I have a question for you, Mr Speaker, on the administration of the House. Last night, the House considered and passed the Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020. The Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the member for Tangney, summed up the bill. The issue is that the minister summed up the wrong bill. The minister actually gave a speech pertaining to a different bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Administration Bill) 2020, which the House passed last sitting week. I took a point of order at the time, to genuinely assist the minister, and pointed out that he may wish to check to see if he was speaking on the wrong bill. He proceeded nevertheless.
Mr Speaker, as you'd be aware, this is the second time this has occurred in recent weeks. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction summed up the wrong bill a few weeks ago. I accept that genuine mistakes do happen, but it is now a repeated occurrence. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that it is an insult to the House if ministers can't read the speech on the right bill.
I have two questions for you, Sir, as presiding officer and guardian of the privileges of the House. Firstly, what avenues are available to the assistant minister to correct the record? A summing-up speech by a minister is an important thing, and the House should reflect that ministers have spoken on the wrong bill. Secondly, what steps can we take as a House to insist that ministers speak on the right bill in the future?
In answer to your first question, all ministers and assistant ministers are able to table documents or seek indulgence; they don't need leave, so that's fairly straightforward. On the second question, I think the straightforward answer, in terms of the operation of the House, is nothing. I'm just being very blunt. My point is that ministers represent each other, ministers give summing-up speeches and mistakes happen. If I heard you correctly, I think your question was what could I do to guarantee that this didn't happen. There's nothing I can do. It's not my role to be checking speeches before they're given.
I understand entirely, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for your response. For your information, as presiding officer, I have here the two speeches presented by ministers, with the same words highlighted. It was, word for word, exactly the same speech on an entirely different bill before the House.
I thank the member for McMahon.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This government is committed to ensuring that the industrial relations framework continues to adapt and change to meet the needs of businesses and workers alike.
This year, more than ever. has highlighted the need for flexibility for workers and employers—and the organisations that represent them.
This bill will give greater flexibility to constituent parts, such as branches and divisions, of amalgamated registered organisations by providing them with an opportunity to withdraw from an amalgamation if that will better serve them and their members.
This bill will amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to address a current restriction in the act—which only provides a constituent part of an amalgamated organisation with a three-year window to withdraw from the amalgamated organisation—more than two years, but no later than five years, after amalgamation.
That outer time limit of five years restricts the ability of registered organisations to adapt to, and align their governance structure with, the changing needs of members.
There are various circumstances that might give rise to a constituent part of an amalgamated organisation forming the view that the amalgamation is no longer serving the best interests of its members.
For example, where one part of the organisation has a record of not complying with the law and this causes reputational damage for the amalgamated organisation, another part may seek to dissociate itself from those activities.
In other circumstances, parts of an amalgamated organisation may have outgrown the need for amalgamation, having developed sufficiently to operate independently, efficiently and effectively. In these cases, withdrawal from amalgamation may be highly desirable.
Under the current law, beyond the five-year time limit for withdrawal an organisation must take the extreme step of seeking deregistration of the entire amalgamated organisation, which may not even be achievable. This process would be costly and time-consuming and could leave members without representation while the organisation is deregistered and new organisations registered.
Even where deregistration is possible, the new organisation must seek registration in its own right and is not able to transfer members or assets from the previous amalgamated organisation, adding to the cost and delay.
The bill remedies the shortcomings of the existing framework by improving the existing process under the act to allow constituent parts of amalgamated organisations to apply to withdraw from amalgamation beyond the five-year time limit. The amendments will allow the constituent part—which could be a branch, division or part—to apply to the Fair Work Commission to hold a ballot of its members on whether to withdraw from the amalgamation in certain specified circumstances.
The commission must have regard to specified factors before approving an application for a ballot of members to vote on withdrawal from amalgamation outside the existing three-year period. These are:
Where the commission determines that the organisation has a record of noncompliance with workplace or safety laws but the constituent part has not contributed to that record, the commission must accept the application.
A clear shortcoming of the current law means that even if the performance or actions of one part of an amalgamated organisation fall beneath proper, lawful standards, and even if other members of the organisation who do the right thing do not believe it is in their best interests to remain part of the organisation, they are not able to leave, even where the majority of its members wish to.
Within the union movement, there are clear examples where the poor conduct of one part of a union is impeding the ability of other law-abiding divisions of the union to work effectively in the interests of their members. Now constituent parts who have been amalgamated beyond the current five-year limit will have the freedom to break away and better serve the interests of their members.
The bill also provides that, where a part successfully withdraws from the amalgamation, the membership of that part will become members of the newly registered organisation. This ensures that the new registered organisation can maintain its membership and assets and its members can continue to be represented by their newly registered organisation. The bill also sets out a process for how the rules of the amalgamated organisation and newly registered organisation are to be accommodated under the new arrangement.
The bill makes no changes to the requirements for the members of registered organisations and their constituent parts to vote and agree to amalgamation or withdrawal from amalgamation.
To ensure that the legislation is working effectively, the bill requires a review of the operation of the amendments within two years of their commencement.
These are sensible changes that support registered organisations to function effectively and in the best interests of their members.
I commend the bill to the House.
Is leave granted to continue the debate?
No.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of the debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour.
The ordinary course under the standing orders is that when a bill's introduced it's then considered on a later day, at a later sitting, and there are very sensible reasons for that. It allows people who have to vote on the bill time to read the bill and then consider the bill—and potentially hear from others who are going to be affected by the bill about what their views are—and then form a considered view, hear the debate and vote. We got this bill about five minutes ago. Copies were laid on the table at 9.35 am—so, seven minutes ago. There's not been time for anyone in this chamber to read the bill. Perhaps the government's provided secret copies of the bill to others; I don't know. But there's not been time for anyone in this chamber to read the bill.
The bill has significant implications. As I understand from the minister's speech and from a quick read of the bill, it applies across the board to all unions in this country and therefore all the members of those unions and makes some changes to a well-understood system of industrial relations and how unions go about their affairs. It may be that the bill is ultimately unobjectionable. It may be that this bill, once people get to see it, has widespread support. But I just don't know. As a matter of process, I don't think anyone in this chamber, especially members of the crossbench, who may not be privy to getting secret drafts of the bill—and I don't know whether that's happened or not, but the minister can enlighten us—should be forced to vote on a bill that we see for five minutes. That is not good process.
I accept that there are situations in which there is a need for urgency and where a bill might have to pass—for example, in the last couple of days of the year we need to get something done because there's some urgency. The minister had the opportunity in his second reading speech or in his speech moving this motion to explain that there was a need for urgency, and the minister gave no suggestion that there's any urgency for this whatsoever. In the context of not even one argument being put about urgency for this bill, and given that the bill has significant implications for the functioning of industrial relations in this country, the ordinary course should be followed. I see no reason—and the minister's put no reason—for the ordinary course to be followed, which is that you introduce a bill, the debate gets adjourned so that people have a chance to read the bill and then you have considered debate and vote on it.
We find ourselves in this situation quite often, where it's the last couple of days of the sitting year and a bill is lobbed and forced through and people don't have a chance to read it. I think that process should be resisted. So, as a matter of principle, I do not support further consideration going on today. Again, the bill may ultimately be unobjectionable—who knows? But we should have a chance to read it. From what I understand, from looking at the daily program, the government wants a vote on this bill within the next half an hour or so.
That's not a good way to make laws, to give people five minutes' notice and then have less than 20 minutes or so debate on a bill. To then vote on it without even having had the chance to read it, that is not the way this House should function. I think in fact it's treating this House with contempt. I ask nothing more than, if there's urgency, for the minister to explain what the urgency is and, in the absence of hearing that urgency, I ask that the normal process be followed and that the bill consideration be deferred. It would still allow the government to pass the bill, but it would allow people time to read it before we have to vote on it.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House, which is a contingent motion, be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.
I will start by acknowledging, because it was raised, that the opposition was provided a draft of the bill over the course of the weekend. There were objections to the bill that we raised. For transparency, it's important to make the point that we were provided with a copy of the bill to consider over the course of the weekend. There were some specific parts of it to which we took objection, and the bill that has been introduced today by the minister does not contain the sections that we objected to. So I want to acknowledge the cooperation of the minister and his office. This is certainly, from our perspective—and I respect the different views of the crossbench—a much more constructive way of working than has often occurred.
The bill before us represents a commonsense technical amendment to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009—specifically the provisions in the act that deal with withdrawal from amalgamation. Currently the act allows a constituent part of an amalgamated union to withdraw from the remainder of the union. It's a democratic process involving a ballot of the members of that part of the union that would be seeking to withdraw from the amalgamation. The problem with the provisions as they currently exist is that they only provide a window of between two and five years after an amalgamation in which a vote of that kind can take place. It's a narrow window that doesn't contemplate the possibility that the desire for a demerger and the reasons for a demerger may arise after that five-year window.
So the bill creates an exemption to the time limitation via a new appropriateness test in section 94A of the bill. That provision allows the Fair Work Commission to grant an application for a withdrawal ballot if certain conditions are met. These conditions in the bill that has been presented to us are narrower than what had been presented to us over the weekend, and it's with that in mind that Labor is in a position to support the bill presented by the minister. The new section, subsection 94A(2), explains that the conditions are:
It will require the applicant to file its plans for withdrawal, which include the rules of the amalgamated union and proposed new union, the names of the respective organisations post withdrawal, and the allocation of the assets and liabilities between the amalgamated organisation and the newly registered organisation. The rules set out must avoid any overlap in coverage between the demerged entities.
It's important to note that there are many unions which have had amalgamations but have not retained the sorts of divisions that would satisfy the definition here of 'constituent part'. Where an amalgamation has taken place and there are no longer separate constituent parts within the union, then the capacity that's provided here would not arise. But where divisions have continued to run as quite independent bodies, as is the case in a small number of amalgamated unions, then this will be possible, but only possible if the test of unlawfulness, as I described before, is met. With these points in mind, Labor is in a position to support the legislation.
I want to make some points about the process for this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020 and then some points about the substance of the bill to the extent that we can get across the substance of the bill in the less than half an hour that we've had to have a look at it.
On the process: I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House defers further consideration of the bill until the first sitting of 2021, and:
(1) notes the bill is being introduced and debated on the same day;
(2) further notes there is no urgent reason for the bill to be introduced and debated on the same day; and
(3) recognises the bill may have implications for all unions and Australian workers and should not be rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny".
We're in the extraordinary situation where we're being asked to debate and vote on a bill that we haven't had time to read. I say to the government that you don't end up with good laws when you rush them through parliament and you force members in this place to vote on something they haven't had a chance to read. The minister and the government have had ample opportunity to explain whether there's an urgency behind this which means that people should be forced into a position to vote on it without having read it, and we've heard nothing. We've heard nothing from the minister or from the opposition, which supports the bill, about why we have to deal with this today.
The ordinary course would be for a bill to be introduced and then debated later, at a different sitting, so that people had the chance to read it and then consider it and vote on it. That's not happening here and so that's why I'm moving this second reading amendment. It would still, basically, have it come back in two sitting days—not tomorrow but the next sitting day after that—so there's no undue delay that I'm proposing here. I'm just proposing to have the opportunity to read the bill, which I don't think should be objectionable, to then consider how we're ultimately going to vote on it.
There will be people, I hope, who might have different views about the final bill—whether it's supportable or not—who would nonetheless all agree that everyone should have a chance to read it before we're forced to vote on it. Again, I'd invite the minister to explain why copies of the bill have not been provided to every member with more than 20 minutes notice. We've had less than half an hour's notice to be required to vote on this, and there's been no reason coming forward for that.
On the substance of the bill and the time that we've had: if the bill is forced to a vote today in the context where we haven't had the chance to read the bill, where the minister has declined the same courtesy to all members of the House that he's given to some by showing us a copy of the bill prior to it being tabled, with enough time to read it, then we're not in a position to support it. We can't vote for legislation that we haven't had a chance to read. One way the minister could increase support, potentially—if he wanted to—would be to give people additional time. But it is terrible process to ask members of this place to vote on something they haven't read! That should not become established process in this place. I repeat: if the minister is going to force a vote today then we're going to be forced to oppose it because we haven't had a chance to read it. I don't think that's an unreasonable position for people to take.
On the substance of it: before I came to this place I spent many years practising in this field—the laws that relate to workers and unions. It's a complicated area, especially when it comes to laws about how unions are structured. This is where there's potentially a lot at stake, because we're talking about assets that unions would own, the rights of members and how they're regulated, and that has implications across the board. One thing that I think I can say with a degree of certainty is that you don't want to make a mistake in laws that you pass about this because it can then result in litigation—unnecessary or unforeseen litigation. That's why we have the usual inquiry processes in this place. As well as the capacity to read a bill and to get people's views, we have the Senate inquiry process where, usually, the Senate is able to look over bills.
It may end up that the bill ultimately gets passed, but that it gets passed in a better form because people have had a chance to look through it and to see whether there are any unintended consequences. And in a circumstance where we're dealing with a field where there is a lot at stake and there is the potential for litigation if laws are wrong, we should not be rushing legislation through. We should be allowing the usual process of this parliament to be followed.
I repeat the point that's made in the motion: this may affect a number of unions. This may affect a number of unions that haven't been the subject of newspaper articles and drops from the minister but who have nothing to do with any of that, but across the board there may be unions that previously merged several years ago, into one union, who now will wonder whether this bill affects them. I just want the opportunity to hear from people across the board about whether they think this is going to affect them.
It may well be there's nothing objectionable in this. It may well be that there are no problems with this and it does have widespread support. I just don't know. We've heard some voices, already, raise concerns about the bill. Again, I presume they haven't seen it but they've raised concerns about it. That's why the usual process should be allowed to be followed. Given the potential widespread implications, I commend my second reading amendment to the House and note that it will do nothing more than give us one clear sitting day to read the bill and go and get people's views about this bill.
I thank the member for Melbourne. Is the amendment seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
For COVID reasons, we would be calling no and the other side would be calling—
The words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are now fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Katter voting no.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill establishes a mandatory code to address the bargaining power imbalances that exist between digital platforms and Australian news media businesses. It represents a major reform—an historic reform—a world first, where the eyes of the world will be on what is occurring here in Australia.
Public interest journalism plays an important role in our society. It is critical to the functioning of our democracy. This role can only be fulfilled by a strong, diverse and sustainable Australian news media sector.
This bill responds to the key findings of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) digital platforms inquiry.
The ACCC conducted a detailed world-leading inquiry over almost 18 months and set out a series of recommendations in response to the substantial market power that has arisen through the growth of digital platforms, their impact on competition in media and advertising markets and their implications for news media businesses, advertisers and consumers.
The ACCC found that digital platforms have become unavoidable trading partners of news media businesses, providing them with substantial bargaining power.
The problem is not unique to Australia, and we recognise that similar findings are emerging overseas.
Since commissioning the ACCC review in December 2017, the Morrison government has undertaken an extensive policy development process that has been going for almost three years and which has included public consultation on a position paper and exposure draft legislation.
As the Prime Minister has said, the laws of the digital world should reflect as far as possible the laws of the physical world.
We are not seeking to protect traditional media companies from the rigour of competition or, indeed, technological disruption, which we know benefit consumers.
Rather, we are seeking to create a level playing field where market power is not misused and there is appropriate compensation for the production of original news content.
To that end, this bill will establish a new world-leading code of conduct for news media businesses and digital platforms.
The code ensures that digital platforms share the benefit they obtain from using Australian sourced news content with the news media businesses who create that content.
The Treasurer will be able to determine that a digital platform is subject to the code, having regard to ACCC and Treasury advice about whether a substantial bargaining power imbalance exists.
ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, would assess the eligibility of Australian news media businesses to participate in the code against criteria set out in the code.
The framework contained in the bill recognises that agreements can be entered into outside of the code. Indeed, they are encouraged to be entered into outside of the code. Where a news media business reaches an agreement with a digital platform, it can agree to not bargain or pursue compulsory arbitration under the code.
If a news media business cannot reach an acceptable agreement with a digital platform outside of the code, it will have the option to trigger aspects of the code to address the bargaining power imbalance. This includes minimum standard obligations that digital platforms must meet for all news media businesses registered under the code, requirements for good faith bargaining over remuneration and the application of final offer arbitration if bargaining between the parties does not succeed.
Should arbitration be required, both parties must each submit a final remuneration offer. Arbiters are then required to:
In assessing the offers made by each party, arbiters must consider the outcome that would have arisen if commercial negotiations had taken place in circumstances where the digital platform did not have a bargaining power imbalance.
The code also contains provisions to limit, as far as practicable, digital platforms' ability to avoid the code and to take retaliatory action against news media businesses for participating in the code. This includes through provisions that prohibit digital platforms from differentiating between Australian news media businesses covered by the code.
Penalties will apply to breaches of the key provisions of the code.
The ACCC will be responsible for enforcing the code and will be able to issue infringement notices with smaller fines for minor code breaches.
The code will be reviewed by Treasury after one year of operation to test the effectiveness of its operation.
The News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code is a world-leading initiative. It is designed to level the playing field and to ensure a sustainable and viable Australian media landscape. It's a key part of the government's strategy to ensure that the Australian economy is able to take full advantage of the benefits of digital technology, supported by appropriate regulation to protect key elements of Australian society. One such key element is a strong and sustainable Australian news media landscape.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
COVID-19 has caused a health crisis in Australia that has triggered an economic crisis. At the height of the pandemic, 1.3 million people lost their jobs or were stood down on zero hours. The government is committed to putting Australia on the road to economic recovery and prosperity.
Australians have shown tremendous spirit and resilience during these testing times. But we are at a critical point in our recovery. As we navigate our way out of this COVID-19 induced economic crisis, it will be our ability to solve complex problems, working in partnership, that will drive us forward, create jobs and get Australians back to work. There is no room for policy stalemates.
That is why the government brought together unions, employer groups and experts through the industrial relations working group process—with one simple goal, that being to create jobs.
I am very pleased today to be introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill to help Australia's recovery from COVID-19 by supporting productivity, jobs and economic growth. These reforms address known problems in the industrial relations system and will be crucial to securing Australia's economic recovery and safeguarding the workplace for future generations.
This bill is not ideologically based; rather, it is founded on a series of practical, incremental solutions to key issues that are known barriers to creating jobs.
They are balanced and pragmatic and seek to create a fair and efficient industrial relations framework for all Australians. I'll turn to the various schedules in the bill in turn.
Casuals and fixed terms
The first is with respect to casuals and fixed term employees. It is clear that the current state of the law in relation to casual employment has caused widespread mistakes and confusion for employers and employees, which, with the associated consequences and costs, gives rise to the genuine need for legislation to adjust the rights, claims and obligations of these employers and employees.
The statutory definition introduced in this bill incorporates key aspects of the common law as expressed in recent court decisions such as Skene and Rossato, particularly the absence of a firm advance commitment to ongoing work defining casual work. This ensures casual jobs are genuinely casual. The nature of the employment, whether casual or ongoing, will be determined at the outset, as opposed to relying on periodic assessments of the relationship as it develops over time. This will provide much-needed certainty to business, who currently have a significant potential liability hanging over their heads and are being disincentivised to hire new employees.
The bill also introduces a new entitlement to be included under the National Employment Standards, or NES, for eligible regular casual employees to convert to full-time or part-time employment—if they choose to do so. The new NES entitlement introduces a positive obligation on employers to offer conversion. As a NES entitlement, it will form part of the statutory safety net that cannot be traded away.
Clearly employees should be characterised appropriately and receive the entitlements reflecting that characterisation at law. However, the absence of a clear and certain statutory definition has led to the potential for employers to have to pay for the same entitlements twice. In order to address this, the bill introduces a statutory offset mechanism so that employers will not have to pay twice for the same entitlements.
Without this suite of casuals amendments, costly and time-intensive court processes would be needed to determine the appropriate rights and obligations of employees and employers in every individual case, imposing significant burdens. Together, these measures relating to casual employment form a package of reforms to address those issues.
Award s implification
With respect to award simplification, it is the case presently that award complexity is a significant issue for many businesses, especially small businesses. Time that businesses spend navigating the overly complex awards system—and its often convoluted processes—is time that businesses don't spend growing or creating jobs. It is critical that in the industries hit hard by COVID-19, namely the hospitality and retail industries, the government works to make it as simple as possible for business to regrow jobs.
Combined with non-legislative measures, including investment in regulatory technology solutions and award variations to be determined by the Fair Work Commission, this bill adapts specific elements of our successful COVID-19 JobKeeper flexibilities for employers and employees covered by 12 identified awards in distressed industries for a further two years. These flexibilities, which have already helped to save thousands of jobs during the pandemic, will allow employers and employees to continue to work together regarding their duties and work location to navigate the challenges of working in a post-COVID world.
Importantly, the bill also legislates increased access to part-time flexibility across the same 12 awards, allowing part-time employers and employees to work together so an employee can take on additional hours when it suits them. This vital flexibility—a genuine two-way flexibility—will be subject to strong safeguards and is expected to ensure more employees have more opportunity to work more hours in a permanent form of employment.
Agreement-making
With regard to agreement-making, if there is one aspect of the current industrial relations system for which the problems are most acute it is the enterprise bargaining system.
Recent trends show that enterprise bargaining has experienced a significant decline since 2010—there are fewer employees covered by enterprise agreements and few new enterprise agreements being made. Over the last 10 years, the number of current enterprise agreements between employers and employees has been steadily declining: from 25,150 at 31 December 2010 to 10,711 at 30 June 2020, a fall of 57½ per cent.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this has translated to the proportion of employees being covered by enterprise agreements decreasing from its historical peak of 43 ½ per cent in 2010 to 37.9 per cent in 2018, with a corresponding increase in the direct reliance on modern awards.
This bill aims to increase the number of Australians covered by enterprise agreements—and the productivity and wage benefits they can entail—by making agreement-making and approval processes easier and faster for employers and employees, while ensuring a better balance between flexibility and fairness.
The bill will reduce the level of prescription currently imposed by the Fair Work Act and provide greater flexibility as to the methods by which employees may be provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to consider whether to approve an enterprise agreement prior to the vote. The Fair Work Commission will be required to listen to the views of the bargaining parties in the approval process, and the intervention by other persons before the Fair Work Commission will be limited.
The bill also places greater emphasis on the importance of cooperative working relationships and places stricter requirements on the Fair Work Commission to listen to the views of the employer and employees on the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT). In applying the BOOT the Fair Work Commission will be required to consider the patterns or kinds of work that employees currently perform or could reasonably be foreseen to perform. To provide greater flexibility for businesses and employees in the COVID recovery period amendments will also permit, in limited circumstances, the Fair Work Commission to approve an agreement which may not otherwise pass the BOOT but they must take into account the views and circumstances of the employees, employers and employer organisations covered by the agreement and the impact of COVID-19 on the business and the extent of employee support for the agreement and whether approval is in the public interest. This is a time-limited measure, building on existing exemptions intended to support Australian jobs and businesses impacted by the pandemic. Greenfields agreements
The construction of major projects in Australia contributes significantly to jobs and economic growth around Australia. The risk of agreements nominally expiring during construction of a major project has contributed to uncertainty, including over unexpected delays and protracted negotiations. This uncertainty can impact investment and job creation, both of which will be key in coming years as part of our economic recovery.
The bill will double the maximum nominal expiry date for greenfields agreements made in relation to the construction of major projects, from four years to up to eight years. The bill requires longer-term greenfields agreements to include annual wage increases for employees over the nominal life of the agreement.
This will support Australia's economic recovery by attracting investment and driving job growth.
Compliance and e nforcement
When it comes to compliance and enforcement, the amendments in the bill are designed to do three things: help businesses comply with the law, enable employees to recover any underpayments faster where they do occur, and ensure that the maximum penalties for noncompliance are proportionate and a meaningful deterrence from the full spectrum of wrongdoing.
The government is committed to supporting businesses, including small businesses, understand their workplace obligations, improve compliance and identify and resolve any issues early.
That is why, as part of our industrial relations reform package, we are providing $12.9 million to establish an Employer Advisory Service in the Fair Work Ombudsman, commencing from 1 July 2021, that will offer employers authoritative, written advice tailored to their individual circumstances. The service will provide small businesses with greater certainty about how to apply award and agreement provisions, reducing the likelihood of wage underpayments occurring in the first place.
Additionally, the bill will require the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Building and Construction Commission to publish information about when they will commence and defer commencing litigation for underpayment matters. This will give employers certainty and the confidence to proactively identify, self-disclose and rectify underpayments quickly.
The bill will allow more underpaid employees to get repaid faster. With the confidence to rely on public policies issued by the regulators, which specify when they will commence and defer litigation for underpayments breaches, businesses will be encouraged to self-identify and self-report underpayment breaches. The bill will also make it easier and faster for employees to recover unpaid wages by increasing the small claims cap from $20,000 to $50,000; courts will also be able to refer small claims matters to the Fair Work Commission for conciliation; and parties can consent to arbitration by the Fair Work Commission if conciliation is unsuccessful.
To respond to exploitation and better deter noncompliance, the bill introduces a new criminal offence for dishonestly engaging in systematic wage underpayments, and increases the value and scope of civil penalties and orders that can be imposed for noncompliance. Courts will be able to impose adverse publicity orders on businesses that underpay, and directors convicted of the criminal offence will be disqualified.
The bill also provides further protection to employees by prohibiting businesses publishing job advertisements with pay rates below the minimum wage, and increases the penalty for sham contracting used by employers to avoid paying full entitlements.
These amendments will help businesses comply with the law, promote fair competition by ensuring that businesses who are non-compliant do not gain unfair advantage, and protect employees from exploitation.
Improvements to Fair Work Commission processes
The bill also includes amendments that will enable the Fair Work Commission to deal with certain matters more efficiently and expeditiously than is currently permitted under the act.
The bill will give the commission appropriate powers to be able to deal with vexatious applications more effectively, modelled on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's powers to deal with vexatious applications.
The bill will also confer greater discretion on the commission to decide to deal with an appeal 'on the papers' when it considers a hearing to be unnecessary.
These amendments support the Fair Work Act's requirement that the commission perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just, quick, informal, open, transparent and avoids unnecessary technicalities.
Conclusion
COVID has challenged many aspects of Australian life and this bill delivers on the government's commitment to put Australia on the road to economic recovery. This bill removes barriers that stifle the job growth of today and limits the job creation of tomorrow—if we want Australians to have access to the prosperous jobs they aspire to we must remove these barriers today. That is what this bill does. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is committed to strong accountability frameworks, and nowhere is this more important than with our agencies that perform intelligence functions.
These functions are critical to keeping our country safe from those that would seek to do us harm. The necessarily clandestine nature of this work demands robust oversight. Strong and effective oversight provides the parliament and the Australian community with confidence that agencies with intelligence functions are using those functions lawfully, appropriately and for their intended purpose.
The intelligence enterprise that supports Australia's national security is no longer limited to the six Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) agencies, these being the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, and the Office of National Intelligence.
Increasingly, the intelligence capacities of other agencies contribute to protecting Australia's national security. In recent years, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), the Australian Federal Police, and the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) have been brought together with the Australian Intelligence Community to form the National Intelligence Community (NIC).
As we make changes to how our agencies work together to keep Australians safe, we must also, necessarily, change the way in which we oversight, and the oversight arrangements, to ensure that they remain robust and fit for purpose without creating unnecessary duplication.
The bill
In this bill, the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020 (the Integrity Measures Bill) implements the government's decision to extend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's (IGIS) jurisdiction to the intelligence functions of ACIC and AUSTRAC. The bill will also extend the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's (PJCIS) jurisdiction to intelligence functions of AUSTRAC. The bill amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (IGIS Act) and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (IS Act) to implement these decisions, along with additional amendments to ensure that the legislation governing the IGIS remains fit for purpose.
The bill's expansion of IGIS's jurisdiction is consistent with the recommendations of the recent comprehensive review of intelligence legislation by Mr Dennis Richardson AC, which was released on 4 December 2020.
The review recommended that the IGIS not have oversight of the Australian Federal Police or the Department of Home Affairs. This was based on observations that, while some overlap between oversight bodies is useful to ensure full coverage, duplication should be minimised to avoid unnecessary burdens. It found that existing oversight mechanisms were sufficient for the intelligence functions of these two agencies, but that a stronger case existed for IGIS's specialised intelligence oversight to be extended to ACIC and AUSTRAC's intelligence functions, which are more central to their activities as Australia's national criminal intelligence and financial intelligence units respectively.
While the bill will not extend IGIS's oversight over the AFP's intelligence functions generally, it would ensure IGIS retains oversight of the AFP's (and ACIC's) use of network activity warrants, should the Security Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, which was introduced last week, pass the parliament.
The bill also makes consequential amendments to 17 other acts, and contains contingent amendments that arise as a consequence of other bills before the parliament that are yet to be passed but make related amendments.
The bill complements steps the government has already taken to bolster the capacity of the IGIS to provide effective oversight, including providing an additional $52 million over four years to the IGIS, to allow it to better respond to the increasingly complex intelligence environment.
Extending IGIS's jurisdiction
The first objective of the bill is to extend the IGIS's jurisdiction to include the intelligence functions of the ACIC and AUSTRAC. The IGIS, as the body currently overseeing all Australian Intelligence Community agencies, has the requisite expertise, independence and investigative functions for effective intelligence oversight.
Of the NIC agencies, the intelligence functions of the ACIC and AUSTRAC are more substantial and more closely aligned with the traditional AIC agency activities. The ACIC works with state and territory, national, and international partners to collect intelligence to improve the national ability to respond to crime impacting Australia. AUSTRAC is responsible for detecting, deterring and disrupting criminal abuse of the financial system to protect the community from serious and organised crime.
Accordingly, these intelligence functions would benefit from specialised intelligence oversight. This tailored approach makes the greatest use of our oversight resources and will complement existing arrangements without duplication.
The IGIS's oversight of the intelligence functions of AUSTRAC and the ACIC would be limited to 'the collection, correlation, analysis, production and dissemination of intelligence' for the purposes of performing particular functions. This definition draws, in turn, upon the definition of 'agency with an intelligence role or function' from the Office of National Intelligence Act, which created the National Intelligence Community. Using this definition ensures a clear connection between what constitutes a modern intelligence agency, and the oversight that is appropriate for those same agencies. The definition reflects that the ACIC and AUSTRAC have both intelligence and non-intelligence functions, and that it is not necessary for the IGIS to oversee all aspects of these agencies, particularly where other forms of oversight and review are effective.
The bill does not change the oversight jurisdiction of any oversight body outside of the IGIS and the PJCIS. Functions of the ACIC and AUSTRAC that are not intelligence functions will continue to be subject to existing forms of oversight and review.
To ensure that this does not result in inefficient duplication, the bill will introduce amendments to ensure that the IGIS is able to share information and transfer complaints, subject to appropriate safeguards, with other Commonwealth integrity bodies including the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Information Commissioner, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The ability to share information and transfer complaints will strengthen the oversight framework and better support complainants.
Information obtained by IGIS officials in their roles is protected to a very high degree, recognising the sensitivity of this information. The bill will amend the IGIS Act, as well as the Crimes Act 1914 and Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, to support this protection, by ensuring that information that would otherwise be subject to secrecy offences may be disclosed to IGIS officials performing duties or functions, or exercising powers, as IGIS officials. This supports the IGIS's oversight functions by ensuring the IGIS has full access to information.
The bill would also make a range of additional amendments to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (IGIS Act) to ensure that the legislation governing the IGIS remains fit for purpose. This includes technical amendments to improve clarity, modernise drafting expressions and remove redundant provisions, as well as amendments to address certain limitations in the IGIS's oversight functions and powers in order to improve flexibility and strengthen the integrity of inquiry processes.
Expanding PJCIS's jurisdiction
The second objective of the bill is to extend the PJCIS's oversight to the intelligence functions of AUSTRAC by amending the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (IS Act).
The PJCIS is currently empowered by the IS Act to review the administration and expenditure of the AIC agencies as well as review matters referred to the committee by the responsible minister or by a resolution of either house of the parliament. The IS Act limits the inquiry powers of the committee by providing that the intelligence gathering and assessment priorities and operational information of the AIC agencies are excluded from the review process.
The bill proposes to extend the PJCIS's oversight powers to AUSTRAC. Following commencement of the bill, the PJCIS will be able to apply the same review functions it currently possesses to this additional agency, including monitoring and reporting to parliament on any matter relating to the agencies' performance of their intelligence functions.
Similar to the IGIS, the PJCIS's additional oversight functions should not duplicate existing oversight mechanisms, and therefore the bill does not propose to include the AFP, ACIC and the Department of Home Affairs in the PJCIS's expanded oversight powers. This approach is appropriate because the AFP and ACIC are already subject to oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, and the Department of Home Affairs regularly appears before the PJCIS and the legal and constitutional affairs committee.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the bill will expand the jurisdiction of the IGIS to incorporate the intelligence functions of the ACIC and AUSTRAC, and the jurisdiction of the PJCIS to incorporate the intelligence functions of AUSTRAC.
The bill represents a measured and appropriate approach to strengthening oversight over the National Intelligence Community. Intelligence functions require a specialised form of oversight, to ensure that the agencies performing them are acting appropriately and in accordance with the legislative frameworks governing their use. Robust oversight gives parliament and the Australian people assurance that intelligence functions are being used for their intended purpose—keeping the community safe.
These measures underscore the government's commitment to effective, efficient and robust oversight.
To ensure the parliament is fully informed about this important bill, the government will immediately write to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to ask that it examine and provide a report on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
I am pleased to introduce this bill which will create the Data Availability and Transparency Act, appropriately abbreviated to DATA.
This bill establishes a new data sharing scheme for federal government data, underpinned by strong safeguards to mitigate risks and simplified processes to make it easier to manage data sharing requests.
2020 has shown us how critical this piece of legislation is.
We started the year in the middle of one of the most disastrous bushfire seasons in recent memory, with thousands of Australians needing access to government services to support them through this difficult time.
Australians continue to face the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has cost them their jobs and their livelihoods, and they are turning to their government for help.
Government data and digital services have been fundamental to the government's response to these events.
Data allowed Australians to receive timely and reliable services in a time of need.
Data allowed Australians to access government services online instead of queuing at Centrelink shopfronts.
It was data that informed the development of essential programs like the JobKeeper payment, so that we could provide relief to Australians who have lost their jobs during this pandemic.
The government's vision is that Australians experience the same seamless approach to government services every day, not just in times of crisis.
Federal government data sharing has the potential to make this vision a reality, but, unfortunately, layers of old, contradictory rules and slow, inconsistent ways of sharing data is stifling this potential.
We're working in a tangled data sharing system, and this bill is, frankly, designed to straighten it out.
Legislative outcomes
Let me be clear, the bill is not about publishing data on a website or releasing data without control.
This bill is about creating a scheme that will provide controlled access to data to trusted people and organisations.
This is why the bill establishes an independent regulator, the National Data Commissioner, who will oversee the scheme and hold all participants accountable to a robust standard of security and transparency.
The scheme will authorise sharing of government data for three permitted purposes, all in line with community expectations:
Decisions to share will be made by the 'data custodian', the federal government agency responsible for the data.
Only users accredited by the National Data Commissioner will be able to request and access data through the scheme. The National Data Commissioner must accredit all non-corporate Commonwealth agencies as users, as they are subject to the Privacy Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. The minister may also direct the commissioner to accredit other Commonwealth bodies, like the National Disability Insurance Agency, if they meet the accreditation criteria. The minister may direct the commissioner to suspend or cancel the accreditation of public service users.
The commissioner may also accredit data service providers, who may be other government agencies or commercial providers, to support data custodians and users to share data.
The accreditation process will ensure that users and service providers have the right skills and resources to handle data safely and securely before they enter the scheme.
The bill includes a risk management framework, the data sharing principles, based on the internationally recognised Five Safes framework.
The principles provide a tool to assess the benefits and manage the strategic, privacy, security, ethical and operational risks of sharing.
If a data custodian accepts a data sharing request, the sharing arrangement must be formalised in a data sharing agreement with the accredited user.
This agreement will set the terms and conditions of a data sharing project, laying out how benefits will be realised and how risks will be mitigated.
The National Data Commissioner must publish data sharing agreements on a public register to ensure transparency and accountability and promote trust in government data handling.
A National Data Advisory Council, made up of some of the best minds in data, privacy and regulatory practice, will advise the National Data Commissioner on ethical data use and technical issues.
All of these components come together to form a principles-based data sharing scheme, which will ensure the bill remains relevant and adaptable to evolving technology and changing community expectations.
Specific powers will be given to the minister to make rules, while the National Data Commissioner will issue data codes, binding codes of practice that detail how to apply the legal provisions.
By introducing this bill and the Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill today, we are acting on commitments made by the government in its response to the 2017 Productivity Commission inquiry into data availability and use.
This inquiry highlighted the value of data-driven government services for Australians, and this bill lays the groundwork for us to realise these benefits and establish world-class connected, government services.
Benefits
This bill will streamline and modernise data sharing across the Australian government to support better service delivery, policies and programs and research.
Data sharing will support us to develop simpler government services akin to myTax and Single Touch Payroll, saving Australians time by pre-filling forms with information already provided to government.
Data sharing will support us to take a 'tell us once' approach to service delivery, so that Australian people and businesses would be able to receive tailored information, advice and services without having to waste time giving the same data to different agencies again and again.
Data sharing will break down silos between agencies and, combined with myGov enhancements, simplify existing services to give Australians faster, easier access to government support.
Data sharing will also support us to develop more tailored and targeted government policies.
For example, controlled data sharing between government agencies led to the development of methods that resulted in fairer allocation of government funding to non-government schools.
Data sharing will also support the Commonwealth and state and territory governments to work together on nationally significant policies and programs, such as the National Disability Data Asset, which aims to improve outcomes for people with disability, their families and carers.
Data sharing will give researchers the opportunity to collaborate with federal government agencies to solve problems and save lives, like when prescription data was shared safely with health researchers who identified five medications as potential contributors to heart failure and stroke.
These insights enabled the government to work with doctors to change prescription guidelines, minimise adverse effects, enhance patient safety and avoid the costs of hospitalisation and treatment.
This bill will help us realise these benefits through safe and secure data sharing in line with community expectations.
Safeguards
The bill is the product of extensive collaboration and consultation with federal government agencies, state and territory governments, researchers and academics, data and privacy advocates, and members of the community.
Over two years of consultation we:
The feedback from our consultation has been essential to building this bill on strong foundations.
This bill has been developed using a 'privacy-by-design' approach, which means that privacy and transparency have been considered at every stage of the legislative development process.
This is why we commissioned two independent privacy impact assessments of this bill that have told us that our safeguards are robust and our layers of defence are strong.
The bill's approach to consent mirrors the approach in the Privacy Act, requiring consent be sought for the sharing of personal information, unless unreasonable or impracticable.
The bill also includes other privacy-enhancing measures, such as data minimisation.
Importantly, the bill will work with new regulations to exclude sharing of particularly sensitive data, such as the electoral roll, My Health Record and COVIDSafe app data.
The National Data Commissioner will champion these safeguards and cooperate with other regulators, such as the Australian Information Commissioner, to ensure personal information is handled appropriately under the scheme.
Conclusion
I would like to give my sincere thanks for the active and ongoing engagement from stakeholders and the community who have played an essential role in the development of this bill over a number of years.
As we proceed to debate this bill, we are taking a significant step towards a different future. A future where policy decisions are enriched by strong data and government services are simple, helpful, respectful and transparent for the benefit of all Australians.
More Australians than ever require government support to get back on their feet as they recover from COVID-19 and other recent national emergencies.
This bill will support the government to respond to this need, and deliver tailored, targeted, and timely government services to people and businesses every day, not just in times of crisis. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, I am introducing the Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill. This bill operates in conjunction with the Data Availability and Transparency Bill (the principal bill) and amends relevant Commonwealth legislation to ensure the principal bill operates as intended.
The principal bill establishes a data sharing scheme to facilitate and regulate sharing of Commonwealth government data. The principal bill authorises Commonwealth bodies to share (provide controlled access to) government data with accredited users for specific purposes in the public interest, with safeguards in place to mitigate risk. The principal bill also creates a National Data Commissioner to regulate the scheme and support best practice, including accrediting users and data service providers.
This bill makes consequential amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) 1977 to support the operation of the principal bill and to control for security risks. These amendments allow ASIO to provide advice in relation to accreditation decisions under the principal bill, and to limit the notice and review processes for foreign entities in relation to security assessments. Foreign entities may still seek judicial review under the Judiciary Act 1903 and the Constitution. Review rights of Australian entities are unaffected by this bill.
To facilitate regulatory cooperation, the National Data Commissioner may transfer matters or complaints to other entities, including the Australian Information Commissioner. Accordingly, this bill amends section 50 of the Privacy Act to allow the Australia Information Commissioner to transfer complaints and related information to the National Data Commissioner where appropriate.
This bill also amends section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to preserve protections for data shared under the principal bill. The principal bill creates a controlled scheme for sharing, where data unsuitable for open release may be safely accessed by appropriate persons for purposes in the public interest. Allowing open access to this data under the FOI Act could undermine the scheme's protections and uptake.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020 continues to fulfil the government's commitment to implement the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
Schedule 1 to the bill will implement recommendation 2.1 by enhancing the framework governing the provision of financial advice to clients under ongoing fee arrangements to address Commissioner Hayne's concerns about fees for no service conduct. Under the legislation:
Schedule 2 to the bill implements recommendation 2.2 by introducing a new disclosure obligation to ensure that financial advisers who are not 'independent' in relation to the provision of personal advice, are required to provide their clients with a clear and concise written disclaimer that outlines that they are not independent and explains the reasons why.
Schedule 3 to the bill implements recommendations 3.2 and 3.3 by prohibiting the deduction of ongoing advice fees from MySuper products and increasing the transparency of fees to members.
Collectively, these reforms represent a critical component of restoring trust and confidence in Australia's financial system.
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 amends the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to support the timely flow of credit to the Australian economy and introduce additional protections for consumers accessing high-cost credit.
The importance of credit to households and businesses makes timely access to credit vital to Australia's ongoing economic success, particularly as the economy recovers from the COVID-19 crisis.
To improve the flow of credit to the economy, the bill amends the act so the existing responsible lending obligations apply only to small amount credit contracts and consumer leases.
This bill will replace the prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach that has evolved in relation to the interpretation of responsible lending and provide flexibility for lenders to assess each applicant for credit on a case-by-case basis. However, this flexibility will not diminish the consumer protections in place and, for some products, enhances these protections.
The bill provides the minister with the power to determine new lending standards. The new regime will apply to non-bank lenders, as banks will continue to be regulated by APRA.
The new lending standards for non-bank lenders will align with the APRA standards as well. They will ensure lenders have sound credit assessment and approval processes to assess consumers' capacity to repay debts without substantial hardship.
The new framework will allow all lenders to streamline and improve their credit assessment processes and rely on information provided by consumers unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the information is unreliable.
These changes maintain strong consumer protections. Lenders that fail to comply with the credit assessment processes they have put in place will breach their standards, giving borrowers access to AFCA for free dispute resolution and restitution.
Protections are being increased on services offered by credit assistance providers, with the bill expanding the best interests obligations—which are already scheduled to be applied to mortgage brokers from 1 January 2021—to other credit assistance providers. This will ensure credit assistance providers act in consumers' best interests and place consumers' interests before their own.
The bill also improves consumer outcomes through the introduction of new obligations for providers of small amount credit contracts and consumer leases.
While these products can be useful for consumers in certain circumstances, repeat borrowing can lead to debt spirals where repayments consume a greater portion of income, becoming increasingly unaffordable.
To limit the harm that has been associated with these products, schedules 2 to 6 of the bill limit the fees that small amount credit contract and consumer lease providers can charge. Specifically, the bill prohibits small amount credit contract providers charging monthly fees that are incurred after a small amount credit contract is discharged and requires the small amount credit contract to have equal repayments and equal repayment intervals. Importantly the bill also introduces a cap on costs for consumer leases, bringing the regulation of consumer leases into line with other credit products regulated under the act.
The bill also requires small amount credit contracts and consumer leases to comply with regulations that will limit the proportion of income consumers can devote to these products. In particular, the regulations will prohibit small amount credit contracts and consumer lease providers from providing a SACC or lease that would result in:
These 'protected earnings amounts' will maintain access to credit while ensuring enhanced protection for the most vulnerable consumers. Unsolicited SACC invitations to current and former customers, as well as door-to-door selling of consumer leases, are also prohibited under the new regime.
To ensure the benefits of the government's reforms flow through to the economy as quickly as possible, changes to the responsible lending obligations will commence 1 March 2021.
The SACC and consumer lease reforms and the extension of the best interests obligations will commence six months following royal assent. However, the bill's anti-avoidance provisions will commence immediately to ensure firms do not opportunistically restructure their business to avoid the government's reforms.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020.
This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Actto remove a potential impediment to the Australian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to the importation and supply of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia; to support continued access to prescription medicines during a serious scarcity of such medicines in Australia; to improve access to therapeutic goods for Australians; and to enhance patient safety.
In particular, the bill allows pharmacists to substitute a medicine for which there is a serious scarcity with a suitable alternative medicine, to avoid the risk of disruption to treatment for Australians that may be caused by a medicine shortage and the major impact that can have on patient health. Pharmacists will be able to substitute medicines without prior authority from a prescriber, but only where it is safe and appropriate to do so.
The bill supports patient safety by allowing regulations to establish a unique device identification database for medical devices in Australia. This will improve monitoring and traceability of devices supplied in Australia and enable quicker responses to safety issues and device defects.
The bill strengthens the capacity to scrutinise emerging trends in the supply of dangerous and counterfeit therapeutic goods by allowing departmental officers to obtain and possess goods to find out if the Therapeutic Goods Act is being complied with, without contravening state or territory laws that prohibit such obtaining and possession except in specified circumstances.
The bill supports human health and Australia's compliance with international agreements relating to therapeutic goods. The bill has the effect of enabling regulations to prohibit the import, export, manufacture and supply of products that are prohibited under international agreements to which the Australian government is a party.
It may not be possible for some COVID-19 vaccines to comply with the obligation in the act to not import or supply registered therapeutic goods without the registration number on the label—for example, if they need to be stored at particularly low temperatures.
The bill allows the secretary to consent to the importation and supply of such goods that do not comply with this requirement, to ensure the risk of civil penalties does not impede the timely availability of such vaccines in Australia. The TGA will ensure that the registration number of a vaccine is published for the benefit of health practitioners and consumers.
The bill also makes some minor amendments to improve the clarity and the consistency of regulation.
Debate adjourned.
At the request of the Assistant Treasurer, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: The Department of Health—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at Fairbairn Business Park, Canberra Airport.
The Department of Health is proposing to fit-out new office accommodation and lab space at Fairbairn business park, Canberra Airport. The laboratory space will be used by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as part of Health and will provide contemporary specialist equipment to support the TGA's work. The office accommodation will be utilised by Health more broadly.
The scope of works will include the office fit-out and integration of services into the base building works. The estimated cost of the works is $60.7 million, comprising $18.6 million for the office building and $42.1 million for the laboratory. The project was referred to the PWC on 1 September 2020. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence by April 2021, with occupation of the building scheduled for May 2022. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
At the request of the Assistant Treasurer, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Services Australia—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 52-62 King William Street, Adelaide.
Services Australia is proposing to fit out new office accommodation at 52-62 King William Street, Adelaide. Services Australia has assessed there is an ongoing requirement to maintain a presence in the Adelaide region to support the delivery of its business objectives and the government's commitment to service delivery. The new office accommodation will support the consolidation of Services Australia's five Adelaide sites, covering six leases in 2023, in accordance with the Commonwealth leasing strategy. The estimated cost of the works is $53 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the PWC on 7 October 2020. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in April 2021, with occupation of the building by Services Australia scheduled for July 2023. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thanking the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
For the clarity of the House, I present the summing-up speech for the Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020.
I rise to speak on the banking royal commission bills. I think we learn a lot about this government, now in its eighth year, from its approach to the banking sector—particularly in terms of fairness in the banking sector and the treatment of consumers, and specifically from its approach to the banking royal commission. It speaks volumes about this government that, of the consecutive bills introduced from that dispatch box today, one of them was supposed to be about implementing the recommendations of the banking royal commission, while the very next bill was about undermining the banking royal commission. Not a full minute passed between the introduction of the two with the second bill all about undermining consumer protections in responsible lending—steps that the government is taking that the banking royal commission specifically recommended against. I think that speaks volumes about whether or not the government's heart is actually in doing the right thing by real people when it comes to the banking system and to the financial system more broadly.
The bills before us today have been a long time coming. It is almost five years since Labor first started championing and calling for a banking royal commission. Were it not for the subsequent royal commission, so many of the rorts and rip-offs which were uncovered by Commissioner Hayne and his team may never have come to light, which would have been a tragedy for everyone who has been impacted by wrongdoing in the financial sector.
It's important to remember that it was Labor that called for this banking royal commission in the first half of 2016. I was the financial services spokesman at the time, working closely with the member for McMahon and the member for Maribyrnong in calling for this banking royal commission. Those opposite opposed it tooth and nail for almost two years. They didn't want the stories which came forward from all the brave people who spoke at the royal commission to be heard, and we commend those people and acknowledge them and thank them for their bravery and honesty in coming forward. Those opposite fought tooth and nail for those stories never to come to light. They never wanted those stories to be made public. For almost two years they opposed it; they voted against the banking royal commission 26 times.
Only in late 2017, with the election getting closer—and only after the banks themselves had written to the government and given them a little permission slip to say they were okay with a banking royal commission—did the then Treasurer, the current Prime Minister, roll over and say that they would reluctantly agree to a banking royal commission. Between that partial capitulation at the end of 2017 and the election in May 2019, they spent a lot of effort pretending to care about the victims of misconduct in the banking system. If you go through that period, the now Prime Minister and others had all kinds of crocodile tears for victims of the rorts and rip-offs in the banking system. They pretended that they were deeply concerned about the revelations which were coming out on an almost daily basis. They pretended it was a really high priority.
Then, once the election was done and dusted, it was an afterthought once again. The foot came off the accelerator when it came to implementing recommendations. There was delay after delay, and deadline after deadline was missed. It took them until yesterday before they even realised that the parliamentary schedule wouldn't allow the passage of these bills in time for the 1 January start date. It was only yesterday that it dawned on them—such a high priority for those opposite! They're so keen to get justice and the right system for people who've been victims that they only discovered yesterday, 'Oh, we forgot to put it before the parliament, so we need to take some remedial action.' That speaks volumes as well about a government which has been dragging its feet when it comes to this.
They still haven't got it right. The member for Whitlam is here and he has amendments, and so does the member for Kingsford Smith. There are substantial issues here, which I'll leave to the member for Whitlam to explain to the House, given the pressures of time. But the government still haven't got it quite right. We want to support these bills and we want to expedite these bills, but we want to make sure that there are a couple of things which are cleaned up. My colleagues will talk about those.
I want to thank everyone who came forward in the banking royal commission, as I said, but I also want to thank the stakeholders for their engagement—not just the financial institutions but the consumer groups, the unions and others. The member for Whitlam is here, and I'll take the opportunity to thank the member for Whitlam very sincerely for all the work he's been doing in this area, as has the member for Kingsford Smith and as has the member for Fenner via the committee system. There have been hundreds and hundreds of hours of consultation and going through the detail of what's being proposed. I want to thank my colleagues for all of that work.
We want the banking system to be strong, and we want it to be strong on a basis of not treating people unfairly or cutting corners or engaging in rorts and rip-offs. We want it to be strong and fair at the same time, and that's not too much to ask. That's what the Australian people expect. The banking system can be a crucial part of the economy and a crucial part of the recovery, but we need to rebuild confidence in it. The banks themselves, and other institutions, have taken some steps in that regard, which I acknowledge as well, but we want this legislation to be as effective as it can be. It makes no sense to introduce one set of legislation to implement the banking royal commission recommendations and then have the next set of legislation undermine them.
We'll make our points about responsible lending on another occasion. We're prepared to support the main thrust of this bill, where it genuinely implements the recommendations of the banking royal commission. But there are a couple of things that need to be cleaned up. We'll try to do that via the usual parliamentary processes.
It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 and the Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020, in recognition of the continued process of implementing the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission.
Where I'll agree with the member for Rankin is that it was very sad and disappointing to see the stories that were told and the evidence that was given at the Hayne royal commission, particularly in regard to some of our largest institutions in this country, which had garnered enormous community respect over the years and, more importantly, enormous community trust—to see that that trust had been taken for granted and that they had made decisions and done things which had an adverse impact on the very people that they were supposed to provide services to and to look after appropriately.
Always when I stand here in this House and we're passing legislation or making laws because of misconduct or poor conduct by major institutions in our economy, which our economy is actually so reliant on, I find it extremely disappointing. I would prefer that those institutions actually conduct themselves in a manner that is consistent with community standards and that recognises the level of trust and the important role they have in our society so that we don't get to this point where we have to pass laws as a consequence of their poor conduct. I would reflect too on my time and involvement in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Through that committee we identified a number of issues around poor lending practices and the way the banks interacted with customers around their loans through the GFC and subsequently. So I support the member for Rankin's comments to a degree, but I'm also pleased to see that we're now taking those next steps in relation to implementing these recommendations.
I want to focus particularly on schedule 2 of the bill, which replaces the consumer's duty of disclosure with a new duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to an insurer and which also amends the remedies available to life insurers when avoiding life insurance contracts. That gives effect to recommendations 4.5 and 4.6 of the royal commission. Back in March of 2018, again on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, we tabled a report into the life insurance industry, and we focused on areas where we felt as a committee substantial changes would be required to ensure the life insurance industry is held to account. One of the reasons for that was that we had an enormous amount of testimony—and even since the discussion has continued—around what happens at claim time for holders of insurance policies, whether it be life insurance, total and permanent disability cover or income protection insurance. People take out those policies in good faith and fill out very detailed application forms which ask a wide range of medical information. The benefit of the changes in this bill is that there's a requirement now for an insurance company, if they are not satisfied or not sure or not clear about the information that a consumer has provided on their application, to ask for further information at the time of application.
I think that is a very good move. In the event of a claim, what it does, I hope, is clear up, by virtue of the process at application time, the risk that an insurance company will turn around and say, 'Well, you didn't disclose X, Y and Z at the time of application.' I think that is a very good measure for people who are looking to take out an insurance policy. That's not a carte blanche for them to not provide the information that's sought on the application forms—and there's still a requirement to properly provide the information—but, if the insurance company accepts the application based on the information provided, if the insurance company has asked additional questions at the time of application, then, at the event of a claim, unless there is a deliberate misrepresentation or deliberate omission, it shouldn't have the opportunity to go searching far and wide for other reasons to deny the claim. We had evidence at that inquiry that that was the case.
Amongst the range of other measures in this bill—there are some seven schedules or so—I wanted to focus on this particular issue because I think this is a very important issue from the point of view of consumer protection. People pay good premiums for life insurance, TPD cover, income protection cover, trauma insurance cover. The vast majority of people do the right thing in providing the right information at the time of the application so that insurance companies can make informed decisions about whether or not they accept that cover. It was disappointing that, as we saw in that inquiry, insurance companies sought to find ways, on occasion, to deny a claim for things that were unrelated to the matter of that claim.
I hope the provisions in this bill will give consumers more certainty and make it clear to the insurance companies that they are responsible for to asking the questions necessary to determine whether they're going to offer that insurance cover and that, if they accept that, then in the event of a claim the claimant can have the confidence that they're going to receive the benefit of that policy and therefore have that security for themselves and their families in what would be a very difficult time.
The Ancient Greeks invented irony, but the Morrison government has taken it to a whole new level. Only the Morrison government could introduce a bill that winds back the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission into the banking and financing sector on the same day that they insist that the parliament pass through another bill, which purports to implement the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. I kid you not. This is what this mob over here are doing. They've introduced a bill to undo that Hayne royal commission recommendation on the very same day as we're proposing to debate a bill to implement the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission—crazy but true. This is what this mob do. You can't trust what they say; you've got to look at the detail of what they are doing.
We can foreshadow today that we won't be buying it. We won't be backing it. We'll be backing the Hayne royal commission—the very first recommendation, the responsible lending laws, the bedrock on which every other recommendation is built. This mob over here—the very same mob that voted 26 times to oppose the royal commission and explored every other alternative and, once every other alternative was exhausted, decided to do the right thing and have a royal commission—are now trying to undo it. We won't let them get away with it.
Of course, not everybody on the coalition side agreed with what the Prime Minister was proposing to do. There is one Nationals senator who deserves an honourable mention. I refer to the former senator for New South Wales, John 'Wacka' Williams. He would be absolutely appalled at what this mob over here are proposing to do in relation to responsible lending laws. He not only was an advocate for the laws but was actually a victim. He could tell you, from his firsthand experience, the consequence of poor loan-selling behaviour and poor lending behaviour—the consequence for farmers like him and their families. He lost his farm because of this sort of shark behaviour—the very sort of behaviour that the coalition is trying to breathe life back into through the bill they introduced into the House this morning.
We won't stand for it, and I'm looking forward to listening to what John 'Wacka' Williams has to say about what this mob is proposing to do. I'd like to be a fly on the wall for some of those phone calls between him and some of his Nationals colleagues in the Senate. The Nationals should do the right thing and throw this bill out. They should vote with Labor on that proposition. I know that if John 'Wacka' Williams was still in the Senate he'd be doing exactly the same thing.
I want to talk about some of the provisions within the bill before us, the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020. Before I do that, I want to thank all those who have come before us in ensuring that this bill actually came before the House—the member for McMahon and the member for Maribyrnong, who in the previous parliament campaigned tirelessly to ensure that we had a royal commission, as well as the member for Rankin, the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Fenner, who had been working tirelessly on ensuring that the government's promises were brought to this parliament through the implementation bills. That's because we knew that, given the opportunity, the government would be backsliding at every single moment. So I thank the member for Rankin, the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Fenner for their great work in keeping the government honest on these things.
Over the last fortnight—and I'm looking at the member for Kingsford Smith—we must have conducted consultations with over 30 organisations.
Hundreds of hours.
There were hundreds of hours of consultations to ensure that the details of the bill reflected what the government promised and that there were no unintended consequences. It's not perfect. It requires some amendment. I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment in the second reading stage and that there will be some substantive amendments at the consideration-in-detail stage moved by both the member for Kingsford Smith in relation to good value on insurance products and me in relation to matters concerning superannuation trustees.
While I'm on the matter of superannuation, it's extraordinary that yesterday, in this House, we had government members saying that if you allow the government to cut your superannuation they will give you a pay rise. The fraud in that statement was revealed today, when at the dispatch box the Minister for Industrial Relations revealed the truth. The government plan to cut your superannuation and your pay, and they've introduced a bill into the House today that will enable that to happen. We won't be having a bar of that either.
Going to the matters before the House in the bill, schedule 1 of the bill provides certain provisions of financial services industry codes can be made as enforceable code provisions where provisions within industry codes relate to specific commitments made by a code subscriber to the consumer. ASIC is given the power to approve these codes and will have the power to designate certain provisions within those codes enforceable—not just as a matter of contract but enforceable under the statute. Different penalties provide for voluntary codes as well as mandatory codes.
Schedule 2 of the bill deals with an insurance matter. The member for Kingsford Smith will go into this in some detail. It will, in short, prevent insurers from cancelling a life insurance contract on the basis of nondisclosure or misrepresentation unless the insurer can show that it would not have entered into the contract on the basis of that information. I want to bring members back to some of the examples that were seen and exposed by the Hayne royal commission. We heard from the member for Forde, for example, who suggested in his contribution that there were rare examples where claims against a life insurance contract weren't honoured. In fact what the Hayne royal commission discovered was that at least in one and perhaps in many other life insurance companies there was a system—in fact, a program—of denial of claims based on outdated, erroneous and disputed medical advice that even the medical advisers within the company suggested was out of date and improper. This matter was brought to the attention of the royal commission. This schedule of the bill implements that recommendation of the royal commission, not before time.
Schedule 3 of the bill implements the government's commitment to an industry-wide deferred sales model for add-on insurance products. That's an important measure. We are willing to work with industry on some of the areas that require special exception or special attention. The regulations that will be made pursuant to this bill facilitate that. We will work cooperatively with the government on ensuring that any carve-outs that exist are in the interests of consumers. I know the member for Kingsford Smith is going to have more to say about that shortly.
Schedule 4 of the bill provides ASIC with the power to impose a cap on commissions that can be paid for add-on insurance. That's an important measure. We've seen in some instances the commissions that were being paid to the salespeople flogging the insurance product were far in excess of any other claims that were made. More was going out and into the pockets of the people selling the product than was going back in terms of claims to the people who took the insurance out. Improper, wrong, needs to be scratched out—this schedule of the bill will do that.
Schedule 5 of the bill responds to the Hayne commission's recommendation to prohibit the hawking of superannuation and insurance products. This provision is absolutely critical. Nobody could not have been moved when they heard the evidence in relation to this issue of a young man with disabilities—with Down syndrome, I believe—taking a call from an insurance salesperson attempting to sell him a life insurance product that he never understood and didn't need with the behaviour driven by a commission. It was absolutely abhorrent, heart-wrenching evidence. The father has subsequently become an advocate for the full implementation of the Hayne commission recommendations and a staunch opponent of the government's proposals to wind back recommendation 1.1 on the responsible lending laws. It's an important provision.
There are some matters of detail that we may need to revisit on the issue of antihawking. We note that the antihawking provisions go specifically to phone based selling, direct-selling mechanisms. Of course, we know in modern marketing and sales there are a whole bunch of other mechanisms that may need to be considered down the track if industry does not respond appropriately on this issue.
Schedule 6 of the bill is going to prevent organisations from calling themselves an insurer unless they in fact are. It doesn't seem like a remarkable imposition, but the commission heard evidence, particularly in the area of so-called funeral cover or funeral insurance, where people, particularly in Indigenous communities, were being flogged products on the basis that they were insurance that weren't; they were certainly unconscionable and junk products. It's an important schedule to the bill.
Schedule 7 is going to enhance consumer protections by making insurance claims handling a financial service. This goes to the claims for fulfilment process to ensure that that falls within the rubric of ASIC regulation—again, it's important.
Schedule 8 will prohibit superannuation trustees from having a duty to act in the interests of another except from those arising in its role as a trustee. This is about dealing with embedded conflicts of interest within a trustee of a superannuation fund. Again, the royal commission heard lots of evidence of this, particularly within vertically integrated and retail based insurance funds and their trustees.
Schedule 9—I want to give the member for Kingsford Smith the opportunity to talk in a moment, and we've got an agreement with the government that we'll keep our comments reasonably brief. However, I do want to say something briefly about schedule 9—that is, the government's implementing measures in schedule 9 beyond those things recommended by Hayne. They are going to have a significant consequence, which, if not remedied, will visit a lot of mayhem and perhaps disaster on the industry. They need to be fixed. We want to work with the government to fix this issue, and I'll have some amendments which deal with that shortly.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes the Government:
(a) has acted consistently to delay action to protect Australians from financial sector misconduct, including by voting against a Banking Royal Commission 26 times; and
(b) intends to ignore the first recommendation of the Hayne Royal Commission by repealing the responsible lending obligations put in place by Labor in 2009 to protect Australian consumers from financial sector misconduct; and
(2) further notes the bill still leaves important recommendations of the Hayne Royal Commission to be implemented".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting others. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
It's clear the Morrison government did all that it could to avoid a royal commission into banking and financial services in Australia, and, indeed, to delay many of these recommendations coming to the parliament. It has even gone as far as completely ignoring some of the recommendations of the royal commission into banking and financial services, most notably the No. 1 recommendation about ensuring we maintain responsible lending laws in Australia. It should never be forgotten that the government voted 26 times against a royal commission. This was despite predatory hawking of financial sector products, including insurance, already being a well-known issue that had been raised well before the royal commission. It had been raised in reports by ASIC and consumer groups. Add to that the litany of financial scandals that Australia had gone through in the last 15 years: Trio Capital, Timbercorp, Opes Prime, Storm Financial, the Commonwealth Bank's wealth management scandal, the CommInsure scandal, the fees-for-no-service scandals in all of the banks and the scandals uncovered by AUSTRAC of late.
Despite all of these scandals in Australia, the government still refused and resisted a royal commission. It only relented in the end when the banks gave it the go-ahead. The banks saw the writing on the wall, saw the damage it was doing to their reputations and, in some cases, to their share prices, and wrote to the Prime Minister and said: 'We relent. You can have a royal commission.' The banks wanted it done quickly, and yet here we are. The Morrison government continues to drag its feet.
It has already forgotten the shocking story of a young man with Down syndrome being pressured into purchasing life insurance by predatory salespeople hawking insurance products. Grant Stewart, a Baptist minister, was flummoxed as to how Freedom Insurance thought it was okay to sell his 26-year-old son more than $100,000 of life insurance. He said it would have been clear on the phone that his son had an intellectual disability. But that didn't stop the salesman pushing the product and getting the young man's debit card details. Mr Stewart said his son was left distressed by the experience, and was apprehensive about answering the phone after that. He said:
"He believed he'd done something wrong and was quite embarrassed and didn't know what he'd done," …
The commission heard recordings of phone calls between Freedom Insurance's sales agents and Mr Stewart's son. When the public heard this evidence in the Hayne royal commission, they were rightly horrified. We could hear the long pauses as the young man struggled to answer some of the questions. At one point the salesman even asked Mr Stewart's son if he had any further questions. That horror that the Australian public felt then turned to outrage when we heard that the young man's father called Freedom Insurance, the company, to complain. He asked them how their sales agent could possibly believe that his son had understood what was happening. The Australian public were also outraged that Freedom didn't immediately cancel the policy. It took numerous phone calls and emails from Mr Stewart to resolve the matter, and he ended up filing a complaint with ASIC. It had taken two years for the company to send him the recordings and transcripts of the phone calls between his son and Freedom's sales agents. The commission also heard this salesperson had been the subject of multiple complaints and warnings.
We know that this wasn't an isolated case of predatory hawking of financial products. The Hayne royal commission also heard evidence of sales staff at ClearView Wealth being trained to cold call potential customers on the phone and sign them up to life insurance as quickly as possible, despite their objections, before sending them documentation to read. This is in breach of the law. It was a deliberate strategy by ClearView to give customers no time to think about their decision. It was only through the work of the royal commission that ClearView was forced to admit that they'd broken the antihawking laws in Australia 300,000 times between 2014 and 2017 by cold calling people to sell them insurance. That's one of the great shames of all of the evidence that came out in the royal commission relating to many of the financial scandals; the number of breaches of laws associated with some of these scandals is into the hundreds of thousands.
The predatory approach resulted in a lot of Australians signing up for insurance products that they didn't need or want. The commission was told ClearView held staff training days to circumvent regulatory barriers put in place by the Future of Financial Advice conflicted remuneration laws. The company admitted there were no consequences for management at ClearView for attempting to circumvent the law. Australians were gobsmacked by the sheer level of scandals that were exposed by the royal commission into the banks.
In consultations with some financial service providers, in the wake of all of this, we're asked: why is the government regulating? Why are we regulating this industry? My answer to those people was simple: we don't wake up in the morning saying, 'Let's go and put a regulation on banking and financial services.' We don't wake up and say, 'Let's go and make it harder for people to do business in this industry.' But when you have 15 years of a litany of scandals in which Australians are ripped off and, in many respects, lose their life savings or their greatest asset, their house, government is forced to act.
That is why Labor was pushing the government, some years ago, for a royal commission into banking and financial services. In 2016 Labor announced support for a royal commission; yet the response from the government at the time was that it was unnecessary and a populist whinge. The former Treasurer now Prime Minister said that Labor's push for a banking royal commission threatened to undermine a key pillar of the Australian economy. He then urged Labor to stop playing 'reckless political games' and said the prospect of a royal commission had caused harm overseas about the strength of the Australian banking system. He said, 'We're focused on the practical things that need to be done,' and that Labor was acting with 'callous disregard and complete political opportunism'. That particular statement now shows just how out of touch the Prime Minister was on this issue and has been ever since.
It's clear that the coalition never wanted a royal commission into the big banks. They voted against it 26 times and only relented after getting the green light from the big banks and heading off a backbench revolt. Then the Prime Minister said, 'Well, it's regrettable but necessary action.' The reality is that the rip-offs and rorts exposed during the Hayne royal commission would never have seen the light of day if it hadn't been for the very strong advocacy of many whistleblowers, and I wish to pay tribute to those who blew the whistle on many of these activities in, particularly, the big banks—many of them to their personal detriment. They were dismissed, they were ridiculed, and many of them have never been able to find employment in the wake of that. They deserve our praise and appreciation. There's also been the advocacy of consumer groups and many victims of financial services fraud and, of course, Labor's advocacy for important reforms such as the royal commission. Our focus was on exposing the blatant law breaking in the financial sector and on helping to improve the circumstances for millions of Australian consumers.
It's something that we are proud of in working with those consumer groups and those whistleblowers. It has resulted in 76 recommendations being delivered by the royal commission, 54 of those calling for federal government action. The government's implementation road map was released in August 2019 indicating that the vast majority of legislation required to be implemented would be completed by the end of 2020. Despite this commitment, they haven't met much of that timetable.
This Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 contains 12 schedules that implement the government's response to 20 recommendations in the royal commission. Schedule 2 amends the Insurance Contracts Act to implement two changes, to limit the circumstances under which insurers can avoid life insurance contracts on the basis of misrepresentation or non-disclosure by a person, such as not disclosing symptoms of a medical condition that would void a contract in certain circumstances. They also deal with replacing the strict duty of disclosure on people for consumer insurance contracts, with a 'duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation'. This will make it harder for insurers to void claims on insurance products. The amendments will apply in relation to consumer insurance contracts that are entered into on or after 5 October 2021.
Schedule 3 implements an industry-wide deferred sales model on the sale of add-on insurance products—for example, many junk insurance products, particularly those that were exposed in the royal commission, where the premium paid is greater than the sum that's insured. They include things like tyre and rim insurance as an add-on for the sale of a motor vehicle. These products will now not be able to be sold for at least four days after a customer has committed to purchasing the principal product or service. The schedule allows the minister to exempt certain products from the deferred sales model granted by the regulations. This is an area where some of the stakeholders—in particular, consumer groups—have raised some concerns, particularly around the sale of travel insurance. The minister indicated in his second reading speech that he planned to exempt travel insurance from these provisions. But many of those consumer groups have raised concerns about travel insurance and the huge mark-ups and commissions that are received by travel agents, in particular, when selling some of this insurance. I foreshadow that it is my intention during the consideration-in-detail stage to move an amendment to ensure that, before making the regulations for that purpose, the minister must ensure that he or she is satisfied that the class of add-on insurance products has historically been good value.
Schedule 5 prohibits the hawking of financial products, mainly superannuation and insurance. Hawking is defined narrowly as offers to sell made as part of an unsolicited conversation such as a phone call, face-to-face sale or real-time chat. Basically, in these circumstances the customer will have to take active steps and consent to being contacted—that is the key—for such product sales to occur.
Schedule 7 requires claims handling and settling services to be licensed as financial service providers under the Corporations Act. This is aimed at ensuring that those handling an insurance claim on behalf of an insurer are subject to the same licensing conditions, which should address concerns that claims are not being handled efficiently, honestly and fairly.
These are important reforms. The government's reluctance to act on introducing many of these reforms, and the fact that they voted against the banking royal commission 26 times, is shameful. It's plain to see that this government was dragged kicking and screaming into acting on the complaints of the tens of thousands of Australian consumers who've been ripped off in the financial space.
This bill still leaves some important recommendations by the royal commission that haven't been dealt with. As I mentioned earlier, it is shameful that the government intends to ignore the No. 1 recommendation of the royal commission, and that is to ensure that Australia maintains its responsible lending obligations and laws on banks and financial institutions so that predatory lending—that virus that spread throughout the world in the lead-up to the global financial crisis—and the effect that it had on many families, workers, businesses and the international financial system, can be avoided in the future. This reform, if the government gets away with it, in removing those responsible lending obligations, could see the beginning of another round of predatory lending in Australia that could lead to collapses and people being ripped off. That's why Labor is deeply concerned about that proposal.
It should never be forgotten that this government voted against a royal commission 26 times. It was only due to the actions of Labor, whistleblowers and consumer groups that many of these reforms are here before the parliament today.
In 1935 a banking royal commission was held to look at the critical impact on the Australian economy of problems in the banks. It was two generations later that Labor found itself in the position of again calling for a royal commission into the banking sector in Australia. Those calls were ignored by the government, which called it a 'populist whinge' and resisted for more than 18 months a royal commission into the banks. When Ken Hayne finally lifted the lid on the misconduct it was clear to everyone that the call to have a royal commission had been the right one and that the Liberals had been wrong to vote 26 times against a banking royal commission. Yet here we are today with the Liberals advocating against the No. 1 recommendation of the Hayne royal commission, recommendation 1.1: 'the National Consumer Credit Protection Act should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability.' Does Australia really need more irresponsible lending? Is that the real need of the Australian economy right now—a surge of irresponsible lending? Well, consumer groups don't think so. The banks themselves didn't ask for it. And, when we asked the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as to whether they had been consulted, Sean Hughes told me:
I'm the commissioner with responsibility for credit, and I was first advised when I read the Treasurer's media statement through the media on the morning of 25 September.
So CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Financial Counselling Australia, Financial Rights Legal Centre say it's the wrong idea. If there are problems around complexity, let's engage with stakeholders. But the government has no credibility in standing up for consumers when it is calling for a surge in irresponsible lending in a country whose household debt levels are among the highest in the world, and in the wake of new research that's come out in recent weeks showing that more indebted households can be a drag on growth.
There are other issues that the House economics committee has explored this year. ASIC has told us that they remain frustrated with the pace of compensation schemes. ASIC internal briefing documents say:
… the institutions have demonstrated a willingness to spend large amounts of money on external consultants and management time, rather than comprehensively deal with the problem.
With $3 billion of compensation still waiting to be paid to customers, I'd urge the big banks to spend less money on paying consultants to delay payouts and more money on consumers. Even if a few people end up being slightly overpaid it is better to put the matter to rest.
We've explored the issue of loyalty taxes, such as Suncorp's loyalty tax that can cost its loyal consumers thousands of dollars a year. Westpac's former CEO, Brian Hartzer, was one of the strongest to push back against me when I called it a 'loyalty tax', but that's what it is. It is a bank charging two different prices for the same product—one to customers who've signed up previously, another to new customers. As RateCity's Sally Tindall points out, 'Over 50 per cent of banks' home loan "books" are typically funded by deposits,' so when rates go down banks are cutting rates for depositors and savers. It's simply not fair for them to be charging one price for their loyal customers and a lower price for new entrants and demanding that customers shop around in order to get the best deal.
I asked questions about the Banking Code Compliance Committee's recent report, which kept confidential which banks had done worst. It turned out NAB had the highest number of breaches of the major four. I asked each of the major four CEOs how they would defend their pay packets relative to the pay of a teller. In an era in which CEO pay has skyrocketed relative to average earnings it seems appropriate to ask these CEOs how they feel about the rising pay disparities within their organisations. Just a couple of generations ago it would have only taken a decade or so for a teller to earn as much as the CEO earned in a year. Now it would take multiple careers for a teller to earn what the CEO takes home in a single year.
I have asked all the major bank CEOs why they don't adopt the same full-fee transparency for international remittances as TransferWise does. Why they are burying the true cost of transferring money overseas in the exchange rate spread, rather than simply reporting to customers the total of the flat fee and the exchange rate spread relative to the mid-market rate? Come clean with people. When you're dealing with some of the most vulnerable customers in Australia—a migrant taxi driver who might be working extra shifts to send money back to Fiji—why should a big bank be pulling the wool over their eyes as to what they really pay when they send money overseas?
I've asked about the buy-now pay-later scheme and I got a response from the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, Matt Comyn, who said, 'It looks like credit to me.' It's an issue I hope the Standing Committee on Economics will explore more next year. I've been critical of the decision of some banks to fly very close to the wind on dividends. While New Zealand banned bank dividends, Australia said that there would be a cap equal to half of earnings. CBA went almost right up to that cap, something I believe was a mistake at a time when they were receiving such significant taxpayer support. We also had an extraordinary hearing with ASIC in which the chair, James Shipton, announced that he was stepping down. The government appropriately initiated an inquiry by Vivienne Thom, but it's occurring at a glacial pace. At a time when we have a recession and a pandemic, the government is leaving ASIC leaderless for a full two months. An inquiry that could have been done in a fortnight is taking months, and the Australian corporate watchdog is being left leaderless.
In the area of superannuation, an area I know the member for Whitlam and the shadow Treasurer have been assiduous on, I focused on the issue of AMP charging product providers as much as $22,000 to be on the AMP approved product list. I've been critical of OnePath and their decision to white-label a low-cost Vanguard product, which had a cost of just 14 basis points, and charge customers much, much more. It does raise the broader question, which the members for Fraser, Cowan and Dunkley have raised on the House Economics Committee, of how a for-profit superannuation fund adheres to the best financial interests duty. Mercer has been a particular disappointment. When I confronted them in the hearings about their high administrative costs, they claimed:
… the numbers you're quoting are not consistent with my understanding of what the total fees would be.
They then pledged to take it on notice and came back with an answer that said that they've undertaken a review and they don't think fees are the main measure of value of competitiveness. It's a pathetic response. Don't try to pull the wool over the eyes of the committee in the hearing, saying that we've got the wrong facts, and then come back with an answer to a question on notice that effectively says, 'Yes, the facts are right, but we take a different interpretation of them.' That sort of treatment of the committee is completely inappropriate. The committee will continue to pursue the issue of high fees in superannuation funds, particularly funds like Mercer that think that it's alright to be charging fees on a $10,000 account balance ranging from 2.11 to 2.32 per cent. These are startlingly high fees.
Finally, we've pursued the issue of insurance, an issue that the member for Kingsford Smith has focused on strongly—in particular, payout rates from certain funds that are as low as 55 per cent among those who were advised. We've also pursued the issue of junk funeral insurance provided by Youpla, formerly the Aboriginal Community Benefits Fund, who showed a distinct lack of remorse when they came before the committee and appeared to be unprepared to deal with the reality of the Hayne royal commission.
Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 and the Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020. The government is committed to implementing its response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry and is delivering on 21 of its commitments through this legislation. The reforms in this legislation represent a critical component of restoring trust and confidence in Australia's financial system. I commend these bills to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
(1) Schedule 3, page 36 (after line 14), at the end of section 12DX, add:
Pre-condition for making regulations
(3) Before making regulations for the purposes of subsection (1), the Governor-General must ensure the Minister is satisfied that the class of add-on insurance products has historically been good value.
This bill grants the Treasurer the power to exempt from the deferred sales model certain types of add-on insurance to be made via regulation. The amendment that I present today makes it necessary for add-on insurance products to receive an exemption to be regarded as having a history of good value for consumers. This amendment comes about as a result of the extensive consultations about this bill that the member for Whitlam and I have conducted with consumer groups over the course of the last couple of weeks. They were under the apprehension that, when the government was putting the deferred sales model together, it would be a complete model and there wouldn't be opportunities for particular products to be exempted. Consumer groups such as CHOICE and the Consumer Action Law Centre have raised significant concerns about the carve-out for travel insurance flagged by the Treasurer in his second reading speech. The concern is that this could leave Australians open to unscrupulous sales tactics and to being sold unsuitable and expensive travel insurance. This would further compound the major problems we saw with travel insurance during the COVID-19 crisis. Consumer groups said:
Commissioner Hayne recommended 'industry-wide' reform as well as abolishing exemptions and loopholes.
After a massive spike in travel insurance complaints during the pandemic, we believe that any exemptions should be limited to those which are good-value-for-money products only. CHOICE has pointed out that in 2020 it found that buying travel insurance through add-on channels can cost consumers up to 350 per cent more than buying it directly. Travel agents receive commissions of up to 65 per cent on the premiums that people pay, and airlines use online pressure tactics to make sales. We know that Qantas provides customers with only 10 minutes to read a 15,000-word product disclosure statement before flight purchase times out.
It's clear that add-on products do not have a history of being good value for consumers. For example, using a family of four who travel to Bali for 10 days, CHOICE said that Qantas will sell add-on travel insurance for $230. You can get the same product and the same cover directly from Travel Insurance Direct for $136. So Qantas is making a mark-up on their product of 69 per cent. Even poorer value is the example of Jetstar—good old Jetstar: never miss an opportunity! For the same family and the same trip it would charge a whopping $517. But the same cover could be bought directly from Good To Go! for $144. That's a 259 per cent mark-up from Jetstar—not bad if you can get it! This is simply a bad deal for many Australian consumers and hardworking families looking to take a well-earned holiday.
So travel insurance sold as an add-on product should be worthy of an exemption if it can prove that it is good value for money for the consumer. That's in the amendment that I've moved:
(3) Before making regulations for the purposes of subsection (1), the Governor-General must ensure the Minister is satisfied that the class of add-on insurance products has historically been good value.
If that amendment is included in this legislation it puts pressure on organisations like Qantas, Jetstar and travel agents that are selling travel insurance—and other organisations that are going to be seeking these exemptions by the minister to the deferred sales model—to prove that their product is good value for money.
I would argue that a 259 per cent mark-up on a product sold through a major airline in Australia is not good value for money and that therefore the minister shouldn't be granting an exemption to products such as this. It's clear that the add-on travel insurance industry has been very poor value for Australian consumers, with no signs of improving. If the government lets them off the hook with this exemption then we're not going to see any improvement in the industry, and the whole purpose of the Royal Commission in this area will be lost.
It is a real pleasure to rise on this important amendment by the member for Kingsford Smith, which goes to the issue of the exemption provided to add-on travel insurance. We know from behavioural economics that customers tend to make systematic mistakes when it comes to insurance. People tend to underestimate very large risks, such as the risk of death or catastrophic injury, and tend to overestimate the dangers of small risks, such as damaging your smart phone or getting your baggage lost when you're on holidays. Unfortunately, those who sell insurance are all too aware of these behavioural biases and so the value of mobile phone loss insurance tends to be very small. Conversely, if you're a seller of mobile phone insurance, you make out like a bandit. The profit margins on small-products insurance are extraordinarily high. These are products which are just not an actuarial good deal for customers. Behaviourally, that's because it's a kind salient loss; we have all lost a mobile phone, damaged a mobile phone or know someone who has, so we can easily envisage it happening to ourselves. But it doesn't follow that therefore it's a good deal to take out insurance for it.
The same goes for certain kinds of travel insurance where the profit margins can be very big, reflecting the fact that the payouts are much smaller than the premiums. Sure, some customers do end up making a claim which exceeds the premium they paid, but these are policies which often have a combination of exempt categories. For example, if you lose cash—often one of the first targets of thieves when people are travelling—it can be difficult to reclaim it. There can be limits on the value of items which are stolen and there can be significant deductibles, and so customers find themselves making a claim but then discovering that the insurer will only cover half of that claim.
We're very sceptical about the value of this insurance and about the government's willingness to provide it with an exemption to the usual rules. We're not the only ones who are sceptical about this. As the member for Kingsford Smith has highlighted, he and the member for Whitlam, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, have engaged in extensive consultations with consumer groups. Those consumer groups have raised the concern that we need to be very careful before providing a carte blanche exemption from appropriate regulations around the sale of this form of insurance.
Labor has a strong record of standing up for consumers. It was Labor, under Lionel Murphy, that put in place the competition and consumer framework that is fundamental to the Australian economy today. It was Labor, in the early 1990s, that spearheaded the competition and consumer reforms that led to the last big surge in productivity. If we want to get productivity going again in this country, we have to turbocharge competition. Only Labor can do that, because only Labor is the party of competition. Those opposite too often find themselves in thrall to vested interests—standing on the side of producers rather than consumers, being unwilling to recognise what the latest behavioural science has told us about the risks to consumers. They believe that scorched-earth, free market economics will do fine. They're acolytes of Ayn Rand, and their motto is caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware—leave them out in the consumer marketplace with nothing to defend themselves.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The minister at the table is saying it's a straw man. Minister, if it's a straw man, then stand on the side of consumers when it comes to travel insurance. Stand up for consumers on the issue of travel insurance. Your constituents, Minister, would be delighted if you stood in favour of them rather than padding the profits of travel insurers who are gouging consumers.
When it comes to legislation, the devil is in the detail with this government. It's always the case that, whatever happens, they come out with the headline but never with the follow-up. The follow-up is usually what causes the most pain. This is no exception. As the member for Kingsford Smith rightly pointed out, this is about consumers who are being forced to pay more and to get less. To have a government that says, 'We'll get the minister to decide what happens'—once again, just as we've seen with every other royal commission that's been put forward, the government's decided, 'We'll have a royal commission just to shut people up, but then we'll go ahead and do our own thing.' That's exactly what's happening here.
We see that the minister wants to make the control to have exemptions—talk about putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. This is exactly what will happen: we will see this minister, as we see with other ministers when it comes to this sort of stuff, go and look after his mates and write exemptions carte blanche. The people who will be affected are the consumers—once again.
The one thing you can guarantee when it comes to this government is that they will never, ever stand up for Australians; they stand on them. The only thing they value is money. The only thing they seem to value is ensuring that people are, as they say, put in their place—'know their place', I think, was the term. 'Stick to your knitting' was the catchphrase for this government.
As the member for Kingsford Smith pointed out, we're seeing people who—at a time when we've gone through a tough pandemic and are in the middle of this Morrison recession—might be looking forward to going away for a holiday. Then they're forced to pay exorbitant amounts for something that may not be deliverable. We talk about travel insurance, and we look at things like Qantas. We've already seen the ability of Qantas to be an absolutely wonderful corporate citizen, taking money hand over fist from the government, sacking workers willy-nilly and leaving thousands of people out of a job. When it comes to travel insurance for a family of four, we're talking over $100 difference—$100 difference for one simple thing—because you can buy the travel insurance direct for around $136, whereas Qantas will charge you $230.
The other thing that they do, in a quick way to fool people, to leave people in the lurch, is to not allow you even a quarter of an hour to sit down and read 1,500 words. I know some of us in here think we're great speed readers, but, come on, let's be serious. That's the important thing here: we're seeing consumers being ripped off, being forced to pay above and beyond the quota, and not being given the opportunity or the chance to thoroughly understand what this means. Now we've got a minister who sits there and says, 'Look, I'm the great font of knowledge and fairness. I'll be the one who makes the decisions on exemptions.' This is not right and it's not fair. We know that the government will continue to do what they're doing at the moment—and that's always to make a headline that says they're going to be great and they're going to be helpful. But, when it comes to the detail, we find it is the average Australians—the families out there, the mums and dads in our communities—who are the ones being impacted.
Whether it's travel insurance or insurance relating to motor vehicles—I'm very passionate about my motor vehicles—there hasn't been a person, I think, who's ever come to me and said that they've been forced to buy repair cover, or wheel and tyre cover, and that it's always worked out well.' It never does. No-one gets the opportunity, when they're forced to do something straightaway, to sit down and read it—when they're purchasing something that sometimes is the second-biggest purchase they make in their life, outside of their family home.
What we need to do—and I think the royal commission brought this into place—is ensure that people are given proper opportunity to scrutinise things, to sit down and think them through and make sure that they're getting value for money. But the government wants to say: 'No, no. Let's just scrap that. We know best. We're the ones in charge. We're the ones who wrote the headline. We're the ones who put out the press release. You don't need to worry. All is good.'
When it comes to all being good, I go back to what I said about what's happening with the likes of Qantas, where we've seen thousands of workers being ripped off, losing their jobs, fighting to get back jobs that they already had, while the government keeps putting money into it—and I'm not even going to step onto Rex airlines, because we know that's pure pork-barrelling by the National Party.
The important thing here is: we've got to make sure that protections are in place to look after consumers—the mums and dads out there in the street who are working hard and trying to survive. It's tough enough as it is during this Morrison recession. But these add-on travel insurance products have been shown to be nothing more than poor value, and we need to address this by supporting the amendment by the member for Kingsford Smith.
I want to commend the member for Kingsford Smith for bringing this important amendment to the House. The amendment deals with schedule 3 of the bill before the House, the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020, which is the provision within the bill that implements the government's commitment to an industry-wide deferred sales model for add-on insurance.
How does this work? Many members of the House would be familiar with this. You go and buy a car. The helpful salesperson—genuinely, I say—will say, 'You want to ensure that you've got your green slip sorted out, your compulsory third party sorted out.' There's nothing wrong with that; it's compulsory. It's a very competitive market with generally well-priced insurance. But it won't surprise many members of this place who have bought a car recently to know that the helpful salesperson will then try and upsell you another form of insurance: 'Sir, you know that we have tyre and rim insurance available for that car. Would you like to get tyre and rim insurance?' If you're a hapless consumer who's happened to take out tyre and rim insurance, you'll probably realise some time down the track that you have purchased—and I won't call it junk insurance—a low-value product. It's low value when you look at the claims ratio. There's a whole bunch of reasons we know it's a very low-value product.
The royal commission highlighted that some of these products were often representing extremely poor value for consumers and were poor-value products sold in a high-pressure environment. You're trying to get out the door, and the salesperson is trying to give you yet more products in addition to the one that you came into the store to buy. These are high-pressure sales tactics.
The existing schedule to the bill will ensure that consumers are given not one, not two, not three but four days to consider their purchase of insurance. There's nothing wrong with the person who sold you the product telling you: 'We've got an insurance product available to you. I can't sell it to you now. I'll contact you in another four or five days to see whether you want it.' They cannot make it a condition or bundle it up in the sale at that point in time. In other commercial dealings we call this a cooling-off period. It gives the consumer the ability to confer with other insurance providers, other underwriters, as to how that product compares with a bunch of other products, to see whether they are getting good value, which is a sensible move. But Labor wants to ensure that, if the government takes the view that a deferred sales model is not appropriate for a particular product, it has to be a high-value product.
An example that the Treasurer specifically indicated in his second reading speech is travel insurance. It may be the case that travel insurance warrants a carve-out from the deferred sales model. It has been put to me by industry representatives that the consequence of not having travel insurance and some fateful event occurring while you're overseas is enormous. Whether it's a health incident where you have to pay immediately the cost of that health insurance while not knowing the details of a health system, whether it's lost baggage or lost essential products, or whether it's some change to your airline's ticketing arrangement, the consequences can be dramatic for somebody in a very vulnerable circumstance. So the travel industry says, 'Whatever the merits of the deferred sales model, you need to think about the fact that a consumer in these circumstances is likely to expose themselves to great risk, and there is a very high risk that the consumer forgets to take out that insurance.' They may be right, but we want to look at the actual value of that product. And if the value of the product— (Time expired)
I think it's worth going back to the royal commission that has motivated the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 and so much reform in this space. I will delve into the detail of the problems that have arisen in relation to the assertion that there might be an exemption given for travel insurance and the importance of this particular amendment being suggested by the member for Kingsford Smith. But I think it's worth remembering that this royal commission was resisted by the government and they voted against it 26 times. It should be no surprise that we on this side of the House and many representing consumers' interests in the industry and in the community are looking at any bill brought forward by this government with a great deal of interest and, indeed, scepticism. The devil, as the previous speaker on this side of the House said, is in the detail, and it is absolutely imperative that we get the devil right.
The royal commission which, as I said, was resisted 26 times by those opposite, highlighted, to the rightful horror of the community, a number of practices that were outrageous. We saw a number of people in the community lose their life savings. We saw a number of people in the community dealt with in a way that was highly inappropriate—cold calling, selling people products that weren't fit for purpose or charging people fees for no service. That shocked the community, and the community rightly expected that this government would follow through on the recommendations of the royal commission. As an aside, I will say it is also shocking that this government is in the process of walking away from the very first of the royal commission's recommendations in relation to responsible lending. This government has shown a willingness to delay and water down recommendations in far too many instances.
What we see in relation to this particular bill and the much-needed amendment that has been proposed by the member for Kingsford Smith is that, in relation to the proposed industry-wide deferred sales model for add-on insurance products, it would be entirely inappropriate for the minister to grant a blanket exemption for travel insurance, based upon what we saw at the royal commission and based upon what we know about the potential for consumer abuse. Fifteen recommendations relating to the insurance sector arose from the royal commission. There were recommendations in relation to commissions, codes of practice and claims handling, but one of the important recommendations was in relation to the ways in which insurance companies and other financial service companies interact with consumers. Consumers should not be exposed to purchasing add-on products without a cooling-off period.
The royal commission highlighted that a number of these products often represent poor value for consumers and are often sold using pressure-selling tactics. During the royal commission, many of us would remember hearing testimony from people who were essentially abused by being pressured to buy products. Many of us would have read transcripts of telephone conversations. It's exactly those situations that we need to bear in mind when determining the appropriate way to regulate these kinds of transactions.
As I indicated, it is entirely inappropriate for there to be a blanket exemption for travel insurance, given the scope for inappropriate pressure sales to arise in that context. I should stress that the recommendation arising from the royal commission in relation to this matter has been strongly supported by consumer advocate bodies, by CHOICE, by financial advisers and by representative bodies. This is an important recommendation to get right. If we look at the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Kingsford Smith, it is that, before making regulations for the purposes of granting an exemption, the minister must be satisfied that the class of add-on insurance products has historically been good value.
What reason can the government have for not accepting a recommendation that, in the context of this situation, where there is the potential for abuse and where there is the potential for aggressive selling, the minister must be satisfied these add-on products represent good value? There is no reason. I strongly recommend that this House pass this amendment—an important amendment—in the spirit of the royal commission's recommendations.
I rise, of course, to support the amendment. I feel very strongly that this government, which was dragged kicking and screaming to the royal commission, is now doing what it does best. They are a world expert government in rorts that damage the little people. They support big business. They support their mates. They do nothing about things such as the absolute disgrace of executive remuneration in this country. Only yesterday we heard from some of the shareholder proxy organisations complaining about the lack of transparency in bonuses given to executives in companies who have stopped paying dividends yet can still manage to give huge bonuses, sometimes measured in millions of dollars, to executives. They support rorts from the big end of town, but when rorts damage the little people they don't care.
The amendment will support and protect the little people from some of the insurance rorts that have been occurring for many years, particularly in the travel industry. We've seen this across a huge range of organisations and a huge range of community organisations, such as superannuation companies and insurance companies. They damage the little people who can't afford to pay.
I have a long memory. I've been involved in running my own superannuation company and been involved in private superannuation companies for many, many years, and I've seen the rorts that have occurred with junk insurance. I had great difficulty in trying to stop this in my own situation. I know that many people have lost thousands and thousands of dollars because of the rorts in insurance. Surely it's time to start protecting the little people? This government never does. They never support those who can least support themselves. They damage people who really struggle to make ends meet. They damage people who might save for years to go on a holiday and yet get ripped off with junk insurance or with vastly overpriced insurance which could be got much cheaper independently.
What happens to that money? It goes to big companies, it goes to pay executive salaries, it goes in shareholder profits, and the little people get damaged. This government can't be trusted to look after the little people. I see it in my own electorate now with industrial action being taken against people who have supported the big company Coles for many years by working hard for them, by providing supply chain support and by doing the hard work that gets groceries on our supermarket shelves, yet they are now being locked out. The little people are being damaged again and this government does nothing.
It is disgraceful that the government can't see the need to support people in this insurance rort that is happening in the travel industry. The member for Whitlam has very rightly explained the importance of trying to protect people when they go to get insurance. Companies understand the psychology of offering add-on products. They know how vulnerable people are at in this stage, yet nothing has been done to protect people. We in Labor want to see only high-value products being provided with exemptions from this value-added industry. We believe this amendment will protect the most vulnerable. If our amendment does pass, it will mean that the Treasurer cannot issue exemptions for these products and people will save often several hundreds of dollars on travel insurance. So I stand to fully support the member for Whitlam and the amendment. I cannot understand why the government won't do so.
I moved this amendment because of the extensive consultations that the member for Whitlam and I have had with community groups representing consumers, particularly those consumers who have been in a bad situation with or have been ripped off by the insurers that offer these products. The reason we are moving this amendment is that there has been a litany of cases and studies into add-on insurance which point to the fact that the commissions are outrageous and that, essentially, they are selling junk insurance. In a lot of cases the premium that's paid by the consumer is actually greater than the product insured for the particular type of insurance.
When the royal commission looked at this issue they were very clear in their recommendation that there should be a deferred period—a cooling-off period, if you like—through which the consumer should have the benefit of thinking about whether or not they wish to take out a particular type of insurance. We all know the situation, because we have all been in it. You go along and you buy a car. It's a big purchase and you are all excited. You spend a lot of money, but you are excited about your purchase. Then you are bamboozled with all of these insurance products that can be sold to you by the person selling you the car. It is not disclosed, on many occasions, that that person is receiving a commission for trying to sell you that particular product. They come with extensive product disclosure statements that you never read before you sign on the dotted line and, before you know it, you have walked away with a junk insurance product under which the premium that you pay either upfront or over the life of the insurance is more than the sum insured.
The royal commission was quite clear that that is the model that should be put in place—giving people four days to cool off and think about it. But with this bill the government have come in and said, 'We want to grant the minister the power, through regulation.' Again, this adds to this trend of the government putting things into regulations rather than having the parliament deal with them in the primary legislation. This is giving the power to the Treasurer, of all people, to exempt particular types of insurance products. There's nothing in the bill about whether or not that particular type of insurance is good value for money, whether it has historically been the right product for people in that particular industry or, indeed, whether the people selling it must disclose the commissions they are getting. They can be quite hefty commissions and the products can represent bad value for money for the consumer.
That's why we believe that it's not unreasonable for the Treasurer to agree to this amendment and for the Treasurer to have to demonstrate that he or she is satisfied that that class of add-on insurance—which the Treasurer is about to give an exemption to—represents a product that has historically been good value for money. If this amendment goes through, it will ensure the integrity of what the royal commissioner recommended in his recommendation about the deferred-sales model. It will ensure that insurers can't get away with pulling the wool over the government's eyes and getting them to grant an exemption simply because they're a powerful lobby group or they're a member of a representative organisation that is a powerful lobby group and has the ear of government and manages to convince enough members of the government at the time to convince the minister to exempt a particular product.
I mentioned in my earlier speech some examples of insurance where the consumer does not get good value for money. When you look at the travel insurance industry it can't be said, on the whole, that all those products represent good value for money. I gave the example of Jetstar increasing their premium by upwards of 250 per cent as a mark-up. I don't think that represents good value for money for the consumer. So, it's not unreasonable for this parliament to agree to ensure that the legislation contains that guarantee that the product is good value for money for the consumer before the minister signs off on that exemption.
Before going into this concept of what 'good value' is—and that is at the heart of the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith—I want to go back and reflect on the observations that were made by Commissioner Ken Hayne in his final report to the Treasurer, the report that brings this schedule in this bill, the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020, before the House. He made a number of observations arising out of submissions and evidence to the commission in relation to add-on insurance. He said:
I consider that add-on insurance should generally be sold under a deferred-sales model.
And it's important to make this point: here we are only talking about add-on insurance, not other forms of insurance—that is, insurance that is sold ancillary to and in connection with a product at the point of sale. Commissioner Hayne went on to say:
Under such a model, insurers or their representatives would be required to wait for a specified period of time before attempting to sell add-on insurance products to their customers …
This recommendation went hand in hand with the recommendation that there be a cap on the commissions that salespeople could earn for selling this sort of add-on insurance.
You can see exactly why he made this recommendation. He observed a sales culture operating within retail outlets, and in many instances the commissions that were being earned by the salespeople for selling the add-on insurance were greater than the earnings they got from selling the principal product. Let me explain. If they were selling a flight somewhere, the commission earned from selling travel insurance was a substantial part of the remuneration received by the travel agent. If they were selling a new car, the commission earned by selling add-on insurance associated with that car—but not the CTP, I hasten to add—was a substantial part of the remuneration of that salesperson, rather than the selling of the vehicle itself. Commissioner Hayne observed that this led to a very heady situation where all the incentives were there.
He also made quite a counterintuitive observation in the area of competition. Normally we would think that intense competition within a market would drive prices down and drive the quality of a product up. But what he observed in relation to add-on insurance is that actually the opposite is the case. He observed:
for those add-on insurance products—and this is a really important point—
So you can see the reasoning behind this. What he is, in essence, recommending is that there should be a very small window indeed. He reflected upon evidence given by ASIC in the royal commission on this very matter, where ASIC informed the commission:
In the current sales environment, combining the sale of the car, finance and add-on products into one process restricts the capacity of consumers to consider these matters and make rational, informed purchasing decisions. The deferred sales model aims to address this by inserting a pause into the sales process.
This goes to the heart of the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith. If there is a rule and the government proposes to create an exception to that rule, that should be a very hard gate to pass through. If we are to take a consumer perspective of this, that gate should only be able to be travelled through if the product, as a class of product, is good value to the consumer, because that's what we're on about here—ensuring that, if the Treasurer uses the extraordinary powers that he is proposing to grant himself in this schedule to the bill, of exempting somebody from a general rule that the royal commission said should apply, then it should be good value to the consumer.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith be disagreed to.
I move:
(1) Schedule 9, item 66, page 106 (lines 29 to 33), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute,
(a) liabilities imposed on or after 1 January 2022; and
(b) amounts that become payable under infringement notices (however described) given on or after 1 January 2022.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020. This bill amends the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959, raising liability caps for death and injury, and raising the amounts of insurance needed for domestic flights. In doing so, this bill addresses shortcomings in the current insurance and liability framework that were identified way back in the 2009 national aviation white paper. This bill will raise the liability cap for domestic passenger death or injury from $500,000 to $725,000, requiring carriers to increase the amount of insurance to that figure for domestic flights. It excludes compensation for purely mental injuries arising on domestic flights and makes other relatively minor changes.
The bill also includes a technical amendment to clarify that carriers and those employed by the carrier share the same scope of liability. This means that workers such as cabin crew and other airline staff cannot be sued independently from the carrier and potentially held liable for a broader scope of injuries than the carrier. It is, of course, important that aviation legislation is kept up to date with changing circumstances, but, of course, updating the liability and insurance framework is not the largest challenge facing the aviation industry today. While Labor will support the changes contained in this bill, the government must do more to secure the future of the industry, and I will be moving a second reading amendment to that effect.
Aviation has played an essential role throughout COVID. It has transported essential workers, it's repatriated Australians stranded overseas, it's facilitated border closures and quarantine arrangements and it's ensured that important health supplies and other essential goods are available throughout the country. Throughout this crisis, Labor has taken a constructive approach, offering support when the government is on the right track and criticism when it is wrong. When it comes to aviation, the government has delivered a piecemeal and inconsistent approach. Instead of recognising airlines and the aviation industry as key parts of our national infrastructure, especially in regional Australia, the government has chosen to pick winners and to let other parts of the sector wither on the vine, presiding over mass job losses in this sector. Rather than coming up with a plan for the whole industry, the government has sat by while Virgin Australia fell into administration, denied JobKeeper to thousands of aviation workers and refused to clarify what ongoing support it will offer the industry, even as Qantas was forced to sack 6,000 workers and then, most recently, outsourced 2½ thousand.
Before COVID, our nation's airlines directly employed 45,000 Australians, while the industry supported more than 206,000 jobs in every corner of our country. It was crucial to our tourism sector, employing over half a million Australians and accounting for over eight per cent of our total export earnings. It was crucial to our regional communities, delivering supplies and tourists and linking them with the coastal capitals. Aviation allowed us to visit our families on the other side of the country, to visit friends and to enjoy more of our vast, beautiful land. For years, our strong airline industry has been underpinned by two full-service major players, in Qantas and Virgin, who have delivered affordable services that regularly reached all Australians. As we recover from this crisis, aviation will again be crucial. Now, as our internal borders come down, it is aviation that will enable business travellers to once again get in the air, will allow families to go on well-deserved holidays and will finally reunite those divided from their loved ones by COVID restrictions. As we reopen to the world, aviation will deliver the tourists who will reignite regional communities and regional economies across Australia, from Broome across to Cairns and to Townsville.
But if the Morrison government does not come up with a clear plan for aviation, there is no guarantee that it will be there in the same way that it once was—or even in the way that the economy needs it to be—as the world once again takes flight. Aviation has been there throughout the crisis. Runways have remained open for essential flights and pilots, cabin crew, maintenance workers, cleaners, baggage handlers and everyone else in the industry who were able to work—and who largely were on JobKeeper—continued working under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. But the Morrison government has spent the last months crossing its fingers, hoping that somehow the industry will survive. It says, 'Well, you know, other airlines have failed internationally.' Other international governments have actually stepped in to make sure that their airlines are continuing to be viable and to make sure that they're there after the crisis. The government might want to highlight where the failures have been, but how about highlighting where the successes have been?
Since this crisis began, I've spoken with pilots who are terrified of the damage being done to their colleagues' mental health. There are cleaners and baggage handlers with no idea how they'll pay the mortgage, cabin crew who lived through the Ansett collapse and are now facing down further redundancy and highly skilled maintenance workers with no idea where they are going to get their next job from. These workers used to be united by their industry. Now they are united by both their hardship and the heartbreaking fact that their government, this government, frankly has ignored many of their pleas. When Virgin came asking for help, the government ignored them, leaving it entirely up to the market. Their last request of the government before entering administration was for $100 million worth of assistance. The market has decided, when it comes to Virgin, that 3,000 jobs are gone, and the result is fewer flights to regional areas. Every route cut and every last job lost from Virgin has been because of the decisions this government has made, to leave the fate of Virgin to the market. When Qantas came to the government asking for clarity regarding ongoing support, particularly in relation to JobKeeper, the government said, 'We're going to tell you nothing.' The very next day, Qantas cut 6,000 jobs. Just last week, we saw that Qantas cut another 2½ thousand jobs, preferring to outsource rather than maintain their own workforce.
Throughout the crisis, we've heard and seen firsthand the dangers of insecure work. Now we are seeing more people pushed into insecure work under the policies and decisions of this government. The government should have done more. The government could have done more. They could have put conditions around JobKeeper to make sure that workers remain connected with their workplace, not an outsourced workplace or a different workplace entirely, but they didn't. These workers are paying the price. When the Australian Airports Association wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on five occasions, asking for help as their members reported losses of $300 million per month, the Deputy Prime Minister couldn't even be bothered to respond—not a peep, not even a 'Thanks for writing'. I'm pleased to hear he's now engaged with them. When these workers came to parliament last week, one of them stood up, in front of the media, and asked, 'How do I explain to my three girls that it's not whether you do a good job or not that matters; it is just that they can bring someone else in and do it for cheaper than you? How do you teach your kids the value of that?' It's a question that none of us can answer. We tell our kids to work hard, to do their best and to believe that they will be rewarded with stable, secure jobs and a good income. These workers know that that is simply not true.
These aren't the only aviation workers who were forced this year to realise that the truths they took for granted were not truths at all. When dnata workers were put on standdown and were all set to receive JobKeeper—they had all been told by their company that they would be receiving JobKeeper—the Morrison government took the deliberate decision to change the eligibility requirements to exclude them. It did so by way of regulation in the Senate, and, unfortunately, One Nation decided to deny them JobKeeper.
Even as Australia's biggest accounting error saw the number of people on JobKeeper revised down by three million, the government continued to deny support to these dnata workers—5½ thousand Australians. These workers, who pay their taxes in Australia just like everyone, were denied support simply because of who now owns their company. They all used to work for Qantas. Let's not forget that it was the Morrison government that approved the foreign takeover of their work. We know that dnata is one of the companies being considered by Qantas's new outsourced operations. If they were to receive the contract, what would that mean for these workers, in relation to them receiving JobKeeper? What would it mean for them being able to actually get work? It is a ridiculous situation, but it is where we are at under this government.
Throughout the crisis, the Morrison government has repeatedly promised that it would take a sector-wide approach to aviation. Just saying that you're taking a sector-wide approach doesn't mean that that is what you're doing. Taking a sector-wide approach means that you apply, in an even-handed way, the support across the sector and that you are blind to whose ownership it is and you are blind to the structure, but what you are not blind to is that it is Australian workers who are going to reap the benefit. For most of the sector, this so-called sector-wide approach to aviation has meant complete and utter neglect. Councils own airports They are lifelines for regional communities, from Longreach to Bendigo to Exmouth. When councils came asking for JobKeeper for their essential, highly skilled and security checked security workers, the Morrison government said, 'No, you don't get JobKeeper. You're on your own.' It's pretty hard to get some of those workers in some of those places.
Australia's airline industry and regional communities across Australia are dependent on two strong, competitive full-service airlines underpinned by budget carriers, regional services and a plethora of corporate and aviation support industries. The 2009 aviation white paper recommended that this structure be protected in the interests of passengers. With our two major airlines still being able to fly between the east coast capitals, but without a competitive industry, regional tourism economies from Cairns to Broome to Launceston will struggle with recovery. Labor is glad to see that Virgin has emerged from administration, but it is a sad fact that the airline won't fly to as many regional destinations, it certainly won't be flying to as many international destinations and it won't employ as many Australians. Every route and job lost in aviation, every family forced to move and every community that has lost its link to the rest of our nation, is a direct result of the decisions made by this government.
The government may claim that it has taken a sector-wide approach, but it has it refused to support Virgin, refused to answer letters from the airports, refused to help dnata workers and refused to assist with Qantas workers. At the same time, it has been willing to support Rex with an untied grant of $54 million. This has enabled the airline to go to market, to raise capital, and to expand. Virgin's final ask before entering administration was $100 million, which was a small price to pay for 16,000 direct jobs. But, of course, the government said no and they let Virgin fall into administration. When Rex faced similar difficulties—not quite the same, but similar—the Morrison government stepped up to secure their cashflow and to secure the thousand jobs. Since receiving that grant, Rex has expanded into the capital city markets, even moving to purchase aircraft previously operated by Virgin Australia. I'm not criticising that decision; Rex is an important airline to many communities. But it is really hard to see why Rex receives such different treatment. That is not a sector-wide approach. The fact is that there is only one airline in Australia which is emerging from this crisis with plans to expand, and that is the only airline that received $54 million in untied grants from the National Party. The Deputy Prime Minister is yet to furnish us with a convincing explanation as to why one majority foreign owned airline—and it is a majority foreign owned airline—was given taxpayer relief while another was apparently entirely ineligible. Perhaps it's simply a matter of one airline having the right connections and the other not.
Throughout this crisis the government has had endless opportunities to act to protect workers at airports, at dnata, at Virgin and at Qantas. Whilst this bill might update existing legislation, it does little to secure the future of the aviation industry in this country. Labor will be supporting the bill, but we do, again, take the opportunity to urge the government to provide a plan for aviation, to ensure that in emerging from this crisis—not in a few years time but now—we have the right policy settings in place to ensure that we have a strong aviation sector post COVID, one that continues to employ thousands of Australians and which contributes to the wealth and growth of this country from our cities to our regions and to our remote towns.
In particular, when it comes to the fate of the 2½ thousand Qantas workers, the government does need to say very clearly— and there is now a court case underway—whether it supports workers being made more insecure. That is the decision that this government has made.
That being said, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) criticises the Government's failure to take a sector-wide approach to supporting the aviation sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, putting the livelihoods of thousands of aviation workers at risk; and
(2) calls on the Government to develop a sector-wide aviation recovery plan to support the industry to recover from the impacts of COVID-19".
It's fine to bring in these pieces of legislation which improve insurance and it's fine to bring in legislation about drones, but what it isn't fine to do is completely and utterly ignore the pleas of the aviation sector and, in particular, the pleas of those 2,000 Qantas workers who are now being placed into insecure work because of this government's failure to have a plan for aviation.
There is a test coming for this government in three weeks time. The largest proportion of support for the aviation sector runs out at the end of December, and because it runs out at the end of December we have Qantas and Virgin both saying that their recovery plans will be put at risk if the government does not do something actually support this important measure. So the government has an opportunity within the next three weeks to come back and say whether it does support the aviation sector, whether it wants the aviation sector to continue to flourish in this country and whether its recovery plans are going to be on track. It also has the opportunity, with JobKeeper running out in March, to say whether it intends to provide specific support for the aviation industry. I think it is important that the government comes forward with its plans for aviation much more clearly and much sooner.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Over the past few weeks I have been inundated with representations from local residents, as well as the Australian Sikh Association, regarding the protests being undertaken by farmers in India and the plight of workers in its agricultural sector. Such is the magnitude of this issue that widespread strikes by farmers are now occurring across India, and there are reports of blockades in Delhi. The genesis for these events lies in changes to agricultural laws that the affected parties say have been undertaken without proper consultation, and which farmers fear will undermine their livelihoods.
It is not my usual practice to comment in this place about the laws of other jurisdictions, but I make an exception on this occasion to highlight the deep concerns of the constituents I represent, particularly in relation to the long-term social and economic welfare of India's farmers, not to mention the anxiety for the wellbeing of family members involved in these protests.
Having a background in competition law and regulation, I support market reforms that help societies fulfil their economic potential, but it is imperative that such transitions bring workers, businesses and communities along in a manner that enables people to adapt and prosper. That appears to me to be the issue at stake here. I'm grateful to the Indian High Commissioner for listening to my advocacy about this matter. I note a further round of talks is scheduled today in India, and it is my strongest desire that a peaceful resolution that ultimately benefits consumers and the welfare of India's farming sector workforce is reached through dialogue, rather than violence.
It's heartbreaking to see the devastation that the bushfires on Fraser Island have wreaked on its flora, fauna, residents and businesses. Fraser Island is internationally renowned for its pristine beaches, magnificent forests, and tranquil lakes and pools. It's home to over 40 species of mammals, 70 species of reptiles and 350 species of birds, but over the past six weeks this fire has devoured more than 40 per cent of the island's landmass, destroying their habitat.
The fire is another blow to the island's tourism industry, following COVID-19. This has heavily impacted the local tourist operators and accommodation services, including Kingfisher Bay Resort, a major employer on the island. Everyone, including the community and all levels of government, will need to help the island to recover. Disaster assistance has been made available by the Australian government to help with firefighting efforts, and I pay tribute to everyone helping to fight the fire, as well as the island's residents for adhering to the advice from emergency services. There is a widespread concern about vegetation and land management policies and practices on the island, and these must be thoroughly investigated. The state government must ensure that everything possible is done to prevent another disaster like this from happening again.
This year has been tough on the coast, and I'm proud of the way our community has pulled together. So I wanted to finish the year by capturing the spirit of the coast on my 2020 Christmas card. I'd like to recognise the many talented local photographers who entered their work in my competition: Grace Evans, Jarrod Marrinon, Justin Bagnall, Jess Turner, Adrian Byrnes, Isabeau Lynagh, Dana De Chellis, Denyse Whelan and Reem Elshaarawy. It's no surprise the most popular images entered were of our stunning coastline and local waterways. The competition was run as a people's choice award, and I'd like to thank the more than 100 local people who cast their votes for their favourite images.
Today I'm delighted to announce the winners of my 2020 Christmas card photography competition. The third runner-up is Justin Bagnall for his photograph titled 'Dangerous Conditions' of the Catherine Hill Bay pier. The second runner-up is Jarrod Marrinon for his stunning landscape titled 'Long Jetty at Sunset'. Finally, the winner of the Dobell Christmas card photography competition is Grace Evans from Kanwal. Grace entered three stunning images in the competition—'Sunset at The Entrance', 'Sunrise at Norah Head' and 'Smokey Sunrise at Gorokan'. The people's choice is 'Sunset at The Entrance, Central Coast, NSW'. I'm proud to feature the three winning entries on my Christmas cards, and I'm looking forward to presenting Grace with a 20-inch by 30-inch canvas print of her photograph by local company Artist Avenue. I'd like to finish by wishing everybody on the Central Coast a happy and safe Christmas and a prosperous new year.
Following an extraordinary US Senate committee hearing overnight, especially the impassioned plea by Associate Professor Pierre Kory, I again call on our National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce to look at the evidence and immediately—not next week or after Christmas—reverse their recommendations against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID. In his testimony last night, Dr Kory said: 'I've cared for more dying COVID patients than anyone can imagine. Early treatment is key, but everything has been about novel and/or expensive pharmaceutically engineered drugs. There's not been a focus on repurposed drugs.' He continued: 'We have a solution to this crisis with this drug ivermectin, which is proving to be miraculous. It basically obliterates transmissions of COVID.'
This is a scientific recommendation based on a mountain of evidence from around the world. The amount of evidence that ivermectin is life saving and protective is so immense and the drug so safe, with 3.6 million doses over 40 years, it must be instituted and implemented now. Any further deaths are needless deaths. I again call on our National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce to look at the evidence and reverse their previous decisions.
The residents of the Altitude Apartments in Balfours Way in the Adelaide CBD have approached me because they are absolutely enraged that they may soon find themselves entombed in complete concrete. When these residents bought their apartments at considerable cost, they did so with the understanding that a land management agreement was in place. This restricted any neighbouring apartment buildings in front of Altitude Apartments in Franklin Street to 25 metres. The land management agreement was signed by the developer in 2014. However, the developer for the adjacent development is now proposing a 53-metre tower. Only the Adelaide City Council can approve this.
Residents fear that if this goes ahead it would not only entomb them in concrete but dramatically impact the property values of the apartments that they paid for at extremely valuable prices. Many residents, including retirees, have invested their life savings in these apartments. The residents are not antidevelopment; they just want people to comply with the LMA that was in place when they bought those apartments. Several residents have contacted me and Lucy Hood, who is the Labor candidate in the state seat of Adelaide, and we're working very closely to assist these people in any way that we can. We need to ensure that development is encouraged, while we continue to protect the rights of people who have already chosen the CBD in Adelaide as their home.
If you turn left at Oak Street in my city at the top of the hill you'll find an old farmhouse, an Ashgrovian besser block built in underneath, where 104-year-old Nick Poluyanovski is still living independently. What a remarkable man! He remembers his first days in 1920, a hundred years ago, so crystal clear. He's a gentle, forgiving and generous man, with jet white hair and the hands of a farmer.
His parents fled across Russia, opposed to the tsars, and came by boat from Vladivostok. His sister was born on the Trans-Siberian railway. He's survived all of his sisters, and he's gone on to look after his extended family, but he doesn't have children of his own. He still lives in the home his family moved into in the 1940s and remains an incredible person to catch up and reflect with. He has his favourite sports; he stays up all night watching the cricket. He loves Steve Smith. He's an incredibly generous man. He loves his racing and reading the paper, and he chats to his neighbours, who visit him regularly. Nick Poluyanovski is a giant of my community, and it's awesome to sit with someone who can remember a hundred years ago. He's a centenarian with a very, very special story to tell, and it's a story I'm proud to tell here.
On Sunday, on social media, I asked my electorate: what issues do you want me to raise in the last week of parliament for 2020? I was flooded with responses from my engaged and passionate community of Wills. The people want urgent action on climate change, by far the most frequently raised issue; manufacturing to return to Australia; a permanent increase to JobSeeker; increases in the age pension; public housing investment; a plan to tackle youth unemployment; fair and humane treatment of people seeking asylum; a federal independent commission against corruption; making big corporations pay their share of tax; protecting language training at universities; and funding for an aged-care system that puts older Australians first.
They want a plan to diversify our supply chains and export markets and a plan to deal with the effects of disinformation spread by bots on social media. They want the appalling cashless welfare card plan dropped and the independent assessments for the NDIS dropped. They want the family from Biloela returned home—not another Christmas in detention. They want more funding to prevent and treat alcohol and other drug use disorders and more funding to combat domestic violence. They want a migration program that brings in temporary migrant workers only when we have genuine skills shortages locally. And—I can't believe I have to say this in a global pandemic—my constituents want to see our medical and scientific research properly funded. They don't want to see our scientists and researchers losing their jobs before Christmas because of a lack of funding. Federal Labor continues to develop policies in these areas. They are the issues that I, and the people of Wills, are passionate about. I will continue to advocate for them on behalf of my constituents.
The communities I represent here in parliament are filled with heroes—men and women who selflessly put the people of Chisholm before themselves. This year, I want to acknowledge those people and what they add to our community.
I have started the Chisholm community awards program to acknowledge these heroes. I asked my community to nominate those truly exceptional volunteers who selflessly give back. I want to speak about one of those heroes today. Anthony Tregenza has been an active member of the SES for over 32 years. Rightfully, he has also been a controller for the last five years. Whitehorse SES, under Anthony's leadership, provide a skilled emergency service to the community. The SES assists with storm damage, floods and many other issues. These organisations only exist because of people like Anthony. I would like to acknowledge Deputy Controller Steven Eckfeld for his nomination of Anthony. I cannot wait to visit my local SES branch in the New Year and personally congratulate them for everything they do.
I rise to raise the issue around Christine Holgate, which, I think, is one of the most unfortunate events I've seen in recent times. Under her the revenue is up for Australia Post by seven per cent. The Australian people only own three assets: the NBN, put there by Kevin Rudd—like it or not—the Snowy Hydro and Australia Post. She put the revenue up seven per cent. Her previous CEO had losses and had to sell assets to make up for those losses. The profits are $53 million a year on a very break-even proposition. We know our letters have gone down, but parcels have done up under her. She takes half the wage that her predecessor took. There were 3,000 small businesses rescued by her very aggressive action, and they were very strongly for it. This place is going to pay a penalty with all those people pulling against the people in this parliament unless she is reinstated. She was punished for $20,000 and three watches. This is the institution that turns over $3 billion, arguably $4 billion, a year. Some of the leading people who deserve some compensation for the effort they put in got $20,000— (Time expired)
In May this year, I told the House about the telecommunications challenges faced by my electorate and the serious threats to life and property resulting from unreliable and inadequate service. During the last summer, the fire control centre for my region had months without a working landline and mobile reception. There are around 80 black spots that have been identified across the electorate.
I want to update the House about some small but important forward steps we've taken. Improvements have been made to fix line services so they're more resilient when storms and floods affect our area. We've made significant progress towards a new mobile tower to be installed on Dangar Island, and we've had three new mobile towers committed for Middle Dural, Glenhaven and Glenorie. Perhaps most importantly, the conditions of the government's next round of the Mobile Black Spot Program have been adjusted so that disaster prone areas like our electorate can have black spots plugged.
Now the rubber needs to hit the road. I call on all telecommunications providers to make serious applications for towers in Arcadia, Annangrove, Kenthurst, Dural, Galston, Maroota, Middle Dural, Glenhaven and Glenorie. We also need independent information about where mobile black spots are, so that people can see what coverage they really receive from providers, instead of what telecommunications companies claim they provide. We all know there's a yawning gap between the promise and the reality. I spent all year showing the need for telecommunications; now the telcos need to deliver. People living in metropolitan Sydney should be able to make phone calls and send emails from their home without a hassle. Telecommunications should be a right, not a privilege.
I rise today to draw further attention to the issue that is affecting many small businesses across Eden-Monaro. Businesses are desperately trying to renew their insurance policies in the wake of the Black Summer bushfires, but they're finding that either they're being rejected or they're being asked to pay unaffordable premiums. As the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, put it this morning, there is 'widespread market failure in regard to the availability and affordability of essential small business insurance products'. Our friends in northern Australia have been flagging this for some time. Increasing cyclones and floods as a result of climate change have already made insurance an unaffordable luxury.
Since 2017, the ACCC has been investigating the issue, and I understand that its final report is currently with the Treasurer. My community simply can't afford to wait any longer. Insurance underpins the jobs we need for our renewal following drought, bushfires, floods and COVID-19. The market and the environment have been ringing the alarm bell for years. The canary in the coalmine died long ago and is now festering on the doorsteps of households right across Eden-Monaro. This government needs to work with the insurance sector so that everyday Australians aren't left exposed. Insurance saved the day for many people after they lost everything in the flames of last summer. We will compound the trauma and expose government finances further if we don't fix this now.
As a former mental health researcher and clinician, I'm in a unique position to understand not only mental health research but also the real-world implications of mental health policy. Through the COVID-19 pandemic, the Morrison government has saved lives and livelihoods. We are now supporting the comeback from the COVID-19 recession, and mental health support is a critical component of this process. In my first speech in parliament, I highlighted the importance of evidence based policy. Without evidence, policymakers fall back on intuition, ideology or theory alone, and this can lead us astray. Good research and evidence guide us to make the best possible policy. We have seen this in the outstanding way the Morrison government has managed the COVID-19 pandemic, guided by our scientists and our medical experts.
We continue to support Australians who have lost incomes or faced social isolation as a result of the pandemic. Evidence based policy is critical to producing a targeted and effective mental health response. In my 20 years as a mental health practitioner I learned that prevention and early intervention is critical to reducing mental health problems across the life span. The recent report from the Productivity Commission into mental health estimated that mental ill health costs Australia at least $43 billion per year, and evidence based policy focusing on prevention and early intervention will be critical. (Time expired)
As every Victorian would know after the COVID-19 lockdown, Australia Post delivery services have been a shambles. Why? The posties know why. In October, the Victorian postal union surveyed the Melbourne posties. The results were disturbing. Nine in 10 posties said there had been a degradation of services because of the government's cuts to mail delivery frequency. Due to the workloads, mail and parcels were left behind, meal breaks were skipped by seven in 10 workers and there was speeding on footpaths. Yet, before a Senate committee, the Australia Post acting CEO dismissed the survey and tried to claim that it was unrepresentative and that Melbourne postal workers supported the cuts.
Postal workers across Melbourne were furious, and they signed a petition condemning the cuts and the comments. In my electorate, over 85 per cent of available posties at the Narre Warren delivery centre signed the petition. The acting CEO of Australia Post and the Morrison government should apologise for their arrogant dismissal of the concerns raised by Australia Post workers. Back in April the Morrison government tried to use the COVID-19 crisis as cover to cut one in four postie jobs. This was a disgrace, and the attacks on frontline posties need to stop. The essential workers of Australia Post have performed an invaluable service for their communities and the country through the bushfires and the COVID-19 period, and to them we say thank you. Labor will always stand with the workers of Australia Post, because we understand they are the heart and soul of this great organisation.
I often say that in my electorate of Lindsay our community is full to the brim and overflowing with community spirit. This was on full display at Christmas events for the Penrith City National Servicemen's Association and the St Mary's Vietnam Veterans' Outpost last weekend. Both organisations are doing such incredible work in our community.
At the Penrith City National Servicemen's Association, fondly known as Nashos, we had a beautiful Christmas dinner and a raffle with over 180 prizes. The proceeds go to the club so they can continue the very important work they do for service men and women and their families. The president of Nashos, Harry May, said they couldn't do their work without the generosity of our community. I'm honoured to be a patron of Nashos and to have been there to celebrate Christmas with them.
I also attended the St Mary's Vietnam Veterans' Outpost Christmas lunch. They not only support veterans and their families but all serving members of the Australian Defence Force, current and former. It was a great chance to connect with local veterans in our community at the St Marys RSL Club after a year of being apart.
As we approach the Christmas break, I encourage everyone to check in on our local veterans. I want to thank them for their service and wish them a very merry Christmas.
Every one of these signatures represents the views of the people of Horsley Park and Cecil Park against the degradation of their rights by the Berejiklian Liberal government in New South Wales. The Liberal government in New South Wales has torn up the longstanding rights of the people of Horsley Park and Cecil Park to subdivide their land if they have five acres or to build a dwelling as small as a granny flat to house an elderly resident. The people of Horsley Park and Cecil Park have planned for years based on the existing law.
I recently held one of my coffees with a pollie in Horsley Park, but there was one issue that people wanted to talk about, and it was this. Plenty of people came down to tell me about their white hot anger with the Berejiklian Liberal government. The fact is they bought these blocks of land years ago with a view to one day subdividing it for their children, and their rights have been ripped away. Charles Borg wrote:
At some stage in the near future my mother will need to apply for an age pension if she cannot subdivide and sell her land as she does not intend to leave her family home of 52 years.
These are the real-life implications of this arrogant approach by the Liberal Party in New South Wales. And what's been the response of the state Liberal member? She gave a speech in the state parliament attacking me. I couldn't give two hoots what she says about me, because she can say what she likes. I would just like her to do her job and stand up for the people who elected her, the people of Horsley Park and Cecil Park.
The SPEAKER: The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
I seek leave to incorporate the petition.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
The NSW State Government's new State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) regarding the Western Sydney Aerotropolis overrides Fairfield City Council powers, which means residents in Horsley Park and Cecil Park will have additional restrictions placed on their property.
After 1 October 2020, residents who own land or five acres of more will only be allowed to build one property. The Berejiklian Liberal State Government is removing the rights of landowners retrospectively and without proper consultation.
We the undersigned petition to revoke this unfair SEPP and engage in proper consultation with the community
One of the great privileges in this role at this time of year is that get to enjoy attending graduation and awards ceremonies at some of our 41 schools around my electorate of Forde. It's always an honour to join the teachers and students who are the foundation of our future on these special occasions.
It's been an incredibly difficult year with COVID-19 testing the resilience and patience of our teachers, students and parents alike, all of which makes the achievements of some of our local schools at the Australian Education Awards even more remarkable. These awards are the country's highest education awards and it's my great pleasure to report to the House that Marsden State High School was named Australia's top secondary school of the year and Principal Andrew Peach named the country's top public school principal.
Special mention must also go to Marsden State High School teacher Fiona Pennisi-Mitchell who won an excellence award in the teacher of the year category. Adam Knights, the principal of Beenleigh State School, won an excellence award in the primary school principal of the year category; and Beenleigh State School overall won an excellence award for the primary school of the year.
In awarding the top prize to Andrew Peach, the judges said:
Principal Andrew Peach embodies and lives out his school's vision: "Dare to Inspire, Make a Difference".
I commend all the teaching staff and students of Forde for their hard work and dedication this year which has resulted in these excellent outcomes.
Last week I rose to inform the House about the plight of over 300 local employees and their families in my electorate of Macarthur who have been unfairly locked out of their workplace by the Coles Group. These hardworking employees are not on strike. They've been cruelly locked out of their workplace for three months over the Christmas and new year period. The decision of Coles to lock the workers out of the Smeaton Grange distribution centre means that well over 300 workers and their families will be going without pay over Christmas and the new year.
For me this is very personal. I know many of the workers. I've looked after their children, their grandchildren and for some of them I've looked after them when they were children. One employee, a single father, doesn't know how he is going to pay to care for his children over the Christmas and new year period. Another one has two children with autism and he can't afford to buy Christmas presents for them. I've heard from many employees who are unsure whether they can pay their mortgages or pay their rent.
The response from this government has been nothing short of pathetic. At a time when they're introducing some quite significant industrial relations legislation to the parliament, they don't care about these workers. They have a laissez-faire approach. They've refused to contact the company to get them back to the table to bargain. Unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens these workers will have no pay over the Christmas period to support their families and support themselves. This is a tragedy. It's indicative of the government's response to industrial relations and a huge shame, and this government is responsible.
I rise today to congratulate year 12 students in Barker on the completion of their secondary education. For them their graduation represents the closure of one chapter of their lives and the beginning of a new and exciting one as they move towards adult life. I encourage all graduates to grasp the opportunities that the next stage of their lives offers to them.
Getting to this point, despite the challenges presented this year, should give those graduating students the confidence to know that they're capable of achieving much. The career choices they make will not only affect the rest of their lives but also shape the future of this country. Like me, I'm sure their teachers, their families, their friends are all very proud of their efforts and achievements.
Every year it is my great pleasure to present the Barker Shield awards in recognition of outstanding student achievements across Barker. Three students in each participating school in the electorate received an award in academic achievement, community service and spirit and a category determined by the school. Unfortunately, as most graduation ceremonies have been cancelled, I'm unable to present the awards to the students this year, so I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Barker Shield recipients and the entire class of 2020 on their success. And whether they're continuing additional study or entering the workforce, I want to wish them all the very best for a 2021 that's better than this year.
Well, well, well, they say history repeats itself and here we are again: history has repeated itself. I thought, like many, Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated but today it's been resurrected. It's been reincarnated by this government. One of the worst parts of Work Choices was the fact that this former government, under John Howard, gave employers the ability to strike agreements that undercut wages and conditions—undercut the award. These agreements, these Work Choice zombie agreements, still exist. It's really hard for employees to get off these agreements. Yet, rather than trying to clean that legacy mess up, this government and this IR minister are bringing it back. They're giving employers two years to rush through agreements that undercut the award. They don't just want people's penalty rates, they don't just want people's breaks, they don't just want people's leave entitlements, they're now going to let people take away base rates. This government is going further than John Howard with Work Choices, using a crisis, using the disguise of COVID-19, to rush through reforms that will just let anything go. If it really was a crisis that lasted two years, then why has this Prime Minister already cut JobKeeper? You can't have it both ways: it's either a crisis giving employers free will, or it's not a crisis and you can cut JobKeeper.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Nurses, supermarket workers, cleaners, teachers, childcare workers, truck drivers and aged-care workers amongst others have helped Australia get through the pandemic. Why is the Prime Minister rewarding their sacrifice and hard work by cutting their take-home pay?
What the Leader of the Opposition just said is completely untrue. This is a response from the Labor Party which is not surprising, but is disappointing, as usual.
It's predictable!
It is predictable, Treasurer. In the peak of this crisis we pulled together employers and employee representatives from around the country. We got them together in good faith. Some 150 hours were spent bringing them together and holding discussions around a whole range of issues. We said very clearly, as a government, that having gone through that process—and listened—the government would eventually bring to this place a full package of job-creating and job-keeping changes to ensure that Australia could come out of, and emerge through, this COVID-19 recession. That process was not one where we sought for parties to sign-off on the end of a period of discussion. We listened to them and then we brought forward the changes that the government believe are necessary to keep jobs and to create jobs.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is true that the comeback of the Australian economy has begun, but the recovery process has a long way to go. For that recovery process to continue for whatever sectors or industries Australians are from, and the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned many of them, their jobs depend on continuing changes being made to ensure that we can keep people in jobs and we get more people back into jobs. We are seeking to do that in a way that allows those employees and their employers to be able to sit together and make agreements that leave them in a better position as organisations, as enterprises, which create and support jobs. Our changes back the wisdom of people in their workplaces. Our changes back the necessity to get Australians back into work.
Opposition members interjecting—
I said of the Leader of the Opposition some time ago, if he doesn't know how Australia went into the COVID-19 recession, then he has no clue about how to come out of it. What he has portrayed today is that sentiment again. The leader of the Labor Party does not understand the nature of the economic challenges faced by Australia. It is absolutely true that our recovery has begun, but it has a long way to go. The government have a broad platform of measures as part of our COVID-19 recovery plan that has already seen almost 80 per cent of work coming back, and that's how we'll continue. (Time expired)
I didn't interrupt the answer to warn several people, including the members for Gorton, Ballarat, Cooper, Kingsford Smith and many others. I'm not going to keep warning people. I'm just going to remind members that if they interject, I will act as I did yesterday. We need to do better than we've been doing, in terms of interjections, and I will have no hesitation to do that. I remind them that standing order 94(a) does not require a warning. I've been doing that to be extra tolerant, but it's not resulting in the level of behaviour that we need. So, if members interject, don't be surprised if you're ejected.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's Economic Recovery Plan is driving our comeback from the COVID-19 recession, including by helping to create and secure more jobs?
I thank the member for her question and I thank her once again for her leadership in her community, and particularly for her great leadership of the Chinese-Australian community in her electorate. It was so critical, particularly in the early phases of the pandemic and the way that they practised the necessary health precautions that ensured that Australia did not face the devastating impacts of COVID-19 in the same scale as was experienced elsewhere in the world, in other countries.
In the early phases of the pandemic one of the key objectives that we had was, obviously, not just to cushion the blow and to get on top of our health response to the COVID-19 pandemic; the goal was to build confidence again and to restore confidence that had been shattered by the COVID-19 pandemic that hit this country. That goal of confidence amongst Australians, amongst consumers, amongst businesses, is the critical ingredient for Australia's comeback from the COVID-19 recovery.
Following the surveys that were released this week—the ANZ survey had consumer confidence jumping to a 2020 high, and the NAB survey had business confidence jumping to an over two-year high—today we hear from Westpac that consumer sentiment confidence has risen to the highest level in a decade. That says that Australians have responded to the supports that have been put in place both at a federal level—most significantly—and at a state level to ensure that they could look forward into the future, into 2021, with great confidence. Bill Evans has put the rise in confidence down to, amongst many things, rapid, proactive responses from authorities critical to containing the economic damage.
There is a clear understanding from Australians that the government has worked with other governments around the country, cooperatively, proactively to support Australians through the worst crisis they have seen in economic terms since the Great Depression. That work will continue as we continue to roll out the recovery plan from the COVID-19 recession that was set out by the Treasurer, and that includes so many issues, from skills to infrastructure, to lower taxes, to important changes in our workplace, to cutting red tape so businesses can employ. All of this is designed so they can look forward to 2021 as we gear out of a series of supports into a new layer of supports that will see Australia through. We have a plan to see Australia through. It is seeing Australia through. Today's confidence figures show that Australians have the confidence to back that plan. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. It's true that businesses around Australia have had an extremely difficult year. But doesn't the Prime Minister understand that working families have too, so why do they deserve a cut in their take-home pay? Why is it that businesses are encouraged to come back while working families are held back?
Again, what the Labor Party is saying is not true. Eighty per cent of the jobs that have been lost or have had hours reduced to zero have come back. They are the jobs of working Australians that were lost, and 700,000 jobs would have been lost were it not for the proactive work of the plans that this government put in place to see Australians through. We want to see that continue. We want to see another 200,000 jobs come back just to get us back to where we started. We want to see hundreds of thousands more of those jobs come back on top of that. You don't get there unless you deal with the things that act as a barrier to Australians coming back into work.
I believe Australians are better off in jobs. The Labor Party wants to stand in the way of Australians getting jobs. If you're for workers, you should be for jobs. This government is for jobs. Before the pandemic, 1.5 million Australians were able to find their way back into work through their efforts and as a result of the supportive policies for our economy that saw that occur. We are doing the same thing now as we come through the worst recession that this country has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The conditions that Australians, and the businesses that employ eight out of 10 Australians, are facing now are unknown to the Labor Party. They think that somehow these jobs will create themselves. The Labor Party does not know how to get Australia out of this great challenge. But I can assure Australians that we understand. It is about empowering Australians through their skills development. It is about empowering Australian businesses and workers through lower taxes. It's about empowering Australians to get more hours so they can earn more. We want to see Australians earn more, and you can only earn more if you're in a job. The Labor Party may not understand that if the business doesn't exist then no-one has a job. They might not understand that, but our championing of an economy that is driven by those who create jobs, we know, is the way to get Australians into jobs. These changes are modest, I admit. These changes are pragmatic. These changes are practical. Those opposite would like to return to conflict politics. What we seek to do is see workers and their employers work together under— (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
I remind members of my earlier statement and I now issue a general warning. If you want to know what happens from here, it's either fewer interjections or you can get out yesterday's Hansard from about 2.15 onwards.
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's comeback plan from the COVID-19 recession is delivering critical infrastructure projects across regional Australia?
Well, everybody will be in furious agreement with what I have to say. I know that the member for Mallee knows all too well—
I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister: when I'm trying to get better behaviour in the chamber, provocation doesn't help!
Well, if they don't agree with me, Mr Speaker, they will agree with a local Wedderburn cocky, a bloke by the name of Des Lanyon, who said, 'Prior to connection of the South West Loddon Pipeline, I needed to cart water for 20 out of the past 50 years.' Can you just imagine having to cart water for 20 years of the past half-century? He also said, 'In those years, I spent between 40 and 50 hours a week carting water just to meet our livestock and household needs.' This farmer is so pleased that we are investing in and developing water infrastructure. He belongs to the member for Mallee's electorate. He lives near Wedderburn. Some people might know that the Hand of Faith gold nugget came from near Wedderburn. We know, and certainly everybody should know, that water is worth its weight in gold. That's why we're building dams. That's why we're getting on with the job of making sure that the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund has the resources it needs—$3½ billion—to be spent on developing water infrastructure for farmers like Des Lanyon and for farmers like, in the member for Bass's electorate, Cameron Moore, from Jetsonville, who said, of the Scottsdale dam: 'It means we have been able to expand the current vegetable production to onions, potatoes, carrots, swedes and beetroot.'
But back to Mallee, a great Victorian electorate: we've completed two of those water infrastructure projects, securing supply of water for agriculture. The South West Loddon Rural Water Supply Project is a $90 million investment ensuring supply for 219,000 hectares. The delivery of this project, with the construction of the pipeline, has connected more than 380 customers across communities such as Wedderburn, Inglewood and Bridgewater. The project has delivered jobs in the regions. The Prime Minister would agree that this is what it's all about as well. It's about jobs. It's about jobs for construction, jobs for the future. There were 40 jobs during the building of it and around 134 jobs created in farming, in agricultural output, for that fantastic area of rural Victoria. The project was completed in May of this year, and the benefits are already flowing to the customers.
In Mildura, the Sunraysia Modernisation Project 2 is delivering 90 jobs. The member for Mallee knows this well. The project is delivering water supply to about 2,000 hectares of land around Merbein and Red Cliffs. This expansion has allowed for an increase in ag production in citrus and premium grape yields, a significant export for the region. These projects are but two of the projects we're getting on with and delivering. We're investing in water infrastructure. We're investing in the future. We're investing in agriculture. We want it to get to $100 billion by 2030. I know that the minister for agriculture is right behind this, as we all are, as we should be.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The government has said the economy is recovering so well that JobKeeper and JobSeeker are being cut but now says the economy is going so badly that businesses need to cut the take-home pay of working families to stay afloat. Which is it, Prime Minister? It can't be both.
The only person who has a bet each way on everything is the Leader of the Opposition. He's the only each-way in this House, and that's well known. Our policies are designed to put Australians into work, and that's what they're achieving. It is regrettable that the Labor Party once again, as they did before the last election, want to engage in the politics of division and seek to set one group of people against another. The claims made by the Leader of the Opposition in his question are false. They're designed to try to incite division in this country.
But we're used to this from the Labor Party. At the last election, they tried to set one group of taxpayers against another, one set of businesses against another. It is always the way of the Labor Party to seek to hold some down in order to advance others. That's not our view. It has never been our view. The leader of the Labor Party does not know what's going on in the economy, and his question betrays that point. What is occurring in our economy is that we need to continue to implement our plans and to transition our economy, as we see the recovery increase into the future. We have provided record income support, which those opposite on the one hand say they need to taper and on the other hand say they don't—an each-way position from the Leader of the Opposition, which he is becoming very well known for, all around the country. Whether it's on economics or on national security policy, this Leader of the Opposition will have an each-way bet on every single issue.
What we will do is get people back into jobs in successful businesses that can pay them better and better in the years ahead, by having a strong economy. Those opposite may want to engage in the politics of negativity. My government is focused on the economics of recovery, and a key part of that economic recovery plan is not just skills, not just affordable energy for heavy industries and getting the gas that is needed to fire up our manufacturing sector. It's not just about building the infrastructure that is necessary to drive our economy forward or the digital transformation plans or the 30,000 additional education places next year in universities, or the biggest rollout of communications infrastructure on this government's watch—the biggest ever. That's what we've achieved. And making practical changes for how workers and employers get together and make their way through this crisis is critical to our recovery plan.
The Labor Party are stuck in the past on these issues. They don't understand cooperation in the workplace. All they understand is conflict. Throughout this crisis, it's been conflict— (Time expired)
My question is to the minister for communications. Minister, small and regional news media publishers are vital to rural Australia. They face unique challenges different to those of the large media corporates. Will the minister commit to amending the government's news media bargaining code legislation so that its planned 12-month review specifically considers and reports on the impacts of the code on small and regional publishers?
I thank the member for Indi for her question. The Morrison government certainly shares her view about the importance of regional media. That's why we committed $55 million under the Public Interest News Gathering Program, with $18 million for regional newspapers, including, in her electorate, the Wangaratta Chronicle, the Mansfield Courier, the Euroa Gazette, the Ovens and Murray Advertiser, the Myrtleford Times, the Alpine Observer and the Benalla Ensign, amongst others. These are regional media outlets which have received support from this government under the wide range of policy tools we've introduced this year to support regional media through the challenges of the pandemic and the recession that it has brought.
But of course we are doing more. Our plan to support the comeback of the media sector and the broader economy from the COVID recession of course includes the mandatory code, with legislation introduced into the parliament just today by the Treasurer. This is a powerful policy tool to support diverse, independent Australian media voices, including in regional Australia. It builds on thorough policy work over three years, initiated by the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister with the ACCC digital platforms inquiry. We've consulted very extensively with stakeholders, both the news media businesses, large and small, around Australia and the digital platforms. What the mandatory code requires, backed by the force of law, is for Google and Facebook to engage in commercial negotiations with Australian news media businesses on how they should be remunerated for content that they generate and they pay for. Quality journalism costs money and if that content is accessed by Australians through the digital platforms, if it attracts eyeballs to those platforms—which those platforms very successfully monetise; they're very, very profitable businesses—then it's appropriate that they should pay remuneration for that. That's what the mandatory code is designed to achieve.
And, of course, we've thought very consciously about the role of regional news media businesses. So there's a power for news media businesses to bargain collectively with Google and Facebook. We expect that may well be taken up by smaller news media businesses, including those in regional Australia. And there's also a provision for Google and Facebook to make default offers which, again, we think may well produce outcomes for smaller news media businesses and regional news media businesses.
So the Morrison government shares the member's commitment to regional media. We're supporting the comeback of regional media as part of the comeback of our economy from the COVID-19 recession. We are for quality public interest journalism about issues and events of importance to Australia. The news media code will support that.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House how the Morrison government's effective economic leadership is helping to create a stronger and more secure economy as we embark on our comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Herbert for serving in the Australian Defence Force and for being a champion on mental health issues, on veterans' issues and on infrastructure. More than 70,000 taxpayers in the member for Herbert's electorate are getting a tax cut as a result of policies supported by this side of the House. And around 4,000 businesses in Herbert have been benefiting from the JobKeeper program.
The member for Herbert, like other members on this side of the House, understands that the Australian economy has faced its biggest hit since the Great Depression. It saw a reduction in quarterly growth in June of seven per cent. This compared to a fall of around 12 per cent in New Zealand, 14 per cent in France and around 20 per cent in the United Kingdom. But the economic comeback is on!
Mr Husic interjecting—
I'll take the interjection from the member for Chifley: we welcome his comeback too! But it is not as impressive as the Australian economy's comeback, because what we have seen is consumer sentiment up by 4.1 per cent this month and we've seen four consecutive months of consumer sentiment rising. Bill Evans, Westpac's chief economist, said that consumer sentiment has fully recovered from the COVID-19 recession.
Yesterday we saw business confidence up, and we've seen strong jobs growth. We've seen 80 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or had their working hours reduced to zero at the start of the pandemic back at work, and 178,000 jobs were created last month. The effective unemployment rate has reduced from 14.9 per cent to 7.4 per cent. In the month of October, we saw two million fewer Australian workers on JobKeeper compared to the month of September. They may be workers in cafes in Sturt. They may be crane drivers in Lindsay or cakemakers in Reid. We have seen, right across the country, businesses graduating from JobKeeper and workers no longer needing that income support. We also saw, in the September quarter, 3.3 per cent GDP growth here in Australia, which means that, year on year, the Australian economy is performing better than France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and New Zealand. The economic comeback is on. Australians are getting back to work. It's still a tough road ahead, but the efforts and the policies of the Morrison government are making a difference for the better.
My question is to the Treasurer, and it refers to his answer just now. If the economy's going so well, why are you cutting people's pay?
We are helping Australians get back into work—
Mr Gosling interjecting—
and that—
The Treasurer will pause for a second. The member for Solomon will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Solomon then left the chamber.
The member for Rankin's assertion is simply not true. What we have seen across the country is that jobs are coming back in the face of the most significant economic shock since the Great Depression. The policies supported by those on this side of the House are not only creating jobs but also strengthening the Australian economy for the recovery ahead.
On budget night, 6 October, we announced tax cuts for more than 11½ million Australians. We announced the loss carry-back measure to give businesses working capital so that they can continue to keep their workers employed. We put in place immediate expensing provisions for businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion, to support investment across the country. We've also put in place a JobMaker hiring credit to support around 450,000 jobs. We've invested more money in transport infrastructure, water infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure. We're backing apprentices—100,000 new apprentices across the economy—by providing a wage subsidy of up to 50 per cent.
It might be an inconvenient truth for the member for Rankin, but the reality across the Australian economy is that it is coming back. The recovery is underway. The member for Rankin may be entitled to his own opinions, but he's not entitled to his own facts.
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
It's on direct relevance. The Treasurer should either defend the cut to take-home pay or drop the policy.
That was not a point of order, I say to the Manager of Opposition Business. The Treasurer has concluded his answer.
My question today goes to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on Australia's health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the encouraging developments in the search for a vaccine and how critically important this is to our country's economic comeback?
I thank the member for Fairfax, who has been a great champion for Bloomhill Cancer Care and the care that they provide to people who are most in need. On the subject of those most in need, shortly before coming to question time, I was given the very heartening news by the National Incident Centre that today there are zero Australians with COVID-19 on ventilation, there are zero Australians with COVID-19 in ICU and there have again been zero cases of community transmission right across Australia. That achievement comes against the background of a world with over 68 million cases, with over 1.55 million lives agonisingly lost and, in the last week, the two highest days with regard to daily case numbers and daily lives lost. The extent and scope of COVID-19 is greater than ever. We know that in Australia, over that same period, there was one case in seven days of community transmission and 69 cases within the hotel quarantine scheme. What that says is these are cases coming from overseas and so we as a nation will not be truly safe until the world is safe and safely vaccinated.
Our vaccination program is a critical part of that, and we have taken the advice of the scientific experts and will continue to take their advice. SITAG, or the Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group, led by Professor Murphy, has been fundamental. Its advice has been critical in our selection of vaccines and will be critical and fundamental going forwards. Significantly, there are over—
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce will leave under standing order 94(a). I can recognise his voice even though I can't see him behind the lectern.
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
There are over 48 vaccines in human clinical trials and over 10 vaccines that are currently in phase 3 of clinical trials. Our scientific committee has led us to the position where three of our vaccines are within the group of 10, which is a wonderful result. The Pfizer vaccine has already had approval within the United Kingdom on an emergency basis. What we've seen today is the AstraZeneca vaccine has now had Lancet publication of fundamentally important results. That's great news for Australia. As we sit here in parliament, the AstraZeneca vaccine is being produced in Melbourne by CSL. That domestic production capacity is helping Australians. It may even allow us to expand our production capacity and to accelerate that process of what we're doing. These things are critical for saving lives and protecting lives, and giving us a strong 2021 and a safe 2021.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Wages growth has been stagnant for the eight long years of this Liberal government. Won't cutting the take-home pay of working families just make things worse?
We reject the false assertion from those opposite. What we do say is that the policies on this side of the House are assisting with the comeback of the Australian economy. When it comes to wages growth, we have seen—
Ms Coker interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Corangamite then left the chamber.
We have seen wages growth of 0.7 per cent. That has also been the 20-year average we've seen across the economy. That has taken into account the time that the Labor Party were in government and of course the time that the coalition have been in government.
But the key to driving wages growth is getting more people into jobs. When you get more people into jobs you create more competition in the labour market and therefore higher wages growth. Whether it's our tax cuts, our incentives for investment, our JobMaker hiring credit, our support for apprentices or our bringing forward of and new investments in infrastructure—water infrastructure, transport infrastructure and communications infrastructure—these are the policies that are designed to drive jobs right across the country. We saw 178,000 jobs created last month. We've seen 80 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or had their working hours reduced to zero back at work. The key to driving up wages growth is creating more jobs, and that is what our policies are designed to do.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is helping both employers and employees to work together to create more jobs and better agreements as part of our economic comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for her question and for her interest in this area. As the Treasurer noted, more jobs and more competition for jobs is what drives wage growth. One thing that members opposite very rarely like to acknowledge is that more people on enterprise agreements means higher wages. The whole purpose of Paul Keating's design of the enterprise agreement system was to move people off awards and onto enterprise agreements, where the wages are higher. At the peak of the COVID recession, there were some 1.3 million Australians who had either lost their job or were stood down on zero hours. The goal of this government is to create jobs. Everything in the bill that we put before the parliament this morning is designed to create jobs and put upward pressure on wages.
When we look at the enterprise agreement making system, the bargaining system, there is absolutely universal agreement that it no longer works, that it's no longer fit for purpose. Employers agree with that proposition, employees agree with that proposition and the government agrees with that proposition. We all want to do something about that—except for members opposite. In fact, it was Paul Keating himself who said, 'Enterprise bargaining doesn't work as it should do, as I designed it to do'. And that is preventing bargaining from increasing productivity and increasing wages. In the last 10 years, we've seen enterprise agreements in freefall. They peaked at 25,150 in 2010 and were down to just 10,711 at 30 June this year. That's a 57 per cent drop in people who are covered by enterprise agreements. If you are covered by an enterprise agreement, your median hourly ordinary time earnings are 40 per cent higher than if you are on the awards. More enterprise agreements—higher wages. More jobs—higher wages. It's a fairly simple calculus.
That's why we are actually making changes, bringing ideas to the table, to try and fix the enterprise agreement making system—simplify procedures and cut red tape—and there are a number of improvements that we are making. These improvements are designed to stop the sort of things we've seen happening recently, where it becomes untenably difficult to actually conclude an agreement. In the Officeworks agreement in 2019, enormous time and effort had to be allocated to discussions around coolrooms for Officeworks. Undertakings were sought and had to be provided by Officeworks that it would not require employees to 'engage in work that would entitle them to a cold work disability allowance within the meaning of clause 28 of the General Retail Industry Award' or hold a liquor licence. Officeworks did not at all want to have a coldroom or hold a liquor licence. These types of legalistic, technical accoutrements that have grown around the system meant it doesn't work—and it can be improved. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the government's legislation, a personal carer in aged care could lose up to $11,000 a year from their take-home pay. Why is the government's Christmas gift for frontline workers a cut to their take-home pay?
The reason why not one of the questions that have been asked today seeks to explain how it is that take-home pay would be as they say is because it's not true. There is no explanation of that. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that anyone here can point to that does what they say it does—because it doesn't do that.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith has continually interjected. I've made my position as clear as I can. There is no point in me raising my voice like people do when they are interjecting. She will leave under 94(a). I ejected a couple of members from the government side yesterday. If members are going to continue to ignore my rulings on the level of interjections, I will have no hesitation in naming them and seeking to have them suspended for 24 hours—no hesitation at all.
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
My question is to the . Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's HomeBuilder plan is supporting new jobs in the housing construction sector and helping to drive our economic comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is unquestionably a champion for all the workers in the residential construction industry in her electorate and, like everybody in the Morrison government, a champion for first home buyers. I'm happy to report to the member for Robertson that, yes, the HomeBuilder program has been extraordinarily successful in supporting the one million jobs in the residential construction industry. PowerHousing Australia and CoreLogic have provided some interesting statistics that show that, for every new home that's built in this country, 43 trades are supported. Whether that's the bricklayers, whether that's the plumbers, whether that's the carpenters, and it extends all the way to the timber mill workers who make the frames and the trusses and the manufacturing workers who make the bricks and the tiles and the glass, they are Australian jobs.
The HomeBuilder program has had over 32,000 applications to date. What that means, as the ABS has shown with building approvals data, is that the HomeBuilder program has not just ensured that the residential construction industry got back to pre-pandemic levels, which was really its objective, it is now ensuring that new home sales are at a 20-year high. What do those new home sales mean? It means supporting those million jobs. In addition to that, with the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme working in conjunction with HomeBuilder, we have seen first home buyers at a 10-year high. In the middle of a pandemic, first home buyers are now at a 10-year high.
The Morrison government is a government for first home buyers, there's no doubt. Sadly, the opposition has abandoned first home buyers, abandoned those in the residential construction industry, doesn't support the HomeBuilder program, didn't originally support the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme—so there are, literally, tens of thousands of first home buyers in this country, right now, that know they have been able to get a foot into the market with the support of the Morrison government. And, of course, the HomeBuilder program is fuelling our comeback. It is fuelling a tradie-led recovery in the economy, up to a million employees in the industry. It is five per cent of our GDP, $100 billion.
No-one should underestimate how important the residential construction industry is, which is why it's so disappointing that those opposite are so callous that they don't support the HomeBuilder program. They don't support this highly successful program. As the CEO of the Property Council recently said when we extended HomeBuilder, 'The government's decision to extend this successful program will keep hundreds of thousands of people in jobs.' That is what the Morrison government is doing, and we will continue to do it throughout our comeback. (Time expired)
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the government's new workplace laws allow the Fair Work Commission to approve agreements that cut existing penalty rates and leave workers worse off under section 19?
There's a provision that Labor put into the Fair Work Act which allows, in out-of-the-ordinary circumstances, for changes and variations from awards. It's used very infrequently, and we have extended it to apply to COVID. Many of the instances where it has been used previously relate to drought and flood, and they almost exclusively relate to changes in the number of hours worked and span of hours. So, again, your characterisation of the provision that we have used to extend the provision that you instituted in the act is actually wrong.
My question is for the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is backing our world-class science agency the CSIRO to continue its vital work in building climate and disaster resilience?
I thank the member for his question. Science and research is all about solving problems and advancing humanity. That means, of course, supporting the environment. I know that the minister for emissions reduction and the Minister for the Environment have a range of programs to build climate resilience within their portfolios. And as the minister for science I am focused on ensuring our science and research agencies are delivering the very practical outcomes that make a real and significant difference.
The CSIRO has been building climate resilience for decades now, and they are achieving some amazing outcomes for breeding things such as drought tolerant and water efficient crop varieties. Importantly, their FutureFeed project is a potential game changer when it comes to reducing emissions around the world. If cattle were a country, they would be the world's third-largest emitter behind China and the United States. The CSIRO has developed a specific type of seaweed to be used as a feed supplement for stock, and that supplement reduces methane emissions by more than 80 per cent. If just 10 per cent of the livestock industry started using the FutureFeed supplement, it would have the same positive climate effect as removing 100 million cars from the road. The FutureFeed supplement also increases productivity in cattle and sheep by around 10 per cent, providing a boost to our farmers' bottom line. It's great for the environment and it's great for business. As an added bonus, growing seaweed for feed helps remediate waste nutrients and reverses the growing levels of excess CO2 in our oceans. This is very practical work and I'm delighted that this work has now been commercialised, with investors coming on board to take this product to market.
This is a perfect example of how we adapt and build climate resilience without having to shut down industries. In fact, CSIRO's work is helping us to open new industries. For example, they've come up with a metal membrane that will be able to extract pure hydrogen from ammonia, and that paves the way for a new clean energy export market. Building resilience to reduce the impact of drought, flood, fire and a changing climate is vital. It's vital for the wellbeing of our communities and it's vital for our economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In three months, JobKeeper will be ripped away and JobSeeker will be cut to $40 a day. Now the Prime Minister wants to also cut the take-home pay of working families. Don't the Prime Minister's cuts to JobKeeper, his cuts to JobSeeker and his cuts to take-home pay punish working families who have already had the toughest of years?
Once again, in relation to the issues of pay, the member opposite is not telling the truth. In relation to JobSeeker and JobKeeper, we can say that post September we saw 450,000 businesses employing more than two million Australians graduate from JobKeeper, and, at the same time, we saw the number of people on JobSeeker decline in net terms. So, as we continue to gear the economy back up through this comeback that is underway, the plan that we have set out is ensuring that our economy is getting stronger and stronger and those who are in jobs no longer need the income support from the taxpayer they needed before.
An opposition member interjecting—
I take the interjection from the shadow assistant minister in the economy portfolio who talked about unemployment. He would know that the effective rate of unemployment has almost halved. Indeed, it has halved since the peak of the crisis from 14.9 per cent to 7.4 per cent. I would have thought someone who claims to have great prowess in economics would understand what the effective rate of unemployment meant. But it doesn't suit his argument to know that we've seen 80 per cent of jobs come back—jobs that were either lost or reduced to zero hours. This recovery has a long way to go, and there are still difficult issues that need to be solved. We will engage constructively in delivering practical solutions which deliver a stronger economy which means more jobs and better wages. That's what we have been delivering and that's what we will continue to deliver. But the politics of division and the politics of conflict are what the Labor Party feeds off, most significantly, in times of desperation. I only wish to quote back to the Leader of the Opposition what he said back in July 2019. He said, 'People are tired of conflict that passes for politics these days.' He said, 'They want solutions to their challenges.' This Leader of the Opposition has no solutions; he just has desperate false measures dressed up as a way to ensure that he can protect himself.
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on what the Morrison government is doing to ensure that Australians stay connected, particularly during the upcoming disaster season?
I thank the member for Barker, who is a very strong advocate for the importance of regional communications. His question goes to the critical importance of communications in bushfires and other natural disasters to coordinate emergency response, to call for help, to get reliable information and advice and to let friends and family know you're okay. These things, and many more, are the reasons communication is critical. That's why we've moved quickly to learn and to act on the lessons of last year's bushfires when it comes to maintaining connectivity.
We announced the $37.1 million Strengthening Telecommunications Against Natural Disasters package. Under that package, 467 base stations will receive extra battery back-up to ensure that they keep providing mobile coverage for at least 12 hours, even when there is a loss of mains power, because we know from what happened in the bushfires last year that, overwhelmingly, it was a loss of mains power and not direct fire damage that caused mobile coverage to go out.
In the member for Barker's own electorate, base stations at Mindarie, Mundulla West and Wynarka will all have extended battery back-up for at least 12 hours of operation. We've committed $10 million for temporary telecommunications infrastructure—that is, cells on wheels, or COWs. They're a little different to the cows the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology was speaking about! They're satellite connected cells on wheels—satellite COWs. They are devices that can be rolled into areas that have lost connectivity so that immediately there is mobile connectivity—so important. There are 12 NBN portable satellite kits and five satellite equipped Road Muster trucks.
I saw this morning at Namadgi National Park a demonstration of one of these new trucks. They worked well on the South Coast of New South Wales last year, in Batemans Bay and in the other locations. The truck arrives and all of a sudden, even if the terrestrial network is down and even if there's no power, you can get connectivity with your smartphone and you can get wi-fi connectivity. It's so important. It's $7 million for satellite connectivity to rural fire service depots and evacuation centres around the country. There will be almost 100 connected before the end of the year, with a total of 2,000 to be connected. Our comeback from the pandemic and from the recession is about a stronger, safer and more secure Australia. Nothing could be more important in keeping Australians safe than better connectivity in emergencies.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On Monday in this House the Prime Minister refused to guarantee that no worker would be worse off under his new workplace laws. Why didn't the Prime Minister just tell the truth and admit he was already planning a cut to take-home pay?
It simply wasn't true; that's why. That wasn't true. You know, I get it. I get it that the Leader of the Opposition is under a lot of pressure. I get it that he's becoming more desperate by the day. This week has just underlined that. What he suggested is untrue.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my left! Did the Leader of the Opposition have a point of order, and has the Prime Minister concluded? If so, we'll go to the next question.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the McCormack-Morrison government has given Australians what that they need to manage through and recover from natural disasters such as droughts, floods and fires?
I thank the member for Lyne for his question. I acknowledge the fact that his electorate had that intersection of drought and fire. I thank him for his support. I acknowledge the work all members have done.
Let me say that, while there has quite rightly been considerable attention on COVID-19 and our response to COVID-19, this government has never lost focus on those lives that were impacted not just by a drought that's been going on for some eight years but also by the bushfires of this summer and the floods of north-western Queensland, where nearly 500,000 head were lost in a matter of 24 to 48 hours. That's why we will continue to make sure that those programs that we as a government have rolled out and continue to roll out make a difference.
With respect to drought, over $10 billion has been committed to supporting the farmers get through the drought and get back up, and to support agriculture being able to increase production from $60 billion to $65 billion. That was through $310 million in direct payments to let them put their bread and butter on their table every fortnight.
Mr Burns interjecting—
The member for Macnamara will leave under 94(a).
The member for Macnamara then left the chamber.
It was also with respect to the $4 billion that was set aside through the Regional Investment Corporation to allow farmers to refinance up to $2 million of their debt from banks into the Regional Investment Corporation with no interest and no repayments for two years, saving them up to $120,000 a year—taking it out of big banks' pockets and putting it back into farmers' pockets. It was also about the $5 billion Drought Future Fund, and the first dividend of $100 million will be paid out before the end of June. We will continue look for the next year as we stand here today. It was also the partnership we took with the Queensland government with respect to the north-western Queensland floods—I acknowledge them and the support they gave those people there in partnership with us. It was $100 million in direct support payments to those people that were impacted by those floods and over $300 million in terms of restocking and replanting grants to allow farmers to get a cash flow straightaway.
Then with the bushfires there has been over $2 billion committed. Before we started the $2 billion, there was $250 million directly put out in support payments to give dignity and respect to those victims. Now we continue to roll out the $1.2 billion with the last major tranche of that, with $450 million going towards local economic recovery plans, letting locals decide how they diversify their economic base and rebuild a more resilient community.
The biggest investment we've made across all those disasters is the nearly $130 million in mental health support. We are not just trying to rebuild communities; we are rebuilding lives. While we take up the royal commission's recommendation of a single national recovery agency, let me make it clear to all Australians that were impacted that our principles won't change. We will continue to support every Australian through their hour of need, no matter what.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on Monday, the Prime Minister refused to guarantee that no worker would be worse off because of his industrial relations changes;
(b) today, the Government has introduced legislation which leaves workers worse off;
(c) at a time when wages are already at record lows, the Prime Minister's changes will mean workers' take-home pay will be cut;
(d) while claiming the economy is going so well that Jobkeeper and JobSeeker can be cut, the Prime Minister is using the pandemic as cover to cut take-home pay;
(e) it's not just businesses who've had a difficult year, workers have too;
(f) nurses, supermarket workers, cleaners, childcare workers, teachers, truck drivers, aged care workers and all the frontline workers in Australia who have kept the nation running during this pandemic are being given a Christmas gift of a pay cut by the Prime Minister; and
(g) this is not the first time the Government has attacked take-home pay; and
(2) therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for using the pandemic to cut the take-home pay of Australian workers.
The fact is that the heroes of the pandemic deserve better than this Scrooge of a Prime Minister. We're introducing legislation—
The member will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. This bill is a pay cut for frontline workers in black and white. The heroes of the pandemic—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
I move:
That the member no longer be heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
The question now is that the motion be disagreed to.
This Prime Minister is cutting your pay and is—
The Leader of the House?
I move:
That the question be put.
The Leader of the House has moved that the question be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House the important measures the Morrison government is taking to protect our unique and precious wildlife?
I thank the member for North Sydney for his question and commend him for his interest in the environment of Sydney and the greater metropolitan area. Australia is home to more species than any other developed country, and our wildlife is found nowhere else in the world. Of the more than 1,900 listed threatened species, 99.9 per cent have a recovery plan or conservation advice in place.
Since coming to government, we've invested more than $505 million towards supporting outcomes for threatened species and ecological communities. This includes our Regional Land Partnerships program, the Environment Restoration Fund, the Communities Environment Program and the wildlife and habitat bushfire recovery fund. Our $200 million investment post bushfires is already delivering practical actions to help our threatened species and help our habitat recover. One example of how that money is delivering real outcomes is that more than one million hectares of pest animal control has occurred. That's an area more than four times the size of the ACT. This is giving species like the brush-tailed rock wallaby and the critically endangered northern corroboree frog the best chance of recovery. There was good news yesterday from Kangaroo Island. The first little pygmy possum survivor was found in remnant bushland. I want to thank Kangaroo Island Land for Wildlife and all our wonderful conservation volunteers that we've been able to support through bushfire recovery funding. As the House knows, I recently announced a very popular koala package focusing on habitat restoration and the very well-received—
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The member for Macarthur will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
first ever national koala census. Our National Environmental Science Program has a major focus on applied science, turning that academic work into real-world activities on the ground that make a difference. We're supporting the black cockatoo in Western Australia, the dunnart on Kangaroo Island, the eastern quoll on Bruny Island and many more through our safe havens network, building feral predator-free areas where we can introduce our threatened species and watch them thrive. Those safe haven projects are on Flinders Island and French Island in Victoria, and we're looking to add more through a competitive grants round that's currently open for application. Our approach, the Morrison government's approach, is that we listen to the experts, we take positive and proactive action on the ground, we make a difference, with our conservation volunteers and with the work that we do in our unique and iconic landscapes across Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answers where he has suggested that the changes he's proposing in this bill to the Better Off Overall Test, under section 19, will not result in any pay cut for workers. If that is the case, will he now guarantee that no worker will be worse off as a result of this legislation?
That section doesn't change the Better Off Overall Test. What you do find, however, is that there is an inverse relationship between leadership tensions and truth in questioning on the other side. The higher the leadership tensions go, the less plausible, the more grasping, the less true the questions become. But what is really interesting is that we as a government are focused on better outcomes; they're focused on bigger outrage—and what really gets interesting is when you can't even rally the outrage properly. You can't even manage a fear campaign at the moment, your leadership is so weak.
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians: Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting Indigenous employment, including in my electorate of Lindsay?
I thank the member for Lindsay for her ongoing interest and the work that she's doing within her electorate. We're continuing to build on our current strategies for increasing the employment of Indigenous Australians across the spectrums of industry. In the seat of Lindsay, on the 18th, the minister for employment and NIAA, through the Greater Sydney virtual jobs fair, spoke to young people about the impact of online use during COVID. The 174 attendees of the day had the opportunity to engage with employer groups and to listen to opportunities that they could aspire to within the Australian workforce, and there are 624 jobs on offer.
We then had the opening of the New South Wales Indigenous business and employment hub. In addition to that, I had a good meeting with the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory in which we talked about job opportunities for people in northern Australia, in the sense of gaining better skills and employment opportunities as well as wealth creation—because it is through that job cycle that we create the opportunities for young people, and older people, to move out of the reliance on welfare. In addition to that, I had a discussion with Jennifer Westacott about the possibility of training Indigenous young people to become board members on ASX companies, because that gives role models—that shows that there is a future, a future that will give them the chance to be part of Australian industry and to walk with some of the giants across all spectrums of the workforce that prevails and across industry.
In addition to that, Leila Smith, CEO of Aurora, spoke to me about the possibility of internships in this place. What she suggested was that it would be good for members of this chamber—and the other chamber—to take on Indigenous internship students who wanted to come in here and experience what it's like to work with a member of parliament, acquire skills and gain knowledge of how this place works. The internship student I had is now going to Columbia, in the United States, and will study on a scholarship. It has opened many doors for her in a way that was never there before. She lacked confidence. Through this program, we're now seeing her excel.
I will be looking at all of the opportunities to take our children into the top 15 payroll jobs that exist in this nation. That's where they will succeed. That's where they will be least expected to succeed.
On that very positive note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
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.
I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed an alternative time of 4:30 pm today for the next meeting of the Federation Chamber.
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 government’s childcare system failing to support Australian families to work the hours they want and need.
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—
This third-term Liberal government have quite a few blind spots: their blatant lack of regard for accountability in aged care; their lack of respect for probity when they use taxpayers' funding, and all the rorts that go along with that; their obsession with undermining workers' rights; and, of course, what we are here to talk about today—their blind belief that the childcare system they designed is actually delivering affordable and accessible care for families, despite evidence showing that it's not. And it's not just a little bit of evidence; it's a truckload of evidence.
Fees have increased by almost 36 per cent since they were elected and by 8.3 per cent since they launched the new subsidy system just over two years ago. Families are now paying, on average, almost $4,000 more per year for child care. The minister likes to quote how much out-of-pocket costs are per hour, as if this is some sort of meaningful measure for a mythical family who needs one or two hours a week! For the rest—who need 10 to 12 hours a day, who pay daily fees, three to five days a week—his comparison is absolutely meaningless. They know they're paying thousands more a year. We know they're paying thousands more a year. It's time that the Liberal Party admits that these families are paying thousands more per year.
The government, at the time of the new childcare subsidy system, called it:
… the largest reform of Australia's child care system in a major win for Australian families.
Now that is the Liberal Party's spin machine in overdrive, because the delivery to Australian families has been absolutely the opposite. They've been suffering under fee hikes, which has been noted not just by this side of the House, not just by countless reports, but, indeed, by the OECD. It has noted that Australian families contribute 37 per cent of early childhood education and care costs. This compares to the OECD average of 18 per cent.
Australian families are getting a dud deal from this government! Not only do we have Australian families paying higher out-of-pocket costs, but we have 100,000 families who are locked out of the system because they just can't afford it. Things will not get better, with the Department of Education, Skills and Employment—the minister's own department—predicting that fees will increase by 5.3 per cent over the next year. This will be well over double the inflation rate, if not more, and it means that the real value of the subsidy will continue to decline. This is a point that the government has refused to acknowledge: time and time again, their subsidy's value has declined and been in freefall for the last two years.
Multiple independent reports show the workforce disincentive rate that is a design feature of this government's childcare system. The fact is that many secondary income earners are working for free if they want to work the fourth and fifth day and pay for child care as well. It is a system designed to support part-time work for the secondary income earner and does not encourage full-time work. We know that women have been hit by the COVID-19 recession. Payroll jobs worked by women have fallen by 3.1 per cent since the beginning of the crisis. The female unemployment rate is seven per cent, and it's eight per cent for females seeking full-time work. The female underemployment rate is 12 per cent, and 92,000 women have exited the labour force since March. They've just given up.
The minister responsible has already vacated this portfolio—perhaps he's getting set up for the trade portfolio!—but I am sure that the minister at the table will brag about how much extra funding the government is providing for the childcare subsidy. But the increase reflected in the budget is due to higher childcare fees and lower wages. This is not something the government should really be bragging about. The extra spending has nothing to do with dealing with the structural problems that exist that work as a disincentive for so many women to go back to work.
Families know there is a problem and so does the IMF. It just released a report on strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth, where it calls on Australia to invest in childcare spending to increase female labour participation. So it's not just us on this side of the House, it's not just families right around the country, it's not just businesses and economists; the IMF has directly called on Australia to lift its game. The head of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency agrees. Last week, she said it is very clear that, if we are serious about changing the circumstances for women and men and allow them to return to the office, we must look at the issue of child care.
In the true fashion of this government, on 8 October The West Australia reported that the Prime Minister—or someone in his office or a spokesperson—said that the system needed reform, but they believed there should be a six-month marketing campaign first. Of course, this Prime Minister would put marketing before reform. I'd love to know if the minister can confirm if the government's $15 million so-called 'our comeback' marketing campaign will include the Prime Minister's desire to have a bit of spin when it comes to child care.
We've also heard many members of the government out in the media floating long discredited ideas about how to improve the system. In particular, they are now suggesting that tax deductibility should be available for services outside the subsidy system. Essentially, what they are saying is, 'It's time for tax deductibility for nannies.' They floated this idea despite the Productivity Commission having already looked at tax deductibility and dismissing it.
This government also does not have a great track record when it comes to nannies. Their last brainwave in this space was the Prime Minister's own nanny pilot, which was a dismal failure. There is no better example—well, there are many examples, but I would say there is no better one—of how this Prime Minister's announcements do not match delivery than the nanny program. In 2015, the then social services minister—now the Prime Minister—announced a $246 million nanny pilot program with great fanfare and promised that 10,000 families would benefit from it. As usual with this Prime Minister, the delivery of the program was a disaster. Indeed, rather than 10,000 families, only 215 families benefitted from it. That is a success rate of 2.15 per cent! We have a very low bar in terms of success sometimes in this place, but 2.15 per cent is just a debacle. So this leftover idea shouldn't be heated.
Of course, many government backbenchers refer to the importance of increasing workforce participation and removing workforce disincentive rates. Even backbenchers on the government side admit it's a problem. Tax deductibility for nannies is a stinker, but this Prime Minister is so stubborn and arrogant that he just cannot bring himself to endorse Labor's plan. Why else would he keep dismissing it time and time again? I'm sure that the government in this debate will point out that families on high incomes will benefit from Labor's plan. The truth is that 97 per cent of families will benefit from Labor's plan. We have a plan that will help families with the cost of living. And while this government continues to see it as some sort of privilege that women can return to the workforce, we on this side of the House see it as a right—a right to have some independence in their economic future, a right to engage and have a choice when it comes to going back to work and being able to have child care. That gets to the heart of this problem, that women and men both are unable to access affordable child care in this country.
So, Labor has a plan whereby we will remove the cap and make the tapering rate fairer. We're going to get the ACCC to look at price regulation, to shine a light on costs and fees, and we're going to put the Productivity Commission to work on a comprehensive review of how we implement a universal 90 per cent subsidy system. We will fix Scott Morrison's busted childcare system for good and ensure that families in this country get a decent go. That's one thing families can rely on: on our side of politics, we will help them. We won't play class warfare as this government does when it comes to child care. We won't pit one family against another. The message from Labor is clear: we want to ensure that families can get back to work in this pandemic. We want to see a system that helps grow our economy and benefits everyone. We don't see this as a welfare measure; we see this as a productivity measure.
I'm very pleased to speak in today's MPI debate on child care. It took the member for Kingston until about 90 per cent of the way through her speech to actually mention Labor's plan and to hint at where, unfortunately, it takes people who have every right to access the early learning and care system today. As someone who's been a childcare minister I can pitch this two ways. Would you prefer to help people on the highest incomes at the expense of those on single incomes who absolutely need to have early learning education and care for their children—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
who are some of the most vulnerable children in the country—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston!
The member for Kingston should listen, or leave the chamber if she doesn't want to. But this is a really important, critical point, because something has happened to the modern Labor Party when it comes to their modern childcare policy, and I shake my head every time I have to read it. In his budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition said:
So our long term goal, and the mission we will set for the Productivity Commission, which will be asked to report in the first term of a Labor government, is to investigate moving to a 90 per cent subsidy for child care for every Australian family.
A 90 per cent subsidy for every Australian family—that means very large payments for families who are on very large incomes. And if you bake an additional $6 billion into your budget—or your shadow budget—for an increase of $6 billion over four years, you can probably try to make this magic pudding go everywhere, but at its heart is that complete inequity. I don't know what's happened to the modern Labor Party—the Labor Party of the tree in Barcaldine and the shearing sheds of western Queensland, a party that actually recognised that the most vulnerable children in society deserve the biggest hand up, and our early education and childcare sector is a way to do that.
Under Labor's policy, a family that earns a million dollars and has two children in centre based day care for 30 hours a week currently receives nothing in childcare subsidy. I think that's fair, for a family that earns a million dollars. But under Labor's universal 90 per cent childcare subsidy they will receive a taxpayer subsidy of $561 a week. That's over $28,000 a year. How does that work for this modern Labor Party? I don't know.
It's aspirational.
The member for Kingston is saying it's aspirational. We love aspiration, but we don't necessarily think that the costs of people who have those incomes—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston will cease interjecting.
You can't trust Labor when it comes to child care. That is really the very strong message for the House. The member for Kingston talks about mythical families. Well, this may not be a mythical family, but let's take a family that is earning more than $243,250—say, any member of the opposition—with two children in child care five days a week for 40 weeks of the year, paying the maximum daily fee. They will benefit six times more than a single parent—say, a cleaner earning $56,000 a year—who has the same childcare arrangements. It is absolutely crazy.
I don't know why child care has come up, but it may have something to do with the childcare calculator. Labor launched its childcare calculator website this week. I'm quoting from Alice Workman, who has the column 'The Strewth' in The Australian. She starts with:
Well this is awkward! Labor launched its Childcare Calculator website this week, which allows Quiet Australians to estimate how much extra cash they'd get under an Albanese government. The data collected by the ALP—
for their childcare calculator—
includes names, email addresses, annual family income (before tax), postcode, number of children and daily childcare fees (before subsidy). And which company are they entrusting to store this private information? Amazon Web Services, owned by the world's richest man …
I'm still quoting from 'The Strewth'. I want to acknowledge Alice Workman's good work here. She says:
There are a lot of Australians who do take their privacy seriously. They should not have parliamentarians look down their noses at them about their desire to have their data protected …
Who said that? The member for Chifley. What have we got? We've got a childcare calculator that collects your personal information and gives it to Amazon Web Services. I don't know that that is really a policy that the Labor Party wants to employ.
I spent a lot of time talking about the Labor—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston is warned.
I don't know why I have to shout. Really! I've listened carefully to everything the member for Kingston has said. I actually quite like the member for Kingston—she and I have been in this place awhile—so none of this is personal, but I still don't like having to shout. I want to give people who may be listening to the broadcast a sense of the contrast between Labor's policy and ours.
I want to talk about ours now. One of the reasons our childcare system is working well is that our once-in-a generation set of reforms—we introduced them in 2018—saw out-of-pocket costs for parents fall. Even two years later, thanks to our reforms, out-of-pocket costs for families remain 3.2 per cent lower than under the previous childcare package, as reported by the ABS. The critical thing about any childcare system is that it has to be targeted. It has to have at its core the principle that those who earn the least receive the highest level of subsidy—in our case, 85 per cent. I come back to those childcare centres that provide early education and care for some of the most vulnerable children, many for whom home is not a safe place to be. Family units are dysfunctional. There is no blame apportioned to this; there's just a recognition that those little children need to be in a safe, secure, supported environment. If it means that people whose annual income is $1 million have to perhaps not get the same level of subsidy in order that we support those vulnerable families, then I think that makes a lot of sense. And that's what I mean when I say our system is targeted.
In our system, over 70 per cent of families have out-of-pocket costs of less than $5 an hour. Nearly a quarter are paying less than $2 an hour for centre based child care, because we don't want to turn those families away. We want them to know that these opportunities are there for them. Demand for child care is now higher than pre COVID, and that's a good sign for the economy recovering, which the member for Kingston is keen to see, as are we. Nationally, attendance levels at day care centres were 112 per cent of pre COVID levels by early November, and women's workforce participation has also increased under our package. These are all good indicators that the package is pitched right for the economy. It has the flexibility in it to move. Remember, under Labor, fees increased by 53 per cent and sharp practices were rife. Since coming to government, we've actually saved $3.2 billion by addressing non-compliant behaviour. You've got to be tough to do that, but we did it. It was behaviour that Labor did nothing about.
Our childcare package has always supported families who need extra support, and I am focusing on these families because they are some of the most important families in this debate. As a family's income decreases, the amount the government provides increases. That means we support those who need it most. Even more support is available for those who need it. So 95 per cent subsidies are already available for families who are transitioning to work—that's a very challenging time of life—and, effectively, free child care, up to 120 per cent subsidy, is already available for families experiencing financial hardship.
There is no magic pudding where a policy can be all things to all people, and it is quite appropriate that families earning $1 million do not have a level of subsidy that is six times, for example, that of a single parent on $50,000 a year. It is completely—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
And that's the problem, Member for Kingston. It's the same. It needs to be flexible and recognise and provide more support to those on lower incomes. On budget night I was expecting from the Leader of the Opposition something a little bit more than another investigation by the Productivity Commission. But an investigation that looks at a 90 per cent subsidy rate? I don't know how members of the Labor Party who heard this in policy development let that through. Families who have experienced a decrease in hours due to COVID—and I want to recognise them in this debate—can still access the maximum hours of subsidy because the activity test has been relaxed. Our budget focus is on jobs. It's on getting people into work and it's on training, and those are the flow-on benefits that we'll see in the sector. Parents and carers are taking up work and training opportunities—that's a good thing. Demand for care will increase and the system will recognise that. Our childcare system is working very well indeed, and it's supporting families with what families are able to access. And remember that the economy, more broadly, is supported by the measures that we introduced in the last budget.
This MPI is on child care. I think it's an opportunity for members of the Labor Party to disavow that policy. It was probably a bit unwise to say on budget night that they were going to investigate moving to a 90-per-cent subsidy for child care for every Australian family. They should just remember that there would be very large payments for families on very large incomes. Families earning a million dollars with two children in centre based care currently receive nothing under our government's policy, and I'm proud to say that. But I really question the thinking of the Labor Party. What has happened to the modern Labor Party that they have produced something so strange, so unwieldy and so unfair?
I might just ask the member why the minister cut the subsidy for vulnerable children from 24-hours to 12 hours? Truly, a government that cares!
I once had the opportunity to interview the great Barry Jones. Apart from being a quiz champion, he's renowned for being one of Australia's great thinkers. I asked Barry what the meaning of life was. His response has stayed with me. He said, 'Well, apart from reproduction for the continuation of the species,' something that Barry would say, 'the other meaningful thing that you can do is to contribute.' He then reflected that, never having had children himself, and therefore not fulfilling what he considered to be an important aspect of humanity, he felt beholden to fulfil the latter part, and that was to contribute.
It occurs to me that this extraordinary insight has perfect application in Labor's childcare policy. Not only does it support the continuation of our species through the encouragement of reproduction and the subsequent care and education of said offspring but it fulfils the second principle of the meaning of life, and that is to make a contribution. This policy allows parents to work in our society and contribute to the economic wellbeing of our country and, importantly, of their family. My office has been contacted numerous times by parents who are struggling with the pandemic and the pressures of finding affordable child care. Women have been most impacted in the Hunter. The highest percentage of people found to be unemployed in the last six months have been women. Also, women can't get back to work.
Take Kristie, for example, a typical mum in my electorate, who contacted me in October about the increase in fees for 2021. Kristie wants to be able to contribute, both as a mother and as a provider. She should be able to work and improve her own family's situation without being penalised. Or take Charlene, Kerryn or Chiara, who have all contacted me about the impact of childcare costs. Kerryn has spoken with my office on multiple occasions during the height of the pandemic about the positive impacts that free child care were having on her family. Why wouldn't this government want to sustain these benefits? It should never have taken a pandemic and industry pressure for this government to front up and help these families.
This is a really simple equation: when you invest in early education you see the rewards for a lifetime. Why wouldn't this government want to invest in the future of our children? We know childcare is a growing industry a with fantastic workforce. Why wouldn't this government want to invest in these jobs and the workforce of this vital industry?
Recently, I had the great pleasure of taking the leader of the Labor Party, Anthony Albanese, to Kurri Kurri preschool, my preschool that I started at in 1974. The staff at Kurri Kurri & District Preschool Kindergarten do an amazing job with the growing minds of my community.
Have they got a shrine for you?
No, member for Moreton, they don't have a shrine for me, but perhaps that's an idea! The childcare workers are enthusiastic, bright and passionate individuals who have a genuine care and passion for mentoring and educating our children. Again, I ask, 'Why wouldn't the government want to support this workforce?' We know childcare workers and early educators—because that's what they are—are significantly underpaid, and it seems that only Labor wants to truly recognise them for the value that they bring societally and economically.
Australian families want to work more so that they can provide for their children, pay their mortgages and just create more opportunities. We always want something better for what's coming into the future. Australian families want to be able to afford the extras in life. They want to be able to take their kids away for a holiday, maybe pay for them to do a sport or, in many instances, sadly, just keep a roof over their heads. Raising kids, as anyone who's had them will tell you, is an expensive thing to do but it's equally fulfilling. Every parent knows the cost and every family welcomes support and investment in our childcare system. This government's continued failures aren't going unnoticed by the families of Australia.
We have an early education system that is the envy of the world and it's good we can debate, towards the end of a calendar year, this very important sector and the huge investments that have been made by both sides of politics over the last two decades.
There's more positive news about Australian school outcomes, suggesting that the improvements, many of which were made by previous administrations, in the Early Years Learning Framework are starting to make a difference right across the country. But before we start on child care, the situation in inner-city areas should be pointed out. Obviously, real estate prices are higher and, potentially, out-of-pocket costs are too. Areas where incomes are also higher can be very different to the outer-metropolitan scenario, where we have low occupancy rates. Then we move into regional and remote areas where, in some cases, there's no childcare services at all. They're very, very heterogeneous situations and it's difficult to make generalisations about the entire country. Were we to do that, we'd turn to the ABS, and they would make it very clear that out of pockets are down, around three per cent lower than before our childcare reforms in 2018 were introduced.
A little bit of context for those of you who weren't around during the previous Labor administration: in opposition we brooked 58 per cent increases in childcare fees under this Labor government. Not for a moment should we ever think that the warriors for affordable childcare sit on the other side of the chamber. It's not the case at all. We fully understood the importance of quality early education and we knew that out of pockets went up, and in that delicate kabuki between out of pockets, quality care and wages for staff, it's actually been the coalition that's landed it every time. It doesn't mean there aren't difficult anecdotes brought here by the other side, but I can certainly speak on behalf of the 55 early-year providers in my electorate that are strong, thriving and recovering from COVID. Attendance nationwide is now around 112 per cent on pre-COVID levels. So if you're going to a better-overall test on child care and early education, it'll land on this side of the chamber. If you're going to look at the out of pockets and affordability for parents, fundamentally the explosion in costs came from that side, and parents know deep down and within their hearts that the better-overall tests for parents is from this side of the chamber and the coalition.
When it comes to quality care and the evidence for it, we've supported all of those elements. But let's be honest: the coalition has probably had the dial a little more focused on emphasising the importance of working parents having support in early education, and some of the anecdotes before about reduced hours were about an incentive not only to work but also to volunteer. These options are put to working parents, or parents we hope will work more hours, as an incentive: the more you work, the more you seek out and the more you volunteer then the more hours you get. I think that's utterly and intrinsically fair, and incredibly well understood.
The other test of course is typologies of parental income. What we know is that it has been the coalition driving the second income earner back into work, having the flexibility to raise household income. If you travel around the OECD, the big metric we work on is raising overall household income. It's gone from 59 per cent when we arrived in government in 2013 up to 61.5 per cent. In participation in the workforce for women, it's again the better off overall test for working women and it falls on the side of the coalition. Don't just believe me; believe the ABS.
Let's look at the lower income families—those who are earning below the immediate household income for $90,000. For them the average hourly cost of child care sits at around $1.50 up to $2.96 for a high-income earner. Then we had the brainwave: why don't we, as a Labor Party, start collecting parental data and set up an Amazon survey and hand all of the data to the very same company you're campaigning against on the other side of the street? What came of that was we saw that, whether you're earning $72,000 a year or you're earning over $300,000 a year, basically it determines how much money the Labor Party hands you. It's hard to justify. It's hard to brook, providing a family on $350,000 ten times more subsidy than the family on under $70,000. Clearly they're a party that doesn't think through its policies. Clearly they're a party that hasn't prepared its policies for the Australian people. Finally, when you apply the better off overall test for parents, the better off overall test for children and the better off overall test for workers in the early education sector, they know that the Labor Party is basically sniffing around for union membership, with very little care in the early learning centre beyond that. If you could remove your focus on signing up people and turning low-income workers into very-low-income workers by taking their income and feeding the union movement, you'd perhaps have a slightly more acute focus on the needs of young children.
It's great to have the member for Bowman campaign against the stage 3 tax cuts. It's very brave of him in the Liberal Party. I thank the member for Kingston for her MPI:
The government's childcare system failing to support Australian families to work the hours they want and need.
I've been in parliament for a long time with the member for Kingston and the member for Grey, but the member for Kingston seems to have taken, over that time, her investment in children very personally. I know that she has put a lot into this policy. It's great, because the member for Kingston understands the great productivity gains that come—the low hanging fruit in the Australian economy—that will flow by the Liberal government implementing Labor Party policy.
I know what those opposite think of child care. We know that childcare fees have increased by 36 per cent on their watch. We know that Australian families are paying, on average, almost $4,000 a year for child care. Let's look at how we compare to other countries. If we look at the OECD countries, the average contribution there is about 18 per cent, and you can almost double that in Australia to 37 per cent. We know that we are paying too much. We know that there are institutional hurdles stopping people with parental responsibilities, primarily women, but males as well, from getting into the workplace. We know that fees are predicted to go up next year. At Senate estimates we heard the department predict a 5.3 per cent hike next year, outstripping CPI.
We know child care is expensive. My children are beyond child care now, but I remember the costs well. In my household, obviously, we could afford it, but we still felt what it was like. Having both parents in the workforce is good for the economy, but all those skills are wasted on the Thursday and Friday—those two days of the week where the person would be effectively be working for free. We know the current arrangements lock many people out of the workforce, particularly women. And we know, statistically, women have done it tough during the pandemic. Women who are overwhelmingly employed as permanent, part-time or casuals employees, particularly in the accommodation and hospitality sectors, were the ones first hit when the pandemic swept across Australia. Women were the ones that hit the unemployment queues first. We know 320,000 women stopped working or were no longer looking for work in the first part of this year. Some have gone back to work—I do acknowledge that—but 92,000 women have exited the labour force since March and not gone back. It's either too hard or they've given up. We have a female unemployment rate of seven per cent, and, if they're seeking full-time work, it's eight per cent. The female underemployment rate is 12 per cent. We know there is a problem. If there were more women sitting around the cabinet table, Prime Minister Morrison would understand that as well. He would hear from those who've had a lived experience.
Ms Price interjecting—
I take that interjection from the minister at the table. We've certainly had more female prime ministers than the Liberal Party and we've certainly had more female deputies than the Liberal Party, so we understand what the lived experience is.
We listen to the experts. We know the economists are saying there is low-hanging fruit there and, by implementing this policy, we will actually benefit the Australian economy. Don't listen to me. I'm going to tell you about a particular left-leaning group called the International Monetary Fund. It's not exactly the 'Toorak Tree-Hugging Club'. The International Monetary Fund recommended that investing in childcare measures should be a priority measure for Australia. We know that there'll be economic benefits, and we know that there'll be social benefits. We know that, under Labor, 97 per cent of families who use child care will be better off.
We know that the Prime Minister—who, when he was Minister Morrison, invented this current Liberal Party policy—won't back away. He's such a proud and arrogant person that he won't take advice. He won't listen to the Productivity Commission. Instead, Labor has a policy which will benefit most Australians and which will increase the childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. That is a wonderful policy.
Our childcare system has been working well for over a million families, and we have supported and kept the whole industry afloat and still standing after the COVID crisis. In fact, we put in an extra $900 million of special COVID related support to get it through the crisis. It's an interesting fact that demand for child care has gone up during COVID from pre-COVID levels. Attendance levels were up to 112 per cent of pre-COVID levels by November, and that includes Victoria. I can tell you why: it's because people are working from home. It's hard to be working in your home workplace when you're looking after children. I suspect that that's why it has gone up. We have kept the system afloat. It could have crumbled because everyone would have lost income, but we supported them and they got their due entitlements. The other side is making out that they're the only ones that have insight into child care. What a load of hogwash! They talk as though members on this side haven't had children at child care. Just about every member of the coalition has had children through the childcare system—even me and you, Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, and all the members here. For goodness sake! They get a bit sanctimonious sometimes, I think.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and workforce participation by women has gone up with this plan. It is up to 61½ per cent from 58 per cent. They talk about sending the plan off to the Productivity Commission. The current system was the result of a 16-month Productivity Commission analysis of the system, and that's why it is working. It was well considered and well executed. There are out-of-pocket costs, but the people who get the most assistance are those who need the most assistance. People who work more get more assistance. There is a tapered rate, but it's well over $200,000. Looking at some of the figures, it's really quite a fair system. If you're earning $30,000, you get an 85 per cent subsidy; if you're working and your income is $60,000, the subsidy goes to 78 per cent; if you're earning a combined income of $110,000, it goes to 71 per cent. But there are special situations. People coming out of unemployment get more, and people in social situations that are less than optimal can get a subsidy greater than 100 per cent. People like grandparents who are caring for children can get assistance through this system. It is a fair and reasonable system.
Now, the other side is talking about a 90 per cent subsidy. Looking at some of those figures, their own childcare calculator shows that a family on $356,000 with a child in child care five days a week would benefit 10 times more than the policy would give to a family with the same childcare arrangements earning $72,000. How fair is that? Doesn't that go against every principle of the Labor Party? Child care, early learning and nurturing children are really important issues. We support it. The whole nation supports it. But those opposite have just got a blank cheque and people with too high an income—people think what we've instituted is a reasonable means-testing process.
We need to be prudent in where we give our support. Those that need the most support and those that are working the most get the most subsidies. That is entirely reasonable, and it is sustainable. Parents still have to have some responsibility for their children, but we know that some parents don't have that capability. We're not all equal, but I cannot accept the proviso that people earning up to half a million dollars are going to get this huge subsidy. For goodness sake! We have just spent billions and billions of dollars supporting the Australian economy through COVID. We're trying to get things going, and they want to subsidise people who earn half a million dollars! That is unreasonable. You have to do a taper. You have to take some responsibility for your own children when you have the benefit of that high an income.
I'm very pleased to rise and make a contribution to this matter of public importance today, and there's no matter of public policy that is more important than delivering affordable, accessible, quality child care and early education for all children in Australia. I thank the member for Kingston for bringing forward this MPI today.
The government's childcare system is failing to support Australian families to work the hours that they want and need. And that's what this policy that Labor's proposing seeks to address. It enables increased flexibility for women to be able to make the choices that suit their lives, because, if given the choice of listening to the debate from government members today or listening to the families in my community, I know which group I'm backing in terms of the lived experience in accessing child care and early education in this country. Just like the constituents of every other representative in this House, the working families in Newcastle are telling me that child care is way too expensive and it is a difficult system to navigate. These are the two most common things that young mums in particular will come to talk to me about. In many ways, COVID-19, like so many parts of our economy, really amplified the problems that were already there.
This government ran the cruellest hoax of all, telling people they had a free childcare system operating for a period of time, exactly at a time when so many women were unable to access any child care whatsoever. I had frontline health workers coming to me throughout that period saying: 'Sharon, I've taken parental leave. My little one's three months old. I've got the call to go back to work. They need frontline workers back at the hospital. I'd love to go back, but I can't get any child care. I cannot get in.' And then, when they did get a foot in the door, after many, many tries, it was, 'You can only have one day, maybe two days.' That was it. So you ring your workplace back and say: 'Look, I am a trained health professional. I would love to be doing my bit to assist during the global pandemic, but you know what? I've only got child care for two days, so that's it.' So those workplaces, if they were doing the right thing, snapped up those women—women of great skills and talent—but the women were not given the choice to return to work full time. There was no choice on the table for them at that point.
We know that women have borne the brunt of COVID-19, yet we had a budget brought down in this House that effectively chose to ignore 51 per cent of the population. When those women dared to articulate a critique of this budget, they were told, 'There are no credible women in this country that don't like this budget.' You can imagine how outraged they felt about that. But when this government refuses to accept that there is a problem on the table it says to women in my electorate like Alana Robertson, who wanted to go back to hairdressing after the birth of her child, that she should be happy to just take home $100 a week out of her pay packet after paying out for child care and she should be happy to work five days a week and take home $100. I don't think she needs to be happy about that. I don't think any woman would be happy about that. It's like she is working solely to pay the childcare centre.
We know a lot of women are going back to work not for the money. Indeed, other constituents of mine, occupational therapists, wanted to return to full-time work. They wanted to get back into the workforce and enjoy the social contact. But, again, there was no choice for full-time child care for them and no choice for affordable child care. Many families depend on both parents to earn an income and it really is time that this government faced up to the fact the childcare system is broken and it works against Australian women and families. (Time expired)
First I'll go through the facts and then we'll have a bit of fun. Our government is investing a record amount in child care—$9.2 billion. That figure is rising to $10.7 billion—fact! We're supporting a million families—fact! We supported child care through the COVID pandemic to the tune of $900 million—fact! The childcare package established in 2018 was a once-in-a-generation set of reforms that saw out-of-pocket expenses fall—fact! Even two years later, with all the inflationary pressures, out-of-pocket costs for families remain 3.2 per cent lower than under the previous childcare package—fact! Our childcare system is targeted—fact! Those who earn the least have the highest level of subsidy at 85 per cent—fact! Seventy per cent of families pay out-of-pocket costs of less than $5 an hour—fact! Twenty-five per cent are paying less than $2 an hour.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Despite the member for Kingston's consternation, participation pre-COVID for women in the workforce was up. Do you know what? Nationally, attendance levels at day care centres were up as well. These are the facts.
I turn to Labor's history on this. Fees went up 53 per cent—fact! Sharp practices were rife—fact! That is their legacy. During question time I thought to myself, what is Labor's policy about? Who are they looking to support? I have to tell you, they are not supporting low- or middle-income earners. The once proud Labor Party that championed the cause of the workers now come in here and advocate for billionaires. That's what they are here for, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm pleased the member for McEwen is here, because I need a comparator. He's a backbencher. Under Labor's unfair policy, a family earning $243,250—let's say, a member of the opposition backbench with two children in child care five days a week for 40 weeks of the year; I don't know if he has children but let's assume he has—paying the maximum daily fees so those childcare workers can get paid well will benefit six times more compared to a single parent, who might have the job of cleaning the member for McEwen's suite, earning $56,000 a year and with the same childcare arrangements. For anyone listening out there, if it's the same city, the same childcare centre, the same costs and the same number of children then, under Labor, the family earning more, which gets five times the salary, gets six times the benefit.
That's why they're in here. They're in here to look after the elites—the political elites and the business elites. I think this is outrageous! They're not here to look after low-income workers and they wonder why they have won a majority in this place only once in 27 years! I'd start listening to the member for Hunter. He's got it; he understands it. I tell you, one election in 27 years.
An opposition member interjecting—
I said a majority in this place. The next bit is courtesy of Alice Workman at the Oz, ladies and gentlemen, a woman whose radar for hypocrisy is as sharp as anything you'll find. She pointed out yesterday that Australian Labor Party politicians came together—that in itself is a miracle, because they're so divided they make the coalition under Malcolm Turnbull look like a united force—for the hashtag #makeamazonpay campaign. They want to make sure that Amazon pays its taxes and pays for its impact on the environment. But guess who is hosting the member for Kingston's calculator? Amazon! Hypocrisy! That's awkward. That's so awkward!
So they came together, which in itself is a miracle—the Prime Minister has said, 'I believe in miracles and the Labor Party coming together is a miracle.' The member for Kingston: hypocrisy, writ large.
Well, I certainly had no problem hearing that contribution. I call the member for McEwen.
First of all, I'd like to raise a point of order and ask that the member withdraw that remark that he made against the member for Kingston.
In the context of the debate I'm going to allow it—
Seriously!
I've heard it on both sides.
I guess that 'empty vessels make the most noise' is what we've just heard. But let's talk about the member for Barker as he scurries out. I'll just remind him that he sits there and refers me but he seems to forget that I was elected as the Second Deputy Speaker of this parliament and, despite the claims that he made publicly that he was going to be a minister in his first or second term, he's still sitting on the last row because no-one wants to sit near him. I'll also remind him that if he talks about fairness and equality then he should ask why he deserves a $15,000 tax cut when someone earning $46,000 is going to get $400. That's the true Liberal Party.
But let's talk about child care, because child care is so important. It's so important that the first people that this bunch of Tories over there cut off the JobKeeper were childcare workers. In fact, they refused to support day care workers. We had police officers in our area who couldn't do extra shifts during the pandemic because they couldn't get access to child care. Why? Because there were no jobs. Why? Because the workers were put off and the day cares were closed, because this government, the Tories over there, decided that people who worked on the front line didn't deserve support for child care. That's what we've seen right across here. Fees have increased by 36 per cent since this lot over there were elected for their three terms.
We had the minister at the table in her faux support for vulnerable kids. She just happened to forget that she and her government cut the safety net for vulnerable kids. Then the member for Bowman came in here and said, 'Well, actually, they don't deserve child care; it should only be for working families.' We have to sit here and say, 'This is a government that is all at sea when it comes to child care.' That's because they don't believe in it and they don't support it. Families are paying an extra $4,000 a year for child care. The OECD has noted that Australian families contribute 37 per cent of early education and care costs compared to an OECD average of 18 per cent. This is the real truth of what's going on behind here. All the bluff and bluster from the member for Barker—he's a wit, you've got to admit; he's halfway there but he's getting there, so let's just keep encouraging him.
Child care has been an abject failure because of this government, and it has meant that families have not been able to reach their full potential. Underemployment for women is at 10 per cent—more than one woman in 10 is unemployed because of this government specifically. I want to talk about one of my local constituents, who went back to work eight weeks after having twins in 2012 because she wanted to provide for her family. She wanted to be part of the workforce, contribute to society and give her kids the best start. She worked part-time at McDonald's, on night shift, so she could mind her kids during the day—because she could not afford the day care. She was not able to put her kids to bed, because she was out earning a living at night. And then she had to give notice and accept a new job that is five days a week. What this means is that she now needs to use childcare services three days a week for three children. So she went to Centrelink to use their rate calculator and she worked out that, with her new salary, it was going to cost her $305 for three days of child care. She went through the bureaucracy of Centrelink on the phone for four hours, at which point they told her she was only entitled to 50 per cent of the total fee refund and they were only going to pay 35 per cent just in case she underestimated her income—and they won't pay the other 15 per cent until the end of the financial year. What does that mean? It means she has to find an extra $50 to $60 per week out of her pocket while raising three kids and trying to pay the bills.
The childcare system badly needs a government that is out there to help honest, hardworking parents and not rip money out of subsidies and not fail childcare workers. The way to do that is to elect an Albanese Labor government. People out in voter land can go to the childcarecalculator.com.au website. We heard those opposite saying, 'You're using Amazon. How bad's that!' Let's remind them. Amazon are the ones looking after the COVID app. We know that that app is Greg Hunt's specialty. The Minister for Health told us how great the COVID app was going to be. In fact, the COVID app found 17 cases. How good's that! That was the number of votes he received when he ran for election as deputy leader!
At the end of the day, Australian families need help and support and they can't get it through this government. All this government does is penalise women—through the budget and through their childcare packages. We need an Albanese Labor government to address this now.
Australia's economic recovery from COVID depends on working families being able to return to the workforce. Our government is committed to increasing workforce participation, particularly among women. In order to do that, we need a strong and resilient economy that works for families. That is why the Morrison government is committed to affordable and accessible child care before, during and after the COVID pandemic. The Morrison government system of childcare funding is targeted and means-tested. This is designed to help those who need it the most. Many Australian families can work the hours they want and need.
In 2018 the government introduced a suite of reforms to the childcare sector that have slashed out-of-pocket expenses. That's what the taxpayer needs and wants. This was one of the most significant reforms to the early education and care system in 40 years, and I'm proud to be a part of a government that actually delivers on this important sector. ABS CPI data shows that the cost to families remains 3.2 per cent lower than under the previous childcare package. I'm proud that, under this government's childcare measures, female workforce participation has increased from 58.7 per cent in September 2013 to 61.5 per cent in January 2020—before COVID hit. This was critical for families and, in particular, for female economic empowerment.
The government supports a targeted approach to child care. This means those families who earn the least receive the highest level of subsidy. On top of this, we provide additional support for those who are doing it particularly tough. A subsidy of 95 per cent is available for families who are transitioning to work. A subsidy of 120 per cent is already available for families who are experiencing financial hardship. In most cases, this means free child care.
In the 2020-21 budget, the government will pay a record $9.2 billion in childcare subsidy payments—a record amount of funding to an incredibly important sector. This will grow to $10.7 billion in coming years. Around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibilities are benefiting from this package. This is a government that cares. This was on the back of a $1.9 billion Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package to support the viability of the sector during the COVID pandemic. This was so important to a million Australian families who received fee-free child care, and it meant that the sector could keep open, with 99 per cent of current services staying open during a period when families wanted confidence. They wanted confidence that they'd have the same carers they'd had, throughout the pandemic. I know, as a mother, that it's so important for your child to have certainty and continuity of childcare workers. So it was a great outcome that was delivered by the Morrison government.
Labor's assertions this afternoon have been misleading. We can't trust Labor to tell the truth on fees, and therefore we can't trust Labor on childcare and early childhood policy. It's high time that we had a look at the facts. Let's take the example of a single parent who wants to work more hours. Say they work part time and earn $30,000 a year. They would receive a subsidy, under our plan, of 85 per cent of the cost of child care. With average fees for centre based day care at $10.40 an hour, that single parent would pay just $1.56 per hour for care. The taxpayer would pay the rest. If they wanted to take on more shifts and double their income to $60,000 per year, they would still pay $1.56 per hour, and the taxpayer would still pay the rest. When my children were small, there wasn't this opportunity for women who were trying to enter the workforce. I think there are many women who are grateful for that support.
Let's take another example, of a family earning a combined income of $110,000 a year. They would receive a 71.5 per cent subsidy to the cost of care. With average fees, again, of around $10.40 an hour, that family would pay $2.96 per hour for care, and the taxpayer would pay the rest. A family with a combined income of $110,000, where one parent works full time and the other works three days a week, with two children in child care for those three days, would receive $27,000 in childcare subsidies over 12 months. This is a significant amount of subsidy to help women get back into the workforce. If the second parent took on a fifth day of work, to earn another $10,000 a year, they would receive $41,000. (Time expired)
Order! The discussion has concluded.
The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 changes the administrative arrangements for paying home-care subsidy to approved providers of home care. This is the government's second phase of home-care payment arrangements. This is of course something that Labor has been calling on the government to deal with for some time. The first bill changed the payment of home-care subsidy to approved providers from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears. This bill changes it so that home-care providers will only be paid the subsidy for the care and services delivered to a home-care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining any unspent subsidy the home-care recipient is eligible to receive each month. This means that we are going from paying in arrears to paying after services have been delivered, on a month-by-month basis. We saw with the NDIS that, when this was first established, the government payment process was very, very slow, so we're hoping that the government has now fixed that.
The bill will also introduce a mechanism whereby providers who elect to return current unspent funds that are held by them for home-care recipients start to do so within six months of the bill coming into effect. It should provide better transparency for the overall use of home-care funds. Providers who elect to return unspent funds will do this through a subsidy reduction until their unspent funds are exhausted. Any unspent subsidy withheld as a result of this bill will be available to the provider to draw down on behalf of a home-care recipient as care and services are provided into the future. There is no change to older Australians' access to their full subsidy and there is no change to the treatment of current consumer contributions as part of this bill. I understand that in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill the minister sought the advice of the Aged Care Financing Authority, and I understand the government is expecting to implement these changes by September 2021.
Labor does have some concerns about this bill. We will be supporting it, but I want to take time to put some of those concerns on the record. Firstly, there have been growing concerns around the increasing amount of unspent home-care funds that are currently held by approved providers around the country. These unspent funds are a combination of Commonwealth subsidy and the consumer contributions being held by providers. According to the Aged Care Financing Authority, there was $751 million of unspent funds as at 30 June 2019. This is an increase of 39 per cent from the $539 million that was held as at 30 June 2018. Based on the rate at which unspent funds are increasing, ACFA estimates that the current amount of unspent funds for home care sitting with providers is over $1 billion. This is money that could be available to help those 100,000 older Australians on the home-care waiting list.
There are, of course, legitimate reasons why some people may have unspent funds. They may be saving for aids and equipment, or they may be saving for times of respite. But to have nearly $1 billion sitting there, and for the government to take so long to respond and so long to get these bills through parliament, is completely unacceptable. According to the aged-care accountants StewartBrown, the average amount of unspent funds per client is approximately $7,000.
With this bill, there's also a risk that some smaller service providers, particularly those in regional, rural and remote areas, will not have adequate cash flows to deal with the payment changes and will be unable to hold unspent funds. We have sought some assurances from the government that support will be provided, particularly in those areas where there are smaller markets and the providers do not have the cash available. ACFA says some service providers may have to revert to finding other financing arrangements, including loans or some form of equity injection, to deal with this transition. The government needs to be careful about this transition phase, and it will be held accountable by us if any of the smaller providers fall over because the government did not do its job.
We know the government has not done its job when it comes to home care and the waiting list. We know that the interim report of the royal commission's very first recommendation was for the government to deal with the home-care waiting list of over 100,000 older Australians. We know that 30,000 older Australians died without the care that they had been approved for. We know that 30,000 other older Australians went into residential care when they wanted to stay at home, but they couldn't because they couldn't get a home-care package.
It is completely outrageous that the government continues its inaction on the home-care waiting list when it was the No. 1 priority from the report that it commissioned called Neglect. Neglectthat was the title of the report. The government needs to do more. The government should be doing more, and the government needs to own up to the fact it has not done enough with the home-care waiting list. It's simply not good enough to have 100,000 older Australians continuously—for two years—sitting on a waiting list, to have the Productivity Commission say, 'The median wait time for the highest level of care is almost three years.' Almost three years! Imagine being in your 90s, with a terminal illness, being told you have to wait three years for a home-care package!
To have the Prime Minister in this place in recent days saying how great it is that he keeps making all these announcements about home care—the reality for older Australians and their families on the ground is completely different! They are being offered inadequate packages, they're having to wait forever for them and they're not getting the care they need when they need it.
The government needs to listen to its own royal commission. It needs to do something about the home-care waiting list as a matter of priority. It cannot wait until the final report in February. MYEFO is due next week. The government needs to do something about the home-care waiting list, because older Australians and their families have had enough. They're tired. They're tired of having to care for their elderly parents. They're tired of what has been an incredibly difficult year. We've got more Australians who want to get home care. They're frightened to go into residential care because of the debacle of this government over what happened in residential aged care, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, in those facilities where people didn't have access to PPE; where people didn't have infection control training; and where the staff are overworked, underpaid and under-resourced. The government didn't do enough on that, and what they did do they didn't do soon enough. The government's not doing enough on home-care packages, and it didn't do enough. It needs to do more on all fronts. Frankly, everybody knows this government has failed older Australians when it comes to aged-care services. They need to do more. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:
(1) the government's inaction to reform the National Prioritisation Queue;
(2) for the past two years there have consistently been more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for their approved home care package;
(3) in three years more than 30,000 older Australians have died waiting for their approved home care package; and
(4) in two years more than 32,000 older Australians have entered residential aged care prematurely because they could not access their approved home care package.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting others. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Debate adjourned.
I declare that the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
I move:
That business intervening before Order of the Day No. 9, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia is well regarded for our top-quality agricultural produce, fine food and wine, which makes our exports highly valued by consumers overseas. For wine, the good name of our wine brands is particularly important for showcasing the range of wines we have on offer and building trust with consumers. Australia is the sixth-largest wine producer in the world and the fifth-largest wine exporter. We currently export two-thirds of Australian wine produced, adding $2.89 billion to the economy per year. This growth brings enormous benefits to Australian winemaking and growing regions but it also brings with it the risk that some may seek to unfairly profit off the reputation of others and undermine the integrity of the sector as a whole. Our robust wine export controls ensure consumers can be confident not only that they will be getting a safe and quality product but that what the bottle says they are going to get is what they are getting.
With the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 we are adding one more tool to Wine Australia's export controls toolkit. The bill allows Wine Australia to establish the wine export label directory, a public facing, online database of all Australian wine labels for export. The Australian wine industry asked for a label directory to strengthen the wine export regulatory system, administered by Wine Australia, to prevent the export of copycat labelled wines, and we are delivering it. While Wine Australia's role does not extend to the protection of intellectual property rights, this bill will better facilitate wine brand owners to protect their own interests.
With our steady growing, high-volume and high-value wine exports it is no longer a simple case of walking into a liquor store, or visiting a key distributor or retailer overseas, to ensure copycat labels haven't entered the market. The directory is a simple modern equivalent. The label directory will allow brand owners to search the database to easily see whether other labels may be seeking to trade off their intellectual property so they can undertake appropriate civil action against copycat exporters through the Australian legal system. While it is up to them to sort out whether copyright infringement has occurred, we are sending a clear message that trying to take advantage of the reputation of Australian brands is not on.
The bill will also enable Wine Australia to take into account the behaviour of wine exporters using the label directory in administering licences to export grape products. When exporters are trying to take advantage of the good name of Australian brands or using untruthful or non-compliant labels, Wine Australia can suspend or cancel their licence to export. The continuing success of Australian wine exports depends on the maintenance of our internationally recognised reputation for quality and integrity that is supported by Wine Australia's regulatory activities. The establishment of the label directory by this bill will better equip Wine Australia to respond to the risks that come with the growth in reputation and value overseas and enable the Australian wine industry to more easily protect itself.
I should state at the outset that Labor supports the passage of the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019. But, as is often the case, a lot of things get announced and they take a heck of a long time to actually make any progress. We had to wait over a year to debate this bill. The primary purpose of the bill, as the assistant minister has indicated, is to deter exports of copycat wine from Australia. It's intended that this will be achieved by empowering Wine Australia, as the statutory body responsible for controlling the export of grape products from Australia, to use the label directory to achieve the mandate. The label directory will include a publicly available database of digital colour images of grape product labels and information in relation to grape products and those exporting them. This will allow the brand owners to monitor the directory for any infringements of intellectual property rights and take civil action for breaches.
It might seem esoteric and exceptionally detailed and may not mean much to a lot of people, but, to the people who are involved in this industry, it means a great deal. That's because the reputation of the sector is one that has been built up over many years and it's come off the back of quality products. We cannot afford for that reputation to be undermined by copycat wines.
The wine sector—as you would know, Deputy Speaker Georganas, given the great state from which you hail—is valued at close to $3 billion. Nearly 40 per cent of our export value is generated in trade with just one country: China. The sector employs close to 165,000 workers across 65 winegrowing regions in the nation, contributing approximately $45 billion annually to the Australian economy. On behalf of many people from this side of the House and no doubt from the other side, I extend to the sector our deep gratitude for their contribution to the economy, for what they have been able to achieve here and also in terms of projecting the reputation of our nation internationally.
As I indicated earlier, Australian agricultural products are rightly viewed as world class. I referred earlier to our reputation as one that provides premium, high-quality production and this gives Australian products a competitive edge. Copycats shouldn't gain commercial benefit from the high-quality Australian brand our wine producers have developed. It's their hard work that created the brand and it has to be protected absolutely.
It is important for the House and the industry to note that this bill does not give Wine Australia the power to protect the intellectual property rights of wine brand owners. The bill simply creates a framework to better facilitate wine brand owners to protect their own interests by monitoring the publicly available database and taking civil action where they reckon it is appropriate to do so. The bill does, however, allow Wine Australia to consider the behaviour of wine exporters using the label directory in their administration to export grape products. This means that where exporters attempt to take advantage of the good name of Australian brands or are using non-compliant labels Wine Australia can suspend or cancel their licence to export. The wine industry absolutely and utterly deserves this support now more than ever. Many growers not only were affected by crippling drought over recent years but were then devastated by bushfires that ravaged Australia at the beginning of the year. Some lost their grapes and others lost the crop that could not be harvested because of smoke taint. According to the minister, some 60,000 tonnes of wine grapes were lost to smoke taint.
I witnessed this and heard about it firsthand when I visited with the member for Eden-Monaro in Tumbarumba, where we met with the Tumbarumba Vignerons Association and spoke with growers about the impact of smoke taint on all their hard work, on all those grapes, and the amount of grapes they lost, and heard from some of them about what they had to battle with the bushfires. They went through drought and then faced the severity, the ferociousness of those fires. When I spoke with those growers in Tumbarumba I learned of what they did to save everything that they had built up over many years. I was particularly impressed by Tumbarumba. This is a wine growing region that has grown since the 1980s. Many people moved there when there were a lot of doubters and knockers who didn't believe they'd be able to be successful. It's a cool-climate area and has now become a great wine producer of chardonnay, pinot noir, riesling, pinot gris, sauvignon blanc and other varieties, grown at elevations of 500 to 850 metres on the western slopes of the Snowies. It was established specifically to produce these varieties because of the latitude and elevation that provides those cold nights and long sunny days that are perfectly suited to producing premium wines from these varieties.
Those growers, with all the grapes they had there, had been ready and looking forward to production. Having the bushfires go through, being affected by smoke taint and being unable to use those crops, some of them donated large batches of these smoke-tainted grapes to the CRC to see what could be done. But it was particularly hard for them, and I felt for them greatly. I was very appreciative of the chance to learn firsthand from them about the types of things they were doing and their hopes that they'd be able to recover from this in the years to come. The last thing they need—when we look at the focus of this bill—are copycat producers leveraging off the work of people like this.
The industry itself has been begging for help from this government, and it took the Liberal-Nationals government until October this year to deliver support for wine grape growers. As if that wasn't bad enough, those producers have been affected by the trade tensions we've had with China—which, as I previously mentioned, represents nearly 40 per cent of the value of Australian wine exports. When you look at the amount of wine that is exported to China and then think about how much goes to the US, the country that takes the next-highest amount of our wine, China takes almost three times as much. The suggestion that our producers, who were able to achieve premium prices for their wine, were somehow dumping that wine on the Chinese market cannot in any way, shape or form be sustained as an argument.
Our growers have been affected, the industry has been affected, and it's been subject to a 160 per cent tariff by China, and they just can't be expected to sustain that. But when we turn for answers from the minister for agriculture, frankly, he's nowhere to be seen. Worse still, when the industry is affected in the way that it has been, I was staggered to hear him refer to other producers or other companies or exporters—when they were affected by what was happening in China—and say: 'Well, we just open up the markets. We provide these trade agreements. We open up the markets. It's not our fault that all these exporters focus on one market.' And it is staggering that at a time when they require that assistance and they turned to the minister—at the National Rural Press Club, in October—they heard him try to deflect blame to exporters. This is not the way to go.
The key will be to work with exporters, identify new markets, work with them on the development of those new markets, have a solid diversification strategy—and I absolutely recognise that, of itself, diversification is not going to be easy. As I indicated earlier, if you're selling at premium prices to one market, and in a big volume of those sales, it's not easy to necessarily flick a switch and diversify, but it will need to be done, and it does need a minister who is not a blamer but a collaborator in working with exporters to ensure that they can find another pathway to export. We cannot have what we've had so far, because our primary producers expect and deserve better.
The government and the minister should be working hard with industry to build those relationships, secure those markets and support the jobs—in this case, nearly 164,000 of them—and this will have to happen through a very canny diversification strategy. It must include consideration not just on the quantity of exports but on the value of them too. In the case of the wine industry, this may involve exploring ways to expand Australian wine exports into the growing Indian market, for instance, working with the government to remove existing barriers. The work will have to be done swiftly to prevent losing our skilful producers, the jobs they create and the premium Australian brand this bill seeks to protect.
I also flag that I have a second reading amendment. I move:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for failing to prioritise the agriculture industry and secure new markets for our primary producers'.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the House and I'll leave my remarks at that.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Chifley has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting others. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Debate adjourned.
I declare that the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The 2019-20 Australian bushfire season, the Black Summer, will never be forgotten. Over 24 million hectares of bush and farmland were burnt. Over 3,000 homes were destroyed. Nearly three billion animals were killed or displaced. Thirty-three lives were lost in the fires. Over 400 deaths were caused by the toxic smoke that blanketed much of eastern Australia. So, indeed, the horrors of the Black Summer will not be forgotten but nor will the response, because we witnessed the very best of Australia in the Black Summer. We witnessed countless acts of extraordinary bravery by Australia's firefighters and emergency services personnel, including thousands of volunteers. Their courage and dedication saved many homes, many lives and whole communities. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid.
We witnessed an extraordinary international response. Firefighters and other personnel from across the world—including the United States, Canada, Singapore, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand—sacrificed time with their families over the Christmas period to help Australia when we needed it most. Tragically, three American firefighters lost their lives. We also witnessed thousands and thousands of other acts of kindness and generosity by ordinary people across this country and across the globe. Donations of money, food, clothes and other supplies came flying in, thick and fast. People gave up their time to travel to bushfire ravaged parts to assist their fellow Australians. Many opened up their homes to strangers who had lost everything. The Australian people were tested during the Black Summer and the Australian people responded with courage, compassion and generosity.
The Black Summer will not be forgotten for another reason, too. At the same time as the world witnessed the very best of Australia, we also witnessed the very worst of Australia's political leadership: the catastrophic failure of leadership by an actor, a guy from marketing, who likes to play the role of Prime Minister on television but who did not appear to realise that what he did, or didn't do, had real consequences for the people of Australia. We saw a Prime Minister who proved himself unworthy of the country he nominally led. While it is true that the Black Summer was unprecedented, it did not come without warning. For many months, a coalition of 23 former fire and emergency chiefs tried to meet with the Prime Minister to tell him that a bushfire crisis was coming. They wrote to him. They pleaded with him to listen to their warnings. But, when the warnings came, the Prime Minister's first instinct was to ignore them. When the warnings were realised, his first instinct was to flee the country. When the inevitable criticism followed, his first instinct was to stage a media stunt. When the criticism grew louder, his only instinct was to make excuses. He said, 'I don't hold a hose, mate. It's a state responsibility. I don't have the power to do anything. If only we'd known what was coming.' In the middle of a national emergency, these are not the words of a leader. These are the bleatings of a coward.
In January of this year, the Prime Minister complained that the legal framework that would allow the Commonwealth to declare a national state of emergency does not exist. The Prime Minister wanted Australians to believe that, if only there had been a law that told the Prime Minister how to respond to a national emergency, everything would have been okay. But the law was not the problem. The law did not require the Prime Minister to ignore the coalition of 23 former fire and emergency chiefs in the lead-up to the Black Summer. The law did not require the Prime Minister to fly, in secret, to Hawaii for a holiday while Australia burned. The law did not require the Prime Minister to force grieving and traumatised women and men to shake his hand for a photo opportunity. The law was not the problem; this Prime Minister was the problem.
There is a long history in Australia of the Commonwealth government responding quickly and decisively to natural disasters, including through the speedy deployment of the Australian Defence Force to provide on-the-ground support. There is a long history in Australia of prime ministers showing national leadership and galvanising the country in times of crisis. When the Black Saturday fires hit in 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did not run. He did not hide. He did not shirk responsibility or make excuses. After the disastrous Queensland floods in 2010-11, Prime Minister Julia Gillard acted the same way. They both acted quickly, decisively and with compassion. They acted in the national interest; they acted like prime ministers.
I'll come now to the bills that are before the House. When the government provided us with copies of these draft bills one week ago, we proposed a number of amendments to address some poor drafting and a number of potential unintended consequences. The government has largely addressed those concerns with the amendments that it proposes to make. As amended, Labor believes that these bills would make a number of very minor and largely technical improvements to the law. We support them.
I fully expect the Prime Minister and his ministers to make very large claims about these bills. The Prime Minister will probably pretend that, had these bills been in place prior to the Black Summer, they would have made all the difference. That's not true, and a press release does not make it true. No amount of marketing would make it true. Beyond providing a statutory basis for the government to declare a national emergency, which the Prime Minister could already do, these bills add very little of substance to the existing large array of powers that are already available to the Commonwealth in response to a national emergency. I urge our friends in the press gallery not to fall for the government's spin.
Labor is, of course, always concerned when legislation is rushed through parliament without the usual process of scrutiny and debate, which are cornerstones for a healthy parliamentary democracy. Problems can be overlooked and mistakes can be made. For that reason, as a condition of Labor supporting the swift passage of these bills during this sitting week, the government has agreed to the unusual process proposed by Labor that the bills will be reviewed by a Senate committee immediately upon passage of these bills through the parliament. I thank the Attorney-General for agreeing to that amendment as well as agreeing to a number of the other sensible amendments proposed by Labor.
The amendments to section 15 of the primary bill, for example, ensure that it would not be possible, in any circumstances, for any minister to vary or suspend the information-gathering or other powers of various parliamentary committees or Commonwealth oversight bodies during a national emergency. The fact that the original bill would have given rise to such a possibility is concerning, but it is not surprising; in fact, it is entirely consistent with this government's approach to oversight and accountability. At best, it is an afterthought.
While the amendments to section 15 are very welcome, I'd like to put on the record that, in these hastily drafted amendments, the government has not expressly excluded the powers of the Information Commissioner from the operation of that provision. I've been assured that this is an oversight which the Attorney-General will address by way of regulation immediately following the passage of the bills. There may also be other acts which should be expressly excluded from the operation of section 15. They include the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, the Public Interest Disclosure Act and all or part of the Privacy Act. I urge the Attorney-General and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to give further consideration to those matters.
The amendments proposed by Labor and accepted by the government will also ensure that the powers in the bills—limited though they are—will be reviewed by a Senate committee every time a national emergency is declared. However, the government did not, unfortunately, agree to all of Labor's proposed amendments. One of those proposed amendments, for example, would have required the Prime Minister to consult with the opposition leader prior to declaring a national emergency. That would be a modest and sensible recommendation. Another amendment proposed by Labor but rejected by the government would have meant that a declaration of a national emergency would be disallowable by the parliament. In our view, the capacity of the parliament to take that action along with the requirement to at least consult with the Leader of the Opposition would act as important safeguards to prevent the declaration of a national emergency in clearly inappropriate circumstances, such as for reasons of political self-interest. Those are further matters that should be considered by the Senate committee following the passage of this legislation.
Last, I come to a more significant matter, which is the failure to prepare for the upcoming bushfire season. Much more significant than anything in these bills is the fact that it is December 2020 and the Prime Minister is still refusing to listen to experts in the lead-up to this disaster season—just as, last December, this Prime Minister was refusing to listen to experts. The chief executive officer of Suncorp, one of Australia's largest insurers, has warned, 'Our nation is no better placed to withstand the impacts of extreme weather than we were last year.' Yesterday, the same former fire chiefs the Prime Minister refused to meet with last year repeated their concern that the government has not done enough to prepare for the next horror bushfire season. The Morrison government has not spent one cent of the $4 billion Emergency Response Fund that this Prime Minister announced 18 months ago. This money could be building cyclone shelters, it could be building firebreaks, or it could be building flood levees in disaster prone communities. Instead, this money is sitting in Treasury doing nothing, just like the Prime Minister—another announcement and another failure to deliver.
The Morrison government refuses to support the establishment of a national aerial firefighting fleet—something that Labor committed to doing long before the Black Summer bushfires. Establishing a national aerial firefighting fleet was a key recommendation of the bushfires royal commission—a royal commission the Prime Minister announced but whose report he is now ignoring. It is another example, if another were needed, of this Prime Minister caring only about the headline and delivering nothing.
And, after eight long years of this Liberal government, the Prime Minister refuses to take any real action to address climate change. Indeed, he refuses to even acknowledge that climate change caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions is the reason Australia and our friends around the world are suffering increasingly catastrophic events with greater frequency than ever before in recorded history. Just like last year, the Morrison government isn't prepared for the coming disaster season. Just like last year, the Prime Minister is engaging in stunts and making announcements rather than taking the action that is needed to keep Australians safe. The member for Cook needs to stop pretending to be the Prime Minister and start acting like one.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes the:
(a) Prime Minister's failure to prepare adequately for the last bushfire season;
(b) Prime Minister's catastrophic failure of leadership during the last bushfire season, which Australians have come to know as the Black Summer; and
(c) bill largely re-states emergency powers that are already powers of the Commonwealth Government; and
(2) calls on the Prime Minister and the Government to:
(a) learn from their catastrophic failure to prepare for, or respond to, the Black Summer;
(b) urgently prepare for this disaster season, including by releasing funding for mitigation works from their $4 billion Emergency Response Fund; and
(c) accept, and implement, the Royal Commissioner into National Natural Disaster Arrangements' recommendation to develop a sovereign aerial firefighting fleet".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So, if it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Well, 2020 has been quite a year. Governments all over the world have enacted emergency powers to protect the public against the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, I would say that our government has, on record, a great delivery of a response to a crisis that many around the world look to with envy. Early this year, Australia also faced the deadly threat of bushfires, and, again, emergency powers were also enacted. Both of these crises have highlighted the tension that can arise between the need for governments to act quickly in an emergency and the due processes of our wonderful, vibrant democracy.
At the same time, however, we are hopeful to have this legislation in place for our rapidly approaching bushfire season. We are aware of what needs to happen. This is why the government has worked closely with Labor on this legislation to deliver a robust and measured process of review for this legislation once it is in action. And I thank the members opposite for their contribution to ensure that we have the best form of legislation, which has had to be delivered somewhat at speed, you could say, because we do have the bushfire season fast approaching.
I am confident that the National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020 will strike the balance required, providing clarity and efficiency while also preserving our necessary democratic safeguards. The bill will not just deal with one type of emergency; it will have an all-hazards approach, whether they are natural or man-made. All disasters defined in the acts that this has an oversight of remain unchanged. Previously, the definition was different in every act, so the definition for triggering it was different in every act. For example, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 already has the power to conduct land clearing in an emergency, but it will become automatic on declaration of a national emergency for the purpose of keeping people and property safe.
The National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020 will establish a legislative framework for the declaration of a national emergency by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. This is in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. This bill will develop a consolidated list of the wide range of emergency powers at the Commonwealth's disposal during a national emergency and empower ministers to sidestep the red-tape requirements in legislation that they administer. It will also allow the Prime Minister to compel accountable authorities of Commonwealth entities to provide information to assist the government in a national emergency.
Now, we have had two huge disasters in the last 12 months, and the community expects a rapid and coordinated and integrated response. It has been seeing that in action in the last year, and this will continue to improve those processes. This bill could, for example, include information about stockpiles, assets and resources—vital for events such as bushfires. It will provide decision-makers with greater clarity as to the range of powers available in a national emergency. At the same time, it will provide greater efficiency, and this will protect lives and livelihoods.
The National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 works in tandem with the aforementioned bill to establish a legislative framework for declaring a national emergency. It amends various acts and regulations that contain powers that are used during a national emergency. However, the consequence of this is relatively confined and creates only one new power, with the imposition of an obligation on telecommunication providers to help in times of national emergency. This may include, for example, sending emergency message alerts. This is merely a reflection of the times. In the past, communities, particularly regional communities in bushfire affected areas, would rely on our wonderful ABC for important and critical messages via radio. But, as we know, so many Australians are now very dependent on their smartphone device—91 per cent of Australians have one—so it's important that we utilise all mediums when there is a national emergency to ensure that people get out when they need to. I know personally, with family members affected by the Black Saturday fires at Marysville and the terrible loss of life through that tragic period, that people did not respond to the request to leave their property. They stayed to defend it and fight, and there were some tragic outcomes as a result.
This bill will streamline existing powers in the case of a national emergency. Amongst a variety of other things, it includes amending the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 to enable aircraft to take off from or land at Sydney airport during the curfew period when it's being done in connection with a national emergency. Obviously, it's sometimes not clear for people that the workings behind a decision for government to act can be curtailed by all sorts of technical aspects, and this smooth-sailing approach to cutting red tape to ensure that governments can act efficiently is very important. This bill is firmly centred on ensuring contemporary practise and efficiency during a national emergency so that we can keep people safe.
It's also important to remember that the efficiency of use must not become the efficiency of abuse. We're all keen to avoid the mistakes of the Victorian government during the COVID-19 pandemic, who failed to understand the balance between responding swiftly in a crisis and ensuring accountability when they sought to extend their emergency powers by an extraordinary 18 months. Like a patient in an emergency, doctors must often step in and work swiftly, frequently without pre-consent. But when a disease becomes chronic, informed consent cannot be a casualty in decision-making between doctor and patient—likewise for our democracy. When time is of the essence, our democracy can and should take a momentary back seat. But when time is no longer of the essence, our democratic processes must always be in the driver's seat. We forget this principle at our peril.
We have seen the good, the bad and the ugly during national emergencies around the globe this year. I think Australians should feel very confident and very secure with the fact that we have a steady pair of hands at the helm. This bill is about ensuring that Australia's practises are top tier, without compromising our democratic foundations. I commend these bills to the House.
Today, I rise in support of the National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020. This bill makes a significant and important change to the way our country responds to national disasters. What we saw last summer, to be frank, was an inadequate response from the Commonwealth to the bushfire crisis. In Indi, as fires ripped across the High Country over the new year period, when people turned to the government for support, instead of helping immediately, it hesitated.
For too many weeks, the Commonwealth failed to understand what its role was in responding to the national bushfires and what support it would provide to frontline communities. To be fair to the Commonwealth, primary responsibility for immediate disaster management response rests with the states, but the Commonwealth plays a significant role in disaster response and has access to many tools to which the states do not. Funding aerial firefighting, telecommunications infrastructure, running ABC broadcasts, electricity grids, military assistance—these are all in the hands of the Commonwealth.
Many of the key challenges that our community faced were linked to these Commonwealth responsibilities. Towns like Walwa and Corryong lost power for days as a result of the bushfires ripping through the powerlines because, as a nation, we've not invested in energy reliability in remote and regional communities through secure local power generation. In the Upper Murray, where the fires killed thousands of livestock, the mayor of Towong Shire told me: 'We need the ADF. We need them now to help us bury our animals.'
The Deputy Prime Minister kindly called me during that time and asked me, 'What can the government do to help?' My answer was exactly what the mayor of Towong told me. I said, 'Deputy Prime Minister, we need the ADF.' As a result of the delays in deploying the ADF, livestock burial and the clean-up operation took weeks longer than it needed to, with enormous distress. Communities along the border, like Walwa and Jingellic, faced uncertainty and confusion when fires in one state did not appear on the emergency app from the other state. Moving towards a standardised national emergency notification system is a clear role for the Commonwealth. But on each issue, the important point is that in a crisis everyday Australians shouldn't have to navigate the complexities of the Federation—they just need a system that works. When the fire crests the hill of your property, when you've been sheltering in the Corryong College Hall for six days, when you've been evacuated to Wangaratta Showgrounds for the third time this summer, when your home burned down in January and it's December and you're still living in a caravan, the thing you care least about is the constitutional delineation of responsibilities. You just need help. This summer, in too many cases, the Commonwealth was flat-footed and slow to respond. In too many cases more damage was done, the recovery was slowed and the harm compounded by a convoluted and bureaucratic response to a crisis.
In a disaster, to quote the Attorney-General:
The Australian community rightly expects and deserves swift and unambiguous action …
And, last summer, we did not get that. Indeed, this was exactly the finding of the royal commission into last summer's bushfires. The commission found that our disaster management framework is not fit for purpose. It's not fit for purpose now, and it needs significant reform to prepare us for a more uncertain future. The 80 recommendations of the royal commission make clear that Australia was not prepared for the Black Summer bushfires and is not prepared for the hottest summers to come.
This bill is the first actual legislative response to those recommendations, and I support it. This bill will enable the Governor-General on advice of the Prime Minister to declare a national emergency. In order to seek that declaration, the Prime Minister must be satisfied that the emergency has, or will cause, nationally significant harm. The Prime Minister will be required to declare a national emergency at the request of the relevant state or territory. However, the bill also empowers the Prime Minister to unilaterally request the declaration in extremely limited circumstances, including if it is not practicable to make a declaration at the request of a state or territory, if Commonwealth interests are affected or if the Prime Minister is satisfied that it is appropriate to make the declaration without a prior request from the states and territories. This is a significant power that, if used, will do two things. First, it will streamline the Commonwealth's response to disasters by bringing into a single framework all the powers that ministers have to respond to a disaster. Second, it will send a powerful message across Australia and internationally about the severity of a crisis, focusing our national attention on the response and mobilising resources from right across our community to respond.
I support this bill because I believe it takes us closer to a more robust national disaster response framework, and closer to a system that will work better for the people I represent. To explain my reasons, I'd like to read from a letter I sent to the Prime Minister on 3 January this year at the height of our fires. At that time, when heavy smoke blanketed our beautiful region, when thousands had been evacuated and when it looked like the uncontrollable flames would burn until the heavy rains came in spring, I wrote to the Prime Minister to request that he declare a national emergency. I wrote: 'Dear Prime Minister, I have travelled widely through my severely affected border electorate of Indi over these past few days. The situation is unprecedented, with mass evacuations taking place as I write. Small hospitals are evacuating the frail aged, pregnant women and tens of thousands of summer holidaymakers. Our neighbours in New South Wales and East Gippsland are likewise in dire situations. The weather forecast for tomorrow, as I'm sure you are aware, is dreadful. The state government emergency services are magnificent, and the local response is absolutely extraordinary. But it is only 3 January and the capacity for these small communities to maintain momentum for months to come is a huge concern. Likewise is the need for infrastructure, physical and emotional recovery when that time comes. The economic impact on agriculture, tourism and small business will be serious and long term.'
My letter went on: 'Today, I spoke with the Deputy Prime Minister to describe our situation. At emergency briefings and community meetings I have attended, the message is clear: no-one has seen a situation like this before. What is also clear is that people are asking why the Prime Minister has failed to declare a national emergency. I am hearing this from measured, experienced country people.'
In my letter I said, 'Prime Minister, I call on you to declare a national emergency. In doing that, the federal government can support a fully coordinated approach that crosses state boundaries, operationalises supplies to firefighters and damaged communities, provides military support to logistics, deceased animal burial, fuel supplies, traffic management and relief centres, and put in place a long-term recovery plan. It can consider backup support for our heavily burdened rural emergency, local government and health workforce. Prime Minister, these fires are exactly what were predicted months ago. These fires are what our leading scientists, fire chiefs, peak medical bodies and agricultural and community leaders have warned will be a regular feature for Australia as a result of climate change. Prime Minister, I know that my rural community and so many like it are the ones that take the full brunt of these natural disasters. I offer my full support to your government to operationalise any emergency plan for our nation.'
That was written late at night on 3 January. The fires would burn for many more weeks to come. Many more cattle would die, more homes would be lost and more people would be lost. Three weeks later a C-130 Hercules tanker would crash into the Snowy Mountains, killing three US firefighters who had flown across the Pacific to support us.
I support this bill, because last summer I saw up close, as our beautiful region burned, why we need the ability to respond rapidly in a crisis. At the same time, I'd like to record two concerns I have with the bill. In extreme circumstances this bill allows the Commonwealth to declare a national emergency in a given state or territory without consulting with the relevant premier or chief minister, and yet the bill has been drafted without consulting the states or territories. I understand the need to move quickly with this legislation, I truly do, but establishing a unilateral power to declare a national emergency in a sovereign jurisdiction is indeed an extraordinary power and the states and territories should be consulted in that process. I welcome the decision to review the bill immediately upon commencement. I call upon the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to consult deeply with state and territory governments in that review.
Secondly, I'm concerned that this bill barely begins to implement the recommendations of the bushfire royal commission. Today is the second-last day of parliament for the year. Tomorrow we're scheduled to rise for a summer break which we all hope will be better than last summer. It's concerning to me not just that the government has waited until the last possible moment to debate this important legislation but that we're going into the next season in essentially the same position as we went into the last one. We have no sovereign aerial firefighting fleet, no single app for sending out disaster notifications, no national register of fire and emergency services personnel and equipment and no interoperable communications for emergency services across jurisdictions.
These were all recommendations of the royal commission. These are all the things we must do because the royal commission said it is a matter of urgency. They are things we must do because the royal commission said 'it is plain that the shortcomings that we have identified must be addressed'. And yet, a year on from the fires, we have done none of it. So I support the passage of this bill through the House not because it will solve all the problems in our bushfire response but because it addresses one of the many shortcomings the royal commission identified in our current bushfire response framework.
Today we are legislating to prepare ourselves for circumstances we hope will never darken our nation's door. But we must be clear eyed about this. Australia will again see times in which resorting to these powers is necessary. The time to prepare properly is now, not when the lightning sparks, not when the virus morphs, not when the tsunami swells. I appeal to the government to move with the urgency this issue deserves and fully implement the recommendations of the royal commission. When the next fires hit, we must be ready. I commend this legislation to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020 and the National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. Both bills will implement recommendation 5.1 of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. The passage of the bills through the House and the Senate this year will enable the Commonwealth to respond to the impending bushfire season. These bills will allow for a national emergency to be declared by the federal government when an emergency rises to the level of causing or being likely to cause national significant harm. The bills will take an all-hazards approach, which means they cover harms arising from both natural and man-made emergencies. At a high level, the bills allow for the declaration of a national emergency provided the requisite statutory and legislative tests are met.
Once made, the bills allow the exercise of emergency powers including: providing for a streamlined framework for the exercise of Commonwealth emergency powers; enabling ministers to suspend or vary red tape requirements to assist people during the emergency; clarifying the telecommunications industry's obligations and immunities when assisting Commonwealth, state and territory governments—for example, to allow them to text messages to affected regions—and enabling the Prime Minister to require Commonwealth entities to report on stockpiles, resources and response options. Importantly, the framework will not seek to duplicate the primary role of the states and territories in responding to emergencies. States and territories remain the primary responders and agents best positioned to respond to emergencies within their jurisdictions. In particular, it will not seek to encroach upon the states' responsibilities for frontline emergency response actions. The states and territories will in most circumstances need to request the declaration of a national emergency. The Commonwealth can only unilaterally declare an emergency in narrow circumstances such as where consultation is not practicable.
The bills will enable the Commonwealth to take a stronger leadership role during times of national crisis. Making a declaration of a national emergency in and of itself is a political act and it will send a strong message to Australia, as well as to the international community, about the gravity of the emergency and the need for a coordinated national response. The royal commission's report on national natural disaster arrangements highlights a range of benefits—from the ability of the Commonwealth to declare a national emergency, including signalling to the public but also to government agencies the gravity of the situation, to helping to smooth the way for better state, territory and Commonwealth coordination.
As I touched on before—and I think these are important points to note—there are a number of safeguards in the legislation. I think any legislator should approach the idea of declaring a national emergency with some caution, because obviously legislation of this sort has been ripely abused by jurisdictions across the world in different circumstances and at different times. The declaration of a national emergency does obviously provide the Commonwealth government with enhanced powers over those that might exist in peacetime or in regular periods. It's important that we make sure that the exercise of those powers is justified, open to scrutiny and transparent and accountable, and that there are checks and balances upon them. I believe that these bills before the House get this balance right.
Firstly, for a declaration to be made there must be situations which are likely to cause, are causing or have already caused nationally significant harm. I think that's an important qualification here. The harm being done must be nationally significant. That imposes an important threshold that means that a national emergency cannot be declared on the whim of the government of the day but needs to meet an important public threshold test, of being nationally significant. It needs to be nationally significant harm to the life or health of an individual or a group of individuals or to animal or plant life, or alternatively to the environment or to property, including infrastructure, or cause disruptions to essential services. The sorts of things being envisaged here, of course, are bushfires of the scale and severity of those that we experienced over the last summer, but it could also be potentially a pandemic such as COVID-19 that we're experiencing now. It could be disruption of some significance to Australia's international supply chains. It could be another sort of natural disaster. It could be any number of things which are not yet necessarily envisaged but which could be covered by this legislation.
There are two pathways, as previous speakers have noted, to declaring a national emergency, either by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister following the request of the relevant state or territory chief minister or, in exceptional circumstances, without such a request from a state or territory chief minister, when such a request is either not practicable—perhaps because the state or territory is itself in a crisis at the time—or if nationally significant harm is likely to result to Commonwealth assets or Commonwealth infrastructure. Those are the two pathways to declaring a national emergency.
Ministers who have emergency powers available to them under this legislation once a declaration is made must report to parliament on the exercise of powers under national emergency laws, which I think provides an important safeguard and scrutiny for what is being done. Importantly as well, declaration of a national emergency is limited to a maximum period of three months, with extensions possible. But of course any extension would require scrutiny and justification. Equally importantly, the entire package of legislation will be reviewed after five years, by a relevant parliamentary committee, to see if it's working as intended.
I commend these bills to the House. I think they will provide an important addition to Commonwealth-state coordination tools in response to natural disasters and an important augmentation of the Commonwealth government's powers in helping the community to respond to natural disasters, whilst ensuring that such powers cannot be abused and will be properly constrained.
I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020 will establish a legislative framework that enables the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to declare a national emergency. This bill will operate in conjunction with the National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, which will consolidate and streamline enumerated emergency powers across the statute book to enable ministers and officials to act decisively in respect of a declared national emergency.
Together these bills will create a unified framework for the use of Commonwealth powers during emergencies of national significance. The framework will enable a national emergency declaration to be made, sending a clear, strong message to the Australian community of the severity and nature of the disaster and mobilising all levels of government in the response and recovery effort. Importantly, these bills will implement recommendation 5.1 of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. The bills' framework will be applicable to emergencies that rise to the level of national significance, whether they be disasters caused by humans or natural disasters. The framework will be able to be employed in respect of emergencies occurring on land or sea, including in Australia's offshore area, or in Australian airspace, and emergencies that are limited to one jurisdiction or that span multiple jurisdictions. This all-hazards approach acknowledges the complexity, scale and significance of the emergency events Australia may face, some with increasing frequency.
The bill provides a power for the Prime Minister to request the declaration at the request of the relevant state or territory, or combination of states and territories. However, the bill also provides the Prime Minister the power to unilaterally request the declaration in limited circumstances. This will ensure that the Commonwealth can take swift action where a state or territory is incapacitated or overwhelmed by the emergency events. This also ensures affected states and territories can continue to focus their energy on operationalising their response and recovery efforts. A declaration may only be made for as long a period as the Prime Minister considers necessary for the purposes of emergency management and for a maximum of three months. The Governor-General may extend the duration of a national emergency declaration for up to three months if the Prime Minister is satisfied of effectively the same test as for the declaration of a national emergency. The Governor-General may also vary other aspects of a declaration—for example, if an emergency affects additional parts of Australia. The government amendments to the bill require that the Prime Minister be satisfied of effectively the same test as for the declaration of a national emergency before the Governor-General may vary the declaration. The bill will provide ministers and decision-makers abilities to suspend, vary or substitute red-tape requirements in laws that they administer where a national emergency declaration is in force. By temporarily removing or varying procedural requirements that may be a barrier to people in emergency-affected areas accessing payments, benefits or services, this power will ensure that individuals affected by a declared national emergency can get the support they need quickly.
The bill provides that requirements contained in certain acts or prescribed in regulations may not be suspended, varied or substituted during a national emergency. Government amendments to the bill extend this list to include statutory requirements contained in legislation establishing oversight agencies and parliamentary statutory committees. The bill provides that, where a national emergency declaration has been made, the Prime Minister may require an accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity to provide specified information to the Prime Minister for the purposes of preparing for, responding to, or recovering from an emergency to which the national emergency declaration relates. This may include information on stockpiles of medical or other supplies held by or available to the Commonwealth entity, assets or other resources held by or available to the Commonwealth entities or options or recommendations relating to actions that may be taken by the Commonwealth. In addition, the declaration framework consolidates and streamlines the various Commonwealth emergency powers across the statute book. This will enable ministers and officials to have a complete picture of the powers that they can use to assist with the response and recovery effort. The making of a national emergency declaration will enliven the ability for ministers and officials to use an alternative, streamlined test to respond to the declared national emergency. These alternative tests are provided for in the National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. The bill requires that a review of the act be initiated within five years of its commencement. Government amendments will strengthen these review requirements by a requiring a review of the act immediately following its commencement for report by 30 June 2021 and introducing a requirement for each national emergency declaration made by the Governor-General to be reviewed within 12 months of the declaration being made.
In conclusion, the bills will ensure that the Australian community is aware of the significance, gravity and nature of a declared emergency event, and galvanise support across all levels of government towards the response and recovery effort. The National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 will also provide greater visibility to decision-makers of the full range of powers available in a national emergency. As foreshadowed, the government intends to move amendments in the consideration-in-detail stage. I commend these bills to the House.
The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and—by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (5) as circulated together:
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 20), omit "within 5 years after the Act commences", substitute "immediately after the Act commences, and begin a further review of the operation of the Act within 5 years after that. A Senate Committee must also begin a review of each national emergency declaration by the first anniversary of the day on which the declaration is made".
(2) Clause 13, page 11 (lines 19 and 20), omit all the words after "declaration", substitute "that relates to an emergency if the Prime Minister is satisfied that:
(a) the emergency has recently occurred or is occurring (whether in or outside Australia); and
(b) the emergency has caused, is causing or is likely to cause nationally significant harm in Australia or in an Australian offshore area; and
(c) any of the following subparagraphs apply:
(i) the governments of each State and Territory in which the emergency has caused, is causing or is likely to cause nationally significant harm have requested, in writing, the variation;
(ii) because of the emergency, it is not practicable for a request to be made under subparagraph (i);
(iii) the emergency has affected, is affecting or is likely to affect Commonwealth interests;
(iv) varying the declaration is appropriate, having regard to the nature of the national emergency and the nature and severity of the nationally significant harm; and
(d) for reasons relating to emergency management, it is desirable to vary the declaration for the purposes of one or more national emergency laws.
(1A) Before the Governor General varies a national emergency declaration under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must consult with:
(a) if a request to make the national emergency declaration was made under subparagraph 11(1) (c) (i)—the governments of each State and Territory that made the request; and
(b) the governments of each State and Territory that were consulted under subsection 11(2); and
(c) the governments of each State and Territory (if any) in which the Prime Minister is satisfied the emergency has caused, is causing or is likely to cause nationally significant harm.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not require the Prime Minister to consult with the government of a State or Territory if the Prime Minister is satisfied that it is not practicable to do so."
(3) Page 12 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add:
14A Review of national emergency declaration
The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must:
(a) begin a review of each national emergency declaration made under section 11 by the first anniversary of the day the declaration is made; and
(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing the review.
(4) Clause 15, page 15 (after line 12), after paragraph (8) (g), insert:
(ga) the Auditor-General Act 1997; or
(gb) Part 14 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001; or
(gc) the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011; or
(gd) the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986; or
(ge) the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006;
(gf) the Ombudsman Act 1976; or
(gg) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010; or
(gh) the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946; or
(gi) the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951; or
(gj) the Public Works Committee Act 1969; or
(5) Clause 18, page 18 (lines 5 to 8), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute:
(a) begin a review of the operation of this Act immediately after this Act commences and report the Committee's findings to the Senate by 30 June 2021; and
(b) begin a review of the operation of this Act by the fifth anniversary of the day this Act commences and report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing the review.
The amendments on sheet 1 implement further amendments to align the threshold to vary a national emergency declaration with the existing threshold to extend a declaration; to expand the list of legislation that cannot be suspended, varied or substituted during a national emergency to include additional legislation relating to the establishment and functions of oversight bodies and parliamentary statutory committees; and to strengthen the existing review requirements to include a review of the legislation immediately upon passage and report by 30 June next year and a review of the operation of the legislation by the first anniversary of each date on which the Governor-General makes a declaration. I will now outline the amendments on sheet 1.
Amendment (1) relates to review of the national emergency declaration framework. The bill and explanatory memorandum will be amended so the simplified outline reflects the additional review requirements—namely, a review immediately after the legislation commences and a review of each national emergency declaration by the first anniversary of the day on which the declaration was made. This is in addition to the existing requirement to review the operation of the legislation by the fifth anniversary of the legislation commencing. The amendment will be in the form of a revised clause 4.
Amendment (2) is to align thresholds to vary and extend a declaration. The bill and explanatory memorandum will be amended to align the threshold to vary a national emergency declaration—for example, to include additional disaster affected areas—with the threshold to extend a national emergency declaration. This amendment provides an important safeguard to ensure that a national emergency declaration can only be varied where the circumstances that justified the making or extension of the declaration still exist and retain consultation as a default position when varying a declaration. The amendment will be in the form of a revised subclause 13(1) and new subclauses 13(1A) and 13(1B).
Amendment (3) relates to review of declarations. The bill and explanatory memorandum will be amended to enhance the review requirements by requiring the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to review each national emergency declaration made. The declaration of a national emergency should be an exceptional and infrequent event. By definition, a national emergency may only be declared where Australia has suffered, is suffering or is facing the risk of nationally significant harm. It's almost certain that there will be important learnings from the response to and recovery from such events. To ensure that the effectiveness of the framework can be assessed, this amendment ensures a review of each declaration that's made by the Governor-General occurs by the first anniversary of the day on which it was made.
Amendment (4) sets out additional legislation not subject to power to modify administrative requirements. The bill and explanatory memorandum will be amended to expand the list of legislation that cannot be suspended, varied or substituted during a national emergency. This additional legislation relates to the establishment and functions of oversight bodies and parliamentary statutory committees. The amendment will be in the form of a revised subclause 15(8). Subclause 15(8) also contains a regulation-making power which is intended to allow for items to be added to the list of requirements in acts and provisions that cannot be suspended, varied or substituted during a national emergency as required. I can indicate now that the government intends to prescribe requirements contained in the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 as requirements that the minister cannot suspend, vary or substitute during a national emergency.
Amendment (5) relates to the time frames for review of the legislation. The bill and explanatory memorandum will be amended to strengthen the requirements for reviewing the operation of the legislation as well as retaining the requirement to review the operation of the legislation by the fifth anniversary of it commencing. This amendment will also require the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to review the legislation immediately after it commences and to report by 30 June 2021. That's next year. The amendment will be in the form of a revised clause 18. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the following reports: General issues and the NDIS workforce interim report.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I will make a statement on each of the reports. I am pleased to present the General issues report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a report pertaining to the committee's ongoing inquiry into general issues relating to the implementation and performance of the NDIS. This inquiry provides an opportunity for the public to present important evidence to the committee about the NDIS and how it could be improved. In particular, the inquiry is a chance for people with disability to share their experiences of the scheme. This is the committee's first report of the 46th Parliament for the general issues inquiry. It reviews issues raised during the inquiry and provides an update on the committee's recent activities. The committee makes 10 recommendations to improve the NDIS for participants, providers and other key stakeholders.
A key focus of the report is the National Disability Insurance Agency's proposal to introduce independent assessments as part of the NDIS access and planning processes. According to the agency, the introduction of independent assessments will enhance equity and consistency in access and planning decisions.
The policy intent of independent assessments is to be commended, as is the decision to offer assessments free of charge. However, a substantial number of submitters advanced that independent assessments may create challenges for people with disability, may not be an accurate means of measuring functional capacity and may not reflect adequate consultation with the disability and allied health sectors.
Independent assessments have not yet been implemented and the committee does not make any recommendations about these assessments in this report. However, the committee appreciates that the introduction of independent assessments represents a major change to the NDIS, and is cognisant that there are significant concerns that have been expressed about this matter. The committee therefore proposes to conduct a dedicated inquiry into independent assessments. This will include seeking further evidence about this matter through submissions and public hearings next year.
The report also examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had extraordinary and destructive effects on Australian society. As all here would be aware, the effects of COVID-19 have been particularly acute for people with disability, their families and friends. The pandemic has also presented serious difficulties for NDIS providers, disability support workers and others in the disability sector.
Of course, the effects of the pandemic are ongoing and likely to be with us for some time. The report examines evidence about the stress and anxiety felt by people with disability during the initial phase of the pandemic, difficulties in accessing personal protective equipment and challenges for providers continuing to offer disability supports. It also considers the government's planning and preparation for a pandemic, as well as how the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission have responded to COVID-19.
The committee makes two recommendations on these matters. The first aims to ensure that we learn lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and are better prepared to support people with disability in future emergencies. The second proposes that the NDIA and the commission maintain beyond the COVID-19 pandemic beneficial changes that were implemented in response to the pandemic.
The report also gives voice to a number of other key issues related to the NDIS raised by participants, providers and other stakeholders. These include financial matters relating to the implementation and performance of the NDIS and issues affecting particular cohorts of people with disability. The committee makes eight recommendations intended to improve the operation of the NDIS in light of the issues raised, focused on the following matters: systemic engagement with people with psychosocial disability; ensuring cultural competency and investing in capacity building for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; supporting people with disability who are experiencing homelessness; improving the way in which the NDIA communicates with participants; and managing the circumstances associated with a participant's death.
Some of the issues reviewed in this report have been more thoroughly examined by the committee in its other inquiries, or have been considered in inquiries conducted by other bodies. Consequently, in a number of instances the committee proposes to maintain a watching brief and encourages the government to give close consideration to the matters raised in this report.
The committee thanks everyone who has contributed to this inquiry by making submissions, expressing views through correspondence or providing testimony in public hearings. In particular, the committee thanks the NDIS participants who shared their experiences. The testimony of people with lived experience is crucial to identifying issues with the NDIS and improving the operation of the scheme. With these remarks I commend the general issues inquiry to the House.
I'll now turn to the NDIS workforce interim report. The NDIS is one of Australia's most ambitious public policy initiatives. It is currently supporting over 410,000 people with disability to access services and supports. The number of participants in the NDIS is expected to grow, with the minister for the NDIS estimating that the scheme will ultimately support over 500,000 Australians.
Critical to the sustainability of the NDIS and the delivery of safe, quality disability supports is a workforce of sufficient size to meet demand with appropriate skills, qualifications and expertise. To meet growing demand for disability supports it is estimated that the NDIS workforce will need to increase by around 90,000 full-time equivalent staff over the next four to five years. However, attracting and retaining a skilled, qualified workforce is proving to be a challenging endeavour, as the sector is increasingly seen as overworked, underpaid, undervalued and poorly trained. Evidence indicates that the sector is highly casualised and work is often insecure. Remuneration may not reflect the complex and sensitive nature of disability support, workers often receive limited, if any, training from employers and there are limited opportunities for career advancement. Workers may not be adequately supervised and are often left to make complex decisions about care needs. Evidence to the committee also indicates that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to be significantly underserved by the NDIS due to acute shortages of affordable, culturally appropriate services and a lack of investment in capacity building.
More must be done to increase the representation of people with disability in the NDIS workforce, including in the leadership, managerial and technical roles. This is not only to improve employment outcomes for people with disability but to grow and enhance the quality of the NDIS workforce by harnessing the untapped potential of lived experience.
The issues identified in this report are not new. They've been identified on several occasions by this committee, as well as via numerous other review and inquiry processes and in media commentary. Many of these issues have also come into sharp focus during the COVID-19 pandemic and have created challenges for various stakeholders seeking to manage the impact of the virus on the Australian community. Comprehensive, targeted action is required to address barriers to attracting and retaining a skilled and qualified workforce that reflects the diversity of people with a disability. Otherwise, workforce supply issues and skill gaps will likely worsen, with significant adverse consequences for participants.
This interim report makes 14 recommendations to address some of these issues, focused on addressing concerns with funding arrangements, enhancing training, growing a workforce with lived experience of disability and addressing thin markets for supports and services. The committee acknowledges actions that have been taken by the NDIA and by the Australian government more broadly to address some of the workforce issues facing the NDIS and the disability sector. However, evidence before the committee indicates that these have not been sufficient to date to address the workforce issues facing the NDIS into the future.
The committee also appreciates that the Australian government has a number of initiatives in train, including, significantly, the development of a national workforce plan. However, as many of these initiatives have not yet taken effect, it is not possible yet to determine whether they'll address the issues identified in the inquiry. The committee therefore proposes to give further consideration to the issues identified in this inquiry in the coming months, including through additional public hearings, before presenting a final report to the parliament in 2021.
In conclusion, the committee thanks all those who have participated in this inquiry so far by lodging submissions, giving testimony at public hearings or expressing their views through correspondence. I thank the other members of the committee, including the deputy chair, Senator Carol Brown. I particularly thank the secretariat, led by Bonnie Allan, for their wonderful efforts. With these comments, I commend this report to the House.
by leave—I rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's interim report on the NDIS workforce and the same committee's report on general issues. I would like to thank the joint standing committee for its work—the chair, the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews; the deputy chair, Senator Carol Brown; Senators Askew, Chisholm, Hughes and Steele-John; the members for Corangamite, Adelaide, Reid and Fisher; and the committee secretariat.
I would urge the government, as a matter of priority, to respond to the recommendations of both these reports in a timely manner that reflects the hard work and the importance of their content. The report on general issues in the NDIS makes several important recommendations, including that the NDIA and the watchdog, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission:
This is an important recommendation that recognises the reality of people with disabilities being forgotten in the early stages of the pandemic. The royal commission recently noted how the government had even omitted people with disability entirely from its pandemic emergency response plan.
There are recommendations about better engagement by the National Disability Insurance Agency with Indigenous Australians, with homeless people and with people who have psychosocial disorders. The final two recommendations are about better communication with NDIS participants about matters relating to the scheme and better management of circumstances around the death of participants. These are a response to the sorts of shortfalls highlighted by the tragic deaths by neglect, such as that of Ann-Marie Smith in Adelaide. Following her death and following calls by Labor, the government initiated the independent Robertson review. Alan Robertson, Senior Counsel, made a series of recommendations, some of which are now mirrored in these joint standing committee recommendations. I hope that the Minister for the NDIS now takes more notice of these important calls. He has so far refused to respond to the Robertson review recommendations. It's now 95 days since the Robertson review into the death of Ann-Marie Smith was handed down, and we've heard nothing from the government.
The committee's interim report on the NDIS workforce also shows that remaining work needs to be done. I think some of the noteworthy recommendations here are the need for the NDIA to ensure all pricing reviews are conducted in full consultation with people with disability, support workers and representative organisations.
A review of options for a national registration and accreditation scheme for disability support workers is an analysis of the skills and qualifications required by the disability workforce and a look at the vocational education and training programs and university courses to ensure they capture the real training needs for the sector and for the workforce of the future. Further, it's removing barriers of entry for people with disability to apply for positions at the National Disability Insurance Agency. There is a need for a strategy to address distribution shortfalls and thin markets in the allied health workforce in many parts of Australia.
A lot of this talks to what Labor has been saying for some time now and what we have been hearing from unions representing workers in this sector—the ASU, HSU, the United Workers Union and Australian Workers Union. There's a real need for career ladders, plans for job security and meaningful qualifications so that Australia cannot just do the right thing by the workforce and people with disability domestically but we can become a world leader in standards of care—a key remaining part of our service-leaning care economy.
It is excellent this bipartisan committee is speaking such sense on the issues. However, it does go against the trend of accelerating the gig economy. There remains a danger for government, such as the current one, falling for the lure of app based mechanisms that undermine the importance of a quality non-casualised workforce. Some government MPs may be attracted to the of uberisation of disability services—a digital marketplace—but I urge them to carefully listen to the well-researched and sensible conclusions of the report, which the member for Menzies has been speaking to. It is the right path for workers, the industry and people with disability.
One final matter, which would be remiss of me not to raise, is in response to the member for Menzies' comments on the report and the proposed introduction of independent assessments. I wish, in particular at this point, to draw attention to the views of the Australian Association of Psychologists. They have written to me and said, 'The proposed changes have caused a great deal of distress in the disability and psychology communities, with many of our members, the psychologists, sharing grave concerns for the wellbeing of their clients, if it is implemented. A key concern is that allied health professionals who are known to participants will have little input, if any, into the participant's eligibility to determination, plan development and reviews.'
The psychologists go on to say, 'The NDIA-appointed independent assessors will not have the depth or breadth of knowledge about a range of disabilities, particularly uncommon disabilities, to be able to adequately understand the complexity of various participant needs. Simplistic assessment by unfamiliar assessors will likely be traumatic for participants and their families. The use of one-size-fits-all assessment tools will most likely result in people with complex disabilities not being assessed properly. Poor assessments are likely to lead to people being denied access to this scheme, and, for those deemed eligible, they're likely to be granted inadequate funding. For people with social, cultural and language barriers, as well as those with complex communication or sensory needs, unfamiliar, independent assessors are unlikely to be able to understand or indeed assess their needs.'
The psychologists go on to say—and I agree with their proposition—'The participants should be given the right to choose to either undergo the independent assessment process or use reports from their trusted and qualified allied health providers. People living with disabilities are often subject to prejudices and quick judgement of others as well as the loss of choice and control. The independent assessment changes proposed by the current minister cements that experience for the participant. It takes away the participant's right to have a tailored assessment and a treatment program to improve their function and achieve goals for their choice. Experienced allied health professionals who are familiar with the most evidence based interventions available are best placed to recommend the type and frequency of treatment required to meet the participants' needs. If there are additional assessment measures that the NDIA requires, these need to be communicated clearly to providers so they can be included in reports, removing the need for independent assessors.'
All of us, I believe, have the view that the NDIS should protect the most vulnerable in our community. What we need to do is make sure that we honour our beliefs in the actions which we take in this place. I commend the report, to which the member of Menzies has spoken.
I move:
That the House take note of each report.
The debates are adjourned. The resumption of the debates will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the orders of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the following reports: Review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority annual report 2019 (second report) and Review of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission annual report 2019, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e)
by leave—On 5 August and 23 October 2020, the Economics Committee scrutinised the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority on their performance and regulatory responsibilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to our lives. While the pandemic is primarily a public health issue, it has significantly impacted economies and financial systems around the world. It has led to the closure of our borders, the biggest economic downturn in close to a century, a large budget deficit and historically low interest rates.
The Australian financial sector and its regulators responded quickly to the pandemic. Financial institutions provided support to Australian families and businesses as they worked to manage their mortgages and debts during a time when income was disrupted and the future was uncertain. Superannuation funds paid out billions of dollars as affected individuals accessed their superannuation under the early release scheme and were reunited with their money. On the health side, being girt by sea enabled Australia to be one of the few nations that was able to close its international borders and effectively stop COVID-19 from entering. Closing our international borders has been the single biggest public health measure taken to protect Australians. The only examples of community transmission have come as a result of a breach of those borders.
On the economic side, when the Australian economy went into this crisis it was better positioned than most to weather the storm. Having a federal budget in balance ensured that lockdown measures could be offset by fiscal support through temporary increases in JobSeeker and the creation of the temporary JobKeeper program, amongst others. It is a reminder of the need to be prudent on the sunny days in the hope that the rainy days never come, but they inevitably do.
The Australian economy has weathered this storm better than many others. However, economic recovery brings its own challenges. It's essential that governments, regulators and financial institutions continue to be proactive and work together as the immediacy of the crisis fades and the hard work of economic recovery continues. The opportunity of Australia's economic comeback is not simply to resuscitate Australia's 20th-century economy but to build a forward-looking, modern, liberal 21st-century economy that provides the foundation for sustainable growth and provides the next generation of Australians with opportunity, employment and home ownership. However, the economic comeback brings its own challenges. It's essential that governments, regulators and financial institutions continue to be proactive in their diligent work.
The committee notes ASIC's and APRA's timely responses to the pandemic. Both ASIC and APRA adapted quickly to the challenges of the pandemic, adjusting regulatory priorities to focus on protecting vulnerable consumers, maintaining the integrity of markets and supporting businesses. In particular, the committee notes ASIC's prompt and ongoing release of guidance regarding retail lenders' obligations and ASIC's expectations when assessing consumers who are experiencing financial difficulties due to COVID-19. The committee credits APRA's prudential guidance regarding pandemic risk and its requirement around stress testing for pandemics as key factors contributing to the stability and the resilience of the Australian financial sector during this challenging period, in which they continued to lend.
The committee notes ASIC's and APRA's proactive and ongoing engagement with peak bodies, superannuation funds and financial institutions throughout the various stages and changing circumstances of the pandemic. In particular, the committee notes the strong relationship and high level of cooperation and coordination that ASIC and APRA have displayed during this challenging period. The committee notes ASIC's and APRA's progress regarding the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations, acknowledging the disruption caused by the pandemic and the deferral of implementation of commitments associated with the royal commission. The committee also notes ASIC's continuation of its enforcement work during this challenging period, as well as the progress APRA's made with the capability review throughout this time. ASIC's work on enforcement is important—in fact, it should be its focus.
However, ASIC's progress and its rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic are overshadowed by problems of its own making. It is difficult to say that there is as much confidence in ASIC today as there was at this time last year, and ASIC should seek to address these issues as a matter of urgency, because they go to the heart of its capacity and its internal processes. As an important example, the committee has been concerned about ASIC's continued refusal to accept responsibility for its misleading and deceptive SMSF fact sheet that has made spectacular and unsupportable claims of the costs of establishing a self-managed superannuation fund. While this matter may appear trivial, it raises serious questions about the internal processes for approval within ASIC for information that is promoted to inform consumers and their choices and whether ASIC understands the products it is ultimately regulating. It is simply absurd that ASIC would put information in the public square claiming that the cost of running an SMSF annually exceeded half the cost of the maximum contribution that could be made to a self-managed super fund without scrutiny of the underlying data.
It has only been because of the diligence and persistence of the committee that the inaccuracies of this fact sheet have been highlighted. To date there has been no acknowledgement of this error and no apology for it from ASIC. Instead, ASIC has stood by and claimed that new data has simply superseded it. This attitude undermines ASIC's credibility. Had a regulated business made similarly misleading statements about a competitor product, they would face sanction—and rightly so. Yet those who impose sanctions are holding themselves to a different standard. Since the committee finalised its report it has subsequently been reported, by Michael Roddan in The Australian Financial Review yesterday morning, that ASIC has quietly updated its Moneysmart website after swallowing industry data on what is claimed to be needed for Australians to comfortably retire. This follows the recent Callaghan retirement income review, which criticised the standards proposed by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. Once again, ASIC have been caught misleading and deceiving Australians and seem to swallow junk data without scrutiny. It again raises the question: does ASIC understand the products that it is responsible for regulating?
Unfortunately, these concerns about ASIC's internal processes have now been validated following independent investigations into payments made by ASIC on behalf of two of ASIC's most senior officers—the chair, and deputy chair Crennan. The committee will not comment on the substance of these matters, as the independent review is still underway. However, the committee is very disappointed that such a review is necessary in the first place. ASIC should be leading by example. It must be beyond reproach in its governance and accountability structures and processes, particularly when it oversees those corporate entities. ASIC has a lot of work to do to rebuild its credibility and confidence with the committee and likely the wider business and Australian community. The decline in confidence did not originate with the investigations into the chair and the deputy chair, although it has substantially compounded it.
The committee takes its role of the oversight of ASIC very seriously. It would be fruitful if, in 2021, ASIC demonstrated to the committee how it is reviewing its internal processes to address these critical issues so that such errors do not occur again, that ASIC actually accepts that responsibility and accountability exist within the organisation and that it is clearly focused on their core duties of enforcement. While this remains a matter for the Treasurer, these issues justify consideration for reform of ASIC to help rebuild confidence in its capacity and so that it fulfils the important statutory functions that the parliament entrusts it with. In 2021 the committee will closely follow the outcome of the independent review. It will continue to scrutinise ASIC's performance, particularly ASIC's ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, its implementation of the royal commission's recommendations, and the degree to which people are held accountable for misleading the public.
On behalf of the committee I would like to thank ASIC and APRA representatives for appearing before the public hearings on 5 August 2020 and 23 October 2020. I would also like to thank the committee members for their participation. In a bipartisan spirit, I thank the deputy chair for his cooperation—I know that I'm not always a straightforward chair to work with. I also thank the secretariat, including the outgoing secretary, Stephen Boyd. I welcome on board the new committee secretary, Lachlan Wilson, and I thank the acting committee secretary, Casey Mazzarella. I commend these reports to the House.
by leave—The committee this year has engaged in a productive series of conversations with a range of entities—ASIC, APRA and the ACCC. We have held a series of hearings with major banks and major superannuation funds and, most recently, we have had productive discussions with the Reserve Bank. As has become clear from these conversations, the Reserve Bank has concerns about the state of the Australian economy. The Reserve Bank governor noted recently: 'What has become clearer, though, as time has passed is that the Australian economy is likely to experience a run of years of relatively high unemployment, unemployment being too high, and wage increases and inflation being too low, leaving us short of the Reserve Bank's goals.' The Reserve Bank's own figures have unemployment at six per cent by the end of 2022 and extremely weak wage growth. That must surely be in part a function of the fact that the government will reduce real government expenditure by 17.5 per cent in 2021-22, the fiscal year starting in just seven months time. That is a record cut in government expenditure and will have an impact on the macro economy. The governor noted: 'Businesses are failing or they are going to fail. I think the insolvency rate at the moment is low but it is going to rise.'
The role of the House Economics Committee is to scrutinise the performance of the Reserve Bank in fulfilling its mandate. It is of concern to the committee that the Reserve Bank doesn't forecast hitting its inflation target in the foreseeable future. At the top of a chart from Westpac called 'G10 central bank balance sheet assets as a share of GDP' is the Bank of Japan, with around 35 per cent assets. At the bottom of the chart is the Reserve Bank of Australia, with a little less than five per cent assets. On that metric, quantitative easing in Australia has been more modest than it has been in the nine comparator jurisdictions with which we'd naturally compare ourselves. This is reflected in the change in the FX markets since the start of March, with the Australian dollar relatively overperforming and, therefore, losing the ability to stimulate the economy through the exchange rate channel.
That's the high-level picture. In terms of what more the Reserve Bank could do, we had productive conversations around their purchase of state bonds. State bonds are 30 per cent of bonds on issue, but as a share of the Reserve Bank's quantitative easing program they are only 20 per cent. Dr Debelle of the Reserve Bank responded to this by saying: 'When we buy Australian government bonds we're pulling down yields for everyone in the country.' But the contra-argument is that the state bond market is only a $400 billion market and one on which a big fish like the Reserve Bank could potentially have a larger impact than it could have on the Commonwealth bond market, which is more an international market. Driving down the prices of state bonds would have a material impact on the ability of state governments to fund much-needed fiscal stimulus.
I also offered the Reserve Bank a chance to respond to a comment from former researcher Peter Tulip, who said:
Our disagreements over the zero bound … reflect … that one side respects the research while the other side believes what it wants to believe.
Gertjan Vlieghe, from the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee said:
My own view is that the risk that negative rates end up being counterproductive to the aims of monetary policy is low.
The Reserve Bank remains cautious on this matter, despite the fact that other countries have moved.
The Reserve Bank's structure is also a matter which came up for some conversation during our recent hearings. Since 1989, every Reserve Bank governor, deputy governor and assistant governor appointment has been an internal one. Various critics have in recent times suggested that the Reserve Bank may have become a little too much of a closed shop. The ability of the Reserve Bank to draw in external ideas is important. The Reserve Bank did respond that they have a lot of robust internal conversations and that their current head of economic analysis was an outside appointment from the private sector and the IMF. But I still remain concerned that the Reserve Bank has only made internal appointments at its three most senior levels since the 1980s.
According to the Warsh review of the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank is also the only major central bank not to have regular press conferences after meetings. I hope that the Reserve Bank will move away from that position. I was pleased when Governor Lowe held a press conference following the most recent monetary policy announcement. I think it would behove the governor to make that a regular factor.
Finally, more precision over forward guidance would also help ease the constraint implied by the lower bound. The Reserve Bank has said it won't raise rates until inflation gets within the band. To name a number rather than a band would potentially be productive.
The Reserve Bank and the Treasury are the places where many of Australia's best macroeconomists go. One of the impacts of that has been that Australian macroeconomic commentary has been less rigorous than in other areas, where many of the experts have jobs that allow them to participate fully in the public debate. That is, however, beginning to change, and I'm pleased that there is an active academic community engaged with questions of monetary policy. Thoughtful scholars, such as Isaac Gross from Monash; Stephen Kirchner from the University of Sydney; Bruce Preston from The University of Melbourne; Peter Tulip from the Centre for Independent Studies; Emma Dawson and Stephen Koukoulas from Per Capita; and Brendan Coates, Matt Cowgill and Danielle Wood from the Grattan Institute are among the many who have made important contributions to the academic debate over monetary policy and whose expertise is being drawn on by the Reserve Bank. It remains head-scratching to me that there is only one monetary policy expert on the Reserve Bank board. I think we would be far better served to have two or three monetary policy experts on that board.
In closing, I thank the chair for the way in which we have worked constructively together on the House Economics Committee this year. I acknowledge Stephen Boyd and Lachlan Wilson for their work as secretary of the committee, and Casey Mazzarella for her splendid work as the interim committee secretary.
I move:
That the House takes note of each report.
The debates are adjourned and the resumption of the debates will be made orders of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the orders of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I present the committee's report, entitled Fairer funding and financing of faster rail: inquiry into options for financing faster rail, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Cast your mind to the future and consider where Australia could be in 2050 or in 100 years time if we had unlimited access to the infrastructure we need to grow. Imagine high-speed rail linking our major metropolises and connecting new, vibrant regional cities in commutable times. Imagine replacing the world's busiest air corridors with low-emission electric-powered trains with travel times from doorstep to doorstep in less time than is currently achieved by air. Imagine relieving our major cities of the burden of overcrowding while increasing our capacity for growth through a strategic plan of decentralisation, and the infrastructure required to deliver this dream. Imagine generating affordable housing for generations to come, a modern iteration of a Commonwealth of Australia with homeownership a foundation of a fair distribution of wealth through fair market mechanisms, wage earner competing with wage earner to secure a home.
It sounds far-fetched, but this could be possible with sustainably funded infrastructure. Finding that silver bullet was the purpose of this inquiry. Our inquiry considered evidence that documented the awesome power unleashed on property values when impacted by infrastructure and rezoning. When new infrastructure like rail is announced, the land prices always rise dramatically. Currently, this dramatic price rise provided by taxpayer funded infrastructure is pocketed by the lucky landowner. Harnessing this growth is essential to equitably fund infrastructure by requiring those who profit from taxpayer funded infrastructure contributing a fair share.
The pivotal question must be one of fairness. Is it fair for the taxpayer to fund infrastructure that creates great wealth for landowners, speculators and developers? Should the taxpayer receive a fair return when their money is invested? Is it fair that we leave future generations to pay for our spending today? Evidence provided to this inquiry documented that land in Western Sydney that was zoned as agriculture was valued at under $2,000 per acre 20 years ago. That land has increased in value through the announcement of the Badgerys Creek airport. Its associated infrastructure and rezoning has raised the value of land close to proposed metro stations to over $10 million per acre, an increase of an astounding 500,000 per cent. The trend we have witnessed will therefore result in greater wealth for some at the expense of taxpayers. Properly levied, these phenomenal uplifts would have funded the very infrastructure that created the uplift in their property values.
Professor Andrew McNaughton noted that uplift within 500 metres of a metro rail station is significant; however, the uplift around faster or high-speed rail can extend over much greater areas and be far more dramatic. Professor McNaughton was the technical director of High Speed 2 in Britain, and more recently has consulted for the New South Wales government on faster rail. He advised most strongly that before making any more announcements of future infrastructure projects, governments must secure the current value of lands on which they wish to make a charge because after the announcement it is too late. If this compounding trend continues, the proposed $100 billion infrastructure investment will result in a great debt burden for future generations while creating unimaginable wealth for some. This would result in a compounding of the negligence by governments for over 100 years in failing to represent the people of Australia by not gaining a fair share of wealth created when investing Australian taxpayers' moneys.
When we started this inquiry, at the very end of 2019, we wanted to find a way to better fund critical infrastructure. As we conclude it, at the end of 2020, we need to find a way. In 2020 we have seen Australia's first recession in nearly three decades. In response, the Australian government has committed to billions of dollars worth of infrastructure as stimulus, resulting in debt that will last for generations. I would like to extend my thanks to everybody involved in this inquiry, from the people and organisations who took time to share their expertise, to my colleagues on the committee, my able deputy chair and friend, the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, and the secretariat, Stephen Boyd, Casey Mazzarella, Stephanie Woodbridge and especially Samantha Mannette. Like everything else in 2020, COVID-19 played havoc with this inquiry, by cancelling hearings and even postponing the inquiry for a few months. It is to the credit of the secretariat that this report exists at all.
This committee has previously recommended that a value-capture model be designed and utilised in Australia, which has either been ignored or received token acknowledgement. Before it was an opportunity. Now it is an imperative. We find ourselves at a crossroads. On one road is more debt, ad-hoc infrastructure and a limping recovery. On the other is dynamic growth, sustainable infrastructure and opportunity. It should not be hard to see that business as usual will not serve our citizens fairly. The conclusion is obvious, that the Australian government working with state, territory and local governments should secure land values before announcements and develop an infrastructure levy mechanism that is just, equitable and fair to sustainably fund infrastructure and provide relief for taxpayers now and in the future—a master funding plan for a master plan of infrastructure, settlement and recovery. In the words of Professor Andrew McNaughton, 'We must act now'. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, and Cities inquiry report into options for financing faster rail is, as the chair has said, timely and important. Fast rail between Australia's major capital cities and regional centres should be a bipartisan national objective. The report notes the federal government's role in rail projects is not limited to funding, it also has a leadership role to play in facilitating rail projects by providing strategic coordination between the different levels of government, the private sector and other key stakeholders. Because we're a federation, delivering these projects will involve negotiation across all levels of government. For example, land use planning is shared between different levels of government and rezoning is a local responsibility. The committee heard that there is scope for the government to work more with state, territory and local governments, to build on current mechanisms like the city deals we have in my electorate, in Darwin, and in Hobart, in Geelong and in Adelaide.
Value capture was a major focus of this report. It's a way for governments to fund part or all of costs for infrastructure projects. It is regrettable, as the chair has said, that in cases like the Western Sydney City Deal, governments have failed to value-capture extraordinary uplifts in property values in the area. Value capture should be incorporated organically into infrastructure projects to ensure that governments fairly capitalise on taxpayer funds that are invested. I commend the recommendations. I am personally, and we on this side of the House are, committed to using infrastructure spending and projects for nation-building. In his budget reply speech, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Anthony Albanese, made this clear when announcing Labor's creation of a National Rail Manufacturing Plan as part of our 'A Future Made in Australia'.
This plan will undertake a national audit of passenger train capacity and condition; develop our rail procurement and manufacturing strategy; and assess how we can grow jobs and bolster research and development and collaboration with innovation initiatives and organisations.
The plan will reinstate the important role of the rail supplier advocate, cut by those opposite in 2013, to help SMEs identify export opportunities and get a foot in the door with government purchasing bodies. Having said that, I want to pay tribute to the constructive bipartisan tone and, hopefully, outcomes of this important committee report.
Working closely with the member for Bennelong, who is a good friend—and I appreciate his sterling work in this inquiry process—I want to put on the record that his serve, his backhand and endurance were as impressive in this committee process as they were on the tennis court. His commitment to ensuring fairness is extraordinary. Fairness for Australian taxpayers from federal infrastructure projects is one that I support and which I hope his colleagues will also support.
Finally, I want to thank my Labor colleagues on the committee: Andrew Giles, the member for Scullin; and Joanne Ryan, the member for Lalor. I appreciate their counsel as our committee went through its important work on this inquiry. Thank you.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
by leave—It's my pleasure to present the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report for the inquiry into the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how closely an interconnected world links domestic outcomes with international events. Over the medium and long term, the pandemic will affect every aspect of Australia's global relationships.
COVID-19 presents one of the greatest threats to global human health since the influenza pandemic of 1918. In addition to the number of cases and deaths directly attributable to the virus, the pandemic will have a wide range of other implications for global health and health systems.
The committee inquiry concluded the lessons from the COVID-19 are not primarily about health. One of the key findings of the inquiry was the behaviour of nation-states in response to COVID-19 has called into question assumptions about the extent of adherence to global rules based order. Assumptions such as these have underpinned many aspects of Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade policy in recent decades.
For Australia, COVID-19 has exposed structural vulnerabilities in some of the crucial national systems that enable us to function as a secure, prosperous and First World nation. Many of these vulnerabilities are caused by supply chains that rely on just-in-time supply from the global market. In some cases this is exacerbated by supply coming, in whole or substantial part, from companies that are subject to extrajudicial or coercive direction from some foreign governments. Decreased support for the norms of the rules based order negatively affects collaboration and conflict resolution between nation-states as well as the efficacy of commercial relationships between companies throughout the supply chains.
A key lesson from COVID-19 is that returning to business as usual is not an option if Australia is to be resilient, remaining secure and prosperous, in the face of future crises. Another zoonotic pandemic like COVID-19 is only one of the potential crises facing Australia and our region that would disrupt business as usual. Unexpected or sustained disruption due to grey-zone coercive or military actions is likely to substantially degrade if not disable one or more of Australia's critical national systems. Australia must identify the supply chains that underpin critical national systems and work with industry to reduce, if not eliminate, vulnerabilities and increase resilience. This will require changes to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules to specifically recognise the value for money that is inherent in partnerships with industry that create or expand sovereign capabilities which provide identified enablers for a critical national system. It will also require more whole-of-government strategic assessment, investment and diplomatic effort into increased resilience through trusted and transparent partnerships with like-minded nations.
Australia, like much of the Indo-Pacific region, has benefited from the global rules based order, which has underpinned increased security and prosperity. Poor outcomes from some key multilateral institutions have decreased engagement by some nations, and there is evidence of authoritarian nation-states seeking to influence global rules and standards away from the transparent, plural and democratic values that have informed global norms in recent decades. It is clearly in Australia's national interest to work with like-minded nations to ensure that reforms to key multilateral institutions are effective and consistent with democratic values and the rule of law. COVID-19 has seen Australia respond effectively, including with novel approaches to governance such as national cabinet and partnerships with industry that have placed strategic outcomes over rigid adherence to established process. Responding to the lessons of COVID-19 identified in this report will require a similar commitment to whole-of-government outcomes-focused assessment and timely funded implementation of novel solutions which will challenge the status quo.
I thank all the members of the committee and the members of the secretariat and commend the report to the House.
by leave—I thank the member for Menzies for his contribution. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I seek to speak on the inquiry into the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade. I'd firstly like to thank the chair of the committee, Senator David Fawcett, and all members who have played a role in this report. I also want to thank the former deputy chair of this committee, Nick Champion, for his role in supporting this inquiry. I also welcome the secretary, Julia Morris, who started in her role recently, and thank the secretariat, Lynley Ducker, Stephen Sherlock, Peter Pullen and Dorota Cooley, for their work. I'm pleased to announce that I've been elected as the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, a committee which does an inordinate amount of work for parliament, and I am proud to be a member and the deputy chair.
This report was largely undertaken via web based work and communication, which added a challenge to an already important piece of work. I would like to thank all of the witnesses who made submissions and took the time to give evidence during the inquiry. Thanks for your contribution. We can ensure that more effective action is taken to deliver these outcomes.
I want to take a moment to speak about the implications of COVID-19 as laid out in section 2 of the report and also note that I truly hope the government takes swift and decisive actions on all of the recommendations, but particularly recommendations 1, 2, and 3. Briefly, the committee recommends that, within 12 months, the Australian government define which critical national systems are essential to Australia's ability to function as a secure, prosperous First World nation. In recommendation 2, the committee recommends that the Australian government develop a national resilience framework to assess which elements of Australia's critical national systems are vulnerable to high-consequence supply chain disruptions. Thirdly, the committee recommends that the Australian government develop specific shared objectives with allies and regional partners to increase global support for the rules based order that underpins the global system of security, international relations and trade.
This truly has been one of the greatest threats to global health that our economy has witnessed in our lifetime, and all Australians should be incredibly proud of the resilience that they've shown during this pandemic. As a prompt to the government, one of the key lessons from COVID-19, as the chair pointed out in his remarks and foreword, is that we cannot return to business as usual. It is not an option for Australia, and this report provides us with excellent recommendations and evidence as to how we might move forward.
I commend the recommendations and the benefits they will have for the Australian Defence Force, particularly. We understand that, as a country and as a global community, we will never return to business as usual. Australia's island status has created a barrier that is both protective and precarious. Whilst we are girt by sea, it is across these seas that supply chains must span. This report and its recommendations help us in aiding industry and government to ensure that we are collectively resilient and that we continue to be a secure and prosperous nation in any future challenges.
I commend the report to the House.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
The debate is adjourned and 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 Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 485 entitled Cyber resilience: inquiry into Auditor-General's reports 1 and 13 (2019-20).
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I present report No. 485 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, entitled Cyber resilience. This report details the committee's findings from its inquiry into two Auditor-General's reports of 2019-20, including report No. 1, Cyber resilience of government business enterprises and corporate Commonwealth entities, and report 13, Implementation of the My Health Record system. The purpose of the committee's inquiry was to consider the effectiveness of the management of cyber-risks and the implementation of cybersecurity measures in various agencies. It also examined the Auditor-General's findings on the extent to which Commonwealth entities had embedded a cyber-resilience culture.
The report contains six recommendations targeting a number of core areas. In the interests of time, I'll broadly outline some of the key themes. The first of those concerns the importance of the development of a cyber-resilience culture within entities. The committee noted that the ANAO has developed a detailed framework of 13 behaviours and practices that could assist in the implementation and improvement of culture. These are covered under four headings: governance and risk management, roles and responsibilities, technical support, and monitoring compliance. The committee outlines in recommendation 3 that these practices and behaviours should play a greater role in the implementation and improvement of a cyber-resilience culture within Commonwealth entities.
Further, the committee noted that the Protective Security Policy Framework, commonly known as the PSPF, addresses the development of a positive security culture. However, specific references to the 13 behaviours and practices under the title outlined by the Auditor-General within the PSPF could not be found. Recommendation 3 seeks to help to address this by outlining that the PSPF should be amended to reflect or incorporate, where needed, the ANAO's framework. It also recommends that a dedicated section be created within the annual PSPF self-assessment questionnaire addressing these 13 criteria.
Further, in recommendation 4, the committee outlines that the Australian National Audit Office should consider conducting an annual limited assurance review into the cyber-resilience of Commonwealth entities and that this could include examining the extent to which entities have embedded a cyber-resilience culture and compliance with the essential eight mitigation strategies in the Information Security Manual. To enable time for implementation, the committee recommends that this review commence from June 2022 and be conducted yearly for five years.
Other recommendations outlined in this report are specific to relevant Commonwealth entities. Recommendation 5 requests that Australia Post provide an update on progress in implementing controls in line with the top four and essential eight mitigation strategies and how a cyber-resilience culture is being further embedded in the organisation. Recommendation 6 requests that the Australian Digital Health Agency provide an update on a number of key aspects of its ANAO My Health Record performance audit implementation plan.
Finally, other recommendations address broad improvements to existing frameworks and are directed to the Attorney-General's Department. Recommendation 1 requests that the department provide an update to the committee on its implementation of external moderation models and benchmarking processes to verify entities' reported compliance with cybersecurity requirements. Recommendation 2 is also directed to the Attorney-General's Department and seeks an update on the levels of cybersecurity maturity within Commonwealth entities and the feasibility of mandating the essential eight mitigation strategies across Commonwealth entities. It also recommends that the Attorney-General's Department report back on any impediments to mandating the top four strategies for government business enterprises and corporate Commonwealth entities.
Finally, I'd like to very much thank those agencies that participated in the inquiry and those who appeared at public hearings. I would also like to note that this is a consensus report of the committee and thank all committee members for their willingness to work collaboratively on this very important inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I join the chair of the committee in congratulating members for the way they engaged in this very important inquiry and also join the chair in thanking the secretariat staff for their assistance with this report. I really think this report shows the parliament at its best—parliamentarians working together across party lines, outside the media spotlight, on complex issues of national importance. I'd like to first acknowledge the work of members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of Audit on this report, particularly the member for Robertson in her role as chair and the member for Bruce in his role as deputy chair.
I've been very pleased since joining the JCPAA to see parliamentarians genuinely working together on matters that are important but that sometimes don't attract the media attention they deserve. This report deserves attention, though—from the media, parliamentarians and the government—because its findings are, frankly, alarming. It's an indictment of this government's ongoing failure to ensure the cybersecurity of its own departments. In fact, it's so bad that the committee has recommended that a new oversight regime is needed, one that will ensure that our vital government services and the data of Australian citizens that is held by Commonwealth entities are appropriately protected at a time of dramatically increasing cyber threats. The reason this intervention has been necessary is that for years we have seen a staggeringly high rate of noncompliance from the Commonwealth government with its own cybersecurity framework. Just over one in four Commonwealth entities that were audited by the ANAO have implemented the top four cybersecurity measures recommended by the Australian Signals Directorate, six years after they became mandatory.
The cyberthreats to Commonwealth departments are very real and growing, and the lack of compliance and cyber-resilience has been the subject of a series of audits and inquiries from both the ANAO and the JCPAA over the last seven years. The government's own cybersecurity posture report in 2019 found that implementation of the ASD's top four cybersecurity measures 'remains at low levels across the Australian government'. That's the government's own report. The Auditor-General highlighted these ongoing failures in his mid-term report, noting, 'With cybersecurity being an area of priority for many years, these findings are disappointing.' Despite the warning, the Morrison government has failed to do the basics, and I should note that the Morrison government has currently introduced legislation into this parliament to require private sector companies in critical infrastructure sectors to significantly lift their cybersecurity practices and behaviours, but, unless the Commonwealth government lifts its game, as identified in this report, the government risks being accused of telling private sector Australian businesses 'to do what I say and not what I do'. This Prime Minister has never missed a photo opportunity on his many announcements when it comes to talking about the cybersecurity threats faced by our nation, but he hasn't been there for the follow-up to ensure cyber-resilience inside his own government in the face of these increasing threats.
A core part of the problem here is the absence of any real form of accountability for government entities that fail to do what is required to be cyber-resilient. Each Commonwealth entity is currently responsible for its own cyber-resilience, but there's no-one marking their homework to ensure that they are compliant. Each year, non-corporate Commonwealth entities are required to conduct a self-assessment of their compliance with the Protective Security Policy Framework and the Information Security Manual within it. This self-assessment is then provided to the Attorney-General's Department and its portfolio minister. But the committee heard evidence that this is the total extent of accountability. When a Commonwealth entity is noncompliant with the ASD's mandatory top four all they have to do is tell their minister and the Attorney-General's Department, and nothing happens. There's no way for parliament to hold a Commonwealth entity accountable for ongoing failures on their own self-assessments and for the cybersecurity vulnerabilities within these Commonwealth entities.
And they are not publicly disclosed. Even the annual cybersecurity posture report provided to the parliament in response to a previous JCPAA report's plea for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability only provides aggregated information about this performance. It's a model that hides failure within individual Commonwealth entities and does nothing to drive the important cultural change that we need to see.
The only way we have learned of the widespread failures of cyber-resilience within the Commonwealth has been the ANAO's outstanding cyber-resilience audits. This is why the JCPAA has been forced to recommend the ANAO be funded to undertake a limited assurance cyber-resilience audit across all Commonwealth entities every year for five years and to report on the findings to the JCPAA. This annual cyber-resilience review would operate in a similar way to another JCPAA oversight mechanism targeting a similar accountability problem: the annual defence main projects review. It's an unprecedented level of oversight that recognises the scale of the ongoing failure to build cyber-resilience within the Commonwealth government. It would help drive culture change at a time of dramatically increasing cyberthreats.
Members and senators from all sides of politics have recognised the seriousness of the need for Commonwealth entities to be cyber-resilient and the failing of the current accountability framework to deliver this outcome. I call on the Morrison government to hear the call of this report—an outstanding report, a consensus report from parliamentarians on all sides of politics—and to immediately accept and act on this report's recommendations.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned, and 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 Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's interim report, incorporating additional comments by Senator Dean Smith: Never again: Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Never again can we allow the destruction, devastation and vandalism of cultural sites that has occurred with the Juukan Gorge. Never again. On 24 May 2020, Rio Tinto destroyed the site, a site which represented 46,000 years of culture and history for the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples of the Pilbara. The blast devastated a place of personal community and national and international significance.
The parliament responded to this tragedy by tasking the committee with investigating the immediate causes and consequences and its wider ramifications for the protection of Indigenous heritage. The scale of the inquiry, the sheer volume of evidence the committee has received and the serious constraints posed by COVID-19 mean that the committee felt unable to do full justice to the inquiry in the time originally granted. As a result, the committee has chosen to table this interim report addressing its findings to date and setting forth recommendations that will be built on at a later date.
There are lots of things which contributed to the destruction of the shelters and the permanent spring at Juukan Gorge. Rio Tinto knew the value of what they were destroying but blew it up anyway. It pursued the option of destroying the shelters despite having options which would have preserved them. The evidence presented to the committee raised significant issues about the culture and practices inside Rio Tinto and highlights the need for the internal reform of the company.
Western Australian law played a critical role in the destruction of the shelters. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 failed to protect Aboriginal heritage, making the destruction of Indigenous heritage not only legal but also inevitable. The need for new laws is widely recognised. In the meantime, without government and industry action, Indigenous heritage will continue to be at risk.
The destruction of the shelters and permanent spring at Juukan Gorge also highlighted the shortcomings in federal law. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 is moribund, and the inquiry has identified the imbalance of power at the heart of the Native Title Act 1993. The committee will give further consideration to the need to amend the Native Title Act as the inquiry progresses.
The traditional owners of the Pilbara are not opposed to mining. They see the possibilities that development offers. But they do not accept—and we should not accept—that the destruction of their ancient culture and heritage is the price to pay for prosperity. Damage is being done not because it's unavoidable but because people are not doing enough to avoid it.
The defining moment of the first phase of this inquiry was the visit to Juukan Gorge. It was an opportunity for the committee to experience the destruction of the site from a perspective of the traditional owners. The committee's visit, I have to say, was quite distressing. The grief of the traditional owners was almost overwhelming for everyone who witnessed it. They'd lost more than a piece of heritage; they had lost part of themselves, a piece of their living culture which was infused with the still-present spirits of their ancestors and pregnant with the future stories of their descendants.
It needs to be accepted that the destruction of the shelters and the spring at Juukan Gorge does not just impact on a small and discreet group of traditional owners in the middle of the Pilbara; it has robbed a significant piece of history from all Australians and from the world.
I would like to conclude with some words of thanks. Many people have contributed to this inquiry, including traditional owners, Indigenous organisations, companies, governments, lawyers, academics and members of the public who were outraged by the incident and wished their voices to be heard. I would like to particularly thank the PKKP, who, despite the grief, have embraced the inquiry and assisted with its work. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues for their attentive and constructive contributions to a difficult inquiry undertaken under very challenging circumstances. It's great to see my colleague Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, in the chamber here tonight. Last but not least, I would like to thank the secretariat for their sterling efforts. Jenny and the team have been absolutely outstanding. Under very, very difficult circumstances, they have done a fabulous job.
Never again. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I thank the member for Leichhardt for his contribution and for the way in which he's chaired this committee. We've been working together for some time—over a number of years—and, I have to say, we're able to work very collegiately and cooperatively. I appreciate his leadership and the way in which this committee has functioned. Whilst I'm on the subject, I would like to particularly thank my Labor Party colleagues Senator Patrick Dodson, who has been instrumental to this process; Senator Chisholm; and the member for Lilley, Ms Wells.
Never again is an apt and appropriate title for this report. We should never again be asked to countenance what appears, to this joint standing committee, to be a deliberate action by Rio Tinto to destroy significant sites in the quest for profit. It was an unconscionable act that could have been avoided, had Rio Tinto had a mind to, and should have been.
I've already thanked the chair and the members of the committee for their diligence and application. This report reflects the concerns and amazement of the committee members at the behaviour of Rio Tinto in the destruction of the Juukan caves. These concerns are not limited to the Juukan Gorge. It is absolutely clear that priceless First Nations heritage is under threat across the country and that protections for it are very limited.
This inquiry has exposed major deficiencies and fault lines in Rio Tinto's management systems. It has provided Aboriginal traditional owners an opportunity to have their voice properly heard, as the member for Leichhardt said. We had some very poignant testimony from the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people themselves. One witness, Mr Burchell Hayes, whose father was known as 'Juukan', said:
We have an obligation to look after country in accordance with traditional law and customs. It is our obligation to the old people, who also looked after it. It was on loan to us to pass on to our future generations, our Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura children, and the future generations yet to come. The disaster has now left a gaping hole in our ability to pass on our heritage to our children and grandchildren.
We were only able to get this evidence by, as the member for Leichhardt said, travelling to Western Australia, sitting in front of traditional owners and talking to them directly.
This interim report identifies a catalogue of failures of process by Rio Tinto. It also makes plain, as has the inquiry, that First Nations people are seriously disadvantaged when it comes to dealing with mining companies and government agencies. The scant resources that they have and that they can muster are far outweighed by what those mining companies and bureaucracies bring to bear. And, as the member for Leichhardt said, legislation—state and federal—has failed to protect First Nations and their heritage.
This inquiry, and the interim report, has exposed an ongoing failure by Rio Tinto to ensure that the company has ongoing free, prior and informed consent by the PKKP for activities on their traditional lands. It has exposed the gross inadequacies of Western Australian heritage legislation and the need for mining companies in Western Australia to revisit section 18 approvals so that they reflect continuing free, prior and informed consent and consent that is current; that there are no limitations on Aboriginal people exercising their rights to oppose activities proposed under these approvals; and that gag clauses are removed. There is much work yet to be done, as the chair has said. The committee is intent on completing the next stage of this work. But let me be clear—never again. Never again.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned and 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 the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Integrity of Australia's border arrangements.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has tabled this report from our longstanding inquiry into the integrity of Australia's border arrangements. We investigated how well government agencies which worked to secure our border are able to protect themselves from infiltration and corruption, including transnational, serious and organised crime elements who might seek to subvert Australia's borders. The inquiry is of significance to Australia's national security interests because maintaining the integrity of our border agencies is critical for ensuring the current and future economic and social wellbeing of the nation.
Our committee found that, overall, our law enforcement agencies have adopted appropriate and robust mechanisms to seek out infiltration and corruption when they happen. We found that the commission has performed those functions well in investigating potential breaches of border agency integrity. The key challenge remains that we need to ensure that law enforcement agencies work together in a more coordinated fashion. We need to take significant action to improve border-related functions to ensure those processes maintain their integrity and continue to support Australians.
There is more to do, including further streamlining the number of identity-card-approving authorities and creating a central register. A further recommendation was that home affairs and the department of water and the environment develop better consistency across their integrity and anticorruption frameworks. As part of this inquiry, a delegation from the committee travelled to New Zealand and Vanuatu to understand the integrity frameworks of our near neighbour countries and how individual initiatives or aspects of those frameworks might be relevant to Australia.
My sincere thanks to our secretariat and to the governments of New Zealand and Vanuatu for their openness to our discussions and for the strength of the ongoing partnerships we have to tackle transnational, serious and organised crime in the Pacific region.
by leave—I would like to endorse the comments of the member for Bowman just a few moments ago. Labor members support the recommendations in the Integrity of Australia's border arrangements report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. However, there are a number of matters that we put on record which warrant particular emphasis and which I will summarise in my remarks.
Most significantly, this inquiry has further highlighted the urgent need for a broad based independent and powerful national integrity commission to tackle corruption. At present, the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is too narrow, as evidenced by extraordinary examples of jurisdictional issues preventing it from conducting investigations into extremely serious allegations of corruption. For example, an allegation that an agriculture officer was facilitating drug importations and terrorism financing was deemed not to be within the jurisdiction of ACLEI.
As the committee report notes, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General announced that the government would expand ACLEI's jurisdiction to include the entirety of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. The announcement of an expanded jurisdiction was made two years ago. Since then the government has shown no urgency to follow through on its commitment. In other words, the government continues to allow an intolerable risk to Australia's border security—and therefore to Australia's biosecurity and national security—to remain unchecked.
Last month, the government finally released an exposure draft of a bill to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. The proposed model includes two divisions: one of those divisions would be responsible for investigating politicians and most Commonwealth public servants. The powers of the public sector division would be significantly weaker than those of ACLEI and it would operate entirely in secret. It would not be able to self-initiate investigations into possible corruption and, unlike ACLEI, it would not even be able to make findings of corruption. The other division would be ACLEI, which would continue to operate as it currently operates, albeit with an expanded jurisdiction.
The Morrison government's preferred model for a Commonwealth integrity commission has been widely criticised by legal and anticorruption experts. The impact of corruption is profound. As well as eroding public trust in governments and institutions and costing taxpayers money that could be used to improve people's lives, corruption can threaten the health, safety and security of all Australians. Labor members have put on the public record our concerns about the lack of urgency shown by the current government when it comes to investigating or tackling corruption, including at Australia's borders, and the government's proposed Commonwealth integrity commission, which appears to fall well short of what is needed to investigate and tackle corruption.
I also record our concerns about the conduct and quality of ACLEI's investigation into allegations of corruption, including into the Department of Home Affairs and Crown casino. This was known as Operation Angove. The allegations investigated by Operation Angove were incredibly serious. They related to possible corruption by Home Affairs staff in relation to the provision of Australian visas for Crown VIPs, possible corruption by Australian Border Force staff in relation to the clearing of those VIPs at the Australian border and possible corruption by an individual ABF staff member who was also employed by a VIP junket operator.
After a 12-month investigation by ACLEI, the current Integrity Commissioner concluded there was no evidence of corrupt conduct by Home Affairs or the ABF. However, ACLEI did not interview a single employee or former employee of Crown. ACLEI conducted only one formal interview over the course of Operation Angove. ACLEI did not attempt to contact the former Crown employee turned whistleblower who spoke to the 60 Minutes program in relation to the provision of Australian visas for Crown VIPs. ACLEI did not attempt to contact any of the officials who were directly responsible for processing visa applications for Crown VIPs. ACLEI did not follow up when ABF officers ignored requests for information. And the Integrity Commissioner's report does not refer to the highly relevant fact that the Crown junket operator who employed a serving ABF officer as an extraordinarily well-paid personal assistant was suspected of committing a range of serious criminal offences.
Accordingly, Labor members are not satisfied that the Operation Angove investigation was sufficiently robust. We do not make these comments lightly. This committee has a duty to monitor and review the Integrity Commissioner's performance of his or her functions. It is therefore important that committee members give voice to their concerns when, in their view, the commissioner's performance has fallen short of what the Australian community and the parliament expect. Noting the committee is not authorised to reconsider the Integrity Commissioner's decisions or recommendations, we also make it clear that we are in no way suggesting that the Integrity Commissioner's conclusion that there was no corrupt conduct by Home Affairs or ABF staff was wrong. What we are suggesting is that the process that led to the commissioner to reach that conclusion was deficient.
Our comments are confined to Operation Angove only and should not be interpreted as criticism of individual investigators or the performance of ACLEI more generally, which has done, and continues to do, very important work to a commendably high standard. With those comments, I thank the secretariat for their support of the committee and commend the report to the House.
by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended for this sitting.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020. This bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to provide greater certainty to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory regarding their representation in the House of Representatives.
At the 2019 federal election, the Northern Territory elected two members. However, on 3 July 2020, using population statistics supplied by the Australian Statistician, the Electoral Commissioner issued a determination under the Electoral Act regarding the number of members of the House of Representatives for the next federal election. This determination provides that the Northern Territory and Western Australia will each lose a seat in the House of Representatives, and Victoria will gain a seat.
If left to stand, this determination would mean the Northern Territory, with an area of 1.3 million square kilometres and a population of nearly 250,000, would only hold one seat in the House of Representatives.
The government is committed to ensuring fair and equitable parliamentary representation across the country, especially across such a large and diverse part of our nation as the Northern Territory.
The government is proposing these amendments to the Electoral Act to preserve two members to represent the Northern Territory in the House at the next election and to make permanent changes to buttress the basis on which we calculate Territory representation for future elections.
The bill responds to the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, arising from an inquiry into a private senator's bill introduced to the Senate to guarantee two seats for the Northern Territory. I thank the committee for its work.
While the private senator's bill examined by the committee would have achieved an outcome of two seats for the Northern Territory at the next election, it did have some deficiencies and would have increased risk and complexity in the operation of the Electoral Act. The committee also suggested that the private senator's bill could conceivably create issues of potential constitutional risk, by treating the two territories differently—giving a two-seat floor to the Northern Territory while keeping the Australian Capital Territory on the old floor of one seat.
Importantly, the committee also found that the private senator's bill did not include all necessary legislative changes. For example that bill did not amend the numerous places in part IV of the Electoral Act (dealing with boundary drawing for electorates), where the Northern Territory is currently omitted.
Accordingly, the committee recommended that an alternative bill be put forward by the government, with the benefit of official advice, to address these problems and ensure a more robust solution. The committee recommended that:
… if the Parliament does not enact a two seat floor for the Territories, it considers instead either:
Taking account of the committee's views, the government's bill makes four main changes related to Territory representation:
Application of a harmonic mean calculation will result in a more significantly more favourable rounding up of the quotas required to secure additional seats in the House of Representatives as compared to the previous margin-of-error adjustment.
A territory with one House of Representatives seat will only require a quota of 1.3333 to gain a second seat, and a territory with two seats will only require a quota of 2.4 to be allocated a third seat. Based on their past population levels, both territories would comfortably pass those respective thresholds.
Harmonic mean rounding is recognised by electoral systems experts as the most fair and suitable approach for assigning parliamentary seats between different geographic areas to fix the unduly heavy constituent workload that can arise in the smallest areas. Prominent commentator Antony Green has been the principal exponent for this reform in Australia. Consistent with his recommendations, the bill removes the margin-of-error method as a trade-off for introduction of the more generous solution of harmonic mean rounding.
These amendments provide a fairer mechanism to allocate seats in the House of Representatives for smaller jurisdictions and makes securing representation for the territories far more achievable on a permanent basis.
This not only allows the Northern Territory to hold its ground, ensuring strong representation for the remote and disadvantaged communities included in its borders but makes it easier to achieve growth of its parliamentary representation to three seats as it develops.
The recent NT budget points to specific construction and resource projects that underpin new data on population growth this year and over the forward estimates. They point to the Darwin ship lift, defence works at Larrakeyah, HMAS Coonawarra and Robertson Barracks, and the CDU city campus as part of the City Deals project.
I welcome the comments of Chief Minister Michael Gunner who said in his budget speech that:
After recent years of declining population, 2020 is the year it starts to turn around. We are growing again …
Residential building approvals were up 150 per cent in September – nearly 10 times the national average, and Darwin scored the strongest property price growth of any capital city last month.
Despite the impact of COVID-19 on operations and global markets, our mining sector continues to perform strongly, with production and exploration at near-record levels.
Though the Budget's economic outlook for the Territory is positive, it is also conservative. It does not factor in the planned and potential projects in the pipeline, such as the Barossa gas field project which would boost growth forecasts in 2023-24.
The government bill avoids taking risks with the constitutionality because our amendments treat territories on the basis of objective principles and methods, rather than setting arbitrary numbers of seats for each specific territory. The worst thing we could do is to enact a solution that would be at risk of being struck down by the courts.
The methodology in the 2020 government bill is consistent with the constitutional characteristics of a representative democracy because the new methodology is overtly designed to ensure that the average population per electorate in the NT is sufficiently commensurate with the national average population per electorate.
The new calculations that are required under the government's bill will give certainty that the diverse and widely dispersed population in the Northern Territory is adequately and more fairly represented in future.
The amendments ensure continued parity in the Electoral Act provisions regarding the seats for the NT and the ACT. This is consistent with the approach to the previous 2004 amendments to protect the NT's position which also treated both territories alike.
The concern about constitutional risk has been identified by the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters every time they have considered territory representation. The 2004 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters says:
The Committee endorses the 1985 report of the JSCER—
the predecessor committee—
which noted the potential for abuse of the discretion given to Parliament to make laws governing the representation of the Territories …
Importantly, as the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended, the bill also better aligns the treatment of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in boundary redistribution provisions. Once a territory has multiple seats, we must ensure that the boundary drawing processes are working efficiently when there are disparate population fluctuations within different geographic parts of that territory. Our bill ensures that the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are treated the same as the states wherever possible in part IV of the Electoral Act.
The one exception to symmetry between the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in the government bill relates to the consequential rules about participation of Australian electoral officers in redistribution processes.
Under this bill, the Northern Territory Australian Electoral Officer will participate in NT redistribution processes, just as their state counterparts would participate when House of Representatives boundaries are redrawn within particular states. However the Australian Electoral Officer for the Australian Capital Territory is only appointed for the duration of an election, so during any redistributions in the ACT another senior officer from the Electoral Commission will participate in the process, as determined by the Electoral Commissioner. That distinctive treatment for the Australian Capital Territory is an existing feature of the act, that is cost effective and not necessary to disturb in this bill.
I note there has been recent conjecture in parliamentary committee hearings about the future status of the Australian Electoral Officer for the Northern Territory. I take this opportunity to put those concerns to rest.
This bill recognises that the Australian Electoral Officer in the Northern Territory is always to be a member of the Redistribution Committee for any redistributions in that territory. I also note, for the record, that the process to permanently re-fill the Australian Electoral Officer position for the Northern Territory will begin before the end of 2020.
Finally, I observe that following passage of major electoral bills in recent times, it has become an established practice to have a post implementation review within a reasonable period after provisions have come into operation. That is a prudent practice. Accordingly this bill includes a requirement that the harmonic mean provisions are reviewed by a parliamentary committee as soon as practicable after the first occasion when the provisions are used for a determination. That would occur during the life of the next parliament.
In conclusion, it is important that we remain committed to improving electoral legislation in a non-partisan manner which promotes public confidence, within the constraints of our constitutional system and the requirements of representative democracy. Respecting those principles, we have been able to draft a solution that errs towards ensuring the strongest representation for Australia's territories.
The government intends to seek passage of this bill through parliament before the end of the year to give certainty about territory representation arrangements as soon as possible.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
What a delight! It's the best speech I've heard from a government minister for quite some time because it produces an excellent outcome for the people of the Northern Territory, including Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands, which are a part of the Lingiari electorate, as well as people from the ACT. I commend the government and the minister for his outstanding speech. He was able to explain the dark arts of the harmonic mean—well, more or less. I thank him for that.
I won't speak for long, but I do want to acknowledge my friend the member for Solomon, who, with Senator McCarthy, the CLP's Senator McMahon and myself have been driving a bipartisan campaign around this issue for over 12 months. It's come to a conclusion as a result of the government accepting the merits of the arguments which have been put to them around the stupidity that would have arisen had we gone back to one seat in the Northern Territory. I say that as the only person in this parliament who's been the single member for the Northern Territory. I can tell you that the proposition that we should go back to one representative for the whole of the Northern Territory was just an absurd one. The shadow minister talked about the margins of error. I've been in arguments for some years around the way in which the bureau assesses populations in the Northern Territory, including as far back as 2004, when a bill was passed by the Howard government to secure two seats at that time.
I think it's very important to acknowledge what the government has done here: they have provided a basis for ensuring that two seats are retained in the Northern Territory well into the future. Whilst we had an issue around population count at the end of 2019, it is worthwhile noting that, in the current year, we have seen an expansion of the Northern Territory population. Since the middle of the year, 4½ thousand people have relocated to the Northern Territory—principally as a result of COVID, we understand. So it's very important that we acknowledge that this will have a long-term impact upon representation in this parliament for the Northern Territory—including the Indian Ocean territories—as well as the ACT. Sometimes I disagree with Antony Green but on this particular occasion I am happy to say that we support his recommendations, which have been adopted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and the considerations the committee has had and the recommendations they have made, which I know will be very well received in the Northern Territory.
It's worth understanding that in the Northern Territory there has been a really big campaign, generated by the member for Solomon and the two Northern Territory senators, around ensuring that we get this representation. The member for New England has just come into the chamber. I want to thank him for his outspoken support for this legislation. His National Party colleagues understand that you need to make sure regional Australia is properly represented in this parliament. By ensuring that we have two seats in the Northern Territory, they have helped to do that. That's partly up to them. I thank the member for New England and his colleagues for their support for this legislation. It has been quite remarkable. We often have division in this parliament, but here there has been cooperation and consensus around something which is very important. I thank again those people who have contributed.
As the member for Lingiari, I have a particular interest in this because 42 per cent of my voting population are Aboriginal Territorians and, had we gone back to one seat, their vote would have been substantially washed out. They know that they have a significant voice in determining who their representative is. I'm fortunate that, over 12 elections, I have received overwhelming support from those people. It is literally why I am here. I thank them for that, but I want to thank the parliament for ensuring that their voice is not dissipated—because that is what would have happened if we had moved back to one seat. I thank the parliament for this legislation.
The second reading speech was a fine speech. At the end, it said that we hope this bill passes through the parliament by the end of the year. By the time my friend the member for Solomon speaks, if there are no further speakers, we will have done it. This will be applauded by people across the Northern Territory, from all sectors. It's remarkable the number of people who've pulled us up on the street and said, 'They're not serious about going back to one seat, are they?' Of course, we said, 'I don't think the parliament is, but the process that has been put in place as a result of electoral law meant that it was going to happen.' As a result of these amendments, that has all changed. We have now secured the two seats for the Northern Territory. I thank all of those involved—my friend the member for Solomon, Senator McCarthy and the CLP's Senator McMahon—for working cooperatively together to make sure we get this outcome. Again, thank you to the National Party.
I intend to make some brief remarks on the Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020 and certainly don't intend to hijack the ability of this bill to pass at the appointed hour. But as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters I just wanted to make a few brief comments. I'm very glad we have landed at the point where, I'm very confident, we're going to be passing this through the parliament this evening and through the Senate in time for the Christmas break, so we can give certainty to the people of the Northern Territory. I think it would have been patently outrageous to see a situation where lower house representation in the Northern Territory was reduced from two members to one. We've obviously seen it in the determination from the AEC at the state level. It's disappointing to the people of Western Australia that they are losing a seat. I'm sure the people of Victoria are happy that they're gaining a seat. But when you go from 16 to 15, or from 32 to 33, that's very different than going from two members to one member. The calculations that are applied in going from 16 members to 15 members should be quite different when the proposition is potentially going from two members to one member, and I warmly endorse this change to the formula.
I would have had trouble supporting legislation that put a floor in place. I've got nothing against the good people of the Northern Territory, but I do believe in the principle of one vote, one value. I think it is very important in the people's house, the House of Representatives, that we have some connection to the concept that we are the democratically constituted house in our bicameral system that is based on the principle of one vote, one value. And frankly, as a member on the conservative side of this parliament, I will say that there have been times in my home state of South Australia and in the state of Queensland—and I'm sure members opposite would have felt particularly disenfranchised—when we didn't have that fundamental principle in place. This formula is a great formula, because of course it accounts for the fact that when you could potentially be losing 50 per cent of your representation in this chamber there is a different test to when you might be moving from a number in the mid-30s, up one or down one. In the case of my home state of South Australia, disappointingly, we went from 11 seats to 10 seats at the determination for the 2019 election.
I think this is a really excellent outcome. I was very appreciative of the process the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters had. The submissions we received from various groups in the Northern Territory were unanimously in support of the outcome we've achieved. They made very eloquent arguments that I think we already instinctively understood—that it was important to come up with a way to make sure that the outcome that had so closely been triggered by that population calculation didn't eventuate. I am very happy that we've constructed a mechanism that means we are still ensuring that the broad principle of one vote, one value is in place. My hope is that the Northern Territory is in the opposite situation and that you go from two seats to three seats as soon as possible. We'd love to see that kind of growth in representation from the Northern Territory in this chamber. I'm thankful for the good spirit and constructiveness from all members of this House, and senators, who I think have brokered an excellent outcome not only for the people of the Northern Territory but also for the fundamental principle of our democracy and the way in which we construct the membership of this House. I commend the bill to the chamber.
We've talked about numbers a lot during the debate surrounding fair representation for the NT. The Northern Territory has a quarter of a million people and several islands. It is 1.4 million square kilometres in size, or one-sixth of the continent—an area 35,000 times bigger than the electorate of Melbourne. To have just one representative in this chamber, representing all those people over all that land, would, as one of the previous speakers said, be patently absurd. The NT government estimates that there are about 24,000 unenrolled voters, almost all of whom live in our remote Aboriginal communities. All those Territorians deserve a fair and representative voice in their federal parliament. The minister commented about fixing a situation where we haven't got the Australian Electoral Commission staff that we need in order to get people educated and enrolled. I welcome his comments in that regard.
For those listening at home, on the road or in your workplace, there are not many of us Territorians in this building. There are only two of us out of 151 in this chamber and two of us out of 76 in the Senate, the upper house. I want to mention Tasmania quickly, because we've picked on them a bit in the battle this year and we don't begrudge them their representation at all—we love Tasmanians. Tasmania's a state and we love small states, in particular, but they are guaranteed a minimum of five lower house MPs to our two, and 12 senators to our two. That's 17 federal representatives to our four. But they're only about twice our size in representation. So I'd say to the previous speaker, the honourable member: when you talk about one vote, one value, let's get a bit real about what's happening in Australia, in terms of the need for a bigger conversation in our country about fair representation.
If we're serious about giving all Australians an equal voice, and I seriously hope we are, then as a nation we should consider what it means for our two territories and their growing populations to be so minimally represented, particularly in the Senate. Maybe that's a conversation we can start to have next year. As the member for Lingiari said, let's just crack on. There's so much more I want to say about the Northern Territory and the wonderful people of the Northern Territory—a lot more I want to say—but in the interests of time and in the interests of getting this bill passed I will move to the thank yous.
Suffice to say, there's a really bright future ahead for the Northern Territory. Our population will continue to grow, so proper federal representation—that we will soon have—is just the start. As I said, there are so many people to thank, people who saw the unfairness of this representation or the redistribution and fought for fair representation.
Firstly, to my friend the shadow special minister for state and senator for SA, Don Farrell: thanks very much, because it was you with our NT colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy who put up a co-sponsored bill six months ago that kicked this process to where we are today. Thank you to my friend the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon. What a legend. He's been a tireless representative for the NT for decades. He represented all of that land and all of that water by himself. Maybe someone else could have done it, but it would have been pretty bloody difficult. I congratulate him on his continuing service to the people of the Northern Territory. I want to thank NT CLP Senator Sam McMahon with her Nationals colleagues, in particular, Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, and Senator Matt Canavan. They lit a fire under their Nationals colleagues, and I want to thank those other colleagues. The Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, got behind the push. I want to thank the Greens. I want to thank the crossbench. I want to acknowledge the NT government and their substantial support, and the NT CLP opposition. It was a bipartisan effort. Thanks to you all. Thanks to those opposite for realising that this would be a colossal mistake, that it would be unfair, and for acting to fix it.
Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank the thousands and thousands of Territorians who joined the campaign to protect their own fair representation. This is a great Christmas present for all Territorians. Thanks to everyone. Now let's get it done—and let's boot 2020 out the door—and legislate for fair representation for the NT. I thank the House.
I might start from where the obvious point is. As a person who's been in this building for 15 years, we're lucky in how a democracy works. A democracy works, but sometimes the numbers are tight, and the numbers are tight in both houses. You don't want to exercise that issue of leverage every day, because it makes things chaotic. But there comes a time when you should, and this is one of those times when you have to stand up and be noted and—not big-noted, but be noted—do the right thing. I'm sick of regional areas just losing and losing and losing again.
Our forefathers—and they were blokes—worked this out when they created the Federation. Tasmania got five seats. If you just go to one person, one vote, that can make life an absolute misery for those in the corner—for those in the corner of the Northern Territory; for those in the corner in the missions outside Alice Springs; for those in the corner around Katherine; and for those in the corner around Tennant Creek. I don't live there, but they're Australians. As Australians, they have a right to be heard in this chamber and not be diminished by the fact that, by some peculiarity of colonisation, they don't have the vote that other people have. That would be a complete indictment of what our views are as Australians.
We believe in a fair go for people. The argument that was put before me at times was: 'Oh, but they don't vote for us. It's not our seat.' How absurd is that! What an absurdity if you start grabbing that argument. I don't come to this chamber just to represent people who believe in what I believe. God knows: most people in this chamber don't believe what I believe. You come to this chamber to represent people and make sure they are heard; that the most genuine representation is given to them; and that they can turn on the telly at two o'clock and see the member for Lingiari or the member Solomon, or the senators for the Northern Territory. That is why we are Australians. That is why we are in this parliament. We will not be beholden to some effervescent puritanical view. We must look to a deeper purpose as to why we're here.
I want to congratulate people who are not of my political ilk: the member for Solomon, the member for Lingiari and Malarndirri McCarthy. When I was a kid, she was Barbara—I've known Malarndirri McCarthy for a long, long while.
We're here to represent people, even if they're not on our footy side. We're here to stand up for them as well and make sure they're heard. This is a great thing for our parliament. It shows the parliament in a bipartisan way. With logic and forethought, we can work a way to bring fairness and decency. This is important.
I want to also acknowledge the support of others who quietly sat back and are not in this chamber tonight but made sure their voices were heard and that they stood up. This is a great night not just for the good people of the Northern Territory but for our nation. It says that our nation is not a puritanical nation. It does not live by some divine creed. It has the capacity to sit down and rationally, honestly and fairly figure out the issues that are before it, come out with a fair outcome, and put aside parochialism and animosities to make sure that the Australian people who watch this chamber, as the benefactor of the freedoms and liberties they have, see that it is a representation of them.
I'd
like to thank honourable members who've contributed to the debate on the Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020. I'd also like to take this opportunity to recognise and thank the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their continued consideration of matters relating to electoral laws and practices.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Australia and requires continuous review to harmonise electoral law and administration within an evolving environment. This bill introduces a harmonic mean calculation for allocating seats to the territories that will result in a significantly more favourable rounding-up of the quotas required to secure additional seats in the House of Representatives as compared to the previous margin of error adjustment. The bill removes the margin of error provisions and better aligns the redistribution provisions for those territories to modernise and simplify the administration of the Electoral Act. In conclusion, it's important that we remain committed to improving electoral legislation in a non-partisan manner which promotes public confidence and ensures strong representation for Australia's territories. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their contribution. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned 20:03
Over the past two months, the Armenian Australian community has been in a state of overwhelming devastation, shock and despair as they've witnessed their homeland desecrated at the hands of Azerbaijani forces including paid, Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries. On 27 September 2020, the enemy forces launched large-scale attacks against Armenians of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Watching this unfold from halfway around the world, today Armenian Australians are gathering outside our parliament to demand an end to the carnage being played out in Artsakh. The relative silence of the international community, including us here in Australia, is of course of great concern to those gathering outside parliament today.
Azerbaijan's 44-day military aggression against the indigenous Armenians of Artsakh involved alleged war crimes through the use of cluster and white phosphorus munitions, as well as attacks on Armenian churches, hospitals, civilians and schools. Russia has brokered a ceasefire deal, but it means much of this part of the Armenian Australian community's ancestral homeland is now under occupation. The community represented by the protests outside this building today rejects the ceasefire terms imposed on Armenia and Artsakh as a one-sided deal which ignores the fundamental human right to self-determination of the people of Artsakh, who declared their independence in the 1991 referendum in accordance with international law. Coincidentally, the 29th anniversary of the expression of their democratic rights is tomorrow.
The people of Armenia and Artsakh are reeling from the aftershock of six weeks of violence, with the primary battlefields shifting from the trenches to the cities, where the Armenian community is rallying to help refugees, the injured, the traumatised, the orphaned and the widowed.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 03 to 10 : 18
The pathway to a lasting peace in the Nagorno-Karabakh region is international community recognition of the Republic of Artsakh, and Australia should support that recognition. In the meantime, Australia must be more vocal in its condemnation of human rights abuses in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and offer aid to those suffering. If the plight of the Armenians is not enough to compel us to act, reports of Islamist terrorists taking positions on the Iran-Armenia border should.
I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House two outstanding manufacturing businesses in Mallee. In my travels around the electorate last week I had the pleasure of meeting Matthew Muraca, of Muraca Engineering in Robinvale. Matt is a young man with vision and drive. He completed a fitter and turner traineeship whilst at school and, at the age of 19, he began his own business. Being raised on a fruit property, his love of the land allowed him to incorporate his skills on repairs to farming equipment. However, being a troubleshooter, Matt was not content to just fix things. He began to see gaps in equipment designs and so began fabricating new equipment, systems and solutions to resolve often longstanding issues that producers encounter.
Matt is just 31 years old. He employs seven staff and is looking to expand further. Matt is an innovator and shared his practical solutions to troubling migration and vocational education and training systems—feedback that I was happy to take on board. Matt is about to apply for round 2 of the $52 million Manufacturing Modernisation Fund. I've been encouraging businesses in my electorate to apply, as I want to attract as much investment into Mallee as possible. It would be fantastic to see growth in new technologies that will drive innovation, productivity and create jobs.
I know the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Karen Andrews, is also keen to see regional manufacturing expand and grow. In fact, today she will be joining me for a virtual tour at a new facility, Australian Plant Proteins, in Horsham. Established in 2016, this exciting business has developed its own process to extract protein from Australian-grown raw materials. With an initial capacity of 2½ thousand tonnes, the business hopes to expand to 6,000 tonnes by the end of next year. This is a wonderful value-adding manufacturing business which is maximising raw Australian products. Plant proteins play a foundational role in many manufactured products, including cereals, meat, pet food and baby formula. The opportunities are endless. Minister Andrews and I will be meeting with co-founder and director Brendan McKeegan, who is passionate about his business and the Horsham region. Chris Sounness, CEO of the Wimmera Development Association, will be joining us.
Growing our manufacturing sector through the government's Modern Manufacturing Strategy is a key pillar of Australia's economic recovery. Supporting businesses such as Muraca Engineering and Australian Plant Proteins will mean more jobs and more productivity in our regions.
I rise today to update the House on the New South Wales Liberal-National government's cruel plan to close all four public schools in Murwillumbah. That's two high schools and two primary schools. They're closing all four schools, forcing them into one location, then selling off the remaining sites to developers. Make no mistake, this is a very bad decision by a very bad government, and the people of Murwillumbah are furious. The New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, and her rotten-to-the-core government forced this decision on the community with absolutely no consultation and no warning at all. On 28 October, the New South Wales education minister, the Nationals Sarah Mitchell, along with her Deputy Premier, the Nationals John Barilaro, and the north coast Nationals MPs Geoff Provest and Ben Franklin stood outside Murwillumbah High School and announced this whole decision as a done deal. They arrogantly announced it and then ran away. They just ran off.
Since then, not one single Liberal or National—not one of them—has had the courage to front up to town and face anyone on this issue. In contrast, we in Labor have stood with the locals. We've been constantly on the ground, listening to and fighting for the families, the students, the teachers and our community. I'd like to thank and acknowledge the fact that we've had recent visits from our federal Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, the New South Wales state Labor leader, Jodi McKay, and the New South Wales shadow education minister, Prue Car. The Labor state member for Lismore, Janelle Saffin, has been an incredibly strong advocate for our community, and the Labor deputy mayor of Tweed Shire, Reece Byrnes, recently moved a successful motion at Tweed Shire Council opposing these unfair school closures. It's important to note that two councillors from Tweed Shire councillors actually voted to support closing the four schools. They were the Liberal James Owen and the National Warren Polglase.
The New South Wales Premier, her ministers, her MPs and her representatives on the Tweed Shire Council all want to close these four schools. What a shameful, weak bunch of community vandals! That's all they are; they are vandals, each and every one of them. We now know the Premier and her mates have been secretly planning this since February. These actions are disgraceful, shameful and wrong. The closures will result in severe job losses and worse educational outcomes for our children. I challenge any of these Liberals and Nationals to come to Murwillumbah and debate this vital issue. To date they haven't shown up because they're all so weak. These closures are all about them selling off prime real estate rather than educating our children. They're trying to make a profit at the cost of our children's education. All this is being done by a rotten government with no integrity. The concern is: which school in our region is next? Which school is on the hit list? These vandals have no values and no integrity, and we will continue to fight these bad decisions.
When it was revealed there were about two dozen locals living in bushland in my electorate, most of our city were shocked. The fact that people didn't go home at night to a roof over their heads was something quite unfamiliar to our patch of South-East Queensland. Little did I realise that one individual managed to pull together the services and find a home for each one of those people. That man is a Kiwi citizen, so on Australia Day we can't formally recognise Horowai Ramenka, but we will spare a thought for the incredible service he has given to my city.
Hori, as he is well known, begins his story in New Zealand, as I've pointed out. He trialled for the Junior All Blacks and worked to become a pastry chef. His real passion was in education. He worked in a school for troubled Maori youth, where they took them out of the distractions of South Auckland and places like that, put them on a farm, put them to work, taught them skills, and built their resilience and self-confidence. Many of those students would go on to achieve great things far away from those negative distractions that often took them off the rails in the first place. They learnt farming methods and mechanics and also did their school work in parallel. The school had a really high success rate. One student that Hori can remember is now a high profile lawyer and another one is a land advocate in New Zealand—a very important role.
Hori was teaching English, maths and social studies and after six years it was clear he had this natural affinity with youth. He went on to work for a Maori trust doing similar work, acting in youth liaison for Pasifika and Maori children, assisting them to get grants and get their own starts in life as well. Remarkably, in that job he was stabbed three times—twice in the chest, once in the back—which really caused him to review that work. Effectively, he needed to take a break. Instead, he went on then to car detailing, working as an entertainer, an MC and a musician. New Zealand's loss was Australia's gain when he moved to South-East Queensland, like about half of his Maori and Pasifika colleagues. He really made a difference in our community, because he noticed that there was only one meal a day for homeless people, and he worked to set up Homeless United, where they now do a meal every night. There is a real community esprit de corps when you see those in need all meeting in one place, supporting each other and, on occasion, singing 'Happy Birthday' to each other. Homeless United was born.
Hori worked with the Department of Housing. He worked to get shower facilities in local clubs that the homeless could use. In the end, when the pinch came and we had to find housing for two dozen people, he not only found housing for them but found employment for around a dozen of them. I had the pleasure of taking one of these young people to their job interview. We worked assiduously to make sure that this city will never ever have a local living without a roof over their head, and so much that work goes to the key groups that need to work more closely together. But the people who pulled it together were the Redlands Community Centre and Horowai in particular. Our city says thank you to Hori.
As one of the most difficult years in recent memory draws to a close, I want to pay tribute today to the fantastic community spirit of the people in my electorate of Isaacs. I mean everyone, including the businesses who found themselves shut down overnight but, in many cases, survived and still managed to look after their community and their staff. Families dug deep during lockdown as they faced the challenges of insecure or no work, home learning and managing the kids together with working from home. Healthcare workers showed extraordinary courage and commitment to our community by risking their own health and safety to bring us through this crisis in a way that has been the envy of the world. I cannot thank you enough for your dedication and your community spirit. They and many others deserve our gratitude and admiration for the way that they came together to defend and protect our community. Because of them, we have achieved extraordinary results in stopping the spread of COVID, which means we can come together with friends, family and loved ones this summer.
But today, I would like to pay special tribute to the students, teachers and principals of the schools in my electorate of Isaacs. At this time of year I would normally be spending all of my time fulfilling one of my favourite tasks as a local MP—attending school graduations and presentation events. Sadly, of course, that has not been possible this year. I just want to say thank you to all our remarkable teachers and their support staff for keeping their schools going under such difficult conditions. The imagination, resourcefulness and commitment you've demonstrated, moving classes online in such a short time, was extraordinary. The remarkable care and compassion you've provided to students and each other at this time shows the extraordinary dedication you have to your profession, your students and their families.
I'm sorry I can't be there with you this year to celebrate your work and the achievements of students and staff. I'll especially miss being there to hand out awards to the wonderful students—one of the absolute highlights of my year, and something I've been doing now for over 10 years. I look forward to being with you next year to say this personally, but, for now, I would just like to express to all of you my immense appreciation and thanks for your dedication, your commitment and the wonderful job you do caring for and teaching our children.
It would be an understatement for me to say that 2020 has been the most difficult of years. But the people of O'Connor have shown remarkable courage, fortitude and resilience in the face of this once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. I stand here today to acknowledge the outstanding contributions made by the everyday heroes in my electorate—the people who kept up their tremendous work, supporting our regional communities, our cities and, in fact, our entire nation, despite the challenges of COVID-19. They're people like O'Connor's farmers, who have continued to produce the world's best food and fibre for our nation. Their premium fruit, meat, seafood, truffles and wine continue to be sought overseas. Our miners continue to extract O'Connor's gold, lithium, aluminium, iron ore and coal to support and in fact grow the Western Australian economy. Our transporters and truckies kept transporting ore and produce, and our ports kept exporting.
But it was not all plain sailing. Schooling was interrupted, and, when it was resumed, it was still far from normal. Despite the valiant efforts of our O'Connor educators, our valedictorians experienced possibly the toughest year 12 on record. I give a big shout out to those amazing kids who are now pursuing higher education or training opportunities or seeking first-time employment. Your resilience under such challenging circumstances will serve you well into the future.
Kudos must also go to the business owners of O'Connor, who have continued to deliver goods and services to their communities. Thank you to our tourism operators, who battled through the closures and are stepping up now to support the boom in visitation to some of our most iconic tourism destinations. Now that the borders are finally open, O'Connor tourism will continue to grow.
To those working in health and aged care: these have been seriously challenging times, and you have courageously worked through this time of greatest need. As always, our emergency services step up in a crisis, and COVID-19 has been no different. My heartfelt thanks to you all, and to your families who support your calling.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the generosity of our community volunteers, especially at Christmas time, who give up their time to make someone else's Christmas special. Every year, Pastor Steve Marshall hosts a free Christmas lunch in Albany which is attended by up to 400 people, to which local businesses donate produce and gifts, and I'm honoured to support this annual event. This year, Kalgoorlie disability service provider EPIC is hosting a free Christmas lunch at Centennial Park. The EPIC team—Kat, Kaleena, Sarsha and their volunteers—aim to make this COVID Christmas beyond epic.
More than anything, Christmas is a time for togetherness, and this year more than ever. I hope you will be with your loved ones—if not physically, then through the technology we have come to rely on. This has been a year where we've learned the importance of staying connected, despite being distanced. So, to everyone in O'Connor who has stepped up this year and made 2020 the best possible year it could be, I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy and, most importantly, healthy new year.
I want to speak today about the conflict and violence that has occurred in Ethiopia and particularly to acknowledge its impact on diaspora communities in Australia and especially in my electorate of Melbourne. Reports indicate that there are more than 45,000 refugees, and that thousands have lost their lives. Amidst all of this, the United Nations has not been able to safely deliver food and supplies, and thousands are in camps without access to food. People here in Melbourne and around Australia are desperately concerned for their friends, family and loved ones, and there are at least 50 Australians trapped in the conflict zone. In many cases, they aren't reachable because of a communications blackout. As well as the devastating human toll that this conflict is taking, it is threatening regional stability. The Ethiopian government has claimed victory and that the war is over, but there are reports that fighting is still ongoing. We're particularly concerned at reports of the conflict drawing in regional neighbours.
We call for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to the conflict, with protection of civilians. The international community must support a peaceful resolution, working with envoys appointed by the African Union. Sadly, to date the Australian government has been profoundly silent on this humanitarian crisis. We call on the Australian government to do everything it can, including advocating via diplomatic channels for a peaceful resolution and a removal of the telecommunications blackout. And that work must include bringing home the Australians who are trapped there, unable to communicate with their loved ones.
Millions of people will wake up in 2021 to cruel cuts to the rate of JobSeeker and JobKeeper as, once again, the government puts the interests of millionaires ahead of the interests of the million unemployed. While it recklessly pursues tax cuts for millionaires and changes to our IR laws that will entrench insecure work, the government is cutting support for the millions who are unemployed or underemployed—while we're still in the midst of an economic crisis. On 1 January, the millions who rely on JobSeeker will wake up to a reduced rate of just over $50 a day, and, by 4 January, workers and businesses will see the JobKeeper subsidy slashed. I've heard countless stories from my electorate of Melbourne that demonstrate just how disastrous and damaging these changes will be. Julie, a chef from Abbotsford, lost work as Melbourne did the hard yards to eliminate COVID-19. This reduced rate of JobSeeker will not even cover her rent, let alone food or bills. Local cafes and restaurants have contacted me, worried about being able to keep their staff employed after JobKeeper is reduced. And economists, unions, social service groups and countless others all agree: this is not the time to be cutting government support. Ripping support from struggling communities will only do more harm to our economy. The Greens will never stop fighting to make sure that no-one is left behind in this crisis.
A good education is what empowers the next generation to realise the fullness of their lives. In the wonderful electorate of Goldstein, our schools continue to excel. In 2021, the Tombolo Academy will open as the first school for twice-exceptional students in Australia—another first. Tombolo was born in response to local demand for a school that could accommodate students who are high-achieving but also have disabilities. It is a great development for the lives and futures of twice-exceptional students, who have long struggled in traditional education environments due to their unique combination of abilities and disabilities. Education empowers and transforms people into their best selves. It benefits our whole society when every child can realise and maximise their talents through education. Part of the difficulty for twice-exceptional education is that identifying those students who are suited to it is not something that has been done in Australia before, and it requires the involvement of specialists. That's why it is so impressive that Tombolo is expecting 30 enrolments in its first intake next year and is planning for the cohort to increase to 70 students by its second year. I would hope that all members in this place congratulate the Tombolo Academy and wish it well on its endeavours. Congratulations also to Catherine Kirby and Anne Jackson for their success in spearheading the project.
While new schools rise, existing schools in Goldstein are continuing to make their own mark. The Melbourne Montessori School, in Caulfield and Brighton, has won this year's Innovative Schools award from The Educator. The school's careers program has championed a new type of learning that empowers year 10 to year 12 students unsuited to traditional learning to gain other skills for a successful vocational career. It is very important after the COVID-19 recession that schools are adapting to the realities of a new job market and preparing students for real and sustainable careers and full success in their lives. The innovation award recognises Montessori's leadership in this important space in providing flexible education that empowers students to pursue the career path that best suits their individual potential—and that's what we want: individuals realising their full individual potential. Congratulations to principal Gay Wales, Brendan Magee and your team at Melbourne Montessori for being recognised for your hard work and success this year. At the end of 2020, I know all members will recognise all of the schools in their electorates for their hard work and perseverance in a difficult year. To the students and families, the teachers, the principals and everyone involved: well done on your efforts in 2020.
I'm proud to represent over 12,000 businesses in the Oxley electorate, and during what has been a difficult time for small business during the COVID-19 pandemic it's been wonderful to work with my local chambers of commerce in their efforts to connect and support business owners. Businesses in the Oxley electorate are strong and resilient and have adapted to the current changing times. The chambers and their members aim to support and facilitate the continued growth of our business community while advocating a spirit of collaboration amongst all members.
The weekend before last I was honoured to attend the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce's end of year 2020 Marquee Business Awards. I want to acknowledge and give special congratulations to the winners this year: Professional Services winner Paula Rizqallah from P&L Accountants, sponsored by McNamara Law; Members Choice winner Jim Davies from Orion Hotel, sponsored by Walker Pender Group Lawyers; Outstanding Small Business winner the mighty Coffee Club Orion, sponsored by Ipswich City Council; President's Award winner Peter Wilkinson from McNamara Law, sponsored by the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce; Best Customer Service winner Vince Keller from Four Quarters Computing & Technology, sponsored by Quest Apartment Hotels; Trade Services winner, for the second year in a row, Charlene Rapa from Apar Hair Studio, sponsored by the Australian Industry Trade College; Business Person of the Year winner Julie Ryan from Jet Team Finance, sponsored by VM Family Law; and Business of the Year winner—a worthy recipient—Adam Atherton from Orion Family Physiotherapy, sponsored by the Springfield City Group.
I was delighted to attend this important event with my local state member, Mrs Charis Mullen, who was also recently appointed as the assistant minister to the Treasurer in Queensland. She represents the state seat of Jordan, which is the electorate that encompasses the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce. I was also delighted to attend with Councillor Nicole Jonic and the mayor of Ipswich, Mayor Teresa Harding. I want to give a special shout-out to the organisers of the evening, particularly Leila Stewart, the hardest working secretary of any chamber of commerce in Australia, I believe, and the president, Mr Neil Coupland, for his attention to detail to make sure the awards went so smoothly. COVID-19 has shown the resilience and support for many of our businesses—and they've demonstrated that they're up to the challenge.
On Friday evening I was back at the Brookwater Golf & Country Club to launch a new business, Boulevard at Brookwater, by Mark and Cilla, who are a fantastic local business couple, who have provided a new, fresh business that I know will be supported by many, many in the community. I was joined by the Brisbane Lady Mayoress Nina Schrinner and Councillor Nicole Jonic as we congratulated them on the opening of this new enterprise—a fitting and iconic way as we see our community build back jobs, tourism, retail and in turn the economy for a strong brighter future.
2020 has certainly been a year to remember. If you had told me last year that we'd have a global pandemic, I wouldn't have believed you. To deal with the COVID-19 crisis, the Morrison-McCormack government responded swiftly with a record $257 billion of economic support through JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the cash flow boost and the $750 payments to millions of pensioners and others on income support. I'm very proud that we have helped so many Australians get through this pandemic. The Morrison-McCormack government have also extended HomeBuilder. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do—driving demand and helping to protect the jobs of one million Australians employed in our vital construction sector.
I have achieved a great deal for Capricornia this year, continuing to deliver on my election commitments and to deliver funding for more projects in the local area, including: in Rockhampton, $60 million for the Rockhampton to Gracemere road duplication and $23 million for a new stadium at the Rockhampton sports club; on the Capricorn Coast, $20 million for the Keppel Bay Sailing Club convention centre, over $700,000 in category C bushfire recovery funding and $75,000 for upgrades to the Emu Park Swimming Club; and in Mackay, Sarina and Walkerston, over $14 million in road safety improvements on the Peak Downs Highway between Mackay and Eton, over $9 million for road upgrades in the Mackay region outs of the Roads to Recovery fund. In Moranbah, there is over $50,000 in category C, Central Queensland Bushfires Flexible Funding Grants and over $4,000 to 4RFM community radio for new computers and recording equipment. In Clermont, there is over $275,000 to upgrade the Clermont Showground and over $100,000 in Central Queensland Bushfires Flexible Funding Grants. In Collinsville, there is over $830,000 to upgrade a six-megalitre water reservoir and equip the water and sewerage treatment plants with solar panels. And there's the passing of our government's funding for a feasibility study for a coal-fired power station in Collinsville. This is only a small snapshot of what we have achieved in 2020.
The year 2020 has been a difficult year, but it's also been one of delivery for the Liberal-National government. To everyone in Capricornia: I will continue to fight for you, your jobs and your families in 2021 and beyond. I would like to acknowledge all the health workers, who worked tirelessly during the pandemic. The lifting of restrictions is from all the hard work that you all put in. I wish to say thank you to every one of you. I also want to pay tribute to everyone in my electorate for their dedication and resilience during the pandemic. Your efforts in adhering to medical advice helped everyone get out of lockdown faster and safer. To everyone in Capricornia, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a safe and prosperous New Year. I'd like to thank my wonderful staff, who always go that extra mile, my family, who are my greatest supporters, and the many volunteers who support us year after year. Merry Christmas, and here's to a COVID-free 2021.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I rise to make my contribution to the food pricing and food security in remote Indigenous communities report, which was tabled in the House. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament sits and all other places in this country. I acknowledge elders past, present and emerging as the custodians of the longest-living culture in the world and that this was, is and always will be Aboriginal land. I'd like to start by acknowledging and thanking the committee members for their work during this inquiry, especially the work of the chair, the member for Berowra, and the deputy chair, the member for Lingiari. Mr Leeser and Mr Snowdon have guided and pursued the evidence for the set of recommendations we have before us with professionalism and passion. From my behalf, it has truly been a pleasure to learn so much from both of you. I also acknowledge the bipartisanship and friendship of the other committee members; the member for Newcastle, who is with us today, and the members for Longman and Curtin. I'd also like to especially acknowledge the work of the secretariat during this hearing. Their dedication and support, as always, was exemplary.
The need for this report grew out of the circumstances of panic-buying and pressures on supply chains that were evident through the early months of 2020. I am sure there were extra challenges for the secretariat as they dealt with the disappointment that we could not visit many communities in person. When an extensive trip was planned and then had to be cancelled at the last minute, it was Kilian and his team who dealt directly with the communities to explain why. I thank all of the communities and interested parties for their generous and warm invitations to visit. Hopefully, at some point in the future, when the health advice warrants it, I can visit and see firsthand what the committee heard about in evidence. The emergence of COVID-19 and the global pandemic that followed changed not only travel plans for this committee but also our way of life. It has clearly put into perspective the ways that life is difficult and precarious for many people, especially if there is little or no work or just casual work, and there are the challenges of distance and broken supply chains.
This is the second inquiry into food security by the parliament in 11 years. Like the closing-the-gap targets, little has changed or improved for the Australian Aboriginal people who live in remote communities. I urge the government to implement the recommendations in this report as soon as it is practicable and have parliament make meaningful changes to the lives of those living in remote Australia. The first recommendation made by the committee is for the Treasurer to direct the ACCC to undertake an enhanced market study into food and grocery prices in remote stores. This is a critical recommendation as it addresses the consumer protection laws that have led to egregious price gouging in some remote communities. Everyone deserves access to fresh, nutritious food, they deserve to be able to pay a reasonable price for it, and they deserve to have the means to pay for it. The committee heard evidence that the health and choices of communities improved significantly when the rates of income support like JobSeeker were raised because they could then afford to buy fresh food.
The committee also heard evidence from a number of shops and suppliers that, at the peak of the panic buying in supermarkets in cities across the country, orders they had made were often only 40 per cent delivered and quite often not what they really needed in the community. In these communities that means having to wait for another week or two for the next order, not the next day—and it's important to reiterate this point. Amid panic buying, people in cities would have only had to wait a couple of days or less for toilet paper and staple food supplies, but people in remote communities had to wait, at a minimum, a week for these essential supplies. It is important that there is a reliable and affordable supply of food and necessities to outback remote communities. Being able to feed your family is a basic human right.
For me, the evidence that was the most distressing about the lack of reliable food chains and supplies came from an Aboriginal woman elder in a remote community who told us that she fully expects that her children will be hungry for at least three months a year because of the lack of deliveries during the wet season. That is heartbreaking—and, in 2020, it is unacceptable and intolerable in a country like ours. The government and this parliament are obliged to find the means to help all Australians and to ensure that they have access to clean drinking water and sufficient fresh food supplies, so that everyone, no matter where they live, can have their best life. I commend the report to the parliament.
I mean no disrespect to the previous speaker, but the language they use just makes the people who live there laugh, because that's all we can do. They say, 'We respect the elders,' and they use all this language, but they don't realise that they identify themselves as people who are in the Australian Labor Party—and the ALP, when elected in Queensland, removed all of the market gardens. The only reason that a large proportion of our First Australians are alive in Queensland is because of the Christian missionaries. Terrible things were happening and our First Australians would have been annihilated as a group of people except for the Christian missionaries. They herded us up and put us in protected enclaves, which were called missions. White fellas were not allowed in the missions. We're talking about three million acres—a lot of land—which received 24 inches of rainfall. Most people in Australia would kill to have 24 inches of rainfall. The Christian missionaries were very heroic people, and we pay them a great tribute here today. The people couldn't forage for their food, as their lives would be at risk. So the missions put in market gardens to supply them with fresh fruit and vegetables—and there was nothing like the horrific death rates that are in these communities now.
Each year we have these Closing the Gap targets, but the assessment has now been abolished—because the assessment tells us that it's getting worse. It is so patently obvious that there is a problem with malnutrition. We know that malnutrition causes diseases like diabetes, kidney and heart diseases, and other diseases that I won't go into. We all know that—everyone knows that—but you removed the market gardens. But, worse than that, this place and the Liberal Party here were the major people involved in another act, where, to protect the Great Barrier Reef, people had to get a licence to fish on the Barrier Reef. Most of the Torres Straits sits on the Barrier Reef, and people were told that they now had to get a permit to fish there.
Now, the fishing on Badu Island was bringing in $3.2 million a year in the eighties, so make that about $7 million or $8 million now. Three hundred dinghies were working there. This is dinghy fishing—mostly crayfish but a hell of a lot of other fishing as well. All of the islands had freezers and agents, so you went out in your dinghy, caught your fish and brought it in. They paid you for it and it was put in the freezers.
When Richard Marles headed up a committee—and I don't go on committees, but I made an exception in this case—when we went to show him Mosby's island in the middle of Torres Straits, Joey Mosby, the long-term mayor of this island, kept shouting out: 'They're murdering us, Bobby. They're murdering us.' Now, when I was minister, Joey was not one of my fan club! He was one of the very few that really just wanted to be an Uncle Tom. But since those days Joey had obviously become a real good leader of his area. And he kept screaming out, 'They're murdering us, Bobby,' and Richard Marles leaned over and said: 'What's he talking about? We're not murdering.' Well, you are.
You banned commercial dinghy fishing. We had to get a licence. A commercial fishing licence for a dinghy? There was no mechanism by which a dinghy could get a commercial fishing licence, so commercial fishing stopped. Well, that was our income. You just took our income off us. And it was a very sizable income. One island alone—and there are 15 inhabited islands in the Torres Strait—was pulling in $8 million a year, but you had to protect the Barrier Reef and passed laws, so we died. We had to die to protect your Barrier Reef.
You whitefellas. We were here first and we had access to the Barrier Reef for 40,000 years. What right did you have to take it off us? Badu Island is not on the Reef. As if a couple of hundred little dinghy fishing boats are going to destroy the Barrier Reef. Give me a break. Did you care about us dying of malnutrition? No, you couldn't care less. Every time I've tried to have a press conference here, they start asking me about some ridiculous thing like whether there are blackfella members in parliament. Well, there are about seven of us who claim to have some blackfella in the family tree already here, and I don't know that we're achieving very much, so I don't see what difference putting an extra couple in is going to make.
But let me get back to what we're talking about here. Their income to buy food was taken away from them. Their only source of income was taken away from them. Now it's worse than that. They then proceeded to abolish the backyard fruit and vegetable gardens. Every single home in the Torres Strait had fruit and vegetable gardens. They really haven't become, for lack of a better word, a 'Western' society or a 'mainland' society; they still worked with their own local fruit and vegetable gardens. They exchanged fruit and vegetables. As minister, I probably had about 300 to 400 meals up in the Torres Strait during a six-, seven- or eight-year period—whatever it was. I can never remember having a single piece of food that wasn't locally grown: turtle, dugong, crayfish, of course fish, prawns and also yam, taro, sweet potatoes, mangoes and bananas. Everyone had them in the backyards and, when you had a meal up there, they shared all these things and they were paid for providing them. But you, the government of Australia, abolished their backyard fruit and vegetable gardens. How could you do that? Why would you do that? Marles said, 'Why did we do that?' I said, 'To save Australia from diseases coming in from New Guinea.' Richard Marles said: 'That's ridiculous. The boats have been coming down for 10,000 years.'
Ever since the land bridge vanished, trading and raiding vessels have been coming backwards and forwards. You only have to look at the shape of the faces of the people in Cape York to figure out how much of New Guinea is in Cape York and vice versa. Whatever diseases we're going to get here are already here, and the government's position at the time was hypocritical. I was pleading and screaming for screening of all food items at the Horn Island Airport and at the Jardine ferry. There were only two ways to get into Australia: through the Horn Island Airport and the Jardine ferry. The government did not have quarantine officers at either place, yet they we're starving us to death. They took our gardens away.
Torres Strait Islander are great fighters and, over a period of 13 to 15 years, they got back the right to dinghy fishing. But all the freezers were closed, all the agencies had gone and there was no infrastructure to facilitate that action.
Do I proceed here with no chairman in the saddle? What's going on? Here we go. Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, I'd like an extra couple of minutes because you weren't in the chair and I didn't think I could speak.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
What's your problem?
Get back to it, Bob.
Righto. I just make the point that the lady over there with the fair hair is trying to cut my time down; I'm saying things that are fairly unpalatable to her. The likes of you can take responsibility for what's going on, where we have people—
Order! You have leave to speak for a couple of minutes. Sorry about that interruption.
I would like another couple of minutes, Mr Chairman. In the Torres Straits, life expectancy is 20 years lower than it is in the rest of Australia. The state Labor government—but the Liberals have been doing exactly the same thing, so I don't want to pick them out for that reason—will not give up the figures for the First Australian mainland communities, but I got them, sneakily, for one community. Life expectancy in this community, which is quite a substantial sized community in Cape York and the Gulf—I won't mention the name—is 43 for males and 51 for females. The figures for Australians in the rest of Australia is 81 and 83. Surely, you people must feel ashamed. Don't you feel ashamed that this is the way that you are treating the First Australians? You pass your laws to suppress the symptoms or to look after the barrier reef or because some diseases will come in or because of some other issue, but you don't take into account that we're literally starving to death, dying from malnutrition. Nearly a thousand people a year are dying in the Gulf, Cape York and the Torres Strait as a result of the actions and inaction of the government in this place. The people of Australia gave us the power, through the referendum, to act, and we're not acting.
You cannot own a piece of land. There is no machinery by which a First Australian can own a block of land. Well, yes, there is. Last year they instituted it. I go up there and I'm deeply embarrassed because people put both their hands on my hand and they say, 'I have a cattle lease.' Now, I want to put on the record that I had nothing to do with that. I asked the people what they wanted. Surprise, surprise—they wanted to own their own house, their own farm, their own pharmacy. A lot of their kids who have been at university come home and open up a pharmacy, a service station or whatever. But if you can't get a piece of land and a title deed, you can't borrow money from the bank and you have nothing.
The ban on alcohol means none of them have blue cards, so they can't get government jobs. Is it any wonder that they're starving to death? I was promised market gardens 17 months ago and there still isn't even a contract to put a market garden in anywhere. They were removed by the government that came in after we were defeated in 1990. Proudly, I say we kept the market gardens going for the 35 years that we were in office in Queensland.
It is very gratifying to read the recommendations of this committee. In the Northern Territory we are unfortunately all too familiar with some of the horror stories around the availability and cost of food in our remote communities. Submissions to this committee are a stark reminder of the differences between our bush communities and the relative ease with which those in our capital cities, including where I live in Darwin, can obtain affordable, high-quality food. The Yothu Yindi Foundation says that the cost of food for remote communities in the NT is almost double that of the major cities. But we know that many people in those remote communities depend on the pension or Newstart or JobSeeker as their sole or main source of income. So they're paying twice as much on incomes that are barely more than half of what they actually need. In a typical three-bedroom home in a remote community there are often 15 to20 occupants. Securing food in that sort of an environment is just not possible. First Nations people in these communities face food insecurity levels at 10 times that of the general population.
There is no getting around the fact that the biggest obstacle to a healthy lifestyle for our remote Australians is money. Local stores that are well managed still have to deal with diseconomies of scale, limited purchasing power, inefficient logistics, high in-store cost per dollar in sales, high freight costs and low-income customers. That is a permanent problem that has been assuaged in recent times due to the coronavirus supplement. But, as we all know and fear, the snap back on the incomes of these Australians is going to make that permanent problem continue.
The pandemic didn't help. Some remote supermarket prices inflated due to the reduced supply lines which crunched these residents of remote and regional Northern Territory and Australia even further. We've heard reports of a single head of lettuce for $10, $8 for a sausage roll, $13 for a stick of celery, $42 a kilo for mince meat—not high quality meat; mince meat. I have heard of small chocolate cakes going in some communities for $90, 10 times what you would pay in a Darwin supermarket.
So I am very happy to see that the committee is recommending that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, is going to take a look at food and grocery prices in remote community stores. They're suggesting that the ACCC recommend ways to increase competition in remote areas and push food prices down, and look at making any necessary changes to consumer protection laws to prevent price gouging, which current laws simply do not address. Although the committee hasn't uncovered any overt price gouging that is going on, I think it's clear from the prices we're hearing that something is very wrong. A real-time price monitoring and disclosure mechanism across all remote community stores is a great idea.
I also really welcome the recommendation that the government invest in roads and infrastructure in the NT to make it easier and more efficient to get food to our remote communities. We hear a lot about the infrastructure spend of this government, but it's always well out on the never never, not actually happening on the ground, which needs to stop. There needs to be not just announcements; there needs to be follow through, bitumen put down, bridges built. We are forever calling for federal funding for our roads to actually appear, and this is one of the reasons why. No-one should be eating rotten or mouldy food, as has been reported, because the supply chains aren't good enough to get the food there fresh. Having wholesalers establish distribution centres closer to remote communities is a terrific proposal for the same reason, along with improving cold storage and dry storage.
We owe it to our remote populations to help them build in as much security and resilience as we can, so I support the recommendations to invest in local food production schemes like community gardens, fishing initiatives and mobile abattoirs.
I heard the member for Kennedy flapping his gums about community gardens when he was a minister or something, back in the day, and I'd just like to know what the member for Kennedy is actually doing about community gardens—actually doing—because I'll introduce him to the president of Community Gardens Australia, Naomi Lacey, who I met with recently. I'm working with her on getting some support for what is really a preventive health measure. Community gardens will help with food security, but they will also make sure that communities are healthier, through growing their own produce. So I commend Naomi Lacey for the work she is doing, and I'm right behind her. And I'll be introducing the member for Kennedy to her.
We want to be able to go into communities and see what's going on as local customers see it. That's why I welcome the national licensing and inspection scheme and the recommendation for removing the requirement to give advance notice of inspections. Officials should just be able to turn up in a community, without warning, so that they can see what people in these local communities are experiencing.
Developing reliable electricity for our remote communities' stores seems like a no-brainer as well, but supply can often be interrupted by storms and floods in the wet season. That's why it's so great that the Northern Territory is investing in large-scale solar. Our remote communities could be almost entirely powered by solar, which is a cheap and plentiful solution to what can often be painfully expensive power bills. I commend the Northern Territory government for the work that they're doing to roll out solar to the remote communities of the NT.
The committee has noted also that this is the third report of this type in the last decade or so. A report 11 years ago made many similar recommendations. So it is my sincere hope that this latest iteration doesn't just gather dust on a shelf. Our remote residents deserve a lot better, and the pandemic has shown us that we can't afford to waste any more time.
When you consider that the current federal government is into its eighth year now, it is simply unacceptable that we weren't prepared for the pandemic and that this issue hadn't been addressed a long time before now. So I encourage them to take these recommendations seriously, because our remote residents deserve a lot better.
As I said, the pandemic has shown us that we can't afford to waste any more time. I don't want—as I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, don't want, and my colleagues certainly don't want—to hear about skyrocketing prices, food shortages and a lack of supply in the communities. I don't want remote Australians fearing that they'll starve if there is another situation as we've experienced in the pandemic. In 2020, that just isn't good enough. We need to take action now, and I encourage the government to take these recommendations seriously, in the interests of improving food security, food availability, food quality and the price of food in remote places in our nation.
It's with great pleasure that I rise to make a contribution in this parliament on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs most recent report, on food pricing and food security in remote Indigenous communities. The report was tabled just last week. I do say a very big thank you to the chair of our committee, the member for Berowra, Julian Leeser, who worked very collaboratively with all members of the committee. I certainly also want to acknowledge the leadership of Labor's Deputy Chair, Mr Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari. Together, they really helped set a tone and focus in that committee that was very helpful indeed. I would also like to acknowledge the work of my Labor colleague Anne Stanley, the member for Werriwa, who was present at, I think, pretty much every single hearing, and indeed of many of the government members: the members for Curtin, Longman, Herbert and Leichhardt. It was, as I said, a good, collaborative approach, as committees in this parliament should indeed be.
Thanks also to the secretariat, who do all of the heavy lifting in these inquiries. Clearly, because of the health restrictions with COVID-19, we were not able to travel. It's the first time that I am aware of that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs was not actually able to go and sit down on country to talk face to face with people about the issues that are most important to them. I think it was challenging for a lot of people to present via telephone conferences and video links as a mechanism to try to overcome those barriers. Not only is the technology challenging at times; I think that, when you're trying to communicate when English is your fourth language, there are additional barriers in using video links.
But I give heartfelt thanks to all of the witnesses. There was great coverage. We had 128 submissions to the inquiry, with an additional 23 supplementaries. Across 13 public hearings, 55 different organisations, communities and groups actually appeared as witnesses, as I said, via telephone and video link. I think that, given the tough circumstances, that was really quite good coverage.
In the limited time here today, I do want to acknowledge just how important it was for us to expand the original terms of reference that came to the committee. It was very focused on the issue of food pricing and the price gouging that it was reported was taking place during COVID-19 in many of the remote parts of Australia. The committee really sought to ensure that the focus was broader than price gouging and did in fact look at an issue that has a long history in Australia: the issue of food security or, indeed, the insecurity of food in many parts of Australia, particularly for First Nations communities. There was an agreement around expanding that.
This is not a new problem in Australia, as I just indicated. Indeed, this report is the third in recent history that has come before the parliament on the issue of food security in remote Indigenous communities, which really should ring some alarm bells for all of us in this parliament. There's a good body of work that's been done by previous committees. We've added to that now, and I do take on board the certain frustrations that members have had around when we get to implement and how we make sure of the implementation of these recommendations.
This brings me to recommendation No. 10. They're all important recommendations, but this one really goes to the historical failure to implement our previous work. It calls on the Australian government to take a leadership role but in a genuine partnership with the states and territory jurisdictions and, indeed, with First Nations people and their communities to develop a national strategy for food security and nutrition for First Nations communities.
We have had a national plan before. We have had a national plan focusing on food nutrition, but, as the ANAO reported back in 2014 when it was asked to look at this, there is still a lot of work to be done. The national plan on food insecurity was in need of significant review because it was not being implemented in the way that it had been intended. Sadly, despite the ANAO's attempts to get that review underway since 2014, we're now in 2020 and that has not happened. We've wasted six more years, quite frankly.
So there is that level of frustration that people remain living in communities where the cost of accessing fresh food is almost prohibitive. We know that food security is recognised as a social determinant of health. I'm very pleased to see a couple of medical professionals in this room right now. You of all people would understand the need for access to quality, nutritious foods. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in remote parts of Australia experience a disproportionate burden of diet related chronic disease. Again, I think there is no dispute on this issue. This occurs, however, in an environment where the cost of store purchased food is outrageously high and cash incomes for people and families are ridiculously low. You've got these two factors that affect both food insecurity and health outcomes.
A national strategy that is committed to, that is properly resourced and indeed backed by all of the jurisdictions, would deliver a coordinated and targeted approach to providing a secure, sustainable and healthy food supply into remote communities. I don't think anybody here thinks it's okay that people are paying $10 for an iceberg lettuce or $5 for a piece of fruit, when perhaps, at the very same stores for other reasons, they can buy sugar drinks cheaper than water. I know a lot of communities are doing amazing work to flip that on its head and ensure that healthy foods are prioritised and made affordable, but there are significant barriers in place. Many of the recommendations in the report go to that.
I briefly want to pick up on one issue. Indeed the member for Kennedy was a witness at this inquiry and put on record his concerns around local food production. There is a recommendation here that goes to the heart of those concerns expressed by many First Nations communities. That was that the Australian government must better support local food production in remote communities and help meet food safety standards. There were some issues of concern there, but this report absolutely backs in local food production in the form of community gardens, fishing enterprises, mobile abattoirs. There were lots of fantastic suggestions that came forward and are absolutely deserving. They should be given support and encouraged so that communities make a greater use of locally sourced food. I commend this report to the House. I sincerely hope that the third report in recent years finally results in some action.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to commend the handing down of a very important report called From rubbish to resources: building a circular economy. In recent decades Australians have progressed in leaps and bounds in understanding, educating and actioning recycling principles and consciously working to make sustainable choices in our daily lives. Any member of parliament knows, when they go to a local school, how great kids are at recycling and getting on board with this issue.
However, there is still much work to be done. Currently, just over half of our waste is recycled. We can do better and as a nation we want to do better. Going forward we need to have more efficient, effective and sustainable ways of dealing with the rubbish we create. It's good for customers, but it's also good for the planet. This requires a rethink of material management as cyclical, not linear. This requires a complete shift in the mindset of waste—in fact, not seeing waste as waste at all but more as a resource that can be used again and again. Hence, the name of this important report: From rubbish to resources. The Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, on which I sit, has considered this dilemma and handed down some important recommendations in our report titled From rubbish to resources: building a circular economy. I encourage all members of parliament to read this important report.
Achieving a circular economy will require a coordinated and national approach. This will require the Commonwealth government to work with our state and territory counterparts to develop a pathway to a national circular economy with consideration for, firstly, the design and composition of products that allow better recycling, and, secondly, regulation incentives to encourage recycling. A national approach will be required particularly for things like transport and infrastructure to manage waste across the states and territory borders. In fact, we heard during the inquiry of businesses that were shipping waste across jurisdictions to take advantage of nonstandardised government incentives. It's very important that we work together as a country on this important issue. The National Waste Policy Action Plan should be updated to include this issue. Further, waste management and resource recovery is a serious intergovernmental priority, and that is why it should be included as a standing agenda on the National Federation Reform Council's agenda.
Accountability and transparency will be key to achieving a national circular economy. The From rubbish to resources report recommends that the minister responsible report annually to parliament on the progress of the targets and actions set out in the National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019. Likewise, recipients of Commonwealth waste and recycling funding should be required to report on their outcomes as a result of the funding so we can track what is working and what is not. It is, of course, most important when you give out funding to make sure people are transparent and accountable about the way they spend it. It is no secret that making it easy to recycle will make it easier to achieve a national circular economy. This will involve working with states and territory governments to improve container deposit facilities and collection points. It was clear in our inquiry that these sorts of successful initiatives should be shared across the different states. This should be alongside good public education and awareness campaigns that emphasise avoiding waste, the impact of waste and how consumers can better manage it. Like Norm's 'Life. Be in it' advertising campaigns of my childhood, we really want campaigns for kids of today with messages such as 'Trash is treasure'.
Technology, not taxes, is key to meeting and beating our international climate change goals. Innovating our waste management and the recycling industry supports these goals. As the Prime Minister has said, it's our waste, it's our responsibility. But we can go further. Energy from waste is the treatment of residual waste to harness energy from material that would otherwise go to landfill. The energy created by either processing waste at high temperatures and using the heat to make steam or digesting organic material to produce gas can be used for fuel, electricity generation or heat. Again, the inquiry heard some amazing technologies that were innovating in this space. We know this is happening around the world. During this inquiry we heard how small- and large-scale anaerobic digestion technology has been developed across Australia and makes a meaningful contribution to resource recovery and renewable energy generation. Right here, that is the way of the future. We should work with state and territory governments to ensure national consistency across planning approval and operational processes to support this exciting and promising work.
As a medical professional, I know the massive amount of waste that hospitals, clinical practices and medical facilities produce. In the past, this was key for infection control. However, it is clear now that we should undertake further research into improving waste management and resource recovery in the medical sector. The inquiry heard of the massive amounts of waste that are occurring in hospitals around the country and the desire of medical practitioners and medical administrators to do something proactive about this. There were many pilot trials undertaken, and we heard from many who were working in this exciting area. I commend the people who are taking the initiative in this way. One aspect could involve establishing a unit similar to that of the National Health System in England, the Sustainable Development Unit, to harmonise Commonwealth, state and territory regulation, as we heard during the inquiry.
Waste and recycling may not be the sexiest topic under consideration in this place, but it is importance, both now and in the future, cannot be understated. I actually believe that there are a lot of waste warriors out there in Australia and I know they care about this topic deeply. As the Prime Minister said recently, it is our waste and it is our responsibility, and I do believe Australians back that in. I commend this inquiry to the House. I ask that the House take note of this important inquiry. As a country, let's ensure that we can turn our rubbish into resources to help keep our planet safe and our people prosperous.
I'm glad to make some remarks on the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, Fromrubbish to resources: Building a circular economy, and I thank the member for Higgins and other members of the committee, including the deputy chair, the member for Cunningham, and the member for Moreton, for their work. It's true to say that reviewing the operations of what is a $15 billion industry in this country is no small job. It means considering how we deal with some 70 million tonnes of waste per annum and how we deal with that in a way that is much better for our environment and much better for our economy than we do currently.
I want to acknowledge the stakeholders who were part of the inquiry process, because I know that the waste crisis in Australia has meant that all those involved in waste and resource management have been under significant pressure, and they've also wanted to contribute to how Australia does a better job of dealing with our waste and the resources that they represent. I'm sure that there are members of the industry that would be forgiven for having a little bit of inquiry fatigue, because they've participated in a number of reviews recently and in the process that has led to the government's legislation that has just passed the Senate this week.
When we look at this area, it is worth starting by understanding the state of play. We do have a waste crisis in this country. Other countries have decided in the last 18 months or so—or perhaps a bit longer than that—that they are not going to accept waste from Australia. That's forced us all, particularly the general public, to realise that we've been kidding ourselves a little bit when it comes to how we deal with waste and resource management, to a significant degree. Rather than having a genuine recycling and reprocessing to manufacturing type of system, we have had a collection and transport system. We have sent a significant amount of recycled material overseas.
Plastic is one of the most pernicious categories of waste. We barely recycle 12 per cent of plastic. In fact, the latest numbers are even more disappointing than that. But, to the extent that we did recycle 12 per cent, more than half of that was being sent somewhere else So the amount of actual recycling that happens in Australia is very little indeed. On the whole, we recycle about 58 per cent of waste. The target is to get to 80 per cent by 2030. The way things have been going in recent times doesn't give us a huge basis for confidence in that. We do need to keep making changes. This is going to be a reform effort that takes ongoing energy and the sort of follow-through from government that we haven't seen a lot of.
I want to refer to the most recent numbers that that came through the ABS waste survey. They showed that we've gone from 67 million tonnes annually to 76 million tonnes annually, which is a 13 per cent increase. That's running in the wrong direction. The National Waste Policy target was to get a 10 per cent reduction on that 67 million 2030—to actually reduce waste overall to around 60 million tonnes. We're out to 76 million tonnes already. Plastic has actually gone down from its already poor rate of 12 per cent recycled to nine per cent. We are now at the point where there are three tonnes of waste per member of the Australian population produced annually—up from 2.7 million to three million tonnes. When you think that only a little bit more than that is recycled, that means that the equivalent of a small- to medium-sized car worth of waste is going into landfill for every single one of us every single year, and that's something that we need to do something about. It has a lot to do with much better environmental outcomes but it actually has to do with much better economic and job outcomes as well.
If you think about sustainability as a whole, what we currently have in Australia and in most other parts of the world is very much this linear economy—we take limited resources, we turn them into things that we often don't use for very long and then we throw them away. That is literally unsustainable, and we are depleting resources at a rate that cannot continue. The way that we then dispose of that material is taking a toll on the environment, and the best example is in marine plastic. Something like 10 million tonnes of plastic goes into the ocean each year. It's accumulating at a faster and faster rate. There are lots of very scary measures of what that will mean in the future. The estimate is that by 2050 there will be as much plastic by weight in the ocean as there currently are fish. Added to that is the fact that global plastic production is expected to triple by 2040. This is a massive environmental and human health problem, and so far we are not doing enough to combat it.
I want to go to some of the recommendations in the report that I think are particularly valuable. Recommendation 3 talks about the need for the Commonwealth, through the national waste policy, to lead a sort of strategic approach to the transportation and infrastructure requirements. I think that's really important. We are at the moment trying to grade up our recycling infrastructure because what's there is so poor. In Australia today, we have less infrastructure capacity for reprocessing plastic than we had in 2005, yet we're now at the point where we cannot export our recycled plastic. So that capacity needs to really grow. As it grows, we need to make sure it's distributed fairly and strategically. Australia is a continental land mass with significant cities dotted here, there and everywhere; you're not going to get infrastructure at scale everywhere. So we need to consider this carefully. Government needs to lead the process by which we get that infrastructure where we need it and consider the transport arrangements where we have a jurisdiction—it could be Western Australia, Tasmania or Far North Queensland—where some kind of export, in a sense, within Australia is still going to be needed.
Recommendation 5 states:
The Committee recommends that the responsible Minister report annually to Parliament on the progress of the targets and actions set out in the National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019.
I think any greater transparency and reporting in this space is really valuable. We haven't, unfortunately, over the last seven years seen the minister come and make that kind of report to parliament. That would be one of the reasons why we've seen so little progress and so little action on that front.
Recommendation 12 suggests that the Commonwealth design and implement a national public education and awareness campaign. I think there's some value in that, too. There are probably a few things that go underneath that around harmonisation of the approach to waste. It's very hard to have a national campaign when things are so different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with different container deposit schemes and different municipal waste collection arrangements, but that would certainly be valuable.
At the moment, to some degree, what people think of with respect to our waste system is disconnected from the reality. People, with all the best will in the world, separate, clean and sort their recyclables and put them in the yellow bin, and there would be some disappointment if householders reflected on the reality over the last couple of years in terms of how much actually got recycled and particularly how much of it got reincorporated in that true circular model, because the reality is very little. Plastic packaging is a good example. We have a target to get to 50 per cent recycled content in packaging by 2025. With plastic, it's currently at two per cent. Of all the plastic stuff that we use and throw away, only two per cent on average across the packaging field incorporates recycled content. That is not enough. We need that demand—we need that the pull through—in the manufacturing, if we're really going to get circularity.
The final recommendation I'll point to is recommendation 15, which talks about coordinating a national assessment of capacity and potential in rural, regional and remote communities. I think that's really important. The disadvantage that faces rural, regional and remote communities with respect to waste is like the disadvantage they face in many other areas of Australian life. I met with representatives of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council last week. They represent 15 island communities. You can imagine what a challenge waste is for them in terms of preventing waste from polluting their environment. So we need to think about how we can better support those communities.
Finally, the areas that the government has talked about—and where it is yet to show much by way of achievement—are procurement, producer responsibility and labelling. On procurement in particular, the National Waste Policy Action Plan says that the Commonwealth will provide clear procurement guidelines for the purchase and incorporation of and tendering processes for recycling material by the end of this year. There are only a few days left. We haven't seen that yet. The Prime Minister promised it at the Plastics Summit in March, and we're still waiting.
I'm pleased to rise to take note of this substantial report and the recommendations in it. I want to join with my colleagues in thanking all of the members who were part of this inquiry and all of the stakeholders who contributed to the inquiry and made submissions. As we all know, this is a $15 billion industry in Australia, and we produce some 76 million tonnes of waste per annum. I was not on this committee of inquiry, but I want to speak on this report as part of urging this government, and all governments, to really put sustainability at the heart of all that we do: sustainability for our environment, sustainability for our economic growth, and sustainability for the wellbeing and happiness of our people. Really, this report and the push from the people of Australia for a circular economy are both about sustainability.
Like my colleague who spoke before me, I too am hoping that the Prime Minister fulfils the commitment that he made at the Plastics Summit earlier this year to provide guidelines for government procurement policy and recycling. It's important that governments not just talk the talk but also lead us. What governments ask industry to do, governments should also be doing. Procurement policy is a very, very powerful tool that the Commonwealth has its disposal—not just procuring Australian-made goods, not just procuring actions and activities by Australian companies and Australian workers, but using procurement policy to set the standards for the sorts of materials that we want to use. In my electorate of Dunkley, Replas—who I've spoken about before in this place—are a world leader in the recycling of plastics. Replas have recently entered into a contract with Frankston City Council and are providing footpath concrete where the aggregate is recycled plastic, and it is terrific. In Seaford, we will soon be able walk on recycled plastic. Replas have arrangements with the big retailers, including Coles, to take the plastic bags and the plastic waste, and they change it into benches and guardrails and boardwalks—all sorts of items are manufactured with recycled plastic. For companies like Replas to continue to grow and to continue to provide those goods, there needs to be demand. And this federal government, as well as state governments and local councils, has at its disposal tools to increase that demand, by saying: 'When projects are built using Commonwealth funds, we want to have recycled materials'—like those that are made by Replas—'as part of those projects.'
It is disturbing that the recent ABS waste survey identified that we have in this country gone from producing 68 million tonnes of waste annually to 76 million tonnes. It's a 13 per cent increase. We're supposed to be reducing waste, and we're increasing it. We need to meet the targets that have been set for us in this country as part of building that sustainable future. We only recycle 58 per cent of waste. We have a target of 80 per cent by 2030. Much to the surprise of most of us, 2030 is coming very soon. It's 10 years away. We set targets. We need to meet them. It's a bit like with climate change. We need to set targets, like net zero emissions by 2050, and we need to meet them. As with the Plastics Summit earlier this year, it's all well and good to have announcements, to have forums and to do media events, but they have to translate into real action. The work that was done on this report needs to be taken into account by the government in order to deliver real action, not just photo opportunities.
I'd like to finish my contribution by mentioning a company in Australia, which contacted me after the last time I spoke about waste, called The Plastics Circle. Trish and Murray Hyde contacted me because this is their world and their life—sustainability and the circular economy. They are an example of Australians who are committed to this idea of sustainability but also of industry and individuals who are ahead of the government in this country and are crying out for the government to be there and back them in. The Plastics Circle provided me with some statistics that are very interesting when we think about how we can encourage companies, individuals and governments to get involved in developing and building our circular economy. Forty-six per cent of plastic waste globally is caused by plastic package, and 30 per cent of that is recycled. But 80 per cent of businesses lack the metrics to understand and manage their plastic impacts. However, 23 per cent of consumers already buy based on sustainability attributes. Eighty-one per cent of consumers have said that they will buy more environmentally friendly products over the next five years, and 73 per cent of employees want their company to demonstrate ESG leadership. Businesses who have embedded environmental standards see a 16 per cent productivity lift. As The Plastics Circle says to their clients: 'You have a double imperative. You need to achieve your sales targets and also your ESG commitment.' There's no reason why a federal government shouldn't have embedded in everything they do the same mindset of ESG commitment, sustainability and the wellbeing of the people, the planet and the economy that we are all a part of.
Trish and Murray Hyde and the people that work with them are scientists, advisers, collaborators, creatives, entrepreneurs and innovators. A circular economy provides opportunities for jobs and for economic growth for people with a whole range of different skill sets, education, interests and abilities. It is good for the economy, it is good for jobs, it is good for the environment, and it is good for the wellbeing of those of us who live on this precious planet because it improves our day-to-day amenity. We do not want to have a future where our oceans are clogged with plastic and our waterways are strewn with bottles. We want to have a future where our grandchildren's grandchildren can sit on Frankston Beach and enjoy the wonder and the beauty of the natural environment without having waste washing up all around them.
This is a rubbish report. It is complete garbage. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, I'm proud to speak on the recently tabled report, From rubbish to resources: building a circular economy. The committee was asked by the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology to inquiry into and report on innovative solutions in Australia's waste management and recycling industries. The focus of the inquiry was on opportunities presented by waste materials, including energy production, innovative recycling approaches and export opportunities. The report makes 24 recommendations. If the Morrison government were to accept them, they would create a pathway to a national circular economy. That would be good for the world; good for the planet; good for the wallet, in fact; good for our native flora and fauna; and good for the environment of our neighbours, where we used to dump our rubbish until very recently.
On average, every Australian generates nearly three tonnes of waste every year. Around 40 per cent of this waste will end up in landfill. For every five items of rubbish that we use for convenience, three will become an inconvenience for somebody else. So only two out of the five things that we use will actually be usefully rendered into something for people down the track. The fact that there is three tonnes of waste every year indicates that we have a waste crisis in Australia. It didn't creep up on us; we've known about it for a while. Sorting our household rubbish into colour coded bins every week just isn't enough. Australians are kidding themselves if they think that it is enough. For urban Australians, there is that smug satisfaction of putting the yellow bin out once a fortnight or once a week, whatever it is. We need to recalibrate that feeling. We can't keep digging holes in the ground and then filling them up with our rubbish because we can't keep shipping our rubbish offshore to make it some other country's problem. That is not only because Malaysia, China and others told the coalition government a little while ago that they wouldn't take Australian rubbish anymore.
The coalition have wasted seven years and, over that seven years, we've had seven years of waste accumulating. It took the ban on imports from China and other countries to get the Morrison government's attention and, finally, they decided to do something to start to address the issue. They tried to put a media spin on the rejection: 'This is an incredible moment. We're having a big plastic summit.' They were turning rejection into a media opportunity. But, basically, the last seven years have been wasted. Remember, that decision to reject Australian rubbish was made back when relations with our major trading partner were only bad, rather than dismal. Currently, they are dismal and heading south.
Australia has less capacity to recycle plastic in 2020 than it had back in 2005. That's a horrible fact. In 2005, we were better placed to recycle plastic than we are today, with all of those innovations in technology. The amount of plastic in the world's oceans is expected to triple by 2040. This is incredibly alarming. It is an issue that should be receiving urgent attention from the Morrison government. We need to change that trajectory. Rather than trying just to manage the media today, we need to change the trajectory. It is crucial and fair that manufacturers and designers of products—and, consequently, the purchasers, who are the consumers—take some responsibility in mitigating the environmental impact of their products. Their manufacturing decisions have a legacy beyond the cash register or the docking bay. Businesses should be seeking to reduce waste in their manufacturing processes and to enable re-use or recycling.
Labor introduced the Product Stewardship Act in 2011. Product stewardship is a critical element of sustainable waste management. Labor took a commitment to introduce a national container deposit scheme to the last election. Sadly, the Morrison government has not made the same commitment. The states and territories have implemented their own container deposit schemes, and I commend the Queensland Palaszczuk government for doing so, because that has changed behaviour in Queensland. National leadership would create a harmonised and coordinated national scheme, and that would bring efficiencies for people who use the end product and better marketing opportunities.
The Morrison government claims it is taking action on waste and recycling. As I said, it was happy to have a big press conference and a plastics summit. But, in what has become a common theme, they're very good with the announcement but no good with the follow-up. Recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Waste Account shows that Australia's waste and recycling performance has worsened, at a time when the Morrison government claims to be showing national and global leadership. As I said, they're there for the presser but missing when it comes to the follow-up. Since 2016, Australia's recycling rate for plastics has dropped from an already unacceptably low 12 per cent to nine per cent—you can see why the Plastics Summit was needed—and total waste has risen from 68 million tonnes per annum to a record 76 million tonnes, a 13 per cent increase. That has occurred on the coalition's watch. Even worse, hazardous waste has climbed by a very concerning 23 per cent. This is on the Morrison government's watch. Personal responsibility used to be a tenet of the Liberal Party, but, for some reason, when it comes to waste, when it comes to plastics, that rule seems to have been jettisoned.
These latest figures make a mockery of the National Waste Policy targets of reducing overall waste by 10 per cent by 2030 and achieving a rate of 80 per cent average resource recovery from all waste streams by 2030. 2030 is not that far away. We need to drastically alter our trajectory. It completely contradicts the government's grandiose announcements, at the Plastics Summit and the like, about taking action on waste and recycling. There's been a lot of chest thumping, but we're not actually doing what we need to be doing. The Morrison government announced its $100 million Recycling Investment Fund back in May 2019, but, of course, has failed to deliver a single dollar from this fund. The government's light-touch approach to reforming Australia's product stewardship framework was another missed opportunity. When leadership was needed, the opportunity was missed.
Obviously, much more needs to be done and it needs to be done now. Recommendation No. 1 in this committee report is:
… that the Commonwealth Government in consultation with state and territory governments—
I understand the role of state and territory governments and local government when it comes to waste, but they need to consult with those other levels of government to—
implement a pathway to a predominantly national circular economy.
This is an important recommendation, and one that I sincerely hope the Morrison government considers acting on urgently.
Australians need to start talking about a circular economy—an economy where materials are used minimally and re-used and recycled to the maximum degree, eventually creating a closed circle. This sustainable approach is not only environmentally responsible but will create resource recovery, manufacturing opportunities and jobs. There is action that can be taken that the Morrison government needs to take right now, until we can process our waste. We need investment in recycling and reprocessing infrastructure—capital investment in terms of some of the machinery needed. Science and engineering will come to the rescue, but we need a bit of a guiding hand from government. We need to support demand for recycled materials, so that there are markets there, and ensure that producers take responsibility for the life-cycle costs of their products, which may entail consumers paying just slightly more for the fact that their product will be dealt with rather than dumped. We need to increase consumer awareness. We need to do better and we need to do it fast.
Pretending that our waste production is not a massive environmental problem is not the answer. Pretending that our waste production is not a massive market failure is not the answer. Pretending that things will instantly change if we ask businesses nicely to change the way they develop their product is not the answer either. Working towards a circular economy will take strong leadership skills. It will mean working with business to create a sustainable, environmentally responsible production line, which will create resource recovery, manufacturing opportunities and jobs.
So we need strong leadership from the Commonwealth government, and then that will flow into state and territory and local government. Businesses need this strong leadership. My community on the south side of Brisbane is ready to do more. It's hard to develop good policy reform on a national scale. It takes leadership at a national level, stepping up and having those uncomfortable conversations. What we're currently seeing is a load of rubbish—complete garbage. Let's see some leadership on this topic from the Morrison government or throw them out and give Australians a chance to do more.
Debate adjourned.
I rise with great pleasure to speak on this report about the adoption of an Australian Magnitsky act. I want to acknowledge the subcommittee members for their work on this, particularly the chair, the member for Menzies, and the deputy chair, the member for Paterson. I also want to acknowledge Senator Kitching, who has long been a strong advocate on this issue. There's a private member's bill on the Notice Paper in the other place to implement an Australian Magnitsky act. An Australian Magnitsky act is a much-needed law in order to demonstrate our commitment to human rights. This is a bipartisan issue that has attracted unlikely allies from both sides of the aisle. The global movement for countries to pass their own version of the United States Magnitsky act has gathered pace in the last few years. We should be right there with other countries leading the charge.
But I want to use my time today to acknowledge the history of this issue and the people in this place and outside of it who have advocated for years to get us to the point of this committee report. It all started with a Russian tax auditor named Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered at the age of 37 after he uncovered a major fraud committed by officials within the Russian government. He'd been put on the case by Bill Browder, a British-American financier, who would go on to lead the charge for these Magnitsky laws around the world. Magnitsky and Browder did what all of us hope that we would do in the same situation—spoke up and exposed a fraud. They filed criminal complaints, hoping that the system would work. But Magnitsky was jailed for his efforts, without trial, for 11 months, and in 2009 he died in prison following several years of what can only be described as prolonged torture at the hands of Russian authorities. He was denied medical care and kept in squalid conditions. He developed major medical conditions, including gallbladder disease and pancreatitis, for which prison doctors withheld treatment as a means of coercing his actions. A report on his death said that he'd complained of worsening stomach pains for five days, and by the day of his death he was vomiting every three hours and his stomach was swollen. When they finally moved him to a medical facility, he wasn't treated; he was given a psychiatric assessment and a painkiller. He was dead 30 minutes later, having died alone in a jail cell.
Browder tracked the assets back to the US, and he lobbied US lawmakers to target those who had profited. It's in his name that the United States passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which sought to punish those personally responsible. In 2016, they took the principles of this law and made them global, with the ability to apply sanctions to any foreign officials that might have been involved in human rights abuses personally, regardless of where they occurred. This is really a story of mateship—something that we value highly as a nation. Browder took the push global and has created a worldwide movement to create laws that punish government officials involved in human rights abuses globally in the name of his mate. Browder gave up his successful career to make getting justice for his mate his life's work. Many countries have since adopted a Magnitsky act or a law similar to it, as a result of his fierce advocacy. Canada began this process in 2015, and it made it into law in 2017. It's sanctioned 70 individuals under these laws. The European Union passed a resolution in 2019 to create a Magnitsky act of its own and will soon make it law. The United Kingdom passed amendments to its existing laws in 2018, soon after leaving the European Union, and has since imposed nearly 50 sanctions on individuals, including on two Myanmar generals for their involvement in the persecution of the Rohingya people and other ethnic minorities.
I welcome the progress on this act represented by the committee report and acknowledge the work that's been done by the committee and its advocates in this place. Once we have enacted our own Magnitsky law, we must pursue a greater global commitment to human rights through the adoption of these laws. This is something that we've been talking about in this parliament for quite some time. I want to acknowledge one member who was tireless in his pursuit of this issue well before it was on the radar of many others in this place. The former member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, was a strong advocate for these laws. He insisted that the parliament pay attention to this issue, and he persisted until the parliament did. He can be a pain that way, Brother Danby. He even introduced a private member's bill, which I was proud to sit in the chamber as he argued for. In his valedictory speech in April last year, where I sat next to him, he said:
I feel a longing for all the unfinished business I leave here. Although I moved a first reading of the Magnitsky Act, it is not enshrined in our law. The government has come to favour having a legislative device for pushing back against corruption and human rights abuses by authoritarian countries. I say to this parliament that Magnitsky would allow us—like the US, Canada and the UK—to tell states like Russia that you can't kill 38 Australians and get away with it. Unfortunately we seem to have run out of time.
Well, comrade, we have picked up the torch and we will carry on your work in this parliament.
I know that Michael Danby would be happy to see us debating this issue, but he'd probably be asking why we haven't already implemented it. Labor's shadow foreign affairs spokesman made clear Labor's position in July this year, supporting the introduction of Australian Magnitsky law, 'to send a strong signal to those committing human rights abuses abroad and to defend our democratic institutions.' The shadow foreign affairs minister also said that it must be enacted soon, saying:
While the world is rightly focused on managing the pandemic, we've continued to see human rights abuses. This is why the UK has flagged targeted sanctions under its recently passed Magnitsky laws. Australia has existing sanctions mechanisms, and an Australian Magnitsky Act would allow for more explicit targeting of human rights and corruption abuses.
Australia has an important role to play here. The US led the charge. The UK has done its bit, Canada has done its bit and the European Union is almost there. We should be there with them. If we don't pass a Magnitsky Act, we risk becoming a safe haven in the developed world for human rights violators.
The committee's report notes Geoffrey Robertson QC's observation that 'although human rights abuses can be listed as designating criteria for sanctioning, under Australia’s current regime, there is little scope for sanctioning an individual for corruption'. It is a growing trend, as the inquiry notes, that perpetrators of human rights abuses and corruption take advantage of our globalised financial system to secure their assets in countries like Australia—and we've seen this in Melbourne. Australia is an attractive place for this, and we must send a strong message that we won't allow our country to become a haven for those that perpetrate human rights abuses and corruption, particularly in our own region.
It's important that we send a strong message through targeted sanctions, such as travel bans and asset freezes, which a Magnitsky Act would enable. As Bill Browder notes:
The global Magnitsky sanctions will issue a stark warning to human rights abusers and kleptocrats around the world that no longer will they be able to commit atrocities with complete impunity. Targeted sanctions against those involved in corruption and human rights abuse will provide an immediate, tangible consequence which directly affects an individual where it hurts them the most—in their pocket. Leaders of corrupt regimes will know they are no longer able to protect their ill-gotten gains abroad, or flee to their lavish properties in foreign countries. Totalitarian dictatorships ultimately fall, and when they do, the Global Magnitsky Act will prevent those who have committed human rights abuses from claiming asylum almost anywhere in the world.
The committee notes in its report that countries that have adopted these laws are seeing success, noting:
… there are indications of early success in applying targeted sanctions to curtail options for enjoyment and freedoms of human rights abusers and beneficiaries of corruption. Australia’s imposition of travel bans and asset freezes could apply some level of consequences in cases where they were otherwise lacking.
Australia should be a leader in our region and on the global scale in demonstrating our commitment to human rights. An Australian Magnitsky Act would be an important step in this process. An Australian Magnitsky Act would put human rights abusers and corrupt government officials in our region on notice that Australia was not their bolthole. That's why we must continue full steam ahead to deliver an Australian Magnitsky Act.
I thank all of the committee members for their work on this review, and I thank all of the parliamentarians from both sides of the aisle who have campaigned for and championed this issue to get the debate to where it is now. I look forward to the parliament acting on this review and progressing it in the future.
I, too, support the report's recommendation that Australia adopt a new standalone targeted sanctions legislation to significantly strengthen Australian and broader international efforts to deter gross human rights violations worldwide. As members of parliament in a great democracy, I believe it is our collective duty to stand up for human rights and speak up when we see those rights diminished or abused.
We have a duty as a wealthy nation to lend a hand when it's needed and, as a democracy committed to human rights, to speak out about atrocities and condemn and sanction the perpetrators of these crimes. In this place I've tried since being elected in 2016 to speak up on human rights abuses around the world, whether it's speaking up about the Uyghur people's persecution in China, the religious persecution of the Baha'i in northern Yemen or in Iran, the Rohingya from Myanmar who've been forced into IDP camps or across the boarder into refugee camps in Bangladesh, the Kurdish communities in northern Syria and in Turkey, or even here at home with regard to upholding the rights of Australians. We should always try to do this as part of our democracy and as part of our responsibilities in this place.
Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms has long been recognised as essential to efforts to build a more peaceful, harmonious and prosperous world. We know that, since 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other widely endorsed international human rights conventions have established a global framework for promoting respect for human rights. But, as important as it is to speak up and as important as it is for advocacy, our ability to deter human rights violations and enforce accountability for these actions has proven to be very difficult. In that sense, action and leverage with action is what is needed. It's clear that we need this new approach.
The human rights subcommittee has watched with interest the recent developments across many democracies. Canada, the US and Britain have all already enacted Magnitsky-style laws, and the European Union's new European Magnitsky Act will be formally signed off on by member states on 10 December—fittingly, on World Human Rights Day.
The US act was named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who in 2008 uncovered a deep web of tax fraud linked to the Kremlin and later died in mysterious circumstances in a Moscow prison. That bipartisan bill in the US was passed and signed into law by President Obama in 2012. It applies globally, authorising the US government to sanction those who it sees as human rights offenders, freeze their assets and ban them from entering the United States. It was the first bill of its kind in the world, and it was thanks to Magnitsky's friend Bill Browder, a prominent American-born businessman working extensively in the Russian Federation after the collapse of the USSR, who publicised the case and lobbied American officials to pass legislation sanctioning Russian individuals involved in corruption. Browder has also played a significant role in our own inquiry into the laws and in other nations worldwide.
Rather than sanctions against an entire nation, as we've heard, these Magnitsky-style laws allow governments to sanction organisers, accomplices and co-conspirators of human rights abuse directly and personally—individuals. These laws seek to make those responsible for human rights violations and corruption accountable by imposing restrictive measures, including entry bans and financial sanctions, including asset freezing.
The second-most-important function of these laws is to expose publicly the names of human rights abusers. As Amal Clooney, one of our witnesses at the inquiry, put it when she appeared during our committee hearings:
You may not be able to solve every … abuse, but you can make sure that your country is not a safe haven for despots and war criminals.
When Britain legislated their Magnitsky laws in 2018, 49 individuals were immediately sanctioned, including Alexander Bastrykin, a former first deputy prosecutor-general of Russia, who failed to investigate the death of Mr Magnitsky. It also included six members of Saudi Arabian crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's inner sanctum and members of Myanmar's military responsible for the genocide against the Rohingya population.
The human rights subcommittee launched our inquiry into Magnitsky laws on 4 December last year, and since then we've received over 150 published submissions from a wide range of organisations and individuals and we've heard testimony from a number of prominent international witnesses, including human rights lawyers—as I mentioned, Amal Clooney as well as and Geoffrey Robertson QC, who did a power of work and contribution in his submissions—former Canadian Attorney General Irwin Cotler, former president of the British supreme court Lord Neuberger and the man credited with founding the global Magnitsky campaign, Bill Browder himself.
I would also like to put on the record that a lot of people did great work to get us to this point in this place. I acknowledge too the former member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, for his tremendous efforts. He was tireless, he was insistent and he was persistent, and sometimes that effort of an individual really can make such a big difference. He should be commended for that. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of my fellow members of the Human Rights Subcommittee. I would like to acknowledge the committee chair, the member for Menzies, and thank him for his terrific work. I acknowledge the deputy chair, the member for Fowler, Chris Hayes, and the secretariat for their great work in putting such a great report together.
I believe that this is a step we should take. We have to take it; we must take it. Labor's shadow foreign minister, Penny Wong, often speaks about the need to have Australian values, like respect for human rights, at the centre of our foreign policies and as the core elements of how we do our foreign affairs. Most would agree that the world we live in today shows that this is really more important and necessary than ever. It doesn't matter where in the world human rights abuses are occurring, it is our responsibility and possibly our duty. I would say it is our duty, as political leaders, political representatives, within a democracy such as we have in Australia, to speak out against those human rights abuses and sanction the perpetrators. Magnitsky style laws will allow us to do that. They would add to our existing legislative framework and help to combat human rights abuses abroad, as well as to defend our democratic institutions. Such sanctions would have a particularly powerful effect in Australia, given our position of influence, particularly in our region. We should do so because it also adds to our ability to show leadership in our region. It is, in many respects, our most obvious next step. The Australian government should move forward without delay with Magnitsky style laws to promote and defend human rights and to curb sustained and systematic human rights abuses. I commend this report and hope that the government—with our support, with bipartisan support—moves quickly towards passage of such legislation.
I commend this important and timely report to the House and note the bipartisan spirit shown on clear national interest. As my friend the member for Wills, just said, Labor has clearly set out that it supports a Magnitsky style human rights sanctions regime that could impose costs on serious human rights violators to prevent and deter impunity. This human rights sanctions regime could have two objectives: firstly, to send a strong signal to those committing human rights abuses abroad and, secondly, to defend our democratic institutions. This report makes a considered and thorough contribution to the operational policy details of how such a proposed targeted human rights sanctions regime could work in Australia. It even features a proposed bill drafted by Mr Geoffrey Robertson OAM QC, which is commendable and helpful. I congratulate the chairs and cochairs of both the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Human Rights Subcommittee for this piece of work.
I'd like to go into some of the operational considerations and the complex trade-offs between human rights, foreign policy, trade and other national interests that this regime would demand of the decision-maker—the foreign minister, under these recommendations, rather than a judge or committee. To start with the basics, the defence of human rights at home and abroad is a fundamental national interest because it is so essential to who we are as a people, as Australians. Australia is committed to good international citizenship as a 'middle power', as Gareth Evans put it. Labor has a proud role in this tradition, with Doc Evatt helping shape the United Nations around liberal and democratic values. Human rights are a central part of the UN system. There are universal instruments like the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council, which puts all countries in the hot seat and under human rights scrutiny, including our nation, Australia.
Traditionally, Australia's had a track record of quiet, behind-the-scenes human rights dialogues with other countries. These mechanisms are important, but they have limitations. The proposed Magnitsky-style sanctions regime, which exists in the US, the UK, Canada and other jurisdictions, aims to target individual officials, uniformed personnel and civilians who are demonstrably responsible for serious human rights violations. That may include those who torture or kill journalists, whistleblowers, human rights watchdogs, gay rights activists or underground priests, or participate in any stage of genocide.
Shining a light on those who do great evil in the shadows is an effective and proportionate way to say, 'Never again'—not only to the death camps, but to the everyday acts of evil that build up to them. There is no-one in this parliament, I would think, who would object to the principle that these acts are abhorrent and must be opposed, as a reflection of Australia, our values and our interests. At the very least, even if we can't stop them single-handedly, we can impose costs for serious human rights violations by preventing their authors from travelling to Australia or sending their children to study, and stopping them from laundering money here.
Upholding universal human rights is a Team Australia objective, and I reconfirm Labor's support. But the devil is always in the detail. There are important considerations that this report makes very clear that we will have to weigh up, not just in the drafting of any enabling legislation, but, most importantly, in the judgement that any foreign minister of the day will have to exercise.
I'd like to briefly list some of these major considerations. One: using a hammer where another tool may be better. The old maxim 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail' is very apt and relevant to sanctions regimes. Mr Simon Newnham, First Assistant Secretary and Chief Legal Officer of DFAT, advised the committee that sanctions will not always be the most appropriate or effective response. I quote:
Sanctions might not be effective. In certain circumstances, they may close off opportunities to positively influence a situation, and they may not be in our interests. There will be work that Australia does with other countries, with different systems and different standards, principles and values. Sometimes we work with systems that don't uphold human rights and freedoms in the same way that we do in Australia, but we do so to meet other objectives—for example, on counterterrorism, transnational crime, economic issues and so forth.
Secondly, defining how low we should go. Many submissions called for very broad definitions of what was a serious human rights violation that would merit sanctioning. Some organisations advocated for going very broad and including the lack of a free press as meeting the threshold. Others argued that corruption should be targetable. This view seems to have influenced some of the committee's comments and views on what is human rights atrocity. Corruption is a bad behaviour that can breed human rights violations, but it doesn't always. Since we're a middle power and aren't in a position to impose our values across the board, we have to be realistic and reasonable about how low we can afford to bring the threshold of this bad behaviour. And we have to remember, too, that others have the same tools at their disposal as we do, even if they use them in bad faith. DFAT's submission noted that a lower threshold would expand the cases in which sanctions could be imposed, including situations where other responses could be more appropriate.
Again, these are the considerations. The third is raising civil society's expectations. We need to be responsible and alert to the fact that a human rights sanction regime will need to be very responsibly, transparently and strictly drafted to qualify in egregious cases. The submissions to this report testified to some of the strong feelings in our proudly multicultural society about the human rights abuses in their own home countries and in those of fellow Australians' multicultural societies. There is justifiably strong feeling in our communities that we need to respect, listen to and consider very actively. But it would be irresponsible and dangerous for the fabric of our own society to politicise human rights sanctions. Saying 'Vote for me and I'll go hard on the foreign government you don't like' is not a recipe for a stable democracy but instead for disaster.
There are some calls in these submissions for human rights sanctions on Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong and China, or their officials, on various grounds. Some will be legitimate, proportionate and in the national interest. But others won't be. Getting that balance right presupposes strict bipartisanship to reduce the temptation for members of this place, perhaps, to politicise human rights sanctions.
The fourth consideration is double standards. There is a legitimate objection that Australia will be exposed to accusations of double standards if it doesn't apply these sanctions universally. It has not escaped attention that our existing regime sanctions Zimbabwe but not larger economies and some US allies. Yet the universal application of human rights sanctions outside the national interest test as managed by a lawyer or jury, which some submissions understandably supported, is also problematic. As the international human rights law expert Ms Amal Clooney commented:
… certainly one of the main criticisms that you always hear, is that they're selective—states will have this legislation, but they'll only use it against soft targets, or they'll only use it against states that aren't friends or who they don't need to trade with et cetera. But, on the other hand, it's understandable that a foreign minister can't come into office and, on the first day, sanction their counterparts in 100-plus countries where human rights violations might be occurring on some level.
The point is that we need to be alert to, and minimise the risk of, double standards.
I'm very glad that this report provides for very extensive safeguards to protect the human rights of alleged perpetrators, as well as their families, who are also targetable. The only way to not become like the perpetrators we fight is to never abandon justice for the sake of victory and to never try to defend the higher ground by fighting dirty, because that's not how we win. We win by the moral discernment, judgement, self-restraint, proportionality and charity we show our adversaries. (Time expired)
This is a landmark report. A lot of reports come here for little remarks—'The place where good speeches go to die,' I once said of the Federation Chamber. But this is a really important report—the culmination of a year of work. It calls for an overhaul of Australia's sanctions regime, which has proven to be not adequate to protect human rights.
The proposed Magnitsky legislation will provide a real and targeted response and bring us into line with other strong human rights protecting states. It will provide additional mechanisms for the Australian government to target and sanction individuals and their beneficiaries, which means their families, where relevant, who've committed serious human rights abuses or are guilty of serious corruption perpetrated in any country across the world. The kinds of sanctions that would be available under these new laws would mean visa and travel restrictions, banning people from coming to Australia, limiting access to their assets in Australia and restricting access to Australia's financial system.
These Magnitsky-style sanctions will complement Australia's existing sanctions regime, including application of the UN Security Council sanctions and existing Australian autonomous sanctions. Importantly, they'll be applied to retrospective conduct, which was a point that we considered carefully, because grave human rights violations whether perpetrated five days ago, five years ago or 50 years ago should never be forgotten. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is proposed to have the final say as to whether a person would be subjected to sanctions. It's important to understand that decisions by the minister to sanction would be subject to the broadest range of national interest considerations. In plain English, the truth is not every bad guy or bad girl is going to make the list, because, ultimately, a decision to sanction has to be in our national interest in the broadest sense.
There'll also be scope under these proposals for the creation of a public watchlist, which would effectively be a name-and-shame list for those who are suspected of being engaged in grave human rights abuses or serious corruption but are not necessarily restricted at that time, about who enough evidence hasn't been gathered or where it may be thought that the best thing in the national interest would be to send a deterrence message without actually taking that final step to sanction.
Magnitsky laws, as they're called, at their core are about lighting a candle to shed light on the darkness and protect the most vulnerable in the community across the world. We may ask, 'Why is this report so significant at this time?' Why do I sound so excited about an obscure committee report?' It's because there's a global movement underway that's been accelerating in the last few years and, quite simply, Australia must be part of that movement. We must never underestimate the value of bringing Australia into line with other world-leading states in enacting US Magnitsky-style legislation. These laws will ensure that human rights are not merely ideals that we speak about but that we follow through on with real action.
That's the key here: tangible and effective deterrence. The global experience, which we heard much of through the inquiry, is that deterrence is a powerful force in preventing human rights abuses and corruption. It doesn't work in all cases—that's also clear—and these laws don't stop all bad behaviour, but they can help to deter and moderate abuses if the perpetrators know right up-front—and maybe a name-and-shame list would also help deter—that they risk exclusion from the global financial system, that they risk the loss of their assets, which they may have accumulated in developed Western countries and nice European capitals from ill-gotten gains, and that their beneficiaries and their families would also be affected and prevented from entering our country. Importantly their conduct will be exposed. The message from these laws that we have seen in other states that have adopted them is clear: you will not get away with gross human rights violations and serious corruption.
Those who suffer from human rights abuses are disproportionately also the victims of corruption. There is an interplay there, so these laws go further in some countries. We had a look at best practice around the world. We need to ensure that investigating, reporting and prosecuting corruption forms a significant part of any robust human rights system. It's important to stress that the development of this legislation is not about targeting particular countries. There's been a lot of media speculation. Different media outlets name this country or that country. But it's important to understand that that's what's different about these proposed sanctions: they're not about targeting a country; they're about targeting senior individuals who have individually perpetrated serious human rights abuses.
Human rights atrocities occur across the globe, and we need a more coordinated global response. There have been years of research by tireless individuals and organisations on the ground. They do incredible work, brave work. They get targeted—murdered in many of these countries—for standing up for human rights. They're on the ground daily fighting for human rights. They show us that the drivers of human rights atrocities are widespread and incredibly complex, so the responses globally must be considered and well targeted.
In 1948—a long time ago now—the global community joined together and created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then states working collectively in various formations, not always universally, have endeavoured to find many different ways to try and counter the gross human rights violations that the world has seen and sadly continues to see. The sorts of tools available to governments or states acting collectively are things like enforcing arms embargoes, boycotts, penalising the perpetrating state through trade sanctions and other diplomatic isolating measures.
Australia of course implements all of the United Nations Security Council sanctions, but we also have our Australian autonomous sanctions that are in place right now for states such as Syria, North Korea, the former federal republic of Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe. These remedies are variable in their degree of effectiveness because of the political and human complexities involved. Given this, I'll record the fact that I'm very grateful, having participated in most of the hearings, to all of those who gave evidence to the inquiry and who shared their expertise that we were able to draw on. It's an incredibly complex area.
I'd also like to record a thanks to DFAT. The committee actually disagreed with DFAT's proposition that we don't need these laws, but they were measured, they were reasoned, they were well argued, and they were also respectful. They understood I think—they could read the tea leaves—that we were going in a different direction, and they were still professional, they were helpful, they answered our questions and they were thoughtful. I do wish that some other departments would follow their example. The way that DFAT present and support the committee is exemplary, and I think it makes our work better and makes the report more sensible when we have the benefit of their advice.
This was also a truly collaborative and bipartisan process. I'd like to thank the chair, the member for Menzies, for how he conducted the inquiry. He's a little too politically conservative for my taste, but he's an excellent chair and a good, experienced member to work with. He lets everyone have their says and listens to all views.
I also give a special thanks to the diaspora communities from so many migrant communities across Australia who've fought for these laws for such a long time and for some of whom appearing at the inquiry took actual personal risk. They were worried about the retribution against their friends and their family in their home countries, and we heard some of those stories in camera as well. That's a serious issue. It's not something we should take lightly—that Australian citizens should feel restricted from coming to their national parliament and sharing their ideas and views because of what might happen in foreign countries. So the knowledge and the voices of the diaspora communities will remain key in the future.
Importantly, the report explicitly acknowledges that protecting journalists and human rights defenders is equally important. We talked about media freedom. It was actually Amal Clooney who beamed in from where she was—Los Angeles at that point, I think—and so eloquently explained to us that, as to media freedoms, the systemic shutdown of media and journalists is a human rights abuse and explained to us how authoritarian states are using shutdowns of the internet and repressive shutdowns of the media to further human rights abuses.
Our media freedom is under threat like never before, and we've seen this kind of oppression manifest in places like Turkey, China, Hong Kong, the Russian federation, Cambodia and Egypt, and also—I say, shamefully—in our key security partner and largest foreign investor, the United States, where, shamefully, our own citizen Julian Assange is facing life imprisonment in the United States for publishing evidence of US war crimes. The risk to liberal democracies, the countries who we think we're just like, should not be underestimated. If journalists are unable to do their jobs, it will affect all of us as a global community.
Journalists, as well as human rights, democracy, labour and environmental activists remain at great risk in places like Cambodia. In fact, Cambodia provides us with an operational example of the potential application of the proposed Magnitsky legislation, because, for many years, under the gangster regime of Prime Minister Hun Sen, human rights have been under threat, and Cambodian CPP elites stand accused of enormous and systemic corruption. Hun Sen and his family and cronies make themselves rich at the expense of the Cambodian people, taking their land, attacking their labour rights, suppressing dissent and destroying any pretence of being a democracy. At the last election, Hun Sen won 125 seats out of 125 seats, and the situation under COVID-19 is getting worse.
Last month, the UN human rights expert on Cambodia issued concerns about the mass trial of 113 individuals on charges of conspiracy and incitement to create serious chaos to social security. Last month, 57—Deputy Speaker, I've got a page to finish—a good page—but I didn't have the clock, so—
I'm acknowledging that the clock would have misled the member. I'll allow another slight overrun of the time frame.
Thank you. Last month, 57 human rights organisations called on the Cambodian government to stop its harassment and intimidation of independent media outlets and their journalists. Testimony to the inquiry from brave members of the Cambodian diaspora community described these threats, including threats against Australian citizens here and money-laundering by Cambodian officials buying assets in Australia. When Human Rights Watch issued their so-called dirty dozen a few years ago, the top generals and cronies in the regime were found guilty of human rights abuses, and Magnitsky laws will give us new tools to deter and shine light on this behaviour by the corrupt Cambodian elite and ensure Australia provides no shelter to these gangsters.
In closing, I'll just read two quotes. Victorian Labor MP and my friend, Meng Heang Tak, said in his testimony to the inquiry:
… it's about time that Australia played a role in curbing this regime. Given our geographic location, if we don't have a Magnitsky or we don't have enough measures to curb this interference in Australia, Australia is a very good place for the ruling party, for the elite, to park their assets.
So I welcome the report and I commend it to the House. Magnitsky laws will send a strong message of support to the victims and the survivors that states across the world are joining together and taking stronger action to combat human rights violations. I'll end with a quote from Mr Hemara In's testimony. Hemara is also a friend of mine. He lives in my electorate. And he is one of those 113 Cambodians around the world who've been charged in recent weeks by the Hun Sen government and summoned to appear in court in Phnom Penh for allegedly inciting unrest. Unbelievable! Hemara said that, if Australia were to adopt a Magnitsky style targeted sanctions regime, it would send:
… hope to ordinary people that the international community understands their plight and is willing to stand by them and to help them. It's a message of hope.
So, by enacting Magnitsky legislation in Australia, we, as a country, can add our voice to that message of hope. I thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I thank the government for that indulgence.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to take note of these reports, Report 483, Inquiry into the 2018-19 Defence Major projects report and the Future Submarine project—transition to design: (Auditor-General's reports 19 and 22 (2019-20)), incorporating additional comments, and Report 484, The administration of government grants: inquiry into Auditor-General's reports 5, 12 and 23 (2019-20), incorporating additional comments. I'd like to speak about the government's delays and cost blowouts when it comes to the critical Future Submarine Project, the most expensive defence acquisition in our history. The Future Submarine Project will cost around $80 billion to acquire and $145 billion to sustain, but the construction continues to be pushed further and further back. The strategic risks of the government's mishandling of the future submarines are highlighted by the fact that a delay of more than three years will create a gap in our critical submarine capability. That capability is absolutely essential to Australia's credibility and influence as a military power. The careful and considered management of this national asset should be one of the government's highest priorities, but you wouldn't know it. For a government that likes to talk itself up when it comes to national security credentials, they have completely dropped the ball on the future submarines. The government has mismanaged this program, and, all the while, the clock is ticking, the risks are increasing, and our national security is suffering. It is that serious.
All of the key measures of this program—time of delivery, cost of the project, amount of Australian content—are going the wrong way. The government initially said the future submarines were needed in the mid-2020s. That's not too far away from now. But the future submarines will not be operational until about 2035, a decade later than we were first told. Despite the government's own assessments about the deterioration in our strategic circumstances, its acquisition strategy is flawed. And, as tough as our strategic circumstances are right now, they will likely only be tougher in 15 years when the first future submarine is operational, and tougher yet by 2054 when all 12 subs will be operational. These time lines are so long they render pointless any reasonable assessment as to whether our future submarines will be superior in our region, the Indo-Pacific region. Most credible security analysts, particularly those that look at the Indo-Pacific region, say that we haven't got the 10 years lead time to conflict that we once thought we might have; those notions are now thought to be to be very, very conservative, and it's thought that, in fact, we're going to have much less time than that.
When you look at how the government are implementing these acquisitions, once again, they're letting the Australian people down when it comes to ensuring that the Australian defence industry—so important to members in this place—gets its share of local work on the project. Honourable members will remember that, before the 2016 election, those opposite liked to repeat claims that 90 per cent of the build would occur locally. But, once that election was over, they sprinted away from that promise as quickly as they possibly could. We were then told that 60 per cent represented a local build. There need to be clear and enforceable local-content requirements built into these major materiel procurements at the start—not retrofitted as an afterthought because the government has a political program.
In his budget reply speech, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler and the Labor leader, committed to a future Labor government negotiating appropriate and enforceable commitments into contracts for all major defence materiel procurements and local defence contracts. Labor will ensure transparent, public disclosure of Australian industry content commitments to give confidence to both industry and the public. We will ensure those commitments are regularly reviewed by an independent body, with appropriate contract measures built in so that we can audit through the supply chain and deal with any breaches. The Labor leader made this commitment because we believe that supporting the Australian defence industry and building reliable sovereign supply chains is a priority, not an afterthought—and because, when we are spending $270 billion of taxpayers' money over the next decade or two, we should maximise the national return on that investment. Included in that national return are some of the young apprentices, like the metalworkers that I met this morning. We want to ensure that the next generation of Australian tradies are going to work on these machines to defend our national interests and defend our sovereignty, and that those young men and women have that work into the future. Labor is committed to ensuring that occurs and to having that built in. The public needs to have confidence that these vast sums of money are being spent wisely in the national interest, that there are jobs for our kids into the future, and that Australian industry is part of the set-up and part of the maintenance of these national security capabilities.
When it comes to future submarines, what we have learnt in recent weeks is that the government hid cost blowouts for years. Not being up-front at all and not being honest at all with the Australian public about how their money is being spent is not an option. We hear the Prime Minister in question time after question time talk about how it's the Australian people's money and that we are forming legislation around the use of that money. We need to ensure that all governments are being up-front and honest about how money is being spent and what capabilities our taxpayer funds are being put to, and, if there's a problem, they need to be up-front about it. We're not seeing that. Hiding massive cost increases from taxpayers is unacceptable. Labor wants to see the future submarine program succeed as it will benefit us all, particularly in these challenging times. But the coalition government is a government that likes to make much of its national security credentials, yet, on every measure since coming to office, has failed to live up to its own hype. This government has failed and continues to fail this country when it comes to national security. We must deliver this critical capability on time, on budget and built in Australia. It's central to our national interests, for our capability, for our industry development, for jobs and for our kids into the future. Across the board, we need to get acquisitions right from the get-go, breaking the cycle of constantly retrofitting capabilities at great financial and strategic cost to Australians. We simply can no longer afford to deliver capabilities decades late and for the wrong war.
I was fortunate enough last year to go on an ADF parliamentary program to Western Australia and spent two days under the Indian Ocean on HMAS Sheean. HMAS Sheean, a Collins class submarine, was obviously named after Teddy Sheean VC. How great is it that we can say 'Teddy Sheean VC'. I congratulate the Sheean family and everyone else who was involved in the effort to get that remarkable Australian awarded. The Navy, because they had never had one of their own receive appropriate recognition, call their submarines after their heroes, and one of those was obviously Teddy Sheean. To the captain and crew of HMAS Sheean, thank you very much for your service to our nation. They were incredibly professional. It was great to see a small part of what that capability does for us right now. Collins class submarines are providing a level of deterrence for us right now. They are making sure that our sovereignty is defended and that our interests are defended. This submarine capability is an incredibly important part of defending our sovereignty, but, under the current coalition government, those Collins class submarines will need to continue operating as they are for decades. I don't want to overstate the point, but it's a pretty important point: the coalition government is mismanaging the Future Submarine project that will take over from the Collins class submarines. Australian industry content and jobs for our young people into the future must all be taken into account and they must fix the Future Submarine project. It is of critical importance to our nation.
I rise to talk to the tabled Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into the major projects report, which I had the privilege of serving on the committee for the duration of. The government likes to talk about their commitment. In fact, they brag about it. Normally, at the end of question time they throw a bone to the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, and they let him talk for defence for three minutes as a way of reminding suppose he's supposedly still relevant. His entire dixer can be reduced to one sentence: 'We're going to spend more than two per cent of GDP on defence; therefore, we're strong on defence.' That is literally the entire dixer. 'We're spending two per cent of GDP on defence; therefore, you can trust us on defence.' They hold up this two per cent commitment as a some sort of magical talisman to hide the fact that their performance on defence is woeful.
It has always been woeful. They have a history of hopeless performance on defence, from Prime Minister Menzies advocating for appeasement 10 days after Hitler invaded Poland—not a couple of years beforehand; 10 days after Hitler invaded Poland, Menzies was advocating for appeasement. Or there is the fact that they took us into Vietnam based on a lie—a lie that cost 500 Australians their lives. Or there is the fact that they took us into the second Iraq war based on another lie. The coalition cannot be trusted on defence. I'm sad to say that this report goes to this as well, because this report is all about the failures of this government to manage the defence acquisition portfolio.
They talk about spending, but the fact is that since 2016 this government has spent $6.7 billion less than they promised they would on the acquisition of new defence capital. Let me repeat that: the defence capital budget has been underspent by $6.7 billion since 2016 under this government. They literally cannot spend the money effectively or appropriately. That means that our troops, the ADF, are not getting the equipment they've been promised—in fact, the equipment they've been budgeted for. What's the inverse of this? It means we're running our existing equipment longer and harder than we need to or that we planned to. We've seen a $4.2 billion blowout in the defence sustainment budget during the same period.
At the time as we're spending an extra $4.2 billion more than we're budgeted for, we're actually getting significant underperformance in the availability of our platforms. For example, Naval fleet vessels are available for 14 per cent fewer days than are planned for, RAAF aircraft are available for 21 per cent fewer hours than budgeted for and helicopters across the entire ADF are available for 26 per cent fewer hours than budgeted for. So this government has managed the quinella: they're spending $4.2 billion more on sustainment, but they're delivering a lot less availability than our ADF needs.
When you come to individual acquisition projects that they canvassed in the major projects report, the quarterly performance review and every other effective oversight that this parliament has, this government's performance is woeful. On submarines, for example, we've got a $39.7 billion blowout in the cost of the submarines. Then Prime Minister Abbott—we've had a couple since him—got up in the middle of 2015 and committed to 12 new regionally superior submarines for an out-turn cost of $50 billion in then dollars of expenditure, not constant dollars. Now what is the cost of those 12 regionally superior submarines? It is $89.7 billion, a blowout of $39.7 billion.
And what about the timing of this? Prime Minister Abbott said that these submarines will be available in the mid-2020s. They're now at best going to begin to be available in the mid-2030s. So there is a $37.9 billion blowout and a 10-year blowout in the schedule. The flow-on from this is that now, as the member for Solomon so eloquently talked about, we're going to have to extend the life of the Collins class submarines. They are great submarines, but we're running them for a lot longer than we planned. Therefore, this government is now planning a life-of-type extension for those submarines, and that will cost at least $3½ billion.
What's the second largest defence acquisition this government is managing? It is the future frigates, the Hunter class. They're in in their early stages, but we've already seen a $15 billion blowout in them. They were promised to be acquired for $30 billion. Now they have slipped in a price update to $45 billion, increasing in the cost of these submarines by $15 billion, 50 per cent of the project cost, and they've haven't even begun cutting steel yet. This is all in the design phase. We're seeing major problems with that. We're seeing challenges around weight issues, the fact that these frigates are blowing out in their weight, which will affect their performance and cost.
What's another large project this government has mismanaged? The air warfare destroyers, which were delivered 40 months late. The project was supposed to be reasonably off the shelf. They chose the Navantia F100 model, compared to a cut-down Arleigh Burke, because it was off the shelf: We were going to copy what the Spanish had done. They still managed to deliver it 40 months late, and they've delivered it with final operational capability without a key capability. They've delivered and declared full service but the AWDs won't have radar or electronic attack, which is a key capability that the navy needs.
I have a range of favourites, but my particular favourite is the C27 Spartans, the battlefield aircraft that replaced the mighty Caribou. This is a $1.5 billion project which, as we found out through these hearings, can't fly into battlefields. Let me repeat that. We're spending $1.5 billion on a battlefield airlift aircraft that cannot be flown into battlefields. One would submit that that's a tiny problem. They're being delivered without this key capability, at least three years late.
This is a government that is hopeless on defence. The Joint Strike Fighter is another case where the government slipped in—through these hearings we established the truth—they tried to hide a $1½ billion cost blowout. Through these hearings the committee established that we are spending $16½ billion on these aircraft, but we're only getting $15 billion worth of capability, because two critical capabilities, maritime strike and beyond-line-of-sight communications, aren't there properly. They're just not there. We sign up to a contract that says you're going to get all these capabilities for $16½ billion, but now we're only going to get $15 billion worth of aircraft.
Some of these are clearly contenders for poster child, but the poster child for defence mismanagement under this government has to be helicopters. They can't find a helicopter they can't stuff up. There is a huge litany. The classic one is the Seasprite helicopter, where this government's predecessor, the Howard government, tried to—
Can I clarify if the member wants to continue his comments after divisions?
No.
The debate needs to be adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 16:42
The Morrison government is committed to supporting older Australians to maintain their independence at home to the maximum possible extent. This is something that senior Australians tell us they want, and we are delivering. This bill is yet another important step towards the delivery of improved home care and the aged-care system more broadly now and into the future.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the administration arrangements of paying home-care subsidies to approved providers. It does so through two key reforms. First the bill will require approved providers to report to the Commonwealth as to the cost of care and services provided to home-care recipients each month. Under existing arrangements, approved providers only have to provide a monthly statement to their home-care recipients that show recipients' available funds, how they are being spent and the amount of the unspent funds. This change will ensure improved financial accountability and allow for better transparency over the use of funds for home care.
Second, the bill will require that the Commonwealth retain on behalf of recipients subsidies that may be in excess of services provided, which can be drawn upon in the future. Currently, approved providers hold and manage accumulated unspent funds, including Commonwealth subsidies. This is quite at odds with many other grant schemes and subsidy schemes. The most recent data suggests that the current pool of funds is around an enormous $750 million of taxpayers' funds. Some providers treat these unspent funds as part of their working capital, when they should in fact be recognised as a liability for unspent and undelivered services. This bill will simply correct that. These measures bring contemporary business practices into home-care subsidy arrangements and align them with other government programs. It's what the taxpayer expects. This bill, importantly, will not affect the eligibility of consumers or the amount of home-care subsidy payable for eligible home-care recipients. This bill builds on the first stage of reforms which change home-care subsidies from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears.
Now, who do these reforms benefit? They benefit our beloved mums and dads, grandpas and grandmas, uncles and aunts wishing to enjoy their twilight years at home. We know that most Australians want to remain in their homes for as long as possible, and the Morrison government supports this choice. As we look to the future, we know that Australia's population is ageing rapidly, and people prefer to stay home longer. This does put pressure on our home-care package system. If there is suboptimal in-home care, this can then accelerate the progression of people moving to the next stage of life, which includes more supportive care in a residential setting. It makes great preventive healthcare sense to support people in their homes. We know from the evidence that this is the best case—for people to stay as long as possible. It keeps them connected to their communities, it keeps them active in their minds and it keeps them comfortable in their homes. In-home care keeps people fitter and better connected to their family, and it's more cost-effective to the taxpayer than residential care.
What's also very exciting about this sector is the ability to embrace new technological advances in home monitoring, and those are coming online very rapidly and making a big difference to the way that we care for people in home. My father developed Alzheimer's in his twilight years, and we kept him at home as long as possible with the support of home-care packages, but, as he grew more and more frail, he then needed to move into a residential care setting.
Since the 2018-19 budget, the government has invested $4.6 billion for an additional 73,105 home-care packages. Home-care packages are estimated to increase from 60,000 in 2012-13, when we first came to government, to 185,000 during 2020-21. This is a threefold increase. It's very welcome. The 2020-21 budget includes the delivery of an additional 23,000 home-care packages, at a cost of $1.6 billion, in addition to the 6,000 packages announced in July at a cost of $325 million. This bill is an important step towards helping improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the home-care system and it will enable taxpayers' money to be better spent now and into the future.
I would also like to take the opportunity to talk about the fact that, as the residential aged-care population are ageing even more rapidly than the general population, there is an increased clinical need in that residential aspect of care, and that is actually because the home-care packages the Morrison government is delivering are keeping people home longer and in a more supported environment as a result. Therefore, we need to make sure that we prepare the workforce of the aged-care sector for the future. We need to incentivise clinical leadership through appropriate remuneration packages to ensure that sector leadership is both sufficient and of excellence. We need to make sure that we increase the opportunity for people to take workplace training in regard to aged care, because we know that the aged-care bubble of the baby boomers, as they reach the over-80 age category, is now coming at us at speed.
COVID has also demonstrated the tension between federal aged-care services and state healthcare services. Those facilities that did well provided better in-reach health care, which was provided by local hospitals and GPs. Therefore, I believe that coordination across state and federal jurisdictions is required as we increase the acuity of care in the aged-care sector, and this will help to relieve the state governments' healthcare costs in that sector. But this needs to be achieved without cost-shifting between state and federal governments.
We also need to make sure that standards in aged care are healthcare focused and not just about consumer experience. I'd like to see improving standards with regard to the aged-care sector, to ensure that both consumers' aged care and the health needs of the sector are looked at across home and residential and subacute residential care.
The Morrison government has delivered and will continue to deliver on aged care, now and into the future. It's too important not to care about. We know that older Australians have worked their entire lives to build this great country. This bill will form a part of a suite of aged-care reforms which aim to provide a contemporary, efficient, effective and stable care system for the aged, which they need and deserve. I welcome this bill and look forward to working hard in this place to ensure that the vitality and effectiveness of the aged-care sector more broadly continues now and into the future. I commend this bill to the House.
It's a pleasure to speak on the amendments moved by the member for Franklin. I want to state a couple of important facts before I get into the gist of the amendment, the first being that this bill was brought into the chamber in February this year—that's before COVID—and seems to have gathered dust for months and months and months. I note in the member for Toorak's contribution she did not reference the royal commission into aged care—which has enormous relevance to this bill—but the 'suite of bills' that will be coming, according to the member for Toorak. Everyone in this place knows that the interim report of the royal commission into aged care in this country has the title Neglect. That pretty much sums up the findings of the interim report into aged care.
Order! A point of order?
On a point of order: I believe that the member might have mistakenly called the member for Higgins something other than the member for Higgins, so I would ask her to correct that.
I remind the member for Lalor to refer to other members by their proper titles.
Given that the member for Lalor often has to correct people on how to pronounce the name of her own seat, she won't take offence. She will take the point of order, but she will say again that the member of Higgins, who spoke before me on this piece of legislation, failed to reference, even once, the royal commission into aged care or its interim report titled Neglect, and nor did she mention this government's failure to act on any recommendations from that interim report.
The home care package situation is absolutely critical. It's more critical now than it has been because, of course, we've had the pandemic and the enormous frustrations for all in the Victorian community around the residential aged-care system funded by the federal government and regulated by the federal government. And when you compare the federally funded and regulated aged-care sector in Victoria with the state based sector, you can see an absolutely glaring failure in a system—an absolute failure—where we had rampant infection rates. In my electorate, we have six residential aged-care facilities, and four of those aged-care facilities had COVID-19 infections. They weren't all catastrophic; one of the facilities that had infections managed to minimise it fairly quickly, got a very good plan in place and stopped the infections. But, overall, in my electorate there were 472 confirmed cases attached to aged care. There were 220 staff and 188 residents impacted. Of those 188 residents, there were 67 deaths. So I relish the opportunity to speak here on behalf of those families on this piece of legislation to remind those opposite that they have an enormous amount of work to do. I remind them that this suite of policies needs to address both residential aged care and home care packages—where 100,000 Australians are waiting, and where our elderly residents, when given a home care package, are often not given the level of care that they require.
I can speak with some recent experience in this space as someone who has an elderly mother who manages to live independently, and who broke her neck of femur in the middle of the pandemic crisis and spent some time in our public hospital sector. I take the time to thank two public hospitals, the Footscray Hospital and the Werribee Mercy Hospital, for the care that she received in both places under extraordinary circumstances, in a community with high transmission levels. But the point I want to make is that we have an aged-care sector now with lots of reputational damage and there is a lot of fear in the community, and not just from the elderly. My siblings and I—and there are eight of us, seven surviving—are all concerned about what those next steps are. We've got our mum home. She doesn't have a home-care package. She's one of the 100,000 Australians waiting for a home-care package. She does have a new bathroom, which we got fitted while she was in hospital. But our fear about her going into residential aged care is now acute, as is the fear across the community, particularly my community.
There's an enormous amount of work to be done here, and bringing in a piece of legislation that just tweaks a payment process for home-care-package providers is almost an insult to this parliament. It is almost an insult, after the year we've had, the figures we've seen, the numbers we know and the lives that have been damaged—the lives that have literally been limited because of an aged-care system that lacks resilience and because of a government that is ignoring an interim report from its own royal commission. It's ignoring the recommendation that every aged-care facility in this country should have an infection control specialist, after our local experience, where we had aged-care facilities without PPE on the ground to stop those infections and where we saw a facility with a 5½-week infection period. I can't put it more plainly than that. That is an absolute failure of the system. And I know that in Victoria, in my community, people are still anxious. We don't believe—rightly—that we're ready in case there's another outbreak in the other aged-care centres in my community, and that's a failure of this government.
We're here talking about a piece of legislation, brought in in February this year, which does some tweaking to the home-care-package payment system, and this government has failed to do the things the royal commission recommended it do, including transparency around the funding for home-care packages and residential aged care. It has failed to do the things that would lift the community's belief and faith in this sector, which is absolutely critical. We cannot afford for this system not to work; that's the bottom line. We can't afford a failure.
This government has a lot of work to do, and I suggest the members opposite who are going to speak on this bill today make sure they reference the things that they know the royal commission has asked them to take on board. I'm hoping that what I'm going to hear from the contributions of those opposite is a plan to fix the system in both home care and residential care.
Before I speak directly to the amendments in this bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020, I'll first frame some of the context. The Morrison government is steadfastly committed to valuing and supporting ageing Australians, and that is why we're continuously improving our aged-care system. Demonstrating this commitment, we are delivering record investment across the aged-care system. This has grown from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under Labor to $23.9 billion in 2021 under the Morrison government. It's estimated that funding for aged care will grow to more than $27 billion by 2023-24.
Senior Australians are increasingly choosing to remain in their own homes for longer, and the government is committed to supporting this choice. Since the 2018-19 budget, the government has invested $4.6 billion for an additional 73,105 home-care packages. Home-care packages are estimated to increase from 60,308 in 2012-13, when we came to government, to 185,597, to be precise, in 2020-21. Under this government there was an increase of 38 per cent in a single year in the number of people receiving a home-care package between 31 March 2019 and 31 March 2020.
The government is introducing this bill to improve the way home-care subsidies are paid to providers for care recipients. These changes respond to stakeholder concerns about the rising level of unspent home-care funds, and they also align payment arrangements with other key government programs such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, NDIS. This bill is the second of two bills changing payment arrangements for approved home-care providers. The first bill changes the payment of home-care subsidy from being paid in advance to being in arrears.
This bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that approved home-care providers will only be paid subsidy for care and services rendered to a home-care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the Commonwealth portion of unspent funds for which a home-care recipient is eligible to receive. Services Australia will hold the unspent subsidy until such time as it is drawn down by providers on behalf of the home-care recipient. These changes have been consulted upon with home-care providers and peak bodies by the Department of Health and the Aged Care Financing Authority, ACFA. In 2019, ACFA completed a project assessing the financial impacts of these changes on home-care providers. The government is also making a minor and technical parliamentary amendment to this bill to correct a drafting error in the calculation of the amount of subsidy payable.
By introducing this bill now we will enable the sector sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their payment systems. ACFA's assessment is that the vast majority of providers would be able to accommodate the cash flow impact of the change in payment arrangements due to either unspent funds on hand or access to capital. Financial support for some providers will be available during the transition, taking into account any subsequent impact of COVID-19. Home-care providers are also able to apply the government's free business advisory service for advice on managing their finances.
Let us now reflect on Labor's approach to aged care. Labor is missing in action when it comes to supporting the aged-care sector and the needs of vulnerable and senior Australians. It went to the last election promising $387 billion in new taxes, and not a single additional dollar for home care, aged-care quality or workforce, or mainstream residential care. The opposition leader's budget response offered no commitment to fund home-care, no support for staff and nothing for quality and safety. The opposition leader didn't even mention home care in his recent budget reply speech.
By comparison, the Morrison government's 2020-21 budget includes 23,000 additional home-care packages, at a cost of $1.6 billion, in addition to the 6,105 packages announced in July, at a cost of $325 million; more than $746 million in aged care COVID-19 response measures as part of $1.6 billion in COVID-19 specific support in aged care; and $408½ million for aged-care reform initiatives to improve the quality of care, further respond to the urgent issues raised by the royal commission into aged-care quality and safety and lay the foundations for future reform. Labor's only strength has been its ability to deliver spin, whilst the Morrison government continues to make the quality care of senior Australians an absolute priority.
It's disappointing that the debate we're having here about home care and in-home care is not about substantive reform; it's about tweaks of administrative things around the edges. Now, we won't be voting against that; we can see the merit in the measures that are being put forward. They are sensible when you consider that there was something like a billion dollars of unspent home-care funds sitting in different providers' accounts as of 30 June 2020—and possibly more, given some consumers might not have been able to use their funds during COVID. This is a sensible thing to look at, and we haven't opposed it, but I think the disappointment is that this isn't more substantive reform, particularly when the royal commission, more than a year ago, raised issues around home care and the sorts of reforms that we need.
It's all very well to rattle off numbers—we've had this many extra home-care places—but the reality in communities like mine in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury is that there are people waiting for someone to die or go into aged care so that they can access a package, because this is not a demand driven system. It's a system with a certain number of packages at certain levels, and you have to wait for one to become available. In the last two years there have consistently been more than 100,000 people—sometimes more, never less—waiting for their turn to come up. That is not a system about which you can say, 'She'll be right,' because it's not right, and it's causing pain at times.
I've heard members on the other side talk about how important it is to support people in their homes. You can keep them healthier for longer in their homes than you perhaps can in other ways. It's not good enough to say, 'Yes, you'll get one, but you have to wait.' These are the sorts of realities that people are facing, and just hearing members say, 'Oh, we've done lots', is not making a difference. There are more than 100,000 people. Right now, it's 102,000 people. They're the figures we have from the last quarter. We're still waiting for the September quarter figures to come out. Funnily enough, we haven't seen those yet. Consistently, this government has delayed the release of figures that tell us exactly what that number is, and that is a disgrace.
The people waiting for home-care packages are those who want to retain their independence, and they deserve that. They want to be able to have just enough care to be in their own home. I met with a wonderful woman, Joyce, the other day. She does have a home-care package. That gives her access to some gardening that supports her. She wants to knows that, as she gets older, the extra support she'll need is going to be there. I'm sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace, you would also wish that for family members of your constituents. I certainly wish that for mine.
I'm disappointed at the end of this year. I know we've had COVID, but COVID is not an excuse for not acting on a whole lot of things. There has been more than a year of waiting to get a response to the interim report of the royal commission, and we hear suggestions of a suite of packages, which one of the members opposite foreshadowed. Well, let's see it. Show us what's going to come, because right now people don't have a lot of hope that what's going to come is going to do the job.
I think it's particularly pertinent to remind people that, over the past three years, more than 30,000 elderly Australians have died waiting for a home-care package. They've died waiting for help in their home. It just isn't good enough. Over the past two years, more than 32,000 older Australians have entered aged care earlier than they would have hoped because they weren't able to access a home-care package. We all know that providing in-home care is a much more economic premise than is putting people in the position of having no choice but to enter residential care.
Work has been done in relation to this bill, Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020, by aged-care accountants StewartBrown. They have looked at how much of the current system is unspent. That's where the billion dollars comes from. They also looked at the average unspent funds per client. They put that at approximately $7,000. Now, these are people who are experts in in-home aged care and aged-care accounting. It's one of the rationales for this bill going ahead and our support for it.
Those same accountants also found that the recipients of home-care packages across Australia are getting, on average, fewer than 10 hours of care each 14 days. That's data from the 2018-19 financial year—data which they presented to the royal commission. Of that time, those 10 hours across 14 days, they found that 6.6 minutes of care was provided by registered nurses in in-home care; 1.8 minutes of care was provided by enrolled or other licensed nurses; and more than seven minutes of care per fortnight was provided by allied health professionals. Even health department First Assistant Secretary Dr Nicholas Hartland said that he found those results unexpected. It is not what anyone should have expected.
So, while we will support this bill going through, we need to see much more change before any of us in this place can have confidence that in-home care packages are available to people who need them when they need them, and that they get a level of care that they require under those packages.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020. This bill changes the way that home-care providers are paid for the care and services delivered to a home-care recipient. Labor has a significant number of concerns about this bill—namely, that there may be increased financial risks for some smaller service providers and those in regional and remote areas who don't have adequate cash flows to deal with the payment changes and who are unable to hold unspent funds, which is something that other speakers have touched on—I know that's a concern, particularly for a couple of people in the Liberal Party, so I appreciate their contribution; that services providers who are currently losing money will face significant difficulties changing over to an arrears payment type arrangement; that some service providers may be reluctant to take on new consumers during the transition to the new arrangements; and that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety has not yet handed down its final report, which is due in February next year, and that report may flag some further reform for the home-care payment system.
The Morrison government needs to take urgent action in relation to home-care packages, but changing the funding arrangements is not what would have been my first priority. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety delivered its interim report more than a year ago. I don't imagine that all Australians would have read the report but they would remember that it was called one word and that that one word was Neglect. That interim report identified three areas where immediate action could have been taken. The first of those areas was to provide more home-care packages to reduce the waiting list for higher-level care at home—a recommendation handed down to Prime Minister Morrison over one year ago. Surely that should have been the first priority for this government.
The Morrison government has had 405 days since that report, Neglect, was handed down to make some changes—making some fixes. For some of that time, the Prime Minister was in Hawaii working on his sun tan, but this crucial issue still hasn't been fixed. Over the past three years, more than 30,000 older Australians have actually died while waiting for their approved home-care package, and many then received notices saying that they'd moved up in the queue—moved up in the queue after their friends and family had actually signed their memorial books. As at 30 June this year, 2020, there were 142,436 older people in receipt of a home-care package. That's good news for them. It's great news for those 142,000 people, but there are still 102,000 older Australians on the waiting list for home-care packages. That's like everyone in the city of Toowoomba waiting for a home-care package. Anyone can see that this is completely opposite.
Those opposite keep saying—I have listened to some of their contributions—that the Morrison government is committing record spending, and they keep talking about record numbers. Well, newsflash to the people of Australia: there is a record number of senior Australians. They're called 'baby boomers' because there was a boom in babies after World War II and the Depression. We've known this was coming for about 70 years. There are more elderly Australians. Those in the government keep saying: 'Wow! We're giving more money!' Newsflash: of course you should; you're just doing your day job. Don't give yourselves a pat on the back for doing what the Australian Bureau of Statistics has said you should've been doing for the last 50, 60 or 70 years.
The royal commission interim report, as I said, was called Neglect. It explained in detail the difficult journey that older Australians make as their needs change. They need more help around the home and more help with doing the grocery shopping and getting to medical appointments, and eventually they will need help even in personal care, in things such as showering and caring for wounds, toileting and taking medications.
I've got a father in his 80s, Brian Perrett. He is in this position. He lives a long way from me, in the member for Maranoa's electorate. But with just that little bit of help, he has been able to stay in his home. Between family and some professional carers, he's been able to stay in his home, with all the dignity that comes with that, so that he can spend his time in his shed, making more wooden gifts for his children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, which I'm sure we'll all appreciate, Dad, come Christmas. Merry Christmas to you, and to all the carers who make it possible for you to stay in your house.
But, when it comes to negotiating a way through the aged-care system, it can be confronting and often very frightening for older Australians. Older Australians who want to stay in their home—and that's completely understandable and commendable—will need to access My Aged Care, on the web page or the phone system, and undergo a face-to-face assessment to determine care needs and to receive a home-care package. Having negotiated this with my father, I have some familiarity with the process that people go through. It is complicated, and it's easy to see how this process for older Australians, who are already frightened, just gets a whole lot worse when they are then faced with long waiting times.
The royal commission heard from those older Australians who are on the waiting list about how they felt, and this is what one of them said:
We are kept in the dark and given false hope. There are many unanswered questions about how the system works. Is the government hoping it all gets too hard and that we drop out of the 'queue'?
Even if that's not the plan, the reality is that 30,000 of those on the waiting list died before receiving their package—a package that they were owed, that their taxes paid for. Some of the carers shared their experience of waiting for home-care packages for their loved ones. One carer said:
Due to me not being able to lift her we had problems, I remember sitting on the bathroom floor with her for hours waiting for an ambulance to come, I have never felt so helpless.
Another said:
My mother is suffering with dementia, she requires 24 hour care and is very fearful of being left on her own for even 5 minutes. She will wander, scream, cry and become overwhelmed easily and suffers from delusions and severe anxiety.
This is distressing reading. For those who have looked at the report entitled Neglect, it is depressing reading.
I'm actually going to recommend another piece of reading for those contemplating aged care who don't want to read the report. It's an article by Sarah Holland-Batt called 'Magical thinking and the aged-care crisis', and it's in Griffith Review No. 68, titled Getting On. It's one of the most gripping bits of reading that I've ever read, and I've got an honours degree in literature. It is incredible writing, and it makes you think about what we're doing as a nation. So a big shout out to the editor, Ashley Hay, and the associate publisher, Jane O'Hara. Keep up that good work.
But for those older Australians who've been approved for a home-care package and are stuck on the waiting list, and for their carers, this is their life, day in and day out. There is no end in sight for them and no help forthcoming, until they reach the top of that very, very, very long queue, of 102,000 people. Just picture how many blocks that queue would stretch for, if all these people were lined up at a My Aged Care office—if one existed. Under the Liberal government, the waitlist for home care has grown from 88,000 to 102,000 older Australians—not something that those opposite mention. This distressing number underscores the failure of the Morrison government's response to this ongoing crisis in aged care. Labor has been calling for action on reducing the wait lists for home-care packages since the first release of data revealed too many older Australians were waiting for care. Aged-care reforms were meant to give older Australians more choice about where they live as they age. Instead, the Liberals' policy chaos has completely failed to care for our older Australians.
The Productivity Commission released in January the median wait time for a home-care package. It has blown out in the last year by more than two months. Many older Australians are waiting for more than 12 months for the package that they've been approved for, and some are waiting for more than two years. Some older Australians are entering residential aged care or even emergency departments instead of receiving their approved home-care package. The aged-care system is broken and, as the royal commission has noted, it suffers from neglect—and that was the title they gave to their interim report: Neglect.
The Liberals have almost been asleep at the wheel for seven years, now in their eighth year. In his first budget as Treasurer, Treasurer Scott Morrison ripped $1.2 billion from aged care. There have been four ministers and the aged-care system has lurched from one crisis to another. It is shameful that, in a relatively wealthy country like Australia, older people can't get the care they need when they need it. The royal commission said it believes that significant additional funding is needed immediately—as I said, 400-plus days ago—and in the future to increase access to home-care packages. The royal commission said that more than a year ago, and yet we still have 102,000 people on the wait list. There's just one word—neglect—that covers what the government is doing. The word 'neglect' should be hung, in shame, around the neck of Prime Minister Scott Morrison like a dead albatross.
We are almost at the end of a royal commission into aged care in Australia. It has been talked about a lot in this parliament and I have no doubt that it will continue to be talked about a lot in this parliament. Citizens, aged-care providers, academic experts, medical experts—a whole gamut of people—gave evidence to the royal commission, and commissioners examined what should be a system that we are proud of. We should be looking after the people we value—they have lived lives that have contributed to the quality of the lives that we're all living now—with love and care. Before turning to why such a royal commission would have an interim report entitled Neglect, we should all pause and ask ourselves: how did we get to a position in Australia where we needed to have a royal commission into aged care? What does that reflect on us as a society and a community? What does it reflect about the priorities that we have shown as communities, people and governments? Sadly, and to our shame, it reflects very little that is good.
The fact that we have a royal commission reflects positively on the people who pushed for it over and over again and didn't want to see others suffer the way their parents, their loved ones, their husbands or their wives had suffered in aged care, and, disturbingly, their children sometimes had suffered in aged care, because we've seen the number of young people with disability in aged care. It's a good thing that we have a royal commission and that we are coming to the end of it, and it's a very good thing that, in the finest tradition of our democratic system, our aged-care commissioners have been and continue to be fine, upstanding and diligent individuals who are taking their responsibilities incredibly seriously. It is now the responsibility and the privilege of those of us elected to be in this parliament to make sure that the work of that royal commission is implemented and make sure that the effort that people have put in to make submissions and contribute to that royal commission is honoured. It's the right and the privilege of all of us, but it's particularly the responsibility of the current government.
As many people speaking before me have said, this legislation today, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020, brings in some reforms that we are all hoping will assist in the home-care system. But it is fair to say that it's a small change. As the member for Moreton said when he spoke before me, whilst it's a good change and we hope it will free up some money that is being held that should be going into home-care packages, it is arguably not the most urgent reform out of all of the reforms needed. When we have royal commissioners who, a year ago, handed down a report that described our aged-care system as a shocking tale of neglect, a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation, it should be the case that any recommendations made by that commission are implemented immediately. It's perhaps intellectually correct to say we'll wait for a final report, but it's not the correct thing to do morally when we know and have evidence that it's a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation.
I have no doubt that every other member of this parliament has constituents that have contacted them and has had the experiences that I've had of speaking to families in utter distress, particularly during this year of COVID in 2020, about the experience of their parents in particular, and their grandparents, in aged care. Every single member of this parliament who represents an electorate in Victoria has had the added experience of constituents beside themselves with fear and then with grief about COVID-19 going through the aged-care system and, tragically, taking the lives of people before they were ready. They may have been elderly and they may have been sick, but they weren't ready to go, and their families weren't ready for them to go and certainly weren't ready to lose their loved ones without being able to give them a final hug or touch their hand. It is a shocking tale of neglect that our aged-care system, which is the responsibility of the federal government, wasn't properly prepared to deal with the pandemic. We can never let that happen again. Once is horrific. If it ever happens again, it will be a sad and shocking occurrence that diminishes all of us in this place and, in particular, those who are currently charged with the responsibility of not just funding but regulating the aged-care system.
Is it any surprise then that a growing number of Australians want to age in their home or age in place, and that a growing number of Australians don't want their parents ageing in a residential facility? That is not intended to be any sort of criticism of the amazing people who work in aged-care facilities: the registered nurses, the aged-care workers and the people who work in administration. They are some of the most amazing people, who do a job that is often as much about love as pay, because we know they are overworked and underpaid.
We also know that people who work in aged care in homes are amazing people. Between the ages of about 60 and 72, my mother-in-law was an aged-care worker who cared for people in their homes. She used to describe the women she cared for as her 'old ladies', which always filled us with a little bit of laughter, of course, because Betty wasn't a spring chicken. She would tell me stories about what it took to care for people in their homes, particularly people who were suffering from dementia. A number of the women that my mother-in-law cared for were Holocaust survivors and had been in Auschwitz, and had dementia, and they would often be reliving something that no-one should live once, let alone twice. I don't know how my mother-in-law did that job. I'm so pleased that she did. I want to honour right now everyone that does that job of caring for people in their homes.
But we know that not enough people are able to get the help they need to be cared for in their homes, because of the huge list of people—102,000—waiting for home-care packages. Over three years, 30,000 older Australians have died waiting for their approved home-care packages. Over two years, more than 32,000 older Australians have entered residential aged care prematurely. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and members of the government like to talk about the number of aged-care packages that have been funded—and they have funded more packages; there were 23,000 packages in the October budget—but the sad reality is that that number doesn't touch the sides. When one of the draft recommendations of counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was to clear out the waiting list for home-care packages and do so by the end of next year, we know it's an urgent priority. So more has to be done and it has to be done now.
If we can't spend the money to do that now—in the global pandemic, with the amount of money that's being spent on various things—then it's hard to know when we could spend the money to make sure that older Australians are able to die at home, having lived their final years in comfort and dignity. We also know that being able to age at home increases your life, is good for you and is good for your family. We need to facilitate more of that. I join others in calling on the federal government to do more, because there are still over 100,000 people waiting.
In conclusion, I want to briefly talk about what is happening in my community. This is incredibly exciting and it is a tribute to some amazing medical practitioners and academics at Peninsula Health and Monash University. This is supported by this federal government; it was supported by me as the candidate and by federal Labor. Had Labor won the election, we would also be putting in the funding that the federal government is to support these projects. When parliament finishes this week, I'm looking forward to being within the next week and a half at Frankston Hospital with the current Minister for Health for a sod-turning for one of the three projects which I want to talk about briefly. These projects are happening in my electorate of Dunkley, based in Frankston, but they are going to benefit the wider bayside and peninsula area as well as the whole country and, we believe, probably the world.
One of the reasons why Peninsula Health and Monash University, which are located very close to each other in Frankston, have joined forces to do some world-breaking research into healthy ageing, mental health and addiction is that, sadly, in some regards we are a community where addiction, mental health, and healthy ageing or not-so-healthy ageing are significant issues. About 32 per cent of our population are aged over 60, compared to Greater Melbourne's average of about 19 per cent. The first project I want to talk about is what was initially going to be called a health futures hub but is now going to be called a Centre for Healthy Ageing. Again, it is a collaboration between Peninsula Health and Monash University, which the health minister has been active in supporting. As I said, I was very proud as a candidate and now as the member for Dunkley to support it.
The centre is going to focus on: designing and delivering new and better integrated models of care for vulnerable people; improving outcomes in aged care; helping people have greater independence so that they can live at home for longer and avoid unnecessary hospitalisations; and looking at how we can help older people to age in their own environments, to live well at home and to live well in residential aged care—for example, how we can help people better recover and rehabilitate from falls or not have falls in the first place. There are going to be living labs. There are going to be academic researchers. There's going to be practical, hands-on work by practitioners to develop models that can be scaled up and rolled out across Australia. It has been my pleasure to have worked with Professor Christina Mitchell, the Academic Vice-President and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University, and Felicity Topp, the CEO of Peninsula Health, as they put together this model. This is a great example of institutions collaborating and then going to government to ask for support and absolutely bowling over everyone to whom they present their project.
The second thing that we are very much looking to forward—and I'll be attending the sod-turning with the minister very soon—is the academic centre at Frankston Hospital, which is also going to be a brand-new hospital thanks to half-a-billion dollars from the state government. The academic centre is a collaborative project between Monash University and Peninsula Health that will train medical practitioners and will improve study and teaching. There'll be a sod-turning soon. It is going to be a terrific addition to the health and education hub that all of us in Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula region believe my electorate of Dunkley and Frankston can be.
The third project happening with Peninsula Health that is absolutely going a long way to help people age well in their homes is called MEPACS. It is an alert system which is now both on iPad and a digital alarm with a connection to a call centre in Carrum Downs. Older people, if they don't answer the phone in the morning, will get a call from MEPACS. If they fall and have a problem, they can press the button and they will get a call from MEPACS. It is an amazing service, which Peninsula Health has promoted across the country, and it is staffed by amazing people. We need to do more to help people age better in their homes, and I very much look forward to being part of my community's and the broader national effort to do so.
In its interim report, the royal commission into aged care made a specific recommendation to government that it urgently put more home-care packages into the system to address the intolerable waiting list. Put bluntly, the royal commission described the system as cruel, unfair and discriminatory. This urgent call to action was made 405 days ago, and still we have more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for home-care packages. Some, tragically, have passed away before they've received this much-needed support.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 not for what it is but for what it is not. While Labor will be supporting the moving of this amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee, this legislation does not help all those older Australians waiting for home-care packages, nor does it fix the systemic problems underlying our broken aged-care system. After seven years of coalition mismanagement and neglect, problems remain, and they will continue to remain, despite this legislation.
Under this bill, home-care providers will be paid a subsidy for the care and services delivered to a home-care recipient during only a one-month period. This means the government will retain the unspent funds. It should be noted in this House that withholding funds as proposed has the potential to financially stretch service providers. This is especially true for smaller service providers, who are less likely to be holding unspent funds. Regional areas, such as those in my area of Corangamite, are more likely to be covered by smaller providers, so this piece of legislation should be sent to the committee to ensure that we are not disadvantaging older people living outside of large, urban areas.
This draft legislation is more noteworthy for what it excludes than for what it includes. It is no secret that the aged-care sector is failing under this government. The amendment before the House does not implement the wholesale reform needed to protect the safety and dignity of older Australians. The neglect of the sector by the government was brought to light by the royal commission into aged care. The commission's interim report findings have painted a bleak picture of providers who have put commercial profits before vulnerable people. But this federal government knows this well and they knew this before they established the royal commission.
But the surprise of the royal commission the just how terrible things are. The royal commission heard that, every day, 50 Australians living in aged care are sexually assaulted. We should all be very concerned and shocked. We should all want to make a difference in this space. The commission has heard stories about Australians living in aged care with ants crawling over their open wounds. The commission has been told about Australians living in aged care suffering from malnutrition. The commission has been told about the 20 per cent of Australians living in aged care who are receiving substandard care. That only scratches the surface of the issues facing this sector. The royal commission received over 10,000 submissions, and we owe a debt of gratitude to every loved one, provider and staff member who took the time to provide evidence on the failure of the sector.
The first recommendation in the royal commission interim report Neglect was that the government fix the home-care package waiting list. Over the past three years more than 30,000 older Australians have died waiting for their approved home-care package. Over two years more than 32,000 older Australians have entered residential aged care prematurely. This is not acceptable. But, true to form, the federal government has made a stream of announcements but not taken the action necessary to improve the system. I know this because many of my constituents have raised their concerns and their fears with me, and these fears have only been magnified due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Almost 700 older Australians have lost their lives from COVID in residential care. Many of the workforce contracted the disease themselves. That same workforce fought every day to save every life. Residents died because government and some providers failed to regulate and do their jobs. In my own family I have been touched by this, with the loss of someone close: a loved one in aged care at this time. But every one of these deaths is a tragedy. Every one of these deaths is a lesson. We now know that the government and many providers failed to put enough staff in place. They failed to manage the right workforce mix and provide sufficient training in infection control. Insecurity of employment drove further infection spread to other workers and clients.
The royal commission was willing to put pen to paper on some of those lessons, specifically finding that there was no COVID-19 plan for the aged-care sector. Officials have very plainly said that if the government had moved more quickly to establish better resourced aged-care response centres then lives would have been saved. The Prime Minister has boasted about the number of announcements the government has made in aged care, but they have failed to deliver the policies and resources our aged-care sector needs to survive this pandemic. The federal government promised an effective surge workforce for Victoria but didn't deliver. They promised PPE for all aged-care workers, but too many missed out for too long.
A key theme of the royal commission has been repeated testimony from families and loved ones that they've been kept in the dark when it comes to important issues in the lives of their loved ones in aged care. Aged-care facilities get about 75 per cent of their income from the taxpayer, but, despite the heavy reliance on the public purse, there is worryingly little reporting into how that money is spent. Families of our loved ones in care need transparency and they need accountability, but the government has a strong record of shielding some aged-care providers from that accountability.
Now, the interim report from the royal commission makes note of this lack of fundamental transparency across the sector, but today's debate is not about the gross neglect of Australians in the aged-care system. Instead, more than a year after the royal commission first reported some of the most horrendous stories imaginable, this government, sadly but not surprisingly, has prioritised for a second time the timing of invoicing. Today we debate the government holding onto its money for just a little longer before paying providers. The house is burning to the ground, and this government is talking about what colour hats the firefighters should be wearing. We know this government hasn't turned its attention sufficiently to the vital issue of workforce planning and management, and we need to change this. The nurses and carers in the aged-care sector deserve this, and they deserve our sincere gratitude. This is especially true in 2020, but it has always been true—and I would like to acknowledge Barwon Health in my region, which has provided amazing leadership to agencies and staff in our local health sector. It has helped to keep people safe.
The royal commission's comments on working in aged care was nothing short of harrowing. Workloads are heavy, and pay and conditions are poor, signalling that working in aged care is not a valued occupation. Innovation is stymied. Education and training are patchy, and there is no defined career path for staff. Major change is necessary to deliver the certainty and working environment that staff need to deliver real quality care. To meet ever-increasing demand for aged-care services and support, the workforce will need to be three times its current size by 2050. That's a threefold increase in three decades. Our Labor leader, in his vision statement on ageing, said:
Part of the answer to this crisis must lie in our aged care workforce. Those we trust to care for our most vulnerable, our parents, our grandparents, eventually ourselves.
There are too few aged-care workers, and they are paid too little. They have begged the Government to do something.
Labor is listening.
Our aged care workers need proper pay and proper training.
The aged care workforce must also be able to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate care.
Staffing numbers, qualifications, skills mix and experience, all affect the ability of aged care workers to provide safe, quality care.
Under a Labor Government, solving this will be one of the priority tasks for Jobs and Skills Australia.
I believe in this vision outlined by our Labor leader and I'm proud to support it.
In closing, I present the Morrison government with a checklist it should not need. There should not be a disastrous over-reliance on chemical restraints in our aged-care sector. There should not be aged-care workers who have to choose between meeting the medical needs of one patient over another because of inadequate resourcing. There should not be 50 sexual assaults in aged-care facilities every day. There should not be people living in aged-care facilities that are left in soiled incontinence pads. There should not be people living in aged-care facilities with ants crawling on their wounds. There should not be people living in aged care who are suffering from malnutrition. We should not have a residential aged-care system that fails one in five residents.
This government is failing our mums, our dads, our grandparents and our aged-care workers, and eventually this system will fail us all. It is time for the government to fix this sector or get out of the way and find someone who can.
The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 amends the way that home-care providers are paid the government subsidy in order to address stakeholder concerns regarding unspent funds and to align home-care arrangements with other government programs such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The measures in the bill improve financial accountability and allow for better transparency over the actual use of the funds for home-care service delivery.
This bill will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that home-care providers will only be paid the subsidy for care and services rendered to a home-care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unspent subsidy that a home-care recipient is eligible to receive each month. This unspent subsidy will be available for providers to draw down on behalf of a home-care recipient as care and services are provided in the future. There is no change to a customer's access to their full subsidy. This builds on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 that amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that providers of home care will receive a payment not in advance but in arrears. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.
I thank the minister. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Messages received from the Governor-General recommending appropriations announced.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the Federation Chamber to move government amendments (1) to (6), as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 6), omit "This is the unadjusted subsidy amount.".
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 7 to 9), omit the paragraph beginning "Step 6" in subsection 48-1(2).
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 10 to 12), omit the paragraph beginning "The result is" in subsection 48-1(2), substitute:
This is the amount of home care subsidy for the care recipient in respect of the *payment period.
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 21 to 24), omit subsection 48-1(4).
(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 8), after the paragraph beginning "Step 1" in subsection 48-13(1), insert:
Step 1A. If, in accordance with the User Rights Principles, the approved provider elects to return the *Commonwealth portion of the care recipient's *unspent home care amount to the Commonwealth, reduce the price by the amount of the Commonwealth portion available at the end of the previous *payment period, up to 100% of the price.
(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (table item 1, column headed "a debit of ..."), omit "(unadjusted subsidy amount)".
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments.
Our wine is some of the best-quality wine in the world and brings tremendous economic opportunities in our already-strong agricultural sector. I have a lifelong passion for and interest in the winemaking industry, with my family roots in the proud grape-growing region of Victoria's north-east, which locally some people call 'God's country'. My family have lived there for six generations. The winemaking industry is a major contributor to the Australian economy and is consistently growing, particularly in Asia. We need to raise international awareness of our quality wines in order to grow the industry and safeguard the reputation of our wine producers aboard. The wine export label directory is essential for this. I commend this bill, the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, which allow a wine export label directory to be established by Wine Australia to assist brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights.
In my maiden speech in this place, I noted that my uncle on my mother's side is the great Mick Morris, of six generations of Rutherglen winemaking fame. He notably produced the first dry red durif in 1954, making him a pioneer of the variety in Australia, which was otherwise known as petite sirah. My uncle once described durif as 'shiraz on steroids'. My cousins and other extended family members continue the proud tradition of winemaking in the Rutherglen region in northern Victoria today. In my electorate of Higgins, there are many great restaurants and bars, as well as wine cellars which stock and serve high-quality wine from all over Australia. With winemaking in my blood and in my constituency, I commend the label directory.
The government wants to support winemakers and that's because we recognise the importance of the Australian winemaking industry and its importance to our economy. It contributes in the order of $45 billion. We've invested $50 million in the Export and Regional Wine Support Package. This money will be invested over four years to grow Australia's wine exports and showcase wine tourism in the US and Asia markets—two key target markets. A key component of this package is to develop wine producers to participate in international wine activities, as well as provide marketing and advertising materials for markets abroad. This allows winemakers to get a jump start on exports to the US and Asia. For example, David Ritchie of Delatite Wines in Victoria says that the funding has allowed his business to conduct tastings and dinners with exporters in Shanghai.
The minister for trade, a proud South Australian and long-time advocate for the Australian wine industry—and I note the member for Sturt is here in the chamber, and he also has a keen interest in the wine industry—was touting the global opportunities that lie ahead for the industry in his recent address at the National Press Club. The Morrison government is currently negotiating an Australia-UK free trade agreement and it is hoped this will directly benefit the winemaking industry.
The label directory builds on the government's commitment to the industry. It will provide a public-facing online database of all Australian wine labels for export that can be used by wine brand owners to search for copycat labels. It will require all Australian wine exporters to submit images of their labels prior to obtaining export certification, and they will be uploaded to a searchable directory. The label directory will be supported by our commitment of $417,000 in funding, plus additional contingency funding. Wine Australia has indicated that the wine directory will be built into their wine export approval system, which is currently being upgraded. This is necessary because growth in international demand has also driven counterfeit Australian and other premium wines around the world. For example, the iconic Penfolds brand, which is very popular in Asia, has some exported vintages that can fetch over $400. This presents a large mark-up for counterfeits. In recent years, we've witnessed a number of copycat wine scams in Asia which have been exposed by police. This has seen thousands of fake bottles seized. It is estimated that counterfeits will cost the global industry and Australian winemakers dearly. According to Frontier Economics, an international research firm, the global economic value of counterfeiting and piracy could reach $2 trillion by 2022.
This bill is critical to allow brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights and the export value of their wine. It will ensure that customers, both here and abroad, can be confident they are getting a safe and genuine product. It means they're going to get what the label on the bottle says. This will help continue to build trust in Brand Australia, a very good brand. This bill will also ensure that Australia is playing a leadership role in the global winemaking industry by spearheading protection for the labels abroad, which will promote trust and confidence in international markets.
In closing, protecting our winemaking industry is an economic imperative. This bill will create a label directory and is a key component of the government's ongoing support for such an important industry. It builds up the Export and Regional Wine Support Package and our pursuit of freeing up global export opportunities for the industry. As a recent member of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I'm very proud of this initiative. It will protect the intellectual property rights of our winemakers and combat the growing market of counterfeit wine abroad. It will ensure confidence in the quality of our wine and will continue to support an important industry. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019. I stand in the support of the legislation before the House, which seeks to amend the Wine Australia Act 2013 to enable Wine Australia to establish and maintain a publicly available directory of grape product labels intended for export. I confess that I am a wine lover. I'm no certified expert, but I have no hesitation in saying that Australia produces some of the finest wines in the world. Australia's wine products have become highly sought after globally, and now when people think of notable wine-producing regions, such as the Rhone Valley or Bordeaux in France or Veneto and Tuscany in Italy, they also think of Australian regions, including the Hunter, the Barossa, Margaret River, emerging areas, such as the Orange area in New South Wales, and also Tasmania. Australia's wines are something that we ought to take great pride in, and this viable export market ought to be strengthened at every opportunity. It's important to note that some iconic Australian labels, such as Penfolds Grange vintage and Henschke's Hill of Grace, can fetch well over $1,000 a bottle, and there are others in the Australian market which are very valuable export commodities. But make no mistake: this market faces many, many challenges, and the government ought to commit itself to protecting Australia's wine producers at every opportunity.
The bill before the House primarily and rightfully seeks to assist wine producers in protecting their brand from copycat behaviours. However, it's worth noting that this sector also faces significant challenges that the government appears intent upon ignoring altogether. Climate change, in particular, is one issue that's greatly challenging Australia's beloved wine industry. This sector deserves assurance that the government is adequately protecting their interests by taking the threat of climate change seriously and acting meaningfully to protect and defend our agricultural sector. The devastating 2019-20 bushfire season demonstrates quite clearly that climate change poses great challenges to our wine industry.
The Grape and Wine Association recognised this challenge throughout the crisis, pinpointing a number of regions that are key to our wine production that are at risk of or have already faced devastating impacts from bushfires and from climate change. The Adelaide Hills is one are which was greatly impacted by the fires. A number of grape growers and wine producers were directly impacted by the fires, losing vineyards, buildings, equipment and stores of wine. A significant number of our producers were impacted across Australia. The flow-on effects, in particular, have been devastating through communities. These are losses directly as a result of the fire front. We also cannot understate the effect of the loss of tourism in iconic destinations such as Kangaroo Island, the Barossa Valley et cetera. The drought has also had devastating impacts upon our wine producers, with reports indicating that some vineyards have had yields reduced by as much as 75 per cent as a result of the drought.
One cannot deny the devastating impacts of climate change on this vital sector. Climate change poses a significant risk to the industry on an ongoing basis. The grapes used to produce wine, it is said, need to be grown in an environment between 25 degrees to 32 degrees Celsius. Who could forget the temperatures that we faced last summer and will face this summer from the increasing temperatures due to climate change? That's without considering the devastating effects of climate change-induced natural disasters such as bushfires, floods and drought.
As has been indicated, Australian wines are a high-value product. Their high quality is renowned around the world, and they contribute significantly to our export market. If we are to retain our standing internationally and continue producing high-quality wines domestically, this sector requires meaningful action to mitigate the effects of climate change. I welcome the steps taken by the Australian wine producers to protect their own products, and I encourage the government to listen to the industry and take heed of their concerns on climate change.
I want to also take this opportunity to raise some concerns that I have in terms of health. I have encountered far too many cases of foetal alcohol syndrome in my paediatric career. This is certainly a devastating condition. The reality is that it's more prevalent in some areas of our society than others. Foetal alcohol syndrome arises in children who have been exposed to alcohol in utero throughout their mother's pregnancy. It can result in a number of abnormalities, including central nervous system, cardiovascular, and other changes. It's important that this is recognised by the appropriateness of labelling on wine labels about alcohol content and the risk of foetal alcohol syndrome. As with many social issues, education is the important thing, and I encourage wine producers to take this in hand.
I congratulate the government on these wine label changes. I encourage them to do more to protect our wine industry, in particular in terms of our trade, and encourage them to look for a diversity of export markets. As we know, we've been impacted by the China trade, and it is important that we diversify our markets. But it is also important that we repair the trade relationship with China, which takes a large amount of our high-quality Australian wine. I'm confident this can happen provided we pay attention to the China trade difficulties. I commend this bill to the House.
In 1836 the colony of South Australia was settled. The first European settlement was in 1836. In 1844 Christopher and Mary Penfold arrived in the new colony of South Australia and in my electorate of Sturt. They established their home. They built a cottage called Grange Cottage and they brought with them some vines, which they planted. Of course, that is now the famous Magill Estate vineyard, and Grange Cottage has eponymously given its name to what's now known as Penfolds Grange. We used to call it the Grange Hermitage. Now, of course, it is Penfolds Grange.
In this debate, both speakers that have preceded me have singled out Penfolds as beyond question the great iconic amongst many premium Australian wines that are produced not just for our enjoyment domestically but, of course, to be exported around the globe. A few years ago I was in Thailand, and our ambassador there indicated that Penfolds was the most recognised brand of any Australian brand in Thailand. It was his view that that was probably the case in quite a few other countries throughout Asia. I'm confident it's the case that Penfolds is a very-well-recognised brand in most of the premium wine markets across the planet. So I'm very proud that the winery not only was established in my electorate but we still, in the absolute middle of my electorate, have Magill Estate. A lot of their production now is equally drawn from regions like the Barossa, of course, and most South Australian wine regions—the McLaren Vale, the Adelaide Hills, the Clare Valley; they make wines from grapes sourced from all around South Australia and even Tasmania now and other parts of the country—but their spiritual home beyond question is in the middle of my electorate, which is why I'm so passionately in support of this legislation before the House.
Penfolds have been one of the most significant victims of counterfeiting of their wine in overseas markets. This, of course, is designed to put a little bit more robustness around the intellectual property that brands like Penfolds have, particularly by having such a clear, publicly accessible database. They will be in a position—and Australian authorities such as Wine Australia and others that are in charge of protecting brand integrity in this country and in other countries with markets that we're exporting to will have a much clearer ability now to point out where someone is clearly trying to represent their product, piggybacking off the brand strength and significance of a brand like Penfolds to sell an inferior wine at a much higher price.
That obviously has two impacts. It means that someone can take an inferior wine—a much cheaper wine—and, if they're successful in tricking the consumer, sell it for a much higher price. That's one issue. The other is, of course, that, when someone consumes this inferior wine and they think it was, for example, a Penfolds Grange, a Henschke Hill of Grace or a Rockford Basket Press and they have a disappointing experience, that has the secondary damage to the Penfolds brand. Potentially, if this is going on fairly significantly and widely, which we understand it is, then that is going to have a significant impact on the brand integrity and the brand value that's been built up, in the case of Penfolds, over almost 175 years. Clearly, the, we have to do all we can to protect these great, iconic Australian brands, this great, iconic Australian product that we're sending around the world, and do all we can to make sure that the value they rightly deserve is protected not only in this market here in Australia, where we don't have these issues, but of course in other parts of the world.
It's important because it is quite difficult, particularly in non-English-speaking countries, for people to be expected to discern between something that's a Penfolds and something that's a 'Penbolds'. You'd have to be quite sophisticated with the English language and you'd have to be looking for the trickery. Particularly at the consumer level, I don't think you could reasonably expect that most people are going to assume that what they are receiving has to be validated or needs some kind of certificate of authenticity to make sure that they're purchasing what they think they are.
I'm not suggesting that consumers in some of the major Asian cities are going to start going onto the Wine Australia website when they're in the bottle shop and checking off labels. At the next level up—for example, the people who are importing, the people who are selling the product, the people who are running the retail outlets, the people who are in charge of distribution in these markets et cetera—if they value their reputations and they want to make sure that what they're passing off as a genuine product can be confirmed to be so, I think this would be a very valuable tool. Obviously it also puts Wine Australia in a much stronger position to be out there proactively looking for breaches.
We have an enormous number of wine labels in this country. Penfolds is fairly straightforward. I don't think many of us who know the brand well would struggle to identify a counterfeit or fraudulent label. But of course there are so many—which is a great success story—Australian winemakers who are exporting. It's very difficult, without a proper, centralised, publicly accessible database, to know what's accurate and what's fraud, so this is a very important reform.
It couldn't have come at a more important time for the industry. Of course, we've had some issues in recent weeks with our major export market, being China. This underscores the need for us to diversify into other markets even more and find growth in markets we were already exporting into—India is an excellent example. There are other parts of the world that we have barely entered whatsoever, so we want to broaden the number of markets we're sending our product to. That's going to increase the risk of counterfeit even more and the difficulty in policing it.
I know the industry has been calling for this register and is strongly welcoming and looking forward to having it up and running. I'm grateful that we're passing it through the chamber now, because the sooner we can get this adopted and Wine Australia can put this in place the sooner we're going to have great outcomes and integrity around the wines that we're so proud to export around the world. I commend the bill to the House.
I'm glad to make some comments on the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, which we support. It makes some positive changes so that copyright and brand protection are given greater security. It's something the wine industry has wanted. It's welcomed by the wine industry, as was said when this was introduced. It's adding one more tool to Wine Australia's export controls toolkit by creating this wine export Label Directory. It ensures that the value from all the hard work people put into developing a strong reputation for their product and for Australian wine across the board, that comes from all of the 65 different identified regions in Australia, is properly protected in terms of copyright and brand reputation.
It is incredible to reflect on the strength of the industry: 2½ thousand wineries, as I understand it; 6,250 grapegrowers; and 150,000 employees, one way or another, across those 65 winegrowing regions. Australia, the 13th largest economy in the world, is the sixth-largest wine producer and the fifth-largest wine exporter in the world.
I think of Western Australia, as I'm sure you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson. We have nine fine wine regions. While we produce only five per cent of Australia's wine, which surprises me a little bit—I usually use the 10 per cent rule for WA—I feel that we can perhaps look to go a bit better in future. But we come back—I hesitate to use that term actually—into the reckoning by virtue of—
An honourable member: By about $15 million.
Yes, that's right—by virtue of the fact that Western Australia produces 20 per cent of Australia's premium wine. It produces only five per cent of wine but 20 per cent of Australia's premium wine by volume, and I'm advised we have collected 30 per cent of Australian wine medals. That's not too bad.
I lived in the south-west, in Margaret River, in the late seventies, so I got to see a little bit of the transformation that occurred in the southern part of the state. The wine industry in Western Australia was established in the Swan Valley. I think the first vines were planted at the beginning of the Swan colony in 1829. That part of Perth—the north-east of Perth—developed to be quite a strong wine-producing region in the fairly early going. It wasn't until the fifties and sixties that grape growing and wine production really shifted south. When I moved down to Margaret River in 1977, there would have been a small handful of producers. The first meeting at which the Margaret River region was kicked off actually occurred, I think, in Busselton in 1966.
By the time I was there, the wine industry was only 10 years old and there weren't that many producers. Well, my word, it changed fast after that and it spread from Margaret River into the Great Southern. You have all these different regions—Manjimup, Blackwood Valley and so on. If you go down there now, as a visitor, particularly to the capes region around Margaret River, you would almost feel that wine production is one of the most dominant forms of economic activity, not least because, when we think about the wine industry, it's not just about what they produce and what they export; most of them have public-facing restaurants, cellar operations and places for people to come and visit and pick. In that way, when we think of its export value, it's not just the $3 billion of exports annually. It's also a really big part of our tourism industry, as a service export and as an attractor. Hopefully, we'll see that come back to how it has been.
An honourable member interjecting—
I know. It's a plague. It's what happens. It's subliminal. That's obviously how it's supposed to work.
An honourable member interjecting—
Yes. I hear too often: 'Something else will happen.' But we should reflect while we make this change, and it's good that it will get done. It's clear that it needs to be done in calendar year 2020. Here we are in the last week, and it's occurring. The wine industry will welcome it.
It has been a really, really tough 12 months. The wine industry was affected by bushfires 12 months ago. The bushfires themselves are an aspect of or are related to the impacts of climate change. We know that, broadly speaking, climate change is making our climate hotter and drier and is increasing the frequency of weather events and bushfires. I know that, at one point, the anticipated impact of smoke taint was thought to be quite significant. In the early going, Australia Grape and Wine Incorporated thought it could be as much as $40 million, and New South Wales Wine estimated a $100 million hit off the back of the bushfires, if you included the tourism impacts. That was significant. My understanding is that, since those estimates were given, the impact has turned out to be a bit less than that, certainly in respect of smoke taint. That is welcome.
With respect to climate change more broadly, obviously that's not unrelated to bushfires and the things that that can produce, but it is having a broader effect. The way that it affects the climate is not always going to be the same. I actually have visited a couple of the vineyards in the capes region. Parts of the Margaret River region are getting a little bit more winter rain on the shoulder of the cool wet season in WA than they used to. That is not helpful for some of the varieties that are grown there.
But generally speaking the hotter and drier conditions will put the industry under pressure. For a range of cultural and historical reasons Australia has tended to favour varieties that, going into the future, probably aren't the best. There are other varieties that are better suited to hotter, drier climates. The difficulty is—that brings us back to the point of this bill, where we're talking about brand value and reputational value—once you're established as a particular region and you're known for particular varieties, it's pretty hard to suddenly shift and pull up vines, not least because of the cost and the time it takes to get back to high-quality fruit production; but also there is the fact that you've become known for your chardonnay or your pinot noir or whatever it happens to be, and if you suddenly shift to varieties that might be more sustainable or productive in the long term, you've also got to do that cultural, reputational brand shift.
That's something I think state and Commonwealth governments should look at. I know that there are producers, companies in the business, that have already begun to almost move their fruit south, essentially. In Western Australian terms that's probably further into the Great Southern. I know in some cases it's to Tasmania, because people are reading the tea leaves on where the climate is going.
The other thing we all know that the industry is dealing with at the moment is related to trade. It is of concern that China has decided to apply tariffs of up to 200 per cent to Australian wine. I don't think anybody can point to a reason for the imposition of those tariffs. There doesn't seem to be any fair basis for the application of those tariffs. They will have a significant impact on Australian winemakers and exporters. They already are, and they will. That will hurt those producers. It will hurt their workers and their families and the communities in which that production occurs. As we know, they are regional and rural parts of Australia where often wine production, sales, exports, and associated tourism, both local, international and intrastate, has actually become one of the more dominant features of the local economy. So to have the hit on multiple fronts, but now through the imposition of these tariffs on the single biggest export destination for Australian wine, really hurts.
Sixty-two per cent of our wine is exported. That's $3 billion worth. China is far and away the largest export destination: $1.26 billion, which is about 42 per cent. It's 25 per cent of what China imports, which I think is interesting. In terms of other Indo-Pacific destinations, in the top 10 are New Zealand, Singapore and Japan. New Zealand's about $100 million; so is Singapore. Japan is half that at $50 million. That gives you a sense of how important China is. India presently is only $6 million worth of wine. That does constitute 20 per cent of their wine imports by value. So we're not that far: if we contribute a quarter of China's wine imports, we contribute about a fifth of India's. But clearly there's so much room to improve that through export facilitation, and also whatever we can do within India to help bring the joys of drinking wine to the emerging middle class in India.
On that, I endorse what the shadow minister for trade has said about the importance of diversification and the fact that we haven't made nearly as much progress with respect to India as we would all like. India and Indonesia are the two markets that are really underdone. If we think of what has happened vis-a-vis China, that's fantastic, but there are great opportunities in Indonesia and India, and that should be the case for wine. We need to put more effort into making that happen. Settling trade agreements by itself is not enough. You need to put resources into trade facilitation. We should be doing that.
More broadly, I would just note that all bilateral relationships work best on a foundation of respect and open but thoughtful communication. We don't have that with China at the moment, for one reason or another. It does take two to tango in all relationships. I think we can look at how we've gotten to this situation, which is for a range of reasons, and the fault is certainly not entirely on Australia's side. In trying to look to how we repair this, I think we can acknowledge that we can do more to re-establish the foundation of that healthier relationship. There's absolutely no question—there never will be—that we should pursue and protect our national interest as shaped by our national values. But anyone who thinks that that's a simple or an uncomplicated matter in a region that is undergoing significant and complex geostrategic change doesn't know much about history or diplomacy, to be fair. Anyone who thinks that Australia can best pursue and protect our national interest by stamping our foot or banging our hand on the table should look up diplomacy in the dictionary.
We do need to be clear-eyed and resolute. I personally don't think that clarity and strength of resolution is supplied by some of the, 'Look at me,' gang conduct that we've seen from self-described wolf warriors or self-described wolverines, for that matter. Sometimes in our bilateral relationships we will need to be flexible and patient; sometimes we will need to be firm. There will be differences of view between Australia and other nations, including China. That has always been the case. That will be the case in future. Some differences we will put aside. Some we will seek to resolve, and we should do that thoughtfully, respectfully, purposefully and diplomatically. It's crucial that key relationships are conducted with care, stability and consistency in accordance with a sensible long-term approach. On that basis—without romanticism or idealism but also without undue pessimism, let alone antagonism—our relationship with China can, and should, be one of mutual benefit and of regional benefit, not just economically but in terms of supporting all facets of peaceful and sustainable development, regional security, and human rights.
We recognise that China's economic miracle has helped enable Australia's best self in terms of trade and the stability of our national economy. In the friendship between the people of our nations, Australia should always be prepared to enable China's best self. Progress for both of our countries—through our bilateral relationship, the regional and multilateral forum in which we participate, and our shared interest in the rule of law—can only occur through shared effort. I hope that's the path we return to in 2021. I wish the government well in making those efforts. It's important for Australia's trade, which includes wine and other products like crayfish out of Western Australia, but the importance goes much, much wider than that. I think we all recognise that.
As I said at the outset, this bill makes a small but positive and welcome change to the wine industry at a time when wine producers, their workers and all involved in the industry have faced a very tough year. Unfortunately, it's not over yet, and we do need to make sure that we continue to look at the key areas of difficulty, especially in relation to climate change, bushfire risks, our existing trading relationships and opportunities to diversify export markets.
I'm very happy to rise to speak on the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019. It's quite timely. It was only last week that I was speaking with John Cassegrain of Cassegrain Wines, a fairly well-known winery, particularly in my electorate but across Australia. They are doing some wonderful things and exporting to many countries around the world. In fact, a couple of years ago, I was on holidays in Japan on the Shinkansen, and, lo and behold, they were serving Cassegrain Wines in the little bottles—chardonnay and pinot noir. It's a second generation family business that has done exceptionally well. John's son Alex has taken over the reins and is going great guns.
But it'd be fair to say the conversation with John was, indeed, a difficult one. They've had 18 months from hell. They really have. They were facing the drought. Then we had the bushfires, and—particularly in Port Macquarie—they suffered substantially because the smoke was there for six months because of a peat pit that burnt and we were unable to extinguish it. It was that deep, and it was that fierce. The council was dousing it with water day after day after day. It made no difference. Some days, they closed the schools because the smoke was so heavy.
All their grapes had to be destroyed—gone—so they couldn't produce wine to export. They were bringing in more grapes from areas that weren't smoke taint affected. So they had the bushfires. Of course they had a large tourism and cellar door, and then we had the coronavirus, and everything shut down, so they couldn't trade there. Now, of course, they have the tariffs from China of up to 217 per cent. John was telling me that he has a number of containers sitting on wharves that were going to China that were cancelled. So it's been the 18 months from hell.
Then you talk about somebody who has worked for decades and decades to produce a product that has respect not only in Australia but around the world. For somebody to come in and ride on those coat-tails—that's not an accurate description—to lie and cheat and copy, and then be able to profit from decades of work is just unscrupulous. That is why it is so important that the Australian government protects our winemakers and our industry through this bill.
The bill will do two things: it will protect our producers, and it will protect their identity, their intellectual property, and ensure that they know that they're not going to get ripped off or have their reputation damaged by somebody who's trying to make a quick buck. The member for Sturt in his contribution said that reputation can be damaged because you believe that it's a real product—you believe that it's a true product—and you have a bad experience. Therefore (a) you won't buy it again, but (b) you'll tell somebody. We all know that if you have a good experience you will tell one person, but if you have a bad experience you will tell 10. So it's the reputation that is damaged.
Part 2 of the bill protects the consumer so you know what you're getting. You pay for what you get, but you'll know what you're getting. Again, the member for Sturt referred to Penfolds. Penfolds Grange goes for $800, $900 and above. When people are paying that kind of money for wine they want to know that they are getting what they paid for. So I'm pleased that this bill does that and I'm pleased that we're able to step up, as a government, and protect our industries.
In addition to doing that, the bill will enable Wine Australia to establish a label directory which is publicly available on a database. It will also help control the export of grape products, see the establishment of the label directory and its maintenance, include digital colour images of grape product labels and other information and give Wine Australia more assistance to control the export of grape products.
I'm pleased with this bill. I'm pleased that it helps our producers. Hopefully, in the future, for people like John Cassegrain things will turn around and we will resurrect relationships with other countries so that, in the future, they can see their profit margins increase and we can all enjoy a good wine knowing that it is an original wine.
In my electorate of Indi, grape and wine production is a major industry, employing hundreds of people directly and thousands across our broader tourism sector. Our five wine regions of King Valley, Alpine Valley, Beechworth, Rutherglen and Glenrowan are some of Australia's best and well known. With fires and then the pandemic shutting down the restaurant and tourism trades, they have had a very tough year.
This bill makes a straightforward and welcome reform to protect the integrity of our wine exports sector. I support this legislation because it will help secure the future of the wine sector in Indi. This bill establishes a wine export label directory, a public-facing online database of all Australian wine labels for export. It empowers Wine Australia to establish and maintain a directory of labels that are attached to great products such as wine intended for export from Australia. This is a response to calls from the sector to strengthen our export regulatory system to stop the proliferation of copycat labelled wines. The directory will allow winemakers to search the database to easily see where other labels may be seeking to trade-off their intellectual property so they can pursue civil action against copycat exporters.
Indi's winemakers know that protecting our hard-earned reputation for quality is critical for the sector to continually prosper. But they equally know that this issue is not the biggest issue facing them and that, if we are to continue to make the world's best wines in north-east Victoria, we need a concerted strategy from our government. Two key challenges to the long-term viability of the sector stand out. The first is the increasing risk of bushfires. In the 2019-20 fires, the north-east wine sector suffered $140 million worth of damage from smoke taint. We've heard other speakers today talk of this, and in my region it was an enormous problem. Of the 25,808 tonnes of grape on the vine prior to harvest, only 69 per cent of that was picked. The farm gate value of the harvest prior to the bushfires was $36 million and, as a result of the damage, that fell to $13 million—one-third of the original value. The bushfire royal commission found that, in the future, Australia will face increased frequency and severity of bushfires as a result of a heating climate. This climatic disruption poses a significant threat to the viability of viticulture in our region. If we see catastrophic smoke taint events every 10 years or even five years it fundamentally changes the business model and viability of our producers.
The second key challenge is the uncertain trade outlook. I want the use this opportunity to sound the alarm about the impact of China's tariffs on our grape growers and wine producers. Last week, I emailed all the grape growers in Indi asking them how the announcement of significant tariffs on Australian wine from the Chinese government would affect them. Some of the responses I received are cause for serious concern. One winemaker near Mansfield told me:
We've had a couple of orders cancelled over the last 3-4 weeks as a result of the trade war. Our importer was told in face-to-face meetings with officials in Shanghai that they would not be able to import any more wine from Australia—they were given 2 days' notice of this ban being put in place. This happened in early November. We don't expect to sell any more wine into China for the next 12 months and it was looking like we would sell wine worth around $120-150k this financial year.
Another grower near Violet Town told me:
We have had a long-term relationship with a winery in the Macedon Ranges which has purchased the majority of our grapes each year. On Monday, following the tariff announcement the winery informed us that they can no longer purchase any of our Shiraz grapes as the majority are exported to China. This will significantly impact our business as it our main grape variety and there is little chance of finding a new home for the grapes as there will be many other growers in the same position. Our Shiraz are now likely to be left on the vine to rot and we will have to make a decision to either keep maintaining the vines until a market is available or pull them out.
From a winemaker in the King Valley:
We could be severely impacted by the tariffs if those that cannot get their wine in to China are not able to find new export markets and have to sell their wine back in the domestic market. One way for these companies to move their excess stock would be for them to offer very good prices to the chain outlets and restaurants—two of our biggest markets and I would suggest for most wineries in Indi, this would be the case.
This situation would cause increased competition for shelf presence and could cause a situation where we would have to fight on price to keep shelf space going forward. Not ideal after the year we have just had or for future sales at usual pricing.
Finally, from another King Valley winemaker:
As we are all aware, the impact of this on the wine sector broadly will be very significant. Due to limited China exports the local sector will be less directly impacted in the short-medium term, however I expect the knock on impacts on the local sector to be more significant.
Many producers who do export to China will now find that with tariffs their product will be priced out of that market and will therefore need to look at shifting product into alternative markets - both export and domestic.
Given China export volumes, this will inevitably result in a large oversupply, which in turn will place significant downward pressure on prices, this too has short and longer term impacts. Whilst the industry will simply need to ride out the short term price pressure, in the medium term if access to the Chinese market takes years to resolve then the risk is we will see a wholesale devaluing of Australian wine.
Australian producers, through a focus on quality have been very successful in growing both volume and price point into China and achieved a shift in the perception of Australian wine more broadly - it would be devastating if this is reversed.
Quite clearly, these responses show the seriousness of the challenges our wine sector faces on the international trade front, and I'm using this opportunity in this House to call on the government to move quickly to help our grapegrowers and winemakers to respond to these fast-moving challenges on the climate and trade fronts.
One way we could do this would be to fund a proposal submitted by the North East Wine Zone for $1.6 million in bushfire recovery funding to set up a world-first regional smoke-taint sensor system. The North East Wine Zone, or NEWZ, was set up in the wake of the summer fires to provide a forum for the five north-east wine zones to coordinate their responses to their shared challenges. I'm so pleased to see the emergence of NEWZ as an effective body to advocate for this critical sector in our region, and I'm even more pleased to back their bid for bushfire recovery funding. NEWZ is proposing to set up a system of sensors across the region that can, in the event of a bushfire, automatically test smoke levels in the air and conduct real-time predictive analysis of smoke composition, so that grapegrowers can understand the likely impact of smoke taint on their crop and make early on-farm decisions to manage crop risk. This project is a world first and has the potential to be scaled up across the state and other Australian wine regions. As we look towards a more uncertain climate future, knowing that north-east Victoria is already one of the most bushfire-prone environments in the world, this is precisely the type of climate resilience investment we should be making.
On the trade front, I'm calling on the government to put forward a serious plan to support the sector to diversify its export markets. In a more uncertain world, it is critical to our national interest that we are not reliant on a single market. Supporting our world-class wine sector to break into new markets is a sage move as we enter this period of global trade uncertainty.
So I will be supporting this bill tonight in the House, and I'll continue to work with our wine sector on a long-term resilience plan. Wine has been a linchpin of our economy and community in north-east Victoria for a century and a half. At a time of great challenges, we must be making the investments and putting the supports in place to keep it that way for many, many years to come.
This bill, the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, is timely, as wine producers and exporters across this country have been slapped with eye-watering antidumping duties of up to 212 per cent on their very fine exports to China. These tariffs are a result of unfair and unsubstantiated claims of the dumping of cheap Australian wine into China, a claim that has been refuted by experts around the world. As we all know, on average Australian wine is among the most expensive available in China.
Labor is deeply concerned about Australia's rapidly deteriorating trading relationship with China. We know the Australian wine industry has long benefited from a productive and respectful relationship with that country. Australian wine exports to China were worth $1.1 billion in the year to 30 June, according to Wine Australia figures.
In the midst of a crisis, the agriculture minister, sadly, has not been able to get in contact with his counterpart, in the entire time he has held that role. The same might be said for the minister who is reported to be the hopeful next trade minister, the current Minister for Education, who also has not reached out to his counterpart in China, their minister for education, which seems shocking, given the hundreds of thousands of Chinese students who are entrusted to this country for their education.
Back onto the wine. That the agriculture minister is not able to speak to his counterpart certainly doesn't bode well for our significant wine industry in this country. It is in the interests of both China and Australia to have a productive trading relationship. It is important that the government show leadership on managing this relationship at this critical time. Producers, quite frankly, feel abandoned by this government, and that is what they have told me. The message they are getting is, 'Look, it might be a bit rough right now. Pack up your wine crates and perhaps think about sending them somewhere else,' or, 'Here, look at these agreements. We've got for you about 14 ratified FTAs', as if that means a winemaker can suddenly change overnight where those creates of wine are going. This is simply not possible. To think that it is just demonstrates that the government is entirely out of touch with how a trading relationship works.
Australian producers across all industries spend years—literally years; most of them decades—building relationships with importers in those destination countries. Those are decades of on-the-ground relationships to make sure that they are trusted, that the right price is paid, that the people who want the product get the product and they get the product that they want. You cannot turn on the tap of demand for Australian goods. You have to work at it. It's not like walking up to a tap and getting a glass of water. It takes time, hard work, commitment and dedication, and it is what this government has failed to do.
Labor is concerned that the threat to wine exports follows China's technical suspension of imports and its boycotts of other Australian exports such as red meat—now lamb—coal, international education and tourism, cotton, sugar, timber, seafood and wheat as well as the imposition of 80 per cent tariffs on Australian barley exports to China, most of which ships, of course, from my electorate of Brand from the CBH silos that have been there for many years. Like with barley, the assertion that Australian wine producers are dumping their product into the Chinese market is simply ludicrous. In fact, as Jeff Wilson of the Perth USAsia Centre has rightly pointed out, data shows that Australian wine gets a much higher price in China than other top export markets.
But we really shouldn't be too surprised by this. We know that the government has been at loggerheads with China for some time, especially since the foreign minister needed an announcement and decided to make an announcement on a television program on a Sunday morning, calling for officials like weapons inspectors to go into another nation to look for the reasons for the emergence of the COVID virus. Labor does support an international inquiry into the origins of the virus. It's a very important scientific inquiry that is required for, quite frankly, the benefit of the whole world. We all want to know how this happened so we can prevent it happening again. But to turn it into an announcement for political purposes—again, on a Sunday morning program—is just inexplicable.
I return to discussion about the wine industry. It's long benefited from a productive and respectful relationship with China. Australian wine exports, as I've said, are worth $1.1 billion, and I agree that winemakers should spread their risk and diversify their export markets. Unfortunately, a lack of leadership from the government on the diversification issue has left a policy vacuum, leaving business, stressed from bushfires and drought as well as a pandemic, to pick up the pieces.
As we know, this government is ready to sit back and shift the blame rather than show leadership. We've heard the catchphrases, the get out of jail free cards: 'This is a state issue', 'I don't accept the premise of your question', 'Could someone else do that, please'—not to mention the minister for agriculture's extraordinary statement that 'the government has provided up to 14 free trade agreements around the world so you can go and spread your risk. Access one of those.' That's patently absurd. You do not access the benefit of FTAs simply by packing up your wine on a crate and sending it off to some unknown destination. You have to apply to access an FTA, and even before you would want to do that you have to have the relationships on the ground even to have buyers. It's not as if you can go to a signing ceremony for one of these FTAs and expect that, magically, there will be a market for you to sell into.
Given the current state of play with our trading relationship with China, the Prime Minister and the cabinet are now demanding export diversification. Well, it's seven years too late. I found it a bit rich when the government itself commissioned a report aimed at building our economic relationship with India and let it sit there in the PMO simply gathering dust. In fact, it has been entirely shelved. Two years ago, former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary, Peter Varghese AO, handed a landmark 500-page report to the government with 90 recommendations on how to improve our trade and investment relationship with India. Would anyone like to guess how many recommendations have been implemented?
One.
One. That's one out of 90. I thank the member for Bruce. He's read the report; I know he's read the report. I've read the report, but no-one in the government seems to have done so.
An honourable member interjecting—
Impressive? It's not impressive at all. There were 90 recommendations. One out of 90 is just over one per cent. It's a report that was issued 2½ years ago and this is all they've managed to do. And now they call for export diversification. Well, I ask: what have the government been doing? What have they been doing? It seems like it is: job done, feet up, get on a Zoom, put a couple of flags behind yourself and then pop it out on Instagram.
The Varghese report found that no single market over the next 20 years would offer more growth opportunities for Australia than India in areas as diverse as education, agriculture, energy, resources, tourism, health care, financial services, infrastructure, science and sport. As Varghese said, 'The opportunities will not fall into our lap.' Now, here's a tip for the government: that wasn't one of the recommendations; that was a warning. If you do sit back and accept a report such as this and then do nothing about it, the opportunities will not fall into our lap. You have to go and work and get it done. You have to start implementing recommendations. He even identified 20 priorities. He made the list shorter. It's a road map. They paid for the work. The government paid $1.5 million for this report. I think it's good value for money, quite frankly. It's an excellent report. The true waste is that they haven't looked at it. They haven't read it. They haven't even sought to implement, beyond one, any of the 90 recommendations. It was intended as a blueprint to boost our economic ties with India and to diversify our trading relationships, but it was buried upon its release in 2018 and it has gone nowhere. In fact, early this year the government admitted to Senate estimates that it had done remarkably little. That's where we found the confirmation that only one of the 90 recommendations had been looked at.
Underlying the Morrison government's failure to deliver on this plan to boost Australia's economic ties with India is fresh trade data showing India's share of our exports has fallen to a 17-year low. Official data released earlier this year underscored the dangers of the government's lax approach to India and its longer-term failure to adequately seek to diversify Australia's trading economy. According to the ABS, India's share of Australia's merchandise exports fell to $10.98 billion over the 12 months to 30 June. That's 32 per cent below the 2018 level, when Mr Varghese released his report. It's getting worse and worse. There is a blueprint. You haven't used it. In the meantime, our trade with India gets worse. India's share of Australia's total merchandise exports is now below two per cent. That's the lowest level since 2003. Meanwhile, China's share of Australian exports has risen to a record 48.8 per cent, highlighting our heavy reliance on a single trader and probably demonstrating the laziness of the government.
Tomorrow, the long-awaited Australia economic strategy report will be launched, led by respected ambassador Anil Wadhwa. This is a response from the Indian government to the Australian government's Varghese report. The Indian government is responding to a report that this government has entirely failed to implement or to even seek to implement. It has put it on the shelf. Frankly, this is embarrassing. I know the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment is speaking at this launch. How he will explain his failure to adopt the Varghese report, in light of Ambassador Wadhwa's report, will be, frankly, a sight to see. Obviously, I'm not invited to the launch. I wish I were. I know people who will be there and I really look forward to the report. I have met with Ambassador Wadhwa. He has high hopes for the continuing relationship between Australia and India and high hopes for our trade relationship, but I'm afraid he might be met with stony silence from a government that has refused to accept its own advice.
I will conclude shortly. I will just briefly mention Peel Estate, one of the vineyards in my electorate of Brand, which was established in 1979. As you might know, Mr Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson, being a Western Australian, Peel Estate has the oldest sangiovese vines in Western Australia; that is true. They make fine wine. They have magnificent evenings there on a Sunday—the jazz evenings. I regularly visit Will Nairn and his fantastic vineyard down at Karnup, in the south of the city of Rockingham. It is a hidden treasure of the electorate of Brand. They don't export. They're a smaller vineyard. Western Australian vineyards don't export to China as much as our South Australian friends do, so they are not as affected at this time, but those that do are very greatly affected by the very unfortunate tariffs that are imposed on their product.
I urge the government to take its feet off the table and start the hard work of the true national effort that is required to diversify. It takes years and years. It takes every minister thinking every day about what they can do in their portfolio to truly diversify what we export and who we export to. I thank the House.
In speaking to this legislation, I commend the many speakers who have already spoken, because I think they've all made the same point—that is, that the wine industry is incredibly important to Australia. The industry claims that it's had an economic value of somewhere around $45 billion to date. I'm not sure what it is right now, given the trade bans, but $45 billion is a significant industry sector. It is a sector that I understand employs either in full-time or part-time jobs somewhere in the order of 165,000-plus people across the country. In 2018, 1.7 million tonnes of wine grapes were crushed, producing 1.29 billion litres of wine. Of that, nearly half came from 18 wine regions in my home state of South Australia. In 2019, around 63 per cent of the wine produced was exported by some 2,900 Australian wine exporting entities. For the year ended December 2019, I understand that 744 million litres of wine, worth $2.9 billion, were exported to China, being the dominant destination country, accounting for nearly 45 per cent of all wine exports by value.
I quote those figures to simply highlight both the importance and the vulnerabilities of the wine region. Spread across dozens of regions across Australia, where the industry is vital to those regions, Australia's wine industry can and does successfully compete with the rest of the world, so much so that in recent years a number of European countries have been resorting to all kinds of tactics to protect their own wine industries from Australian competition—I've spoken about that, and I'm sure others have in the past as well—with overseas winemakers' most common tactic being to claim exclusive rights to wine terminology that for decades described the type of wine rather than a specific brand. That seems to be continuing as a backdoor way of shutting Australian wines out of the international market.
Other risks to the wine industry include not only the competition I was just referring to but trade agreements between countries that we already export wine to and other countries again, which would perhaps undercut the arrangements we have with those countries. Then there are currency fluctuations. Of course when you export a product you are always vulnerable to and at the mercy of the currency of the day. There are weather conditions—and I know many of my colleagues have spoken about this—and also, here in Australia, water availability, which I'm sure the minister knows all about, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin area, where water availability directly affects the ability of wine growers to survive. Then of course we've had the issue of fire and smoke damage that hit many of the growers last summer.
Notwithstanding those risks, Australia has some of the oldest vineyards in the world and produces some of the best wines in the world. However, anything we can do to provide stability and certainty for our wine producers should be done, and this legislation goes part of the way to doing that. The bill that we're dealing with, the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, seeks to protect reputable wine producers from copycat labels that seek to profit from the good reputation of proven winemakers. It's a matter that I had personal experience with. A constituent of mine who was a winemaker was having his label almost identically reproduced by someone else but with a slight variation. The matter went to court. In my view it was not successfully resolved, but nevertheless it was a great example of the sort of thing that goes on.
By the wine industry establishing a publicly available directory of grape product labels, it's hopefully intended that that might stamp some of that out. The use of copycat labels not only allows unethical producers to profit from the investment and good work of others; even more concerning, it's likely to damage the good reputation of the recognised brands by consumers seeing labels of brands that have a good reputation but the wine doesn't stack up to that reputation, and that in turn damages the good label and reputation of the original manufacturer.
The wine industry backed this legislation and will maintain the label directory. If breaches occur, export licences can be suspended or cancelled. I guess time will tell just how well the system works. Whilst I support the intent of this legislation, it's a matter that I believe needs to be reviewed at some stage in the future.
I turn briefly to the issue of climate change, because the farming sector is directly affected by climate change and the considerable risks and uncertainties that it creates. In my speech in this very chamber on Tuesday night I referred to the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO's State of the Climate 2020 report, which articulates and provides all the factual information required to highlight that climate change is real. It is now no long a matter of conjecture. It's no longer a matter of debate. The statistics, particularly over the last decades, when scientists around the world have been able to carefully focus on the issue of climate change, clearly demonstrate that our climate is changing.
For farmers, that affects their operations. Extreme weather events and normal bad weather might be something that they factor into their operations, but when the climate itself changes and we start to have weather events that are not only more extreme but more frequent, then it directly affects the ability of the product to be grown. With respect to grapes it's even more difficult, because grapes aren't the kind of crop that you can relocate from one part of the country to another. The vines are there, and have been for decades in many cases, and the sites chosen for their plantings were chosen specifically because of the climatic conditions of the area.
So if the climate changes, it's not a matter of simply saying, 'I'm going to plant some more wheat over in that paddock as opposed to this paddock' because it simply doesn't work that way. The huge investments that have been made will be lost or, at the very least, put at risk. There was a report released only last year by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics and Sciences that found that since the year 2000—that is, in the last two decades—climate change has reduced the revenue of Australian cropping farms by a total of $1.1 billion per year. $1.1 billion a year has been lost from our agricultural production because of climate change. That was according to that report. Of course, the losses are not evenly spread. I accept that climate change also offers opportunities in some other areas. Perhaps in some other places crops might grow better because of it. Nevertheless, right now, the hit is about $1.1 billion. For the wine industry, however, it's a different situation, as I pointed out earlier.
The last matter that I want to speak about is the impact on winegrowers and wine exporters in this country because of the current bans being put on them by the Chinese government. The restrictions, in fact, began to occur nearly a year ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit China. I spoke with several winegrowers in my state who were exporting wine to China. In fact, almost their entire exports were going to China. They were all stopped because of the COVID-19 pandemic. So they were starting to get hit before the current restrictions were put in place. We now have a situation where, because of this government's mismanagement of the relationship with China, the chances of those exports resuming are becoming slimmer and slimmer by the day.
It's also the case that China itself has become a major winegrower. In fact, China now has the second-largest area of vineyard plantings in the world. Spain is No. 1 and China is No. 2, with 875,000 hectares of plantings. That is six times larger than Australia's plantings of 146,000 hectares. They don't produce as much wine as Australia right now, but, when those vines mature, they probably will. We'll wait and see whether, in the future, their reliance on Australia—regardless of any trade bans—would begin to diminish.
More concerning is this: China, of course, can go to other countries like Chile, Italy, Spain or France for their wine, and the problem with that is that, once you start to enter into arrangements with another country, winning back the market for Australia becomes incredibly difficult. Once you lose them, there's every likelihood that you've lost them forever. Australia should, of course, be looking for other markets, and I accept that, but, as other speakers have said, that's not going to happen overnight. That will take time, and it won't happen when there's so much wine available and ready to be shipped overseas, for which there is no market. It's not just about the growers. Let's be frank about it: there are whole communities—I'm sure the minister understands that as well as anybody—that rely on those growers to sustain the economy of their communities. I genuinely despair for what they face over the coming months. We need to improve our relationships with China. We need to improve our trade relationship. The government itself was totally promoting and advocating for that only four or five years ago. Having entered into the trade agreement, it seems that we've now gone back further than we were even before the trade agreement. We need to do everything possible to revive that trade agreement, and that starts with the actions of this government.
Regarding the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, the label directory can be established by Wine Australia to assist brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights. By supporting brand owners to better protect their intellectual property rights, this bill will not only ensure consumers can be confident that they will be getting a safe and quality product but also ensure that what the bottle's label says is what they're actually getting. This additional control will assist in safeguarding the reputation of Australia's growing wine export market, which directly employs over 69,000 people and is worth $2.87 billion per year.
The label directory will be a public-facing online database of all Australian wine labels for exports that can be used by wine brand owners to search for copycat labels. Industry asked for a label directory to better protect their intellectual property rights from potential copycat exporters who seek to take advantage of the good name of Australian brands overseas. While Wine Australia's role does not extend to regulating intellectual property rights, this bill will assist wine brand owners to better protect their own interests. With the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, we are adding one more tool to Wine Australia's export control toolkit. The bill will make maintaining a label directory a part of Wine Australia's existing export controls to deter exporters of wine and other great products that seek to mimic Australian brands for commercial gain. This bill is important to Australia's wine exporters, as well as the wine industry more broadly, and it ensures that Wine Australia is equipped with appropriate regulatory mechanisms for maintaining Australia's reputation for quality and integrity in a growing international market for Australian wine. I commend the bill to the House.
I thank the minister. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Chifley moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:09