumstances in which they find themselves, and they shouldn't be punished for that. With respect to JobKeeper, we are now starting to hear reports of scams, where people aren't doing the right thing. Obviously, Australians are acting in good faith and most people are doing the right thing, but we need to step up and protect Australians when that is not the case. They have acted in good faith and they expect their elected representatives to act in good faith, to step up and fix those problems while we have the chance here in parliament this week.
The impact of COVID restrictions on businesses has been profound, but so too has been their resilience and adaptability. Particularly in my electorate of Ryan, small and medium businesses that have been dealt severe blows have adapted, have changed, have rejigged and resourced to redesign their entire business model to ensure they can continue to serve their local community. I know how much this has been appreciated by the local community, because they have reached out and have spoken to me about how much it means just to get a takeaway coffee and a bit of a chat during these anxious times. So, I wanted to give a few shout-outs to local businesses in my electorate of Ryan, and their staff, who have done a tremendous job continuing to serve their communities—good people like Pramesh at Cafe Tara at The Gap. Normally, Cafe Tara does dine-in meals, but he's had to adapt. He and his family are now cooking traditional Indian takeaway, which is so successful that you have to book weeks in advance to make sure you get your meal. Or Luke and the team at Suburban Social in Chapel Hill. They're a small but popular local bar, who, following the restrictions, have not been able to do dine-in and have completely changed their model to a drive-through service. They have worked with their suppliers to put together produce boxes that people could pick up from the drive-through service. There are people like Dean and the team at JAX Tyres at Mitchelton—locally franchised, employing locals. They know that cars still need to be serviced and tyres still need to be fixed at this time, but, to allay the fears of people as to coming into the workshop, they now offer to pick up your car, return it to your door and sanitise it as well.
Gyms were required to shut—unlike other businesses, like cafes that could still open for takeaways—so they have had to adapt significantly. But local gyms in Ryan know how important physical exercise is to people's mental health, particularly at this time. So people like Lisa and the team at F45 gym in Pullenvale and Indooroopilly have been offering live training through Zoom and pre-recorded daily sessions for their regular clients.
The restrictions—as worthy, important and worthwhile as they have been—have taken a toll on families, individuals and business owners. Today the Morrison government makes an important announcement: to appoint the country's first deputy chief medical officer for mental health. It is vital that mental health, particularly during this anxious time, be elevated as a priority, as this announcement will ensure it is. We can't allow our fellow Australians to succumb to anxiety in isolation when there is support available to them. I have reached out to every person in my electorate of Ryan this week, through their mailboxes, to outline the support resources available to them, and I encourage residents in Ryan who are doing it tough to speak up, reach out and receive the support that is available to them and that we all need from time to time.
I rise today to thank our frontline workers and the local residents in my constituency for their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic has changed our lives completely. It has been a very challenging time for us all. Federal and state governments have asked Australians to make huge sacrifices, like staying at home to protect our health system and to limit infection rates. But, due to your actions and discipline and patience, we continue to flatten the curve and keep our community safe.
The cost of this COVID-19 pandemic to Australia and Australians has been enormous. Many people have lost their jobs. Local businesses have closed. People have been struggling in isolation, not being able to see family, friends and loved ones or unable to attend workplaces or move around freely. Sometimes it's been very hard to get accurate information about what to do.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank, in particular, our frontline workers—our doctors and our nurses, and our testing officials at Casey Hospital, Cranbourne Integrated Care Centre and Westfield Fountain Gate pop-up testing facility—for all their work, and others in the area for keeping our community safe. In particular, I want to thank the Victorian police for enforcing the COVID-safe restrictions in Victoria—as I've said, keeping our community safe.
I also wanted to convey my condolences to the Victorian police—and to one police officer at the academy in particular, who trained, I think, two of those police officers—due to the tragic deaths of Leading Constable Lynette Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin King, Constable Glen Humphris and Constable Joshua Prestney. This happened during the time of the COVID restrictions, which didn't allow for funerals of the magnitude I think that would've occurred, to have occurred. I've been to the academy on a number of occasions; I've spoken to recruits. As I said, there's one particular officer that I am speaking to today that was involved in training, I think, a couple of those recruits. It caused enormous stress and strain to the Victorian police force, and their response was fantastic; it showed their resilience and their courage. But it showed also the dangers that police officers face every day that they are out there, trying to protect our community. They put their lives on the line every time they put their uniforms on and go to their place of work.
So, on behalf of us all, to the families of those that have lost those four brave fallen officers, on behalf of this place, I wanted to extend my condolences to the family, loved ones and friends. You are in our thoughts and prayers. To the Victorian police and the people that I work with very closely across the board: thank you for the work that you do in keeping our community safe, not just with the COVID environment but every day that you are out there on the roads.
Yesterday in the House of Representatives I called for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to be broken up in order to create a more transparent and accountable regime when it comes to how we manage our water issues up and down the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has been lumped with various responsibilities, but, namely, they are responsible for the service delivery, operating our dams and our locks on the Murray River to deliver water to the states—which is mainly funded by the irrigators. Secondly, they have policy work associated with implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They are the main advocates for the plan. They also have the power to step in and prepare plans in the states for the implementation of the Basin Plan. Thirdly, they have the regulatory activities related to the implementation of the Basin Plan, including quantities of water savings generated by the states' water recovery projects to determine whether or not the states' water diversions are within the limits that are set by the plan.
What we find, though, is that there is an enormous amount of complexity and confusion in issues around the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as shown up by Mr Keelty, who is Interim Inspector-General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources, when he was giving evidence at the Senate yesterday at the Senate Select Committee on the Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan. Mr Keelty was more or less talking about the responsibilities of the authority, and he said that there was evidence that came from the public suggesting that there might be 700 gigalitres of unallocated water each and every year. In his conversations with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, that was whittled back to 50 gigalitres of water each and every year. So, at the time of going to print with Mr Keelty's report, 50 gigalitres of water that was underallocated or unallocated was the amount printed. But now we understand that, over the last couple of weeks, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has effectively acknowledged that the amount of unallocated water is more like 375 gigalitres per year. This is an enormous amount of water.
Astonishingly, Mr Keelty is now calling for a single source of truth. That is a blunt statement, because it obviously means that we don't have a single source of truth at the moment. Someone who has been working with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for five months has acknowledged that around 370 gigalitres has been underallocated every year, yet the Murray-Darling Basin Authority cannot put its finger on where that water is.
This is an enormous amount of water. Yesterday we spoke about half a billion dollars worth of water that evaporates from the Lower Lakes. Now we're talking about a quarter of a billion dollars worth of water that is underallocated. I think what we need to do is break up the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and put these various responsibilities into different organisations.
The communities in Lalor and communities like them across Australia have responded in extraordinary fashion to the pandemic and what we've had to do to prevent our hospitals being swamped, our neighbours being struck down with COVID-19, and the loss of life we're seeing other countries endure. I want to thank every person in Lalor for the way that they have responded—for their adherence to the hygiene messaging, the stay-at-home restrictions and the social distancing for those still at work. I want to thank the local small businesses, who bravely took on the challenge of closing their doors or adapting and adjusting, who have taken on debt to pay JobKeeper and now wait to be paid back, and who spoke to me about their concern for their suppliers' businesses and their employees. I also want to thank the essential workers who have kept us going, who haven't had the privilege of working from home, like many of us here have. Thanks to everyone who has ridden the bumps and shown the leadership that we needed. Of course, it is not over yet—not the health risks nor the economic pain—so please keep washing your hands, everyone.
I know there are people doing it very tough at the moment in my community and across the country, with no sense of what the future will bring. They might be workers; they might be business owners. I know that many would be better supported by this government being more inclusive in the JobKeeper program. The Treasurer can do this. He can include our local dnata workers. He can include casuals who have worked in a business for less than 12 months. He can include business owners who have run a business for less than 12 months. He can include local government workers. He can keep them all connected to their employment, and he should.
Walking to this place for the first time in a while, on Monday, and thinking about all of those at home and across the country, I passed the monument to two of our greatest leaders, Curtin and Chifley. And, following so many comparisons of the current climate with Australia in the Second World War, I went to read Prime Minister Curtin's speech for re-election in 1943. At the time of the speech, the Allied forces had just begun pushing the enemy back from their strongholds on Australia's doorstep. The war was far from over, just like now, but signs were emerging that perhaps the tide had turned.
In Curtin's speech, 'Victory in war, victory for the peace', after he listed the achievements our nation had had in the battles and in the advancement of social security for Australians who had felt the pain, he warned that a lost peace 'would be marked by horrors of starvation, unemployment, misery and hardship no less grievous than the devastation of war'. And that was what the warning received on Monday from the Deloitte Access Economics report was telling us. It was telling us that the Prime Minister's snapback theory was flawed and would have dire consequences. As we continue to win the battle against coronavirus by flattening the curve, we must look towards softening the blow of its economic effects. Most importantly, do not raise the victory banners too soon. We need our economy to be stimulated beyond this virus to support every Australian and every Australian business.
I'd like to recognise Kirby Barker from Evans Head. She is a finalist in the New South Wales Department of Education's Early Childhood Educator Awards. Kirby is an educator and cultural adviser with Evans Head-Woodburn Preschool. She develops programs about Aboriginal heritage and culture for students. These include a comprehensive language program and a program that focuses on nature and country. Kirby developed a program that sees 10 children head out to learn in nature every fortnight. She's also part of a working group that promotes reconciliation within the early childhood education sector. Kirby was also named Children Services Trainee of the Year at the completion of her traineeship.
Unfortunately, due to the coronavirus restrictions, the award ceremony has been postponed. That didn't stop preschool students from presenting Kirby with the 'bestest childhood educator' award. Congratulations and thank you to Kirby.
Deputy Speaker, I am lucky enough to have some of the most significant landmarks in the country in my region. One of is Nimbin Rocks. The three most prominent rocks were named Thimble, Cathedral and the Needle by the early white settlers; however, their significance dates back many thousands of years. They are an extremely sacred site to our local Bundjalung people. It is believed that the rocks were home to a clever man, a prominent figure in many Aboriginal Dreaming stories. When you look closely at one of the rocks, you see there is a hole in the middle. Elders say this is a window into the home of the clever man, who lived in the rock with his family. One night, the clever man left the window open and his daughters fled their home. That is why, to this day, you can still see a hole through the rock. These stories are still told in many families today. Aboriginal Dreaming is an important part of our culture and heritage.
These stories are also linked to how Nimbin got its name. There are two meanings associated with the town's name. One is connected with the Bundjalung word for a camp, hut or house; the other is a Bundjalung word for 'little clever man who dwells in mountains or rocks'. Elders also tell the story of how the three geographical landmarks of Wollumbin, or Mount Warning, the Pinnacle and Mount Burrell form a sacred triangle that directly connects with Nimbin Rocks. Aboriginal people don't see sites of significance as separate. They are all connected to each other. Culture and environment are inextricably linked.
So, Deputy Speaker, not only are the Nimbin Rocks spectacularly physically beautiful; they have an important story to tell in Aboriginal Dreaming.
I thank the member for Page. The time for members' constituency statements has expired.
While I'm not a member of the social policy committee, I have some interest in the subject of this inquiry and I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak on it here today. I've been following for some time the work of committee members during the inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography. I take this opportunity to make a few comments on the report produced by the committee and to thank committee members for their work on this important issue.
The subject of this inquiry is indeed a serious and difficult one. It's something that I worry about as a father of young kids. What is growing up in world of ubiquitous online pornography going to do to their development as young men and women and to the way their attitudes towards the opposite sex—particularly men's attitudes towards women—evolve and to their ability to form healthy, respectful sexual relationships? It's a big worry for me, as I'm sure it is for all parents. I know that the primary responsibility for dealing with this rests with me as a parent—to have the conversations with my kids about what's out there and what they might be exposed to; about what is realistic and what is not; about what is respectful and what is not. I'm sure that all parents worry about these things and want to know that government is doing everything it can sensibly do to support them in their difficult parenting challenge.
This is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration from policymakers. Too often, when confronted with internet harms, people search for a silver bullet—a technology solution that will solve all our problems. It's rarely that simple. I'm pleased to see that this report doesn't seem to make that mistake. In this respect I note particularly paragraphs 3.146 to 3.148 of the report, which highlight the weaknesses, complexities and trade-offs inherent in technology based solutions to internet pornography and concludes by quoting the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation that an effective approach to minimising exposure to online pornography would involve 'a combination and layering of technological solutions.' The only thing that I would add to this is that these technological solutions also must be layered with social interventions, particularly active parenting and internet safety education.
I also want to support the persuasive additional comments made to the committee by Labor members. Labor members noted that in a 9 December 2019 blog, available on the website of the eSafety Commissioner, the eSafety Commissioner stated:
… eSafety has supported the implementation of age verification technology, as well as the legislative framework that would support it—subject to further research and review.
This is a theme that the eSafety Commissioner picked up in her submission to the inquiry, which noted:
Should the Australian Government wish to progress on developing and implementing age verification solutions or regulations, eSafety would advise that a review should be undertaken first …
The eSafety Commissioner has further stated:
Age verification is a nascent field, and if it is to be leveraged to protect children and young people from accessing online pornography, then we need to develop a supportive ecosystem, develop robust technical standards and requirements for this type of technology, and better understand the effectiveness and impact of age verification solutions in addressing this policy concern.
The submission stated:
As highlighted in the inquiry's terms of reference, it is also vital to identify and mitigate the risks associated with the use of age verification before it is rolled out.
This is an important point to make. As Labor members highlight in their additional comments:
… age verification requires further review, research and development in order to be implemented effectively as part of a multi-faceted and layered approach to online safety.
Labor members rightly noted the international experience and noted:
… after years of work and millions of pounds expended on its proposal to introduce age verification for online pornography, the UK Government announced that it will not be proceeding. This is a recent cautionary tale that demonstrates how complicated it is to get age verification right.
Given all this, I want to make Labor's position on this issue clear. Labor strongly supports the work to protect children and young people from the harmful effects of online pornography. We need to make sure that we are using all available measures to keep kids safe online. We also know that in other jurisdictions, like the UK, they have tried to implement age verification for online pornography but have not decided to proceed. Labor will look closely at what the eSafety Commissioner can come up with in their reviews of this issue to address this difficult but very important issue for all Australian families and parents.
I thank the member for Gellibrand for his contribution and his interest in that very important topic. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 11:18 to 15:59
I rise in the adjournment debate to speak of Ian Causley. He was a colleague of mine, and he got beaten by two votes for the deputy premiership of New South Wales. Ian started his adult life cutting cane in the heart of my electorate—in fact, where my office is at Innisfail. As a young man, he cut cane by hand. One of the great prides we had in our party in Queensland was that 13 of the cabinet had cut cane by hand as young men. We always loved using this against the Labor Party because none of them had ever worked with their hands.
I visited Ian at his house. He lived on the Clarence River, where his family had lived for, I'm told, 150 years, and I wouldn't doubt it. For a man of great wealth and great power, he just lived in a little fibrolite house—very humble—on the banks of the Clarence River, where his great-great-grandad lived. When I met Ian, I knew him by reputation of course. He was a third ranking minister in the New South Wales government, and I was a second ranking minister in the Queensland government, and we both came into this place around the same time.
Ian, I'm told, owned 600 acres of cane land in Western Australia in the Ord, and he was one of the biggest cane farmers in New South Wales. People think of Queensland for cane, but, if you drive from the Gold Coast to Murwillumbah—200 kilometres—most of the time you'll be driving through cane fields. Northern New South Wales is actually very big in sugar cane.
Ian was chairman of his mill. You've got to understand that farmers all fight and hate each other, so to become chairman of the cooperative mill, the farmers' mill, is a very, very big achievement—and to have been there as long as Ian had been, before he went into parliament. And, when he got out of the parliament, he went straight back into it again.
I don't wish to be negative and I shouldn't be negative, but all the same, my last real memory of Ian—we went out often to dinner of a night here. I should just say that before I met Ian, I checked out, and I was told that he had 600 acres, which is a very big cane farm, in Western Australia. He was one of the biggest cane growers in New South Wales. He owned two hotels. However you measure people, he was very, very successful and highly respected by his fellow cane farmers. He was made chairman of, I think, one of the two sugar mills in New South Wales—or it might have been two of the three.
Ian saw the world the same way that I did. We'd came out of the Country Party, we were much older than the average member here, and we were very much Country Party. The Country Party was founded by John McEwen. He called all the Victorian dairy farmers together for a huge meeting. There were hundreds and hundreds of people there. He was only 28 years of age, and he said: 'From now on all milk will be sold through the dairy cooperative'—Ian knew the story as well as I did; it was legend inside the Country Party—'it will be sold at this price and everyone will get a quota. That's the way it's going to be.' Three or four of them disagreed with him, so he said, 'We're going to halt the meeting, and I'm going to explain it properly to you out the back.' And he belt the living daylights out of all three of them. He came back in rubbing his fists, saying, 'Does anyone else want it explained to them?' From that day forward he was called 'Black Jack' McEwan, very deservedly.
When Black Jack retired from this place, every single rural industry had marketing arrangements which allowed us to have a very acceptable and, I might even say, prosperous living, whether it was the egg industry or the peanut industry or the maize industry or the fishing industry or the tobacco industry or the sugar industry or the wool industry—even the beef industry. Almost all of our experts at that stage went to the United Kingdom and Japan. America was a very important player. But both of those markets were done by an agreed upon price— (Extension of time granted)
I want, in conclusion, to say that Ian left this place soon after the deregulation of the dairy industry. In that infamous day, every single person in our party room screamed that we had to fight it and we had to die in the ditches over it. Well, nobody did. Ian left this place soon afterwards. He retired from parliament altogether. He had enormous difficulty living with it, and, of course, I resigned from the party of which I'd been the standard-bearer in Queensland for 20 years. If you said, 'National Party: say the first word that comes into your head,' they'd have said Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The second word they would have said would have been my name, and that was in poling et cetera. So the profound effect of moving away into a deregulated free marketplace was that. But Ian was a great warrior for us, and it was a great tragedy that he did not lead New South Wales as deputy premier, and a great tragedy that he did not lead here as our leader. I think history would have taken a much different turn if Ian had been there. He was a man who showed great judgement, was a very good Christian—very active in the Anglican Church was Ian—a very tough customer and a very funny bloke. He was great company, and I miss him greatly. He was one of my heroes.
I commend the member for Kennedy for his earthy and heartfelt remarks. Ian Causley was one of the select few who served in not one but two parliaments. Ian was the New South Wales parliamentary member for Clarence from 1984 until 1996 and then won the federal seat of Page and served there until 2007. While, unlike the member for Kennedy, I did not directly share time in parliament with Ian, I knew him well, not least through the vast National Party membership network. I recall his passionate contributions to debate on the floor of state conferences. I'm sure the member for Lyne can back me up there! At federal meetings as well, there was always a contribution with a genuine belief—a real purpose behind what he said. He said what he meant, and he meant what he said.
Ian Causley was also, importantly, a committed local member. The regions mattered to him. He knew his electorate from one end to the other, and, when the boundaries changed, he was out there quickly to introduce himself to his new constituency areas. He knew the people, but, more than knowing the constituency, he understood the constituency—their wants, their needs, their hopes and their aspirations.
The Causley name has long been synonymous with the Far North Coast of New South Wales. Ian was a renowned farmer, but he extended that experience and passion into the industry through directorships and local organisations. He led the Clarence River Cane Growers Association as president. He extended this contribution into the New South Wales Cane Growers Council, and this proved to be a lifelong commitment to the industry. Even after his long and successful service in two parliaments, Ian remained committed to his own industry, serving on the New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative board until 2017.
It was a natural progression of his commitment to people around him for Ian to stand for and win preselection for the state seat of Clarence. After four years of opposition, on election of the Greiner-Murray government in 1988, and later in the Fahey-Armstrong government, he served as Minister for Natural Resources from 1988 to 1990, Minister for Water Resources from 1990 to 1991, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries from 1993 to 1995 and Minister for Mines from 1993 to 1995. So we see a lifetime of experience in the primary industries translated into service for industries across the state and, indeed, the nation.
In federal parliament, he served as a respected Deputy Speaker for almost six years until 2007. There was respect that ran across the House of Representatives—across both sides of the parliament. I mentioned that Ian never forgot his personal base, and we can understand something of the effort in representing the best interests of canegrowers in New South Wales when 95 per cent of Australia's sugar cane came from north of the Tweed. On Ian's passing, Sunshine Sugar—which is a partnership between the grower owned New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative and the Australian family owned business Manildra Group—offered a tribute, which gives us a very real sense of his contribution and an insight into just what he was like:
The NSW sugar industry has lost a great warhorse, with the passing of Ian Causley.
Having been involved in agri-politics for more than 50 years, Ian was a strong leader and was Chairman of the NSW Sugar Milling Co-operative during some of its most turbulent times.
Indeed, they were turbulent times, but they were lucky to have a good leader in Ian to help see them through those turbulent times.
At this time, we mourn his passing with his family members: Craig Causley, Marcelle Turner, Derek Causley and Shane Causley. Ian lost his treasured wife, June, in 2013 after her courageous battle with cancer. He loved her so. The family has requested donations be made to prostate or breast cancer causes in lieu of flowers at this time. Despite June's passing, he did not withdraw. He continued to work in and serve his community, which is a great mark of the man.
Reporting on a function in 2006 to mark his 20-plus years of parliamentary service, the Lismore Echo published a wonderful, iconic photo of him as a strapping young canefarmer, complete with a canecutter in one hand, and a photo essay of his life. The photo was accompanied by a report on his achievements over that time span, and it was a very, very long report. Those achievements extended far and wide across community life, with Ian recalling how he enjoyed mucking in with local small stall holders at Sydney's Paddy's Markets, backing the little bloke—backing the little guy—against a push for redevelopment of their site into an office and residential block. Paddy's Markets stands today, proudly—in fact, not in one but in two locations, at Sydney's Haymarket and Flemington.
At the same time, in 2006, Ian pointed to the depth of commitment we have across Nationals branches—the wonderful people who comprise those branches for the common good. He was asked who should be his successor. His reply was, 'I don't anoint successors,' because, as he explained: 'History tells me it's the kiss of death if you anoint someone, and local branch members don't like someone forced upon them. They have to fight their own battles.' We think of Ian Causley's family and friends at this difficult time. We share their sorrow at his passing, but we also share their great pride and satisfaction from reflecting on his life so well lived—a life lived for others.
Life in my community has been rattled by the coronavirus pandemic. I know that's been the case around Australia and also very sharply in other parts of the world. As a local member, I've heard from people experiencing pretty much every aspect of the crisis—people caught overseas, being pushed out of work, having their surgery cancelled or having their business shut down; parents teaching kids at home; many of us unable to see older parents or celebrate milestones; and, sadly, some people getting sick and not surviving. Nothing I've seen in my life has swept through as suddenly, changing the way we live and not just resetting our horizon but making the horizon hard to see. Through all of that, I've been surrounded by people and organisations in my community that have risen to the challenge. I've seen good humour, resilience, selflessness and great generosity of spirit. It's been amazing but not surprising.
This health crisis moved quickly from being an item on the news to being the most widespread jolt in social, community and economic life in Australia since the end of World War II. In a matter of weeks, we went from bewilderment to real fear when the rate of infection was taking off. Mercifully, we flattened that trajectory, working together and taking dozens of changes in our stride—safety tape around all the playgrounds; hand sanitiser on all the benches; and toilet rolls on none of the shelves, at least for a while. Fremantle's Monument Hill at dawn on 25 April was cold and bare, but candles and poppies were in the driveways throughout the suburbs, and the Last Post played down our streets.
Like all of us, I'm grateful that we've managed the health aspect of the crisis so well so far. That is a credit to our system of government and to the conduct and decision-making of the national cabinet, the Prime Minister and the premiers, and certainly, in Western Australia, the leadership of Premier Mark McGowan and Deputy Premier and health minister Roger Cook. It's a credit to our health experts and to our health workforce. I want to acknowledge all the workers on the front line in aged care, in schools, in early childhood education, in transport and freight, and in chemists and supermarkets.
I want to make special mention of the cleaners in my community and across Australia. Cleaners work in all the places that I've mentioned—in our schools and hospitals, in community facilities and in workplaces. They were working before we started today, and they'll be there after many of us—those of us who are still working—have gone home. What they do is sometimes difficult. I think people would agree that cleaners are not respected enough and in many cases are not paid enough. One thing we know about this crisis is that it's an opportunity to reflect on the contribution of a lot of workers that don't get enough recognition. They are the essential workers and we would do well to remember that when we get through this, but there's a long way to go.
It's remarkable that we're now in a position to begin easing restrictions. We have to do so carefully and with discipline because, until there's an effective vaccine, we will remain at risk of a virus that's incredibly contagious and, as we know, is a killer. We've been in the survival phase. The recovery phase lies ahead and it will not be easy. It is risible to suggest that we will snap back. There is a greater risk for many businesses and households that what lies ahead is, in fact, a further snap—not just the prospect of a second wave of infections but the likelihood of successive waves of economic squeeze for businesses and for workers.
The wage subsidy that Labor always said was necessary was implemented by the government in the form of the JobKeeper package, but, as winter begins, it's turning out to be a small blanket with many holes. It's all very good to say that Australians have to get out from under the doona, but there are a lot of people who have never been under that doona so far. There's no support for hundreds of thousands of casuals, no support for local government and no support for many in the arts and creative industries.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:16 to 16:23
As I was saying, JobKeeper unfortunately doesn't provide support for hundreds of thousands of casuals and for workers in local government, and there's no support for many in the arts and creative sectors. I am especially mindful that arts and creative workers were among the first hit and hardest hit, and the horizon for them is still well and truly out of sight. It is equally difficult for people in tourism and universities.
All those sectors are strongly represented in my community, and all those sectors have been left more vulnerable to this crisis because they've been undersupported by the government in the past. We need a focus on welding together the imperative of job creation onto the outstanding areas of critical reform in this country. We need a job builder initiative more than anything, so that we can focus on areas like affordable and social housing, renewable energy, aged care, land management, biodiversity protection, waste recycling, and manufacturing. I look forward to working side by side with my community in the time ahead, looking out for one another and walking forward through this together.
I'm conscious that I haven't allowed the next government speaker much time to return from the chamber, so I propose to proceed to the member for Whitlam and then have two government members speak subsequent to that, if that's agreeable to everyone in the chamber. The member for Lyne might want to alert the member for Reid that she might be required sooner than thought.
I'm lucky and privileged to represent the wonderful people of the Illawarra and Southern Highlands in this parliament. I want to start by thanking them for their community spirit and their endurance during these very difficult times. I want to give a special thank you to our healthcare professionals—the nurses, the doctors and the hospital staff—who have endured so much in this difficult time. Also I want to give a shout-out to our teachers, our educators, who, either remotely or in classrooms, have been looking after our children, providing them with education through very difficult circumstances. Thank you to the businesses who are struggling to do the right thing by their customers and by their staff, whether they managed to stay open, whether they've had to reinvent themselves or whether they're thinking about and struggling with how they are going to persevere until the other end of this crisis. I also want to thank our local media outlets—I particularly want to reflect on the situation of our local commercial radio, television and newspapers, many of whom have seen their advertising revenue all but dry up because, as businesses face difficult circumstances, advertising is one of the first things that slows down—and the local ABC. Together our commercial and our publicly funded broadcasters have told the news and the stories that we need to hear. We thank them for that. I want to thank our local community, our unions, our business representatives, who have always been looking for solutions to local challenges.
Of course, the health challenges are paramount. We saw the very real impact of this early on in the crisis, where a relatively small wedding led to a significant cluster of COVID-19 cases in the north of the Illawarra. Forty-two of the guests at that wedding were diagnosed with COVID-19.
Whilst the health challenge has been massive, and we have a responsibility to maintain the social distancing arrangements, we also know the economic challenge is manifest. It is estimated that as many as 12½ thousand people could lose their jobs throughout the Illawarra and Southern Highlands as a result of this crisis. The areas that are going to be most hard hit will be in hospitality, in retail, in entertainment, in accommodation and in all of those services which by their nature require close human contact.
To prepare us and to assist us through this, we called for an increase to Newstart, and that has been agreed by the government, albeit on a temporary basis. We called for a wage subsidy, and we welcome the fact that JobKeeper has been introduced, albeit with some problems. I want to focus on a couple of problems with the JobKeeper program, which I call on the government to address. It has been welcomed by local workers and local businesses, but it strikes us as strange that, when so many people are out of work and so many are unable to get access to the JobKeeper program, other workers have experienced an increase in their income. This, simply put, is not fair. It could be better designed and it should be better designed.
I would also like to say something about the need for workers to do the right thing. At a time when so many within our community are volunteering their time to assist community organisations, to do their bit to ensure the community meets its needs, I think it's also important that, if we are providing from the government a JobKeeper allowance, workers do the right thing by their employers. If there is to be some redesign of this program, there must be some obligations to attend work, where it is safe to do so, and to contribute to the business where the business is doing its best to try and maintain an employment connection with those workers.
It's going to take more than good hope and more than slogans to ensure that we find our way out of this crisis economically. We've proposed some arrangements that need to be put in place. Further fiscal stimulus, further capital works programs, probably more small-scale capital works programs and diversified public works programs are what is needed, as is social housing, small local government infrastructure programs and programs which are going to enable us to pick up those workers who have been displaced from the services sector and find them redeployment in other areas. Local land care programs or pest eradication programs lend themselves exactly to this task.
I'd like to acknowledge the passing of the Hon. Ian Causley. Ian was the state member for Clarence from 1984 to 1996 and was indeed a distinguished minister in the state parliament. He then transferred to federal politics and became the member for Page from 1996 until he retired at the 2007 election. For much of the time that he was in federal parliament he was indeed the Deputy Speaker. So it was with great pride that in two of those things I've actually been able to follow Ian—as the member for Page and also, for a time, as the Deputy Speaker.
Ian was a very proud member of the Nationals. He was a very important figure within the party and also a very important figure in our community. Ian and his wonderful wife, June, who passed prior to Ian, were a great guide to Karen and me, especially when I was first elected. Ian and June did the job together, and, again, it was a great example for Karen and me in doing this job successfully. It is much easier when you do it together with your partner. They were both very passionate advocates for our region, and both Ian and June were active people. Ian obviously was a party member and associated with a lot of different groups and bodies within our community besides politics. He was the president of the Clarence River canegrowers association. He was a director of the Iluka Bowls Club, a director of the New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative and a member of New South Wales Cane Growers.
I will always remember something Ian told me very early on, when I started to become involved more actively in politics. He said that you didn't necessarily need people to always agree with you, because they never would, as long as they respected you and they knew where you were coming from. He was a larger-than-life character in many, many ways. I'll miss him, and I know many people around the community will miss him, but my thoughts are with his children and their families, including Craig and Amanda, and Marcelle and Scott. Marcelle was kind enough to come and see me. Ian went downhill quite quickly in the end. Marcelle and Scott came to see me one afternoon and said, 'Look, Ian has not got much time left. He's only got a few days left.' Indeed, he died that night. So very much thanks to Marcelle I was able to get a message to Ian before he passed. To Derek and Shane and Tracy, and also to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, Bryce, Sam, Amelia, Casey, Chloe, Renae, Dylan, Evie and Samuel: your father, your father-in-law and your grandfather was a greatly respected person in our community. May he rest in peace.
I'd like to acknowledge Dr More from Woolgoolga, who, sadly, has passed away. Dr More was obviously a doctor, but he was a longstanding leader in the Sikh community on the northern beaches of Coffs Harbour. He migrated to Woolgoolga with his family as a young boy. Despite having no English on arrival, his intellect and personable manner shone through. He was elected the school captain at the Woolgoolga central school and completed his high school studies at Coffs Harbour High School. He then qualified to study medicine at the University of Queensland. He returned to Woolgoolga immediately following completion of his medical internship to establish his own general practice.
He led Woolgoolga's bid to host the 1995 Australian Sikh Games, the first time the games were held outside a metropolitan area. It was significant, given the size of the town. Since then, Woolgoolga has hosted the Australian Sikh Games in 2003, 2009 and 2015. He recently led the 20-year fundraising effort and construction project to build the iconic temple on the site of Australia's Gurdwara building. His own father has also been involved, and I will never forget the smile on his face the day it opened.
He will be remembered as a loving husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle to Sarvjit, Ashley, Amandeep, Sasha, Gurjit, Shabnam, Inderjit, Amrita, Parminder, Disa, Jagtar and their families. May he rest in peace.
I don't think anyone in this chamber or around the country could ever have predicted what our country and indeed the globe has been through in the last few months. It's something that was impossible to predict. But I'd like acknowledge our frontline workers: our nurses, doctors, medical staff. As a country, we've made a great effort to flatten the curve, and the coronavirus, or COVID-19, has been so far so good, in the sense of its impact on us. But I'm also very conscious of the economic impact that this has had on our small businesses and on people's jobs and livelihoods. The public may rest assured that we will do everything to get this economy back and going.
I rise this afternoon to speak about the small businesses of Reid. The coronavirus pandemic has triggered a dual crisis—both a health crisis and a financial crisis—which has presented us with significant challenges to our economy in a period when our nation has already been vulnerable due to the drought and, of course, the bushfires. The effects have been felt by Australia's small and medium-sized businesses and the hardworking people that they employ. Australia entered the crisis in a relatively strong fiscal position. Our government took decisive action to protect people's livelihoods wherever possible. It is inevitable that there has been a significant increase in government debt as a result of this crisis. However, our government's $320 billion in economic support measures have been designed to protect the structural integrity of the budget and to encourage consumer and business confidence post pandemic.
My electorate of Reid has over 26,000 small to medium-sized businesses. Each suburb has its own unique hub and a small business community. Many are family owned and many are an extension of our diverse multicultural community. I have heard firsthand from many business owners and, having been a small business owner myself, I understand how crippling this financial crisis has been. Across Reid and our country, the Morrison government's $130 billion JobKeeper payment has allowed people to stay in jobs and businesses to keep running. In the absence of JobKeeper payments, it is estimated that unemployment would have peaked at around 15 per cent.
Many businesses have pursued incredible innovation and adaptation strategies in response to the pandemic. Reid's cafes and restaurants transitioned to pick-up and takeaway services. Some went a further step. Pane e Vino Trattoria in Croydon sold their homemade pasta sauces so they could get people creative in their kitchens at home. Many gyms and fitness trainers—for example, F45 at Burwood—started streaming their classes online for free, which helped people stay active and connected from home. Some of our sports clubs have adapted to the restrictions as well. For instance, Strathfield Golf Club and Five Dock Park Tennis Centre were able to arrange golf and tennis within the social distancing restrictions, with only two people participating at a time.
Unlike other businesses in Reid that have had to close their doors due to the coronavirus, our pharmacies have had to contend with a surge in demand, with patients attempting to stockpile medications and a spike in pandemic related health concerns. Still, I have seen our pharmacies place the needs of the community first and work incredibly hard during this pandemic. One pharmacy in my electorate of Reid—Wentworth Point's Priceline Pharmacy—provided free hand sanitiser to residents of Wentworth Point, Rhodes and Olympic Park over the age of 65. At the height of the panic buying we saw early on in the pandemic, Abbotsford Family Pharmacy were phoning their most vulnerable patients to make sure they could get their medication, coordinating with competing pharmacies and sharing stock to make sure that the residents of Reid were looked after. These are just two examples among hundreds in our electorate.
Last week the Prime Minister announced our three-step plan for a COVID-safe economy: the gradual re-opening of the economy in Reid and around Australia. From Friday in New South Wales, we begin to implement parts of step 1 of this plan. This does not mean we can become complacent. In order for this plan to take place, it is important that Australians continue to practise social distancing, and we encourage people to download the COVIDSafe app. We expect there to be outbreaks of the virus going forward, and therefore we need to be prepared and take every possible precaution.
We've always known that our small to medium-size businesses are the backbone of the economy, and certainly in Reid they are. They create jobs and employ people and are often at the heart of our communities. While the financial and social strain will be felt for some time, I am so proud of the resilience and solidarity I have witnessed in our small-business community in Reid. On the other side of the virus, our government will focus on economic growth. We'll encourage businesses to employ people and enable businesses to invest.
This is an opportunity for me to say thank you to the Jagajaga community. This has been a time of anxiety, uncertainty and, for too many, great hardship. Like many of us in this place during this time, I've been reaching out to my community via the phone, via social media and via emails to check in on how they're coping with our vastly different circumstances, and I have been so relieved and heartened by what I've heard and by the approach people are taking. People have been respectful of the public health advice and of the need for restrictions on our movements. They've been looking out for one another and reaching out to more vulnerable community members. People are buying groceries for those who can't go out. They're putting up rainbow signs and teddy bears in the windows to try to lift all of our spirits.
I particularly want to thank the Austin Hospital and the staff there, who have been on the frontline. Since day one of this crisis the Austin has reorganised itself to be able to run a COVID clinic, a hotline and, of course, treat COVID patients, and I have heard nothing but praise for all of its efforts. Its biggest fan is 94-year-old Maureen. Maureen was treated at the Austin for COVID-19 and she has successfully recovered. After she was discharged from hospital, her son contacted me to make sure I knew just how grateful she was to everyone at the Austin and to us and to make sure her appreciation was recorded in the parliament. So, Maureen, good on you for what is clearly a strong fighting spirit and constitution, and please know that your thanks have been recorded.
Of course, it's not just the Austin. Jagajaga is home to a strong medical precinct, and the work the Austin has done has been supported by our other hospitals: the Repat, the ONJ cancer centre, the Mercy and Warringal Private Hospital. Each one of these have done their part to ensure their patients have been well supported and our health system is ready to deal with this crisis, and I thank them all. Our community health centres, Banyule Community Health and healthAbility, have continued their work providing frontline services to some of the most vulnerable people, who have needed them more than ever. Thank you. Banyule Support & Information Centre in the mall in West Heidelberg has been an essential support. Also in the mall, Himilo have continued their essential work supporting our Somali community.
One of our local footy teams, the North Heidelberg Bulldogs, have been out and about delivering groceries to older people who have been isolated without other support.
These are just some of the examples of the way our community has pulled together and shown kindness, compassion and strength in what is an incredibly difficult time, and I'm certainly not the first to observe that this crisis has shown us how the people on our front line have been undervalued by our society. The people working in aged and disability care have continued their work supporting their clients, often with uncertainty about new procedures and anxiety about their access to PPE. Our supermarket workers have dealt with shortages on the shelves, fights over toilet paper, product limits and anxious and, unfortunately, sometimes rude customers. Our childcare workers, who can't physically distance themselves from our babies and our toddlers, have continued to provide love, care and support. I've said in this place before that they deserve a pay rise and I say it again.
There are the teachers in our kindergartens and in our schools. I had the pleasure last week to talk directly with a number of our principals and check in on how their schools have been going with remote learning. I was really pleased to hear from all of them that they had adapted well, that they were doing a mix of online learning and that, as well as that, teachers and the school community were continuing to reach out to parents to check in on how they're going with a totally new situation. Parents, you have done a great job. Your kids probably won't tell you this, but you are heroes.
Our community has rallied around local businesses. Our cafes and restaurants have reorganised themselves. I know that, for many people, that takeaway coffee, sandwich or curry that they've got in the middle of the day has provided a welcome respite from what has otherwise been a difficult time at home. Of course, we're not done yet. We need to rebuild. We need to keep safe. We need to continue to look out for one another and respect the need for ongoing social distancing. I say to my community: I will be here for you as we continue this work. I know that we will get through this time if we continue to pull together.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the wonderful people in the Goldstein electorate, who, like all other Australians, have endured the difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic. I particularly acknowledge the resilience of many families and workers who have done the right thing by themselves and their community to keep us safe during a difficult time. I know a number of other members have expressed their heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the nurses and the doctors in their community. We have many of those. Many are based at the Sandringham Hospital, our local community hospital, and at the local private hospitals as well as at the nearby hospitals that are doing COVID-19 testing, including Monash and The Alfred. Each day, those people go to work not knowing the circumstances they're going to face. Our nurses and doctors care for and support people and make sure there is proper testing so that we can constrain the outbreak of this virus. Of course, they are not the only caring health workers who are providing an important service to our community at this time. We have many people in aged care who are doing exactly the same thing for people who are vulnerable and need assistance and support. We say thanks to them as well.
To the many people who are working in small business and to the employers who are supporting workers at this difficult time: we know how difficult it is. Yes, the federal government has provided the JobKeeper program to assist those people and businesses that need assistance, but let's not kid ourselves and think that it has solved all problems. It hasn't. We have people who face challenges around rents, keeping payrolls going and managing their finances and their debt, particularly when they're can't open. And there are the people working in the supermarket sector and all of the retail businesses, who make sure we have a fresh food supply. One of the most important things throughout this crisis is that we remain healthy and happy and maintain our mental health. Maintaining a good diet is an important part of that process.
To the teachers—as you know, Deputy Speaker, my husband is a teacher, so he's been Zoom-teaching from our kitchen table, as have many other teachers—all the work that you're doing in supporting children's ongoing education so they can go on and not have a disrupted life from this pandemic is critical. Yes, many people have had to learn to do different things and they've had to learn to be flexible in a circumstance that they weren't necessarily trained for. We're greatly appreciative of their efforts in doing the right thing by the next generation so that they can go on and prosper and succeed.
There are a lot of community based organisations that have also shown their mettle and how important they are to the social fabric of our community. To the Glen Eira and Bayside support services, we thank you so much for everything that you have done. Of course, there are many days when I walk down the shopping strips of our community and the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic becomes obvious. Walk down Centre Road in Bentley, Hampton Street in Hampton, Martin, Bay and Church Streets in Brighton and of course the Sandy Village and Beaumaris Concourse, amongst many others, and you'll see how difficult and challenging life can be when people are faced with isolation and difficulty.
Many people are also facing the challenge of isolation in their own homes. I know people are getting frustrated, and part of the challenge is finding the balance in making sure we get the measures right and making sure that you understand the rationale for the measures that our states and the Commonwealth are taking to ensure we put healthcare needs first. That is not going to be an easy task now and it's not going to be an easy task going forward. It requires patience and resilience. So if you need support and assistance, don't be afraid to reach out. Make sure you build a sense of social connectedness with others. Use it as an opportunity to exercise, to maintain your physical and mental health, and make sure you connect with your loved ones, because they're an important part of surviving this pandemic too.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It's good to be here with you and with that champion of free speech over there, the member for Goldstein. Of course, the government didn't want this sitting, did they. They cancelled the parliament until August, but even they realised that, with school going back and rugby going back, they couldn't get away with not having the parliament come back. But these three days are a sham. This chamber here sat for zero hours yesterday. The government has cut the number of hours for debate. We're lucky to get two today. If we have a really good day out we might get three hours to debate things tomorrow.
We're in the middle of the biggest crisis for decades—the biggest, fastest economic collapse that this country has ever seen. The national parliament gathers, but the government won't even allow a debate on the economy. They won't allow a debate in this chamber on the Treasurer's vacuous, content-free, slogan-ridden 'economic statement' yesterday. If you're lucky you might get 90 seconds. That's what our citizens expect, is it? We come here for 90 seconds of fatuous nonsense! God forbid a real debate here.
You have five minutes.
Yes, I've got five minutes. I got five minutes. I got told about this about an hour ago.
Democracy is not a tick-a-box system. It's not something where you fill out a form and set-and-forget every three years. It requires real, informed debate in communities, in the media, in councils, in states and also here in the national parliament. It's important, if you believe in democracy—these free speech champions over there in the government—that you actually let alternative debates be aired. Why won't the government refer their own Economic Statement here so we can talk about it—have every member of parliament come in and put their words on the record about what they think about the future of the economy and the country and be held to account for their words and have a chance to raise the issues in our community, like the queues of people who can't get any food vouchers because the government's emergency relief programs don't work in my community? We should be allowed to come in here and talk about that—every member, not just those lucky enough to land a couple of minute slots.
The conservatives claim to be champions of free speech. You've seen them out there railing against communist China, beating their chests: the member for Canning, the zealot-in-chief of the government; the populist buffoon, the member for Dawson, the 'member for Manila'—they're no better. They shut down and dodge debate. There's no sitting calendar. There's no commitment we're going to be back here any time before August. They cut back the sitting hours. And they're too scared to let people debate their own economic statement.
I was talking to one of my colleagues, the Manager of Opposition Business, and I said: 'Are they that scared of what we've got to say?' And he said: 'No,' in his wise voice, 'they're scared of what their own backbenchers will get up and say if they're allowed a free debate, given what you hear coming out of their party room.' The Liberal Party is divided. The conservative wing doesn't agree with doubling jobseeker, do they? They spent the last 6½ years in government making people live in poverty on $40 a day, but even the Liberal Party realised it wasn't going to cut it to let a million middle-class Australians turn up to Centrelink, find it had all been outsourced and discover the reality of life on $40 a day. Even they weren't stupid enough to think they'd get away with that! The conservatives are horrified at JobKeeper. We had the member for Mackellar saying it just needs to snap back—we just need to get rid of it, shove everyone back on the dole queue and then cut that back in half. They might've called out the rorts in JobKeeper or called out the rorts in the superannuation program. They might've discovered that the member for Hughes is now a socialist and thinks JobKeeper should go everywhere—that's unexpected.
I'm worried we might hear the old lines about 'debt and deficit'. We haven't heard them for a while, have we! It was lovely turning up to question time without these idiotic lectures about debt and deficit. Given you've had seven years in government, have doubled the debt and now are on the way to doubling it again, we're not going to hear much about that anymore, are we? We might have heard about company tax cuts—the old trickle-down economics. They're going to get that one out again. That's really going to get the economy going—sending a whole bunch of foreign dividends overseas!
We should be allowed to debate your economic statement. Government members should be in here, allowed to debate the economic statement. It was utterly content-free. It's not often I find myself agreeing with Adam Creighton—the member for Goldstein's former housemate, I heard!—but in The Australianhe said the speech was a political not an economic document. And then the Commonwealth Bank economist said:
The standout feature of the Treasurer's economic statement was that it contained no new information.
It was all key messages and missed opportunities.
Overall, the response of course is a huge victory for Labor. We called for the wage subsidy. One hundred and sixty thousand Australians went onto the unemployed queue in the time it took you to put the wage subsidy in place. That's a debate for another day.
There's an insane glee over there at the collapse in revenue in the higher education sector and the looming cuts to research. Government members—including you two opposite, who, I know, believe in this stuff: you should be up here arguing for money to go into research, not silenced, reading out your nonsense dot points. We should be able to have a debate about the economy in reasoned terms and have every member come in here and state their views.
A number of years ago, because one of my sons was studying it at school, I read Tomorrow, When the War Began by John Marsden. It's a story which is set in Australia and it's about a teenager, Ellie Linton, and a group of her friends who, after a week spent camping in a place they call hell, come back and find that their whole town, their whole life, has been changed: Australia has been invaded and their town decimated, and the group of teenagers need to find their own way to survive. Spoiler alert here: through their resilience, through their innovation and through their collaboration, they, or the majority of them, do survive.
It's a fantastic novel and series, and there are themes within it which really strike a chord with what we've all been through and continue to go through here in Australia throughout the COVID pandemic. The teenagers drive each other crazy. I think that—driving each other crazy—probably resonates with all of us who've been sharing our houses with our loved ones more lately than we have done for a long time. But they also realise that being together and working together, despite all of its challenges, is far better than being alone.
Like many places in Australia, in my home town we started this whole pandemic with hoarding: there were the toilet paper wars; then it moved on to rice and pasta, to no hand sanitiser in the shops, to key medications for diseases like asthma and lupus disappearing from the shelves. There was fear. There was anger. There was disbelief. There were concerns, passionately held and passionately voiced, that we were doing too little—and then that we were doing too much. Then there was a subtle change, and it was reflective of us as a nation. We simply got on with it and got on with our lives.
The creation of the national cabinet led the way, in some minds—as in the way I look back on it—as a turning point. In my electorate of Curtin, there was an early meeting between me, three of the state MPs and eight mayors and CEOs of the local councils. We had a meeting and we agreed to work together. It operated out of my office, and we set up what we called the Curtin community care initiative, giving people the opportunity to volunteer to help others, and, for those who needed help, to reach out to us to find out what sort of help they could get.
Our local newspaper, the Subiaco Post, stepped up and helped promote our endeavours, and I particularly thank Bret Christian and David Cohen for jumping on board at the beginning. Over 500 volunteers signed up to volunteer, happily and willingly, to do grocery shopping, welfare calls and low-level maintenance and gardening for other people. UWA stepped up, to answer our calls for help to find hand sanitiser; they made and gave to us vast quantities of hand sanitiser for us to deliver to people in self isolation who were vulnerable. I particularly call out Professor O'Donnell, dean of the Faculty of Science at UWA, and Greg Cozens, technical manager—they were incredible, and I thank them very much. Our local IGA stepped up—and I must mention Steve from the IGA at Swanbourne, who was the first person to get on board with helping people to actually order food online or by telephone, so that it could be delivered to them through one of our volunteers.
Our local cafes and restaurants immediately innovated. They had to shut down and they were devastated. But they managed to innovate and change their operations so that they could do takeaway meals and deliver coffees. I want to give a particular shout out to thank Glen at Deli Chicchi, who was one of the first operators near my house who actually went to free home delivery, and also the Cambridge corner shop in Wembley.
Many of our businesses have been struck very hard, and there is no doubt that the path is going to be very, very difficult for some time ahead. But, to all who have been creative and innovative, and are just hanging in there, all I can say is thank you. You are absolutely and incredibly inspirational. It's awesome to see what you do. Like everybody else, we in Curtin have many frontline workers. To all of them: thank you for everything you have done—quietly and patiently you've just gone about your jobs.
There can be no denying that it is tough for everyone, but for some it is tougher than for others. I particularly feel for all of those who have had to farewell loved ones, without a proper funeral, and for people in aged care who haven't been able to hug their grandchildren.
I want to finish by quoting Ellie from the book.
We've all had to rewrite the scripts of our lives the last few weeks. We've learnt a lot and we've had to figure out what's important, what matters—what really matters. It's been quite a time.
Order! The adjournment debate was due to conclude at five clock, but, unless there's an objection, I propose to allow the final two speakers to give their remarks. There being no objection, I call the member for Blaxland.
We're all stuck in them, most of us can't wait to get out of them, and we need a hell of a lot more of them. I'm talking about housing. One of the many things we have learnt over the last few weeks is the importance of housing—safe and affordable housing. We often think of our homes as our castle. In the last few months, they've been our fortress. They have helped to keep us safe and have protected so many of us. That's why a couple of weeks ago I called on the national cabinet to establish an eviction moratorium, a freeze on evictions, to make sure that people weren't thrown out onto the street in the middle of a pandemic. It's the sort of thing that was done in the UK and in New Zealand and I'm pleased to say that the Prime Minister and the premiers agreed do it. The states have now legislated or are in the process of legislating to put it in place. I sincerely believe it is going to help to save lives. It is going to help to keep a lot of people safe.
Just as housing has been important for keeping us safe in the middle of this pandemic, I think it can play a very big and important role in helping us in the economic recovery that we now embark upon. Housing was a big part of the recovery after World War II, with Curtin and Chifley building more homes. It was a big part of getting us out of the teeth of the global financial crisis—building more homes, keeping tradies working and getting the economy back on its feet. It's something we need to think about again here too.
The housing industry has been warning us for weeks that work is fast running out and new orders have fallen off a cliff. They're not my words; they're the words of the Master Builders Association. They're saying that work is fast running out and new orders have fallen off a cliff. It makes sense if you think about it, because, when the pandemic hits and you lose your job or you lose hours, and you see all those terrible pictures on the television, the last thing you think about is making a massive investment—the biggest investment in your life—by purchasing a new home. So, people have stopped making those investments and now, three, four, or five months after they would have made those investments, concrete isn't being poured in the places around the country where new houses should have been being built.
What the Master Builders Association is saying is that, instead of 160,000 homes being built this year, it now could be as low as 100,000. If that happens, that means a lot of tradies and a lot of small businesses in the housing game are out of work or out of business. This is not a small industry. Almost one million people work in building homes for other Aussies, from carpenters, to electricians, to plumbers, to all of the businesses that produce the products: the bricks, the tiles, the plasterboard and the timber. If the industry collapses, if the industry is not building as many homes, you've then got a lot of people out of work in the months ahead. That's why in question time today I asked the Minister for Housing if the government is developing a plan to make sure this doesn't happen—to make sure that these people don't end up on the dole queue. All we got was cricket—very little evidence that the government is developing a plan to stop this. The minister read out a list of the things the government has done, things we support, like establishing NHFIC and the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. He talked about JobKeeper, but remember that JobKeeper ends around September. These tradies will be running out of work over the next few months. They're going to be out of work around the same time that JobKeeper ends. Nothing he listed there is going to turn around that drop in houses built from 160,000 to 100,000.
The government needs to get its head out of the sand here. If no action is taken, we are going to have tradies lose their jobs in all of our electorates all around the country. That's why this week the opposition talked of two of the things we could do. We can invest in building more social housing and repairing existing social housing and bring forward some of the things that are already in state budgets. State governments are already doing some of this, but we can do more. We have done it before and it works. It keeps tradies working and it repairs the sort of housing that needs repairing. Here's another idea: we could build more affordable rental accommodation for frontline workers. If we've learnt one thing out of this crisis, it is just how important nurses, cleaners, bus drivers and supermarket workers are. They don't get paid a lot and don't get to work from home. They often travel long distances to get to work. There's some projects around the country where they are building homes for these sorts of heroes—affordable accommodation closer to work. State governments and super funds are doing it and we could do a lot more of it. We've got to do something here or we'll have a lot of tradies on the dole queue. I urge the government to think again and take action to keep these tradies working.
I rise to speak on an issue that many constituents in my electorate of Higgins have raised concerns about with me—that is, the early years. I rise to speak on it because I have many mothers in my electorate, as I'm sure all the members in this parliament do. They are a group who sometimes can get lost in the melee that is our healthcare system and in the response to our crisis that is the COVID pandemic. We know that Australians are incredibly resourceful and that we are an incredibly resilient country. I'm very proud of what the federal government has done in response to the health crisis that is the COVID crisis. One of the most important things we've done is to roll out telehealth. This has been incredibly important because it has allowed medical practitioners and allied health practitioners to provide services that have not been face to face. This has been good because it is an innovation we've been able to use right across Australia for rural and remote healthcare provision. But now, with the COVID pandemic, the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, has rolled it out for all healthcare interactions. This is something we as Australians should feel very proud of. It is something I believe we can lead internationally with. In fact, we could in theory become the healthcare providers, from a knowledge point of view, for the Asia-Pacific area.
What I want to address is an issue which is clearly in deficit when we look at the provision of services for child and maternal health. The child and maternal health services in the state of Victoria are provided by the state government and by local government. What I'm hearing from my local constituents is the fact that these services are not being provided in the short term. I understand the concerns that local services have around providing face-to-face services, but it is very important that new mothers are given the opportunity to have the support of peer-to-peer networks. In the state of Victoria, child and maternal health services routinely provide peer-to-peer new mother groups, which are incredibly important in those very important first weeks of life.
I'm very pleased to tell you that there is a new and innovative company called Mama You've Got This. Two young mothers, who live locally—in fact, they live in the seat of Macnamara—approached me. They are doing a fantastic job of setting up Zoom meetings for young mothers. They have 450 mothers participating across the whole of Australia. It's an innovative solution to a problem that has occurred very quickly. Mums right across Australia have been in this virtual mothers group. The mothers have been able to share stories, share the ups and downs of being a new mother and work out some solutions together, because there's nothing like more than one mind making a problem a lighter load but also coming up with great solutions. More recently, Mama You've Got This started to offer free and live question-and-answer sessions with experts through Instagram Live. You'll be interested to know that one of the paediatricians that they have as their live experts is none other than Dr Lexi Frydenberg, who is also a local constituent but, more importantly, is the sister of the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg. Lexi has been a wonderful expert who has helped the mothers with expert advice using Zoom. That is a great creative way to make sure that these mums are getting what they need.
But what I am concerned about is that it seems—and we're now hearing this through the group—that the two-week baby check is not happening across Australia. That's something I'm very concerned about, being both a trained paediatrician and a mother of four. The two-week baby check has to be face-to-face because it has a very important component. Child and maternal health nurses in Victoria go to the parents themselves and they weigh the babies. Sometimes babies have more than 10 per cent body weight loss in the first two weeks of life. When that happens, it can be a red flag that the child has an underlying problem or that they need to seek support and advice.
We know that, during the COVID crisis, in the last two months there have been up to 50,000 births across Australia, and this two-week check is clearly not being delivered in a uniform and standard way. I'm very concerned about this for young mums, particularly first-time mothers. I call on the state governments to review these processes, because as a federal member I'm hearing this from my constituents, and the group that I just talked about is also hearing it from the people who are participating in their Zoom meetings. I call on the state governments across Australia to make sure they think about this carefully. This is a vulnerable group of people. Young mums are very prone to postnatal depression. They're dealing with the struggles of a COVID pandemic and have fears of going to see health services. We need to reach out and wrap them in services and support.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:11