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 the industrial relations legislation introduced by the Government yesterday cuts the take-home pay of workers; and
(2) therefore, pursuant to standing order 37(c), calls on the Minister for Industrial Relations to immediately discharge the order of the day, Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, from the Notice Paper.
This government's Christmas present for Australian workers is to cut their take-home pay.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Minister?
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?
Seconded. If they don't support the pay cut, they'll withdraw the bill this morning—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
I move:
That the Member be no longer 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 the king of the crab walk. When he gets it wrong, he scuttles—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Minister?
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of the status of government responses to committee reports as at 9 December 2020. The schedule will be incorporated in Hansard.
The schedule read as follows—
The Speaker's schedule to the House of Representatives on the status of government responses to committee reports is presented at six monthly intervals, usually in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings. The last schedule was presented in the House on 18 June 2020. The schedule presents a list of committee reports that contain recommendations requiring a government response. Government responses received during the period are included in the schedule and the report it relates to is then removed from subsequent schedules.
The timeframe for government responses to committee reports in this schedule is determined by the resolution adopted by the House on 29 September 2010, in which government responses to House and Joint committee reports are required within a six month period from the presentation of the report in the House. The Senate has resolved to require government responses to Senate and Joint committee reports within three months of a report being tabled.(1)
This schedule does not list reports that do not require a government response. In the past, the practice was to include all reports tabled in the House in the Speaker's schedule. However, the intent of this schedule is to provide an update to the House on the status of government responses to committee reports.
The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations that are wider than the provision of the bill and would therefore be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to bill inquiry reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are usually reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' regular scrutiny reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments are not listed, as the timeframe for a response is specified in correspondence to the relevant minister.
Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report. Executive Minutes are included in this schedule.
The table below provides a summary of government responses received and outstanding to committee reports of the 43rd to 46th Parliaments inclusive.
Listed below (see table below) are responses received (since tabling of the last schedule on 18 June 2020) and outstanding (as at 9 December 2020):
* Presented out of session
Notes
(1) This practice has arisen from a Senate resolution of 14 March 1973, in which the Senate declared its opinion that the government should provide a response to committee reports within three months of tabling. Successive governments have affirmed their commitment to providing such responses.
(2) The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate or to the President or Speaker (if presented earlier out of session). Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.
(3) If the source for the government response date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote.
(4) The Government has undertaken to respond to committee reports within a six month period-see House of Representatives Standing Orders, resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six month period. The period from when the 44th Parliament was prorogued on 9 May 2016 to the commencement of the 45th Parliament on 30 August 2016 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 45th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2019 to the commencement of the 46th Parliament on 2 July 2019 is not included in the response period.
(5) The Committee has resolved that a government response to this report is no longer required. The listing will be removed from the next schedule.
(6) The Committee has resolved that a government response to this report is no longer required. The listing will be removed from the next schedule.
(7) The Committee has resolved that a government response to this report is no longer required. The listing will be removed from the next schedule.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The first priority of the Morrison government is the safety and security of Australians.
Millions of Australians use power, water, banking and health services on a daily basis and do not have to think about the supporting systems and infrastructure that deliver those essential services to our community and across the country.
Imagine a day without power or water because the systems that reliably deliver these services to our homes and our businesses have been attacked or deliberately disrupted.
A prolonged and widespread failure in the energy sector, for example, could have catastrophic and far-reaching consequences. Such an incident may lead to shortages or destruction of essential medical supplies; impact food, groceries, water supply and telecommunications networks; disrupt transport, traffic management systems and fuel; reduce or shutdown banking, finance and retail services; and leave businesses and governments unable to function.
The introduction today of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 is a significant step in the protection of the critical infrastructure and essential services which all Australians rely upon.
Critical infrastructure underpins the delivery of goods and services that are essential to the Australian way of life, our nation's wealth and prosperity, and national security.
While Australia has not suffered a catastrophic attack on our critical infrastructure, we are not immune.
Australia is facing increasing cybersecurity threats to essential services, businesses and all levels of government. In the past two years we have seen cyberattacks on federal parliamentary networks, logistics, the medical sector and universities, just to mention a few.
Internationally, we have seen cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, including water services and airports.
COVID-19 has also strained the ability of critical infrastructure to deliver essential services. These disruptions show how quickly events can cause widespread physical, financial and indeed psychological damage.
While owners and operators of critical infrastructure are best placed to deal with such threats, it takes a team effort to bring about positive change. That is why the ongoing security and resilience of critical infrastructure must be a shared responsibility, not only by all governments and the owners and operators of the infrastructure but indeed by all Australians. The cost of inaction is far too great to ignore.
This bill signifies an enhanced effort to ensure the ongoing security and resilience of critical infrastructure and the essential services they provide for all Australians.
This bill will extend the application of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 to additional sectors and assets within those sectors that are critical to:
This includes communications, transport, data and the cloud, food and grocery, defence, higher education, and research and health.
The bill will build on the regulatory regime in the existing act by introducing a new framework designed to uplift the all-hazards security and resilience of critical infrastructure assets and provide government with greater visibility of cyberattacks.
Part 2A of the bill requires entities to adopt and comply with a risk management program that ensures that critical infrastructure assets are protected and safeguarded from all hazards. This obligation is designed to uplift core security practices of critical infrastructure assets by ensuring that entities take a holistic and proactive approach to identifying, preventing and mitigating risks.
Part 2B of the bill creates a framework that requires entities to report cybersecurity incidents to the Australian Signals Directorate. The purpose of this framework is to establish a comprehensive understanding of the cybersecurity risks to critical infrastructure assets.
Through greater awareness, the government can better see malicious trends and campaigns which would not be apparent to an individual victim of an attack. This will ensure that the government can appropriately advise and assist entities across the economy to better safeguard their assets from cyberattacks.
The bill also facilitates the government to work with industry to strengthen the cyber preparedness and resilience of entities that operate assets of the highest criticality to Australia's national interests. These assets of highest criticality are defined as systems of national significance due to the role they serve in the economy and the consequences to the national interest should they be unavailable or inoperable.
The enhanced cybersecurity obligations will support a bespoke, outcomes-focused partnership between government and Australia's most critical assets and will build an aggregated threat picture and understanding of cybersecurity risks to critical infrastructure in a way that is mutually beneficial to government and industry.
These obligations will require the responsible entity for a system of national significance to undertake one or more prescribed activities requested by the Department of Home Affairs, including:
While private industry is best placed to protect critical infrastructure, some threats are too sophisticated or disruptive to be handled alone. That is why Part 3A of this bill provides government with last-resort powers to respond to a serious cyber incident that is having, has had or may have an impact on a critical infrastructure asset and there is a material risk to Australia's national interests. These new powers will ensure government is able to act effectively and decisively in responding to cyberattacks that go beyond the capability or capacity of industry to respond.
Under the bill, the Minister for Home Affairs will be able to authorise the Secretary of Home Affairs to:
The bill has been developed through extensive consultation with industry. This includes consulting with over 3,000 people and receiving close to 350 submissions over two separate periods of consultation on a consultation paper and exposure draft legislation. I would like to thank industry and the department for the constructive approach to the consultations and their assistance in developing the legislation with the home affairs department.
The final bill reflects the outcomes of the consultation process and ensures we have the right balance between taking effective steps to manage security of our critical infrastructure and appropriate checks and balances. This includes mandatory industry consultation periods, reporting mechanisms and oversight by IGIS.
However this is not the end of consultation, the government is committed to continuing the conversation to ensure that the reforms are operationalised in the most appropriate and effective manner.
An enhanced partnership with industry will be key to the success of these reforms. Strengthening government's cooperation and collaboration with industry is a vital part of improving the resilience of Australia's critical infrastructure.
In 2021, the government will relaunch the Trusted Information Sharing Network (TISN) for Critical Infrastructure Resilience and a revised Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy to further embed the genuine industry government partnership approach to managing the security and resilience of our critical infrastructure.
This enhanced industry engagement mechanism will be central as we commence co-design of the sector-specific requirements and best practice guidance which will underpin the Risk Management Program.
To ensure the Risk Management Program obligations are fit for purpose and drive genuine security uplift, we will work with industry to ensure the rules are proportionate to the risks impacting each sector, recognise existing approaches and impose the least regulatory burden necessary. These obligations will not commence for a given sector until we have completed this co-design work with industry.
The bill demonstrates the government's commitment to uplifting the security and resilience of Australia's critical infrastructure assets. It guarantees the continued growth of Australian industry and the ability for businesses to compete in overseas markets. It allows Australians to have uninterrupted access to essential services and ensures that our society and living standard continues to be the envy of the world. It ensures that Australia continues to be a safe, prosperous and wealthy nation.
Before concluding, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of the hardworking officers of the home affairs portfolio for their work during this difficult year. No-one could have anticipated the events of 2020, but it is clear your outstanding response has kept Australians safe and secure in unprecedented times. Specifically with regard to the development of these important reforms and the comprehensive consultations conducted with industry regarding the proposed regime I would like to thank Hamish Hansford, Sam Grunhard, Andrew Kiley, Louise Bechtel, Lib Clark, Alex Sallabank and Luke Muffet for their tireless efforts. I'm very proud of the work of these officers and those across the department.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration and Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Information Provisions) Bill 2020 enhances the government's ability to uphold the safety and good order of the Australian community.
Criminal intelligence and related information is vital to assessing the criminal background or associations of non-citizen visa applicants and visa holders. The measures in this bill will ensure that sensitive information—disclosed in confidence by law enforcement and intelligence agencies—is appropriately protected.
This bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) to provide a framework to protect confidential information against unauthorised disclosure where that information has been provided by a law enforcement or intelligence agency to an authorised Commonwealth officer for consideration in a character test based visa decision.
The framework will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to disclose confidential information to a court for the purposes of proceedings before that court. It will also provide that the court must not disclose this information further where the court determines that to do so would create a real risk of damage to the public interest.
The bill will also amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Citizenship Act) to create a framework, substantially similar to the amendments to the Migration Act, for the disclosure of confidential information provided by gazetted law enforcement and intelligence agencies for consideration in character related citizenship decisions.
The bill will also amend the Citizenship Act to create a power for the minister to issue a non-disclosure certificate on public interest grounds in relation to information relating to a decision made under the Citizenship Act where that decision is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This includes for reasons relating to national security or law enforcement. This change replicates a similar power that already exists in the Migration Act for migration related decisions.
Additionally, the bill will make it an offence for Commonwealth officers to make unauthorised disclosures of confidential information provided by gazetted law enforcement and intelligence agencies and used in character related visa and citizenship decisions.
The creation of this offence highlights the seriousness with which the government regards the unauthorised disclosure of such information, due to the potential for severe damage to the public interest.
These changes also address a High Court decision in 2017, where the court held that the minister cannot be prevented by current section 503A of the Migration Act from being required to divulge certain confidential information to the High Court or to the Federal Court in order to review character test based visa decisions.
It is important that these measures are passed. While the type of confidential information used in character related decisions may not necessarily meet the threshold for nondisclosure under the national security framework, it nonetheless warrants protection. This is because of the potential consequences if the information is divulged—including the risk of compromising Australia's national security and the operations, capabilities and sources of law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Additionally, public interest immunity does not provide full protection for the type of confidential information that may be provided by law enforcement or intelligence agencies or their sources to support character decisions.
The measures in this bill do not alter existing rights to seek merits review or judicial review of character related decisions. The bill ensures fairness to review applicants by allowing courts to admit the confidential information into evidence and to decide how much weight to give to that evidence.
This allows the courts to weigh a number of factors, including potential prejudice to an applicant by not having access to the confidential information, as well as the public interest.
The balance reflected in the bill will enable law enforcement agencies to continue to provide confidential information to the department to make fully informed visa and citizenship decisions on character grounds, while providing fairness to applicants seeking merits or judicial review of a departmental decision.
This is essential to the government's core business of regulating, in the national interest, who should enter and remain in Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Labor supports the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020. We welcome the long-overdue repeal of the questioning and detention warrant power, a power which has never been used and which, since 2016, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and multiple independent national security legislation monitors have repeatedly told the government to repeal. And we agree that, in extraordinary circumstances, ASIO should be able to use its compulsory questioning power for the purpose of gathering intelligence in relation to politically motivated violence, espionage and foreign interference.
The truth is that this bill is long overdue. In March 2018 the intelligence and security committee recommended that, among other things, this government (1) repeal the questioning and detention warrant power in division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act and (2) develop legislation for a revised compulsory questioning framework and introduce it to the parliament by the end of 2018. Those recommendations were unanimous. It took over one year for the government to even acknowledge the committee's recommendations and it took over two years for the government to introduce the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill, which implements those two key recommendations.
The questioning and detention warrant power is a power that has never been used. Since 2016 the intelligence committee and multiple independent national security legislation monitors have repeatedly told the government to repeal it. This bill would finally do that. It is no small thing for the current government to repeal a coercive power. I'm not sure it has ever done so. Consistent with the intelligence and security committee's March 2018 recommendations, this bill would also introduce a revised compulsory questioning warrant power.
As set out in the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, all members of the committee, Labor and Liberal, supported the bill, subject to a number of amendments being made. The committee made seven unanimous recommendations in total. The government has circulated amendments that would implement six of them. The government has said that it will not implement recommendation 3 of the committee's report, which reads as follows:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to allow the Committee to request a written or oral briefing on any matter in relation to any questioning warrant as reported in the Annual Report prepared by the Director-General of ASIO.
As a matter of practice, ASIO already provides the intelligence and security committee with regular briefings and some of those briefings might touch on operational matters. As the committee's report makes clear, recommendation 3 is not calling on the government to amend the Intelligence Services Act to allow the intelligence and security committee to inquire into ongoing operational matters. The purpose of the amendment is simply to make clear that the committee can request a briefing from ASIO in relation to a questioning warrant that has already been issued and which has been reported in the annual report prepared by the director-general of ASIO. In other words, the amendment would ensure that the committee is able to satisfy itself that these extraordinary powers are being exercised appropriately.
We in the Labor Party do not think recommendation 3 is controversial. Clearly, the six Liberal members, the majority of the intelligence and security committee, do not think it is controversial either. We do, however, acknowledge that, since the committee tabled its report into the ASIO amendment bill, the government has released the unclassified version of the report of the comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community by Dennis Richardson. It has also released its response to that report.
Among other things, Dennis Richardson recommended that the remit of the intelligence and security committee should not be expanded to include direct oversight of operational activities whether past or current. The government has agreed with that recommendation. Labor is still in the process of working through Dennis Richardson's 1,300-page report, including the sections on the role of the intelligence and security committee. For that reason, we will not insist on the implementation of recommendation 3 of the committee's report at this stage. However, we will have more to say on this issue after we have had time to complete our review.
As to the other committee recommendations, the government has introduced amendments to implement the other recommendations made by the intelligence and security committee. Those amendments will improve the safeguards contained in the bill, particularly in relation to minors, and ensure that the committee will have a further opportunity to review the new questioning warrant power in three years. As a result of the amendments circulated by the government the eligibility criteria for prescribed authorities will be tightened; the Attorney-General will be required to take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in deciding whether to issue a minor questioning warrant; and it will be put beyond any doubt that an ASIO officer who makes a public interest disclosure in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act could not be prosecuted for making an unauthorised disclosure of questioning warrant information.
The committee has also recommended, and the government has agreed, that the bill be amended to provide for a more rational sunset provision. Instead of the 10-year sunset provision originally proposed by the government, which can hardly be described as a sunset provision at all, the new questioning warrant framework would instead cease to have effect in five years. The inclusion of a rational sunset provision was important to all members of the intelligence and security committee, Labor and Liberal, as was the inclusion of a provision that would allow the committee to commence the review into the new questioning power within three years. That is because the questioning warrant power is an extraordinary power. We must not lose sight of that. It is an extraordinary power now and it has always been understood as an extraordinary power.
I want to say something about what we have called 'the Howard safeguard' that appears in the current legislation. This is the one significant point of difference between Labor and Liberal members of the intelligence and security committee. Unlike the Liberal members of the committee, Labor members of the committee did not support the repeal of the key safeguard that was created by the Howard government in 2003, which is the requirement that questioning warrants be issued by an independent issuing authority, who is a judge or a retired judge. The government has advanced no persuasive justification for removing the Howard safeguard. Most bizarrely, the government has argued that the repeal of the Howard safeguard would somehow constitute a desirable manifestation of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. The Minister for Home Affairs, who is with us in the chamber, is not exactly known as a proponent of that particular doctrine. This is, after all, the same minister who disclaimed any responsibility for a $423 million contract that his department awarded to a company headquartered in a beach shack on Kangaroo Island.
Even putting to one side the minister's hypocrisy, the suggestion that removing the Howard safeguard would constitute a desirable manifestation of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility betrays a profound ignorance about the role that independent issuing authorities play in Australia. Such authorities are tasked not with making judgements about questions of policy or national interest but, rather, with assessing the legality of decisions to authorise the use of coercive powers by government agencies. The government has also overlooked the fact that, by necessity, ASIO operates in secret. The usual rules of public accountability and ministerial responsibility to the parliament do not and cannot apply.
Labor's approach to this bill, as with all national security bills, has been guided by two principles: a commitment to protecting the safety and security of Australians and Australia, on the one hand, and an equally powerful commitment to protecting the democratic rights of and liberties of Australians, on the other. The Howard safeguard, which this government is removing, is consistent with both of those principles. Labor understands that having clearly defined powers and robust safeguards, as well as being protective of civil liberties and democratic freedoms, plays a critical role in building and maintaining public confidence in ASIO. Without that confidence, ASIO's ability to effectively gather intelligence would be severely compromised.
The Howard government created the Howard safeguard for a reason. The questioning warrant power is unlike any other power conferred on ASIO. When the bill containing the questioning warrant powers was first introduced to parliament in 2002, the then Attorney-General for the Howard government, Daryl Williams QC, MP, described the bill as 'extraordinary' and said:
… I hope the powers under the bill never have to be exercised.
He also said:
… the bill is about intelligence gathering in extraordinary circumstances …
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has described the power as 'serious and unusual'. As the Department of Home Affairs acknowledged on 10 July 2020, the compulsory questioning power under this bill could, for example, theoretically be used to apprehend and question an Australian who is doing business with a foreign company or a journalist. Moreover, under a questioning warrant, a person enjoys no privilege against self-incrimination and must not fail to give any information requested under the warrant. A person may be required to surrender travel documents, may be subject to strip searches and may be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to five years for disclosing the mere existence of a questioning warrant.
The Howard safeguard is good law, and Labor will be moving an amendment to reinstate it. And I'd like to put this on the record: if that amendment fails, Labor will reinstate the Howard safeguard if we are successful at the next election.
I'll turn now to some of the other matters that came up in the committee's report and that the government is proceeding with amendments for, first being the prescribed authority. Under both the current and proposed new questioning warrant power, questioning by ASIO must be conducted in the presence of a prescribed authority. That is another fundamental safeguard. When the Howard government sought to introduce the questioning warrant power in 2003, the Australian parliament convinced the government to amend the bill to ensure that only eminent and highly qualified individuals could be appointed as prescribed authorities.
As a result of those amendments, a prescribed authority must be a former judge of a superior court, a current Supreme Court or district court judge or a president or deputy president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. By contrast, in the form in which it was introduced to the parliament by the government the bill would have allowed the Attorney-General to appoint individuals who could not possibly be qualified to perform the role of prescribed authority. For example, the Attorney-General could appoint a conveyancing solicitor or a banking lawyer as prescribed authorities provided they had 10 years experience in a law firm. The government justified this departure from the existing prescribed authority model on the basis that the model has presented difficulties due to a limited pool of potential applicants. Given the very high number of serving and retired judges across Australia, which runs to several hundred men and women, and given that the current questioning warrant power has not been used in 10 years, that justification is very weak indeed.
Labor welcomes the government's amendment to tighten the eligibility criteria for prescribed authorities. That amendment will implement a recommendation by the intelligence and security committee that, in addition to having engaged in legal practice for at least 10 years, the legal practitioner must be a Queen's Counsel or a Senior Counsel in order to be eligible for appointment as a prescribed authority.
Turning to some other concerns, Labor have a number of other concerns with the revised questioning warrant framework that in our view require particularly close examination when the intelligence and security committee reviews the legislation in three years time. Those concerns are set out in the additional comments by Labor members of the intelligence and security committee which form part of the report on this bill and so, with one exception, I won't go through them now.
The one outstanding concern that I wish to mention relates to children. This parliament must be vigilant in ensuring that the safeguards designed to protect children in this bill, and in any bill, function as intended. While in its amended form Labor are generally satisfied that the bill includes sufficient safeguards to protect children, we do think the government should give further consideration to the introduction of an independent child advocate into the questioning warrant framework. Certainly that is a matter that the intelligence and security committee will look at closely when it reviews the revised questioning warrant framework in 2023.
There's one other aspect of this bill which I wish to deal with which is something apart from questioning warrants, and that is the internal authorisation of tracking devices. In addition to a revised questioning warrant framework, the bill would enable ASIO to use tracking devices with internal authorisations rather than requiring a warrant from the Attorney-General. This is significant because all of the other invasions of privacy that ASIO is able to undertake by authorisation of law do require a warrant from the Attorney-General. This marks a break with that arrangement. The government's primary justification for this change is that law enforcement agencies do not require a warrant to exercise similar powers and so ASIO should not require a warrant either. That is not so much a justification as it is an observation from which nothing follows, and it's an observation that ignores the fundamental distinction between intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies. That, of course, is a fundamental distinction, which Dennis Richardson reaffirms in the recently released report, saying that that distinction, a distinction that forms part of the framework established after the report by Justice Hope more than 40 years ago, remains as important a distinction today as it was then.
Ultimately, having regard to the robustness of the oversight provided by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the operational benefits to ASIO, Labor was persuaded that ASIO should be able to use tracking devices with internal authorisation. But I would like to make it clear that, despite agreeing to these amendments, Labor, like Dennis Richardson, but apparently unlike the government, does recognise that there is a fundamental distinction between the role of an intelligence agency and the role of a law enforcement agency.
I'd like to conclude by making it clear that, regardless of whether our amendment to reinstate the Howard safeguard succeeds, Labor expects that the Attorney-General will use the new questioning warrant power sparingly, prudently and only in the most extraordinary circumstances. As well as having serious implications for the rights and liberties of the subject of the warrant, the use of the questioning warrant power to gather intelligence in relation to foreign interference and espionage could in some circumstances provoke an international response, which could have broad and serious implications, including for Australian nationals living or travelling overseas. 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:
(a)Labor's approach to this bill has been guided by a commitment to protect the safety and security of Australians and Australia, on the one hand, and an equally powerful commitment to protect the democratic rights of and liberties of Australians, on the other;
(b)the bill would remove one of the key existing safeguards that was created by the Howard Government when the questioning warrant power was first introduced in 2003; and
(c)under the Howard Safeguard, a questioning warrant must be issued by an independent issuing authority with the consent of the Attorney-General; and
(2)calls on the Government to amend the bill to re-instate the Howard Safeguard."
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 an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted, with a view of 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.
These laws from Minister Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, would have a chilling effect on journalists breaking politically significant stories, on grassroots community activists and on brave whistleblowers who speak out and protect the public's right to know what their government is doing. These laws could see these brave people jailed for up to five years—for example, if they're a journalist and they refuse to reveal their sources. It's no wonder that barristers who have had a close look at this have said that this will have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to speak to journalists about issues of political significance and a decrease in media coverage and reporting on those matters, thereby inhibiting public debate.
The powers that Labor and Liberal are about to give the Attorney-General unfettered, in this bill, will be so far-reaching that they can be used to clamp down on civil society organisations and political advocacy groups, including environment, human rights and refugee groups. In this bill, this law and these powers would make Australia a world leader in state sanctioned tracking of citizens and coercive questioning powers, going further than any other Five Eyes country. Labor and Liberal are about to vote for it. This always happens at the end of the year: Labor and Liberal put a lump of coal in the parliamentary Christmas stocking. There is always a bill that gets rushed through at the end of the year that takes away people's rights.
People should be very concerned about this legislation because, to the extent that bits of this legislation may be half a step and shuffle forward because they remove some powers, it takes four, five, six or seven steps back. I say to the opposition that it is not enough to say, 'We will give the government unfettered powers that make Australia a world leader in being able to examine, question, search and seize things from citizens in the hope that maybe one day we'll take them back later.' If these powers are so bad, which they are, let's not give them to the minister in the first place. It's critical that people understand a bit about the detail of what is happening here and why this last minute piece of legislation that is being rushed through should send a shiver down the spine of people who think that Australia is a place where you have the right, provided that you're not breaking the law, to go about your business freely without government ministers—not even security agencies, but ministers—being able to search and seize you and your property, because that's what this legislation will do. We've got to understand it.
There will be a thing called a questioning warrant in this bill, which will now be broadly available. You haven't been convicted of anything, but someone has a suspicion—and I'll come to who that someone is—that you might have done something wrong. They'll be able to bring you in, detain you, hold you for questioning and, under this bill, a police officer will be able to conduct a search, if you've been apprehended, and seize your items.
At the moment, if someone wants to issue a warrant to exercise those kinds of broad powers, which are going to be expanded under this bill, you have to go to a judge. Labor and Liberal are about to vote and support this bill to give that unfettered power to the Attorney-General and a minister to be able to call you in and authorise for you to be searched and your property seized.
I've heard all of the things that the opposition and others say about how this minister and this Attorney-General conduct their affairs, how in many instances they're not fit to hold their jobs and how they turn a blind eye to civil rights. However, as the rest of the country knows you wouldn't trust this government to protect your privacy and your liberty, we are nonetheless, on the eve of parliament rising, about to give the Attorney-General and the minister—not a law enforcement agency, not a judge overseeing it—the power to pull you in for questioning and authorise search and seizure. That should not happen. It certainly should not happen when the only inquiry into it has been at a closed-shop committee where Labor and Liberal get together and say, 'It's okay. We're quite happy to hand over that power to the state that makes Australia a world leader in this kind of state-sanctioned tracking of citizens and coercive questioning powers.'
I'm pleased that the opposition's going to move an amendment at least to require a judge or some other issuing authority to oversee these warrants, but if that amendment fails we should all vote against the bill. Otherwise, if we don't vote against this today—and I'm not surprised that certain members don't want to hear this debate, because I suspect in other instances they'd have railed against these kinds of powers being given to the Attorney-General—and try and stop it, then we are saying, Labor and Liberal are saying, they don't mind if the Attorney-General now has unfettered powers in a way that you would struggle to find even in other Five Eyes countries to pull someone in for questioning, and search and seize their property.
There will also be warrants available to be issued with respect to 14-year-olds. We are going to see a lowering of the age for whom this could be targeted. That would be a breach of our international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It is disappointing, as we head towards the end of the year, that Labor and Liberal are in lock step in giving more power to the Attorney-General and the minister. No case has been made that this is going to make Australia safer. It's just going to give a minister unaccountably more powers. We have seen during the course of this year that, when the parliament chooses to stand up to the government, we can sometimes bring about change. The government doesn't always have to get their way. But they will get their way if Labor's willing to waive everything through.
I would hope that the opposition reconsiders this power grab by a government that is going to take away people's liberty, even when they haven't been convicted of doing anything wrong. You're not going to need to satisfy a court anymore that there's a suspicion; you just need a minister to have a suspicion, unchallengeable, with respect to a very broad range of activities that is going to encompass journalists, community activists and whistleblowers. If this law passes, all of a sudden the minister is going to have power to interfere in their lives. Anyone who cares about the rule of law and individual liberty should be very worried about this bill. Of course, standing up for national security is important, but we have to make sure that in protecting Australia we don't take away the things that define us as what we are in the first place. One of those things, I would have thought, is that, if you want to stand up, speak out and blow the whistle on something that is happening by a government or if you want be a community activist and organise a demonstration against the government, you should be able to do that without worrying that the minister is going to have unfettered power to call you in for questioning, keep you separate from the rest of the world, seize your property and search your home. That's the power that Labor and Liberal are about give to the current Attorney-General. I want you to think about that.
The current ministers are not fit to be exercising the powers that they have. The opposition have said that, and yet the opposition are about to hand this power over to them. I heard from the opposition spokesperson that they're going to give this power to the Attorney-General and the government on the hope that they use it well. That is going to be of great comfort to the person who finds themselves called in for questioning, detained, their property searched and seized even though they haven't done anything wrong! Perhaps they've just blown the whistle. Perhaps all they've done is organised a rally and been a community activist. Perhaps they're a journalist. Well, that hope counts for nothing. We shouldn't be giving powers to a government, to an unaccountable minister and then just hope that they do the right thing. If we want them to do the right thing let's put it into law. If we're not guaranteed that the minister will do the right thing—and looking at these ministers there are plenty of reasons to think they won't do the right thing—let's not give them the power in the first place. That's what we should do.
I expect this from the government—you expect this from the government: every year they encroach further and further on individuals' liberty and erode the rule of law more and more. I plead with the opposition to reconsider handing these powers over to the government. You hope one day, maybe, you'll get into power and you might be able to repeal it—although maybe not. Maybe there'll be a different person sitting in the chair at that stage who has a different approach to it, or maybe the party will change its position. Instead of hoping on a wing and a prayer that maybe one day you'll take away the power, let's not give it to them in the first place. This government does not deserve the right to track citizens who haven't done anything wrong more than they do at the moment. They have not earned that trust. We should not give them powers that are not going to be overseen by a judge, that would make Australia a world leader in state surveillance of its citizens.
This bill should be opposed. The amendment is one that will be supported because it takes out a bad bit, but, if the amendment fails, we should vote against the bill. I urge the opposition consider voting against the bill if the amendment fails. Otherwise it will be them who hands over to the government powers to do things that in other countries you can't do. When the minister does it—when the minister has you hauled in and has your house searched—you're not going to have any recourse, and that will be a dark day for Australia's democracy, for the rule of law and for individual liberties.
I thank the shadow Attorney-General for his contribution to the debate. I want to discount the contribution made by the member for Melbourne. I'd be very happy if somebody fact checked his appalling contribution—just his latest to this parliament—but people will take it at face value and discount it as an appalling contribution.
Mr Bandt interjecting—
You make Australians unsafe.
Tell me now—
You make Australians unsafe through your pathetic contributions and your stances in relation to this matter—
I remind the minister that he's addressing his remarks through the chair.
Yes, Mr Speaker. Ensuring the safety and protection of the Australian community is the first priority of this government. The persistent and evolving threat environment faced by Australia's law enforcement and security agencies makes it critical that they have access to effective capabilities and powers to counter the threats of politically motivated violence, terrorism, espionage and foreign interference.
The bill contains two distinct reforms that will modernise the powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or ASIO, to ensure that it is equipped with the tools it needs to combat evolving threats to Australia's national security and to keep Australians safe from those who seek to do us harm. First, the bill will repeal ASIO's existing questioning and detention warrant framework—contained in division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the ASIO Act—and introduce a new fit-for-purpose compulsory questioning framework. Second, the bill will amend ASIO's surveillance device regime, including to permit the use of non-intrusive tracking devices with internal authorisations in limited circumstances, akin to the level of authorisation for our law enforcement agencies.
The bill has been extensively reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, with a report tabled by the committee chair on 3 December 2020. In particular, I want to acknowledge, not only in relation to this bill but generally on the committee, the work of the member for Canning, as the chair, and the member for Holt, as the deputy chair of the committee—two absolutely patriotic and professional members of this parliament, who do our country a great service by their work on that committee, in complete contrast to the enemy of state, the member for Melbourne, as was represented before in his contribution.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that should be withdrawn! That is a point of order. That has to be withdrawn, and the minister should apologise.
How about you just stop? Are you raising a point of order?
I'm raising a point of order.
Then do it properly. Don't yell and wait until you've got the call.
Point of order: the minister should withdraw that comment. I invite you to get him to withdraw that comment and to apologise. That is an unparliamentary remark that is a reflection on a member.
I actually agree with the member for Melbourne that you should withdraw the comment.
I withdraw the comment, Mr Speaker. ASIO is facing a wider range of security challenges than at any time in its 70 years. As the director-general noted in his most recent annual threat assessment, the number of terrorism leads that ASIO is investigating has doubled since this time last year. The director-general also noted that the threat to Australia from foreign interference and espionage is higher now than it was at the height of the Cold War. The ASIO Amendment Bill 2020 will modernise ASIO's powers and, in doing so, improve ASIO's capacity to respond to these threats. The bill contains a significant number of important safeguards, including oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The bill also strengthens the right to legal representation during questioning.
To conclude, the bill ensures that ASIO is adequately equipped to combat security threats to Australia and Australians. It will ensure that ASIO can operate effectively in an increasingly challenging and complex national security environment. I commend the bill to the House.
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. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (30) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (after line 26), after the definition of imminent, insert:
issuing authority means:
(a) a person appointed under section 34ACA; or
(b) a member of a class of persons declared by regulations made for the purposes of that section to be issuing authorities.
(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 14 (after line 31), after section 34AC, insert:
34ACA Issuing authorities
(1) The Attorney-General may, by writing, appoint as an issuing authority a person who is a Judge.
(2) The Attorney-General must not appoint a person unless:
(a) the person has, by writing, consented to being appointed; and
(b) the consent is in force.
(3) The regulations may declare that persons in a specified class are issuing authorities.
(4) The regulations may specify a class of persons partly by reference to the facts that the persons have consented to being issuing authorities and their consents are in force.
(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 17 (lines 20 to 23), omit section 34AE, substitute:
34AE Status of issuing authorities and prescribed authorities
(1) An issuing authority or prescribed authority has, in the performance of his or her duties under this Division, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court.
(2) If a person who is a member of a court created by the Parliament has under this Division a function, power or duty that is neither judicial nor incidental to a judicial function or power, the person has the function, power or duty in a personal capacity and not as a court or a member of a court.
(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 19 (line 2) to page 20 (line 27), omit section 34B, substitute:
34B Request for questioning warrant
Seeking of Attorney -General ' s consent to request for warrant
(1) The Director-General may seek the Attorney-General's consent to request the issue of one of the following in relation to a person:
(a) an adult questioning warrant;
(b) a minor questioning warrant.
(2) The consent may be sought:
(a) in writing; or
(b) if the Director-General reasonably believes that the delay caused by making a written request may be prejudicial to security—orally in person, or by telephone or other means of communication.
(3) To avoid doubt, this section operates in relation to a request for the issue of a warrant under section 34BA or 34BB in relation to a person, even if a request (a previous request) for the issue of a warrant under this Division has previously been made in relation to the person.
Requirements for seeking consent
(4) In seeking the Attorney-General's consent, the Director-General must include:
(a) a statement of the facts and other grounds on which the Director-General considers it necessary that the warrant should be issued; and
(b) a statement of the particulars and outcomes of any previous requests for the issue of a questioning warrant in relation to the person; and
(c) if one or more warrants were issued as a result of the previous requests—a statement of:
(i) the period for which the person was questioned under each of those warrants; and
(ii) whether the person was apprehended in connection with any of those warrants; and
(d) whether the request is for a warrant that includes an immediate appearance requirement; and
(e) if the request is for a warrant that includes an immediate appearance requirement—whether the request is also for a questioning warrant that authorises the apprehension of the person; and
(f) if the request is for a minor questioning warrant—all information known to the Director-General, at the time of the making of the request, about the matters mentioned in subsection 34BB(3).
Additional requirements for seeking consent orally
(5) If seeking consent under subsection (1) orally, the Director-General must, before or as soon as practicable after seeking the consent, cause the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to be notified that the consent has been sought.
(6) If seeking consent under subsection (1) orally, the Director-General must:
(a) make a written record of the seeking of the consent that includes:
(i) the day and time the consent was sought; and
(ii) the reasons why the Director-General believes that the delay caused by seeking consent in writing may be prejudicial to security; and
(iii) the matters mentioned in subsection (4); and
(b) as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours after seeking the consent, provide the written record to:
(i) the Attorney-General; and
(ii) the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Attorney -General ' s consent to making of request
(7) The Attorney-General may, by writing, consent to the making of the request, but only if the Attorney-General is satisfied of the matters that an issuing authority must be satisfied of under section 34BA or 34BB (as the case requires).
(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 20 (lines 30 to 32), omit "If the Director-General requests the Attorney-General to do so, the Attorney-General may issue a warrant in relation to a person under this section if the Attorney-General", substitute "If the Director-General requests an issuing authority to do so, the issuing authority may issue a warrant in relation to a person under this section if the Attorney-General has consented to the issue of the warrant under section 34B and the issuing authority".
(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 21 (lines 28 to 30), omit "If the Director-General requests the Attorney-General to do so, the Attorney-General may issue a warrant in relation to a person under this section if the Attorney-General", substitute "If the Director-General requests an issuing authority to do so, the issuing authority may issue a warrant in relation to a person under this section if the Attorney-General has consented to the issue of the warrant under section 34B and the issuing authority".
(7) Schedule 1, item 10, page 22 (line 19), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 22 (line 22), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 22 (line 31), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 22 (line 32) to page 23 (line 3), omit subsection 34BB(4) (including the note), substitute:
(4) The issuing authority must take into account the matters in subsection (3) only to the extent that:
(a) the matters are known to the issuing authority; and
(b) the matters are relevant.
Note: Information about the matters in subsection (3) is provided to the issuing authority as part of the request for the warrant: see paragraph 34B(4) (f).
(11) Schedule 1, item 10, page 25 (line 11), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(12) Schedule 1, item 10, page 25 (line 19), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(13) Schedule 1, item 10, page 26 (line 3), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(14) Schedule 1, item 10, page 26 (line 24), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(15) Schedule 1, item 10, page 27 (line 4), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(16) Schedule 1, item 10, page 27 (line 17), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(17) Schedule 1, item 10, page 27 (line 35), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(18) Schedule 1, item 10, page 28 (line 1), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(19) Schedule 1, item 10, page 28 (line 20), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(20) Schedule 1, item 10, page 29 (line 3), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(21) Schedule 1, item 10, page 30 (line 6), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(22) Schedule 1, item 10, page 30 (line 7), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(23) Schedule 1, item 10, page 30 (line 26), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(24) Schedule 1, item 10, page 32 (line 33), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(25) Schedule 1, item 10, page 33 (line 1), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(26) Schedule 1, item 10, page 74 (line 27), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(27) Schedule 1, item 10, page 75 (line 19), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(28) Schedule 1, item 10, page 76 (line 23), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(29) Schedule 1, item 11, page 94 (line 10), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
(30) Schedule 1, item 18, page 96 (line 26), omit "Attorney-General", substitute "issuing authority".
The amendment, although it has 30 parts, is to a single effect, which is to reinstate what we've called the 'Howard safeguard'. In other words, it would ensure that, with the consent of the Attorney-General, questioning warrants could only be issued by an independent issuing authority. Parliamentary counsel has seen it as necessary to develop a quite intricate set of amendments, but they only do the one thing: they put back an issuing authority, who will be a judge, and set up a process where the Director-General of Security, the head of ASIO, seeks the Attorney-General's consent and the Attorney-General then goes to the issuing authority for a warrant to be issued.
As I explained in my second reading speech, the government has advanced no persuasive justification for removing the Howard safeguard from the questioning warrant framework. It's an important safeguard and it should be reinstated. The amendments circulated in my name would do precisely that. Of course Labor's preference would be for the government to move its own amendment to reinstate the Howard safeguard. We would welcome an opportunity to work with the government to that end. There's still time for government members to reconsider their position on this matter, and I would urge them to do so.
To be clear: if the amendments fail, Labor will reinstate the Howard safeguard, the process of having an issuing authority who is a judge, if we are successful at the next election.
I rise to support these amendments for the reasons that the shadow Attorney-General has put forward. They're good reasons. I'm sure the shadow Attorney-General was putting them forward as a good-faith attempt to address a real problem with the bill. In doing so, the amendments nail the problem with the bill and the reason it shouldn't pass. So, while I support these amendments, I suggest to the House that if the amendments fail, the bill itself should be defeated.
What the amendments seek to do is ensure that we don't move to a situation where a minister has unfettered power and is able to issue warrants that are not supervised by an issuing authority. That would be a huge, huge step. I think it speaks volumes that the minister hasn't bothered to respond to the amendments and explain why it is that all of a sudden we should remove the role of a judge or an issuing authority. He can't bring himself to make a contribution on that front. These amendments highlight that the bill is, in effect, a big power grab to entrench in ministers powers to do things that would otherwise be unlawful—namely, bring someone in for questioning, hold them, seize them, without having to go to a judge to seek permission.
I respect the shadow Attorney-General and I respect the reasons for putting the amendments forward, but I would suggest that in putting them forward he's put his finger on one of the big problems with the bill. If these amendments fail, the bill itself should be opposed.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I also present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum. By leave—I move government amendments (1) to (14) together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 9), after item 9, insert:
9A Subparagraph 34AAA(1) (a) (ix)
Omit "section 34ZB", substitute "subsection 34CC(5)".
(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 15 (line 22), at the end of paragraph 34AD(1) (c), add:
; and (iv) is a Queen's Counsel or a Senior Counsel.
(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 22 (line 20), after "the person", insert "as a primary consideration".
(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 40 (line 14), after "a person", insert "(other than an IGIS official)".
(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 40 (line 30), omit subparagraph 34D(11) (a) (iii), substitute:
(iii) an IGIS official; or
(iv) a police officer; or
(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 41 (line 15), omit subparagraph 34DA(3) (a) (iii), substitute:
(iii) an IGIS official; or
(iv) a police officer; or
(7) Schedule 1, item 10, page 63 (line 26), omit "subparagraph 34FF(7) (c) (i)", substitute "subparagraph 34FF(7) (c) (iii)".
(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 85 (after line 14), after subsection 34GF(3), insert:
Immunity from liability
(3A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who discloses information if, as a result of the operation of a law of the Commonwealth, the person is not subject to any civil or criminal liability for the conduct.
Note 1: The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 provides that an individual is not subject to any civil or criminal liability for making a public interest disclosure.
Note 2: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 86 (lines 3 to 12), omit subparagraphs (a) (iv) and (v) of the definition of permitted disclosurein subsection 34GF(5), substitute:
(iv) exercising a power (including a power to make a complaint or to give information), or performing a function or duty, under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Ombudsman Act 1976 or a law of a State or Territory appointing or establishing a complaints agency;
(10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 86 (after line 12), after paragraph (a) of the definition of permitted disclosure in subsection 34GF(5), insert:
(aa) a disclosure made to or by an IGIS official for the purposes of the IGIS official exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, as an IGIS official;
(11) Schedule 1, item 10, page 86 (line 30) to page 87 (line 3), omit paragraph (f) of the definition of permitted disclosure in subsection 34GF(5), substitute:
(f) a disclosure to one or more of the following persons, by the subject of a minor questioning warrant, by a parent, guardian or sibling of the subject, or by a minor's representative for the subject, of information described in paragraph (1) (c) or (2) (c) of this section in relation to the warrant:
(i) the subject;
(ii) a minor's representative for the subject;
(iii) a parent, guardian or sibling of the subject;
(iv) a prescribed authority;
(v) a person exercising authority under the warrant;
(vi) an IGIS official;
(vii) the Commonwealth Ombudsman;
(viii) a complaints agency;
(12) Schedule 1, item 10, page 94 (line 2), omit "7 September 2030", substitute "7 September 2025".
(13) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 100 (after line 16), at the end of the Part, add:
Intelligence Services Act 2001
26A After paragraph 29(1) (cd)
Insert:
(ce) if the Committee resolves to do so—to commence, by 7 September 2023, a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979; and
(14) Schedule 2, item 16, page 114 (lines 14 to 19), omit subsection 33(4), substitute:
(4) Nothing in this Division makes the use, installation, maintenance or recovery by the Organisation of a surveillance device lawful if the use, installation, maintenance or recovery would be prohibited under an applicable law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (including the common law), unless the Organisation does so:
(a) in accordance with a warrant issued under section 26, 27A or 27C; or
(b) in accordance with an authorisation given under section 26G; or
(c) in accordance with subsection 26B(5) or (6), section 26C, 26D or 26E, or subsection 27A(3A) or (3B) or 27F(5).
Question agreed to.
The question now is that this bill as amended 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, 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 and Mr Wilkie voting no.
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.
Firstly, I'll frame the context for the Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020. The Australian government is examining options to further support and strengthen the aviation industry to manage the current impacts of the COVID-19 downturn, support the recovery and look at pathways for longer-term recovery. The Australian government has clear long-term objectives for aviation—namely, a competitive and efficient aviation sector; a safe, secure and environmentally sustainable aviation sector, ensuring minimum access to essential aviation services. Delivering against these objectives during this period of upheaval and uncertainty requires leadership and planning. Informed by the submission on the issues paper and ongoing consultation with industry, the Australian government will release its five-year plan for aviation in 2021. The plan will set out a program of longer term reforms to help deliver against these objectives and assist the sector to return to strength and stability. The government's support helps not only Australia's airlines but the broader aviation industry, regional Australia and other industries, such as tourism and time-sensitive trade, which depend heavily on aviation.
The Liberal-National government has introduced legislation to provide greater protection for the rights and entitlements of the Australian flying public, as well as greater certainty for air carriers. The aviation legislation amendment bill is to amend the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 to increase the cap on carriers' liability for the death or bodily injury of passengers on domestic flights from $725,000 to $995,000, as well as the corresponding level of insurance required to reflect the rate of inflation, and to increase liability for the destruction or loss of registered baggage from $900 to $3,000 and non-registered baggage from $90 to $300. The bill will enable the quantum of mandatory insurance to be increased by regulation. The bill will create a mechanism to broaden the capture of risks that carriers are required to insure so as to potentially include war risks. Currently, similar to international air carriage, a domestic carrier is liable for damages sustained by reason of the death of a passenger, or bodily injury suffered by a passenger, resulting from an accident. Finally, this bill will make technical amendments clarifying that carriers, servants and agents of the carrier share the same scope of liability.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development , Michael McCormack, said: 'The cap in compensation and minimum insurance coverage has not increased since 2013, so these liability limits and associated insurance requirements need to be increased to ensure they keep up with inflation and continue to meet community expectations.' Thanks to this legislation, the Australian government will in future more easily be able to increase both the liability caps and minimum insurance amounts through regulation. The proposed amendments include the ability to ensure liability caps and required insurance amounts can be increased more efficiently when it is appropriate to do so. This could potentially be achieved through automatic indexation, meaning we can respond more dynamically to the needs of both the community and industry.
While air accidents rarely happen, it's important to ensure that Australians are covered in the event of an emergency. Overall, the amendments in this bill will further protect the rights and entitlements of the Australian public and the carriers involved in or affected by air accidents. The government intends to consult further on additional changes to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 in some of the aforementioned areas and other issues in the next financial year. The Australian government is committed to maintaining both the integrity and the great reputation of Australia's airlines. This is another example of the Australian government continuing to work closely with the aviation industry as it faces so many ongoing challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.
The Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020 will update Australia's civil aviation carriers' liability and insurance framework by increasing the minimum insurance requirement to support associated increases to carriers' liability caps. It also provides regulation-making powers to implement an improved mechanism for updating liability caps and insurance requirements and provides increased clarity on potentially ambiguous provisions in the founding law.
Labor supports this bill, as it takes a sensible approach to increasing the liability limits for Australia's domestic airlines. This framework recognises the unique risks associated with civil aviation. Of course, damages claims in the aviation environment are complex. For this reason, successive Australian governments have implemented a strict liability system for domestic travel that imposes liability on the carrier regardless of fault, negligence or intention while setting a maximum cap that the carrier can be liable for. But with Australia's aviation sector so dramatically disrupted by the COVID-19 crisis we need to do everything we can to maintain and grow consumer confidence in our airlines. I represent the community that has Australia's largest airport in Kingsford Smith airport. Since COVID-19 has hit, the airport community and the employees at the airport, close to 30,000 of them, have been devastated by the downturn in business. When you go to Sydney airport, it's a ghost town. It's been a ghost town. We need to do all we can to ensure that that industry gets back on its feet as quickly as it possibly can.
While procedural in nature, this bill will strengthen the liability and insurance systems applying to our civil aviation sector. Where possible, we take a bipartisan approach to aviation matters and recognise the important role that aviation plays in the lives of Australians, particularly those in our regions. It's an essential industry in Australia as we continue to recover from the crisis, and we will rely upon workers getting into the air as the economy gets off the ground. But we're deeply concerned about the impacts that the response to COVID-19 has had on the aviation sector and its loyal workers. The necessary travel restrictions imposed by governments to limit the spread of COVID-19 have brought our aviation industry to its knees. Around 45,000 people work directly for airlines in Australia, and hundreds of thousands more jobs rely on a strong aviation sector.
But, instead of developing a plan for aviation, the Morrison government has denied support for airports. It denied JobKeeper to dnata workers and failed to act as Qantas sacked thousands of workers. What are those opposite doing to protect workers' jobs in the aviation sector? The answer to that is not much. The Morrison government's not done much to stop Qantas getting rid of its workforce and replacing them with a foreign corporation with workers on lower wages and conditions. This government has stood by and allowed Qantas to sack 2,500 of its loyal ground staff, many of whom had worked for the airline for decades. Qantas has been able to pocket close to $800 million in JobKeeper payments and yet it is allowed to sack its workers during this period while still receiving JobKeeper and to bring in a foreign corporation on lower wages and conditions.
How is that supporting the aviation sector in Australia? How is that supporting aviation workers in this country during this difficult period? Qantas was once a national carrier that we could all be proud of, but now, given what it's done to Australian workers, many are starting to question that loyalty to Qantas. As I said, it's taken around $800 million in taxpayer funds during this COVID crisis. JobKeeper was put in place through Labor's urging as a wage subsidy. It's meant to be there to protect jobs. It's not there for a corporation to exploit for its own means. In Qantas doing what it's done to those workers it has sold out those Australian workers' jobs. On the 100th anniversary of the airline, it's almost impossible to believe that this airline that once was government owned would pocket $800 million worth of subsidies from the government and yet be allowed to get away with sacking its workers. That is not in the interests of the aviation sector. That is not in the interests of Australian workers. Yet this government, the Morrison government, allows them to get away with it.
The worst thing is that the Prime Minister is the member of parliament in this place that has the most Qantas workers living in his electorate and area. He won't even meet with them. He won't even meet with those workers who've lost their jobs and are now really doing it tough during a pandemic and struggling with the prospect of not being able to find work in the short term. It's a once-in-a-century pandemic. Why won't this government do more to support our aviation workers when they need it most?
The government did provide support for Rex, despite that being a majority foreign owned airline, while refusing to do the same for Virgin. Virgin entered voluntary administration, with 16,000 employees and contractors in our tourism and regional economies being affected. So Labor is calling on the government to consider making an equity injection into Virgin. We're also calling on the government to make sure that they develop a plan for aviation, not just for the short term but for the longer term in Australia, and to do more to protect those aviation workers' jobs.
I thank honourable members for their contribution to the discussion of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020. This bill forms part of the government's commitment to protect the rights and entitlements of the Australian flying public and provide greater certainty for air carriers. The amendments in this bill will assist to further protect the rights and entitlements of the Australian public and the carriers involved in or affected by air accidents. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original 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.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
I rise not to speak against the amendments but to make it very clear where Labor sits in relation to this piece of legislation. It has been five years since the government started the so-called trial of the cashless debit card. It hasn't worked. The government has provided no evidence that it has worked, and not enough community support is obvious. The government has spent $2.5 million on a University of Adelaide report they refused to release. This raises enormous suspicion about the content of that particular report. The member for Bass, in this place, a member of government, said:
Applying a broad brush to all recipients in the current sites, no matter their circumstances, is harmful and unhelpful.
There's a high level of anxiety that exists elsewhere in the country beyond the three trial sites. In the northern Tasmanian community that I proudly represent, I've had distressed people, including pensioners, ask me if they will end up having their income managed. And with the amount of time and money spent in addressing the current challenges of this program, it is difficult to believe that this program will end with these current sites.
Last night in the Senate, the minister was repeatedly asked and repeatedly refused to give a guarantee that this card would not be expanded, both geographically and to other Centrelink recipients on other payments. Matt Canavan, earlier in the week, called for a national rollout—I'll talk about that in a little while. It is clear there is a plan for a national rollout. Technology working groups with the banks, supermarkets and Australia Post have been established. The government has spent $3 million improving technology. The only reason to do this is if you are planning a national rollout to more places and more people. The member for Bass in this place also said:
I also have a fundamental problem with how this program and this legislation aligns with my own principles. As a Liberal, I believe in personal and individual responsibility. It's the very foundation of our core principles. We work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives. Forcing the cashless debit card program on to people unless, or until, they can prove to the government that they can manage their own finances is antithetical to these principles. Do these principles only apply if you're not poor? I believe we're better than that.
Senator Lambie, in the Senate said last night, said:
But I've always said to the government: if you want to make this thing happen, you can't let the card be the only thing you do. It's not a magic wand. You can't wave it at people and expect things to somehow get better, because the problems that you see in the trial sites need a lot more than the cashless debit card to fix, and that's what I heard every time I went to the trial sites. I heard it in the Northern Territory too. Those people up there can't live better lives with just the cashless debit card. They need jobs, they need medical facilities, they need counsellors and they need skills training.
Last night Senator Patrick, in the other place, said:
In the end, weighing up all the evidence, the difficulty for me is that the government has not made out its case. When I balance up everything I've seen, unfortunately, the data to support the concept that the card will achieve what it is intended to achieve is not there.
The government has made a mistake, let me assure you, pressing ahead with this watered down bill. The government's amendments are a backdown and an acknowledgement that there is community anxiety about this card. It is a kick and an affront to those thousands of Australians who have done nothing wrong. This government has consistently failed to— (Time expired)
Order! The member for Barton's time has expired. I thank the member for Barton for her contribution. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the member for Barton.
Thank you. The government has consistently failed to prove this works. It has refused to release the much anticipated $2.5 million University of Adelaide evaluation. This has caused significant hardship for the people placed on this card. Many have been prevented from purchasing basics and essentials at affordable prices. It is structurally racist, with two-thirds of participants being First Nations people—83 per cent in the Northern Territory, 82 per cent in East Kimberley. You only need to read Bridget Archer's speech to the parliament to be reminded of the anxiety about this card in the community.
The question now is: what happens next? It is clear that the government is determined to expand this card in a national rollout. The Prime Minister has foreshadowed it. The Minister for Families and Social Services foreshadowed it. Matt Canavan and Andrew Wallace are outright calling for a national rollout. Where next? Tasmania? Who next? Pensioners? The government needs to listen and learn. Continuing with this policy is a massive mistake and it's been brought upon the government by itself.
The original legislation passed the House of Representatives by one. The watered down legislation passed the Senate last night by one—hardly a ringing endorsement. The government was so exercised to get something passed that the legislation last night was what they got through. The original legislation that was sitting there in the minister's bottom drawer was more draconian and that sat there. The government was caught out not understanding community sentiment and resistance to this particular measure. I will finish up by saying extremely clearly to the House: Labor will continue to oppose this card. Labor will continue to oppose this legislation. Mandatory income management does not work.
Just to put on the record the Greens' position here: the cashless welfare card must be stopped. It is punitive, it is racist and it's got to go. The Greens have said that since day one. We've been the only party in this place to oppose it from the beginning, and oppose it consistently all the way through, because you don't lift people out of disadvantage by taking away their rights. You don't improve people's situations by taking away their rights. That's why there has been no evidence that the government can bring forward to suggest that this card works.
It is purely ideologically driven. The ideology that drives it from the government is a hypocritical one, because they come in here and say, 'We need to give tax cuts to everyone because it's people's money and they're better placed to decide how to spend it rather than the government.' Yet when it comes to poor people, when it comes to First Nations people, the government has the opposite approach. The government comes in and says, 'You don't even deserve the dignity, the right and the autonomy of deciding how to spend your own money. We're going to come in and control you.' That is going to entrench poverty and entrench disadvantage. We need a different approach, which is what the Greens have argued for from the beginning, which is an approach of self-determination and self-empowerment where government's role is to empower people, rather than take away their rights and take away the control that they have to run and manage their own lives.
Whenever the government says, 'We want tax cuts because people deserve the right to manage their own money,' don't believe them for a second. If they really believed that they wouldn't be pushing ahead with this punitive, racist, draconian legislation that they are. But that's what the government is doing. The government's motivation for tax cuts is just to help out its billionaire mates and help out the rich. And the government's motivation for this bill is to punish the poor, the disadvantaged and First Nations communities. It started with First Nations communities, but, as the previous speaker said, many members of the government have belled the cat. They want to roll it out right across the board. They want anyone who's doing it tough in this country to be under the thumb of the government and be controlled by the government. That is this government's approach to people who are doing it tough. That's why from the beginning we have stood firm against this, and we are going to continue to stand firm.
Last night in the Senate this legislation came within a whisker of being defeated. It came out of the Senate in a different form, where it is not being made permanent and is only going to continue as a trial. That is a step forward from where we were before, and it should be the signal to this government that this card is on its last legs and it's time to end it. We're going to keep fighting until it is in the bin. The reason that the bill was not defeated in the Senate, when it could have been, is that, instead of holding the government to account, Centre Alliance held hands with the government. After telling their constituents in South Australia that they were going to oppose this bill, they didn't. Because Centre Alliance senators from South Australia didn't oppose the bill, it got through. Because they didn't do what they said to people they were going to do, it got through. What's crystal clear from this is that Centre Alliance senators will say one thing in South Australia and then vote differently in Canberra. The Greens will be consistent. The Greens oppose this card.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020. This bill would amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 in order to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports. This is a bill that, in its current form, Labor is supporting. This is a bill that is designed to improve transport security in two ways. It clarifies the ability of aviation security inspectors to test aviation industry participants' security systems, including by specifically allowing inspectors to conduct systems tests with test pieces at locations beyond screening points in an airport terminal, without the risk of committing an offence against other laws. For example, following the passage of this legislation, aviation security inspectors will expand their testing regime to include air cargo examination and also catering facilities. This would establish the framework needed to introduce a national standard of competency for aviation and maritime screening personnel. The bill introduces measures allowing the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to prescribe the requirements associated with screeners' training, qualification and accreditation. The government has expressed the view that this would allow screener requirements to be adapted efficiently in response to rapid changes in the security environment, to create a more flexible workforce that is more adaptive to the demands of this important work.
I note this bill originated in the other place. It was introduced and first read on 4 December last year. The original bill put before the other place had certain deficiencies which have now been attended to. I'll briefly articulate them. Firstly, the unamended legislation, if enacted in that form, would have permitted an aviation security inspector to test an aviation industry participant's security system, including by using an item, weapon or vehicle to test its detection. This is a problem that has now been fixed. Secondly, the explanatory memorandum stated they needed test pieces such as imitation firearms and simulated improvised explosive devices designed to be inert and not cause harm. However, as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted, this requirement did not exist on the face of the primary legislation. I guess this raises a pretty big question: what kind of government would forget a requirement like this in legislation of this nature, dealing with such a fundamental issue of safety?
This is about keeping people safe in their workplaces as well—plain and simple. Again, the legislative process has worked, and this problem has now been fixed, but a lack of due diligence and attention to detail has become a calling card of the Morrison government, and I commend the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for their work in improving this important piece of legislation, keeping the executive in check and ensuring that this important law is fit for purpose.
Accordingly, I move as a second reading amendment:
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) a safe and secure transport sector, managed by the right legislation and regulation, is critical to stay one step ahead of criminals and terrorists;
(2) that when the Coalition Government introduced the original version of this bill, it was riddled with basic errors, and was then left to languish on the Notice Paper for more than a year; and
(3) this tardy and chaotic approach to this bill, combined with recent border security failures such as the Ruby Princess and the lack of a national quarantine approach to bring stranded Australians home, is why Australians can no longer trust the Government on border security".
In conclusion, I note this: the Australian people put great trust in this parliament and in all of its members to ensure that we enact the right legislation to protect Australia's national security and to keep every Australian safe in every circumstance, whilst balancing any new laws with openness and transparency. This year, under the leader of the Labor Party, we have been determined to be constructive in reflecting the concerns of the Australian people that we act always in the national interest. On this side of the House and on this side of the other place, that is the spirit that we have applied to these important laws. We have worked to get them right. And, in this spirit of continuing to build trust with the Australian people and to build trust in this place, which has too often been undermined by the actions of this government, Labor moved amendments in the other place, and we welcome the government's cooperation in responding to those amendments and improving this bill, so that it can pass this House and be enacted into law.
Is the amendment seconded? I call the member for Chifley.
Sorry, I'd been so struck by its greatness that I forgot to get up and second it. I have great pleasure in doing so.
Does the member for Chifley reserve his right to speak?
Now that you mention it, I do reserve my right to speak, and these are not the droids I'm looking for!
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. 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 year 2020 has tested humanity in new and unexpected ways. The way that we live, work, recreate and, of course, travel has changed. Before COVID-19, there were 38 million people travelling annually through Australian airports and marine ports. As we near Christmas, as state and territory borders reopen, people all over Australia are desperate, understandably, to get home to loved ones. Whilst we're very conscious of being COVID-safe during our travels, the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020 is a timely reminder of the importance of our safety and security from other physical threats while we travel. This bill acknowledges these threats and also ensures that we have the means at our disposal to deal with them.
The government considers that its first priority is the safety and security of all Australian people. This extends to ensuring that critical industries, including transport, remain robust. In a world that is changing rapidly, there are those who seek to take advantage of uncertainty and do us harm. The government has strengthened our national defences, particularly against terrorism, with the investment of an additional $2.3 billion over recent years. It's a constant battle to ensure that Australians have the right tools and training to preserve our national security. Indeed, I have some personal experience of working as a crisis management consultant after leaving the Australian Army. This work included running crisis management training and exercising for teams of people in all manner of environments, including mine sites, businesses and airports.
There are layers of physical and procedural controls which constitute an appropriate security plan. Training and exercising at aerodromes and airports is particularly complex. Firstly, there are a great many moving parts, including not only the vehicles and the aircraft but also, of course, the passage of people through different parts of and around an aerodrome. Secondly, many of the stakeholders involved bring a deal of complexity as they interact, necessarily, with each other. These stakeholders include passengers, police, firefighters, ambulance personnel, airport security and a range of others. I'm particularly fond of some recent comments made by Senator Jim Molan, a former general, who said:
National security is not something which is conducted only by the military, the police or Home Affairs; national security is something which everyone, every element of the nation, is responsible for. National security applies to all of us.
Senator Molan often says that 'the security of the nation takes a whole nation'. Our role in government includes our responsibility to keep our legislation under constant review. Indeed, the Australian government has passed 19 tranches of legislation since 2014, when the national terrorism threat level, which is currently 'probable', was increased. Since September 2014, when the threat level was raised, 102 people have been charged as a result of 51 counterterrorism related responses around Australia.
As threats evolve, so must our response. This bill achieves this in two ways. Firstly, it gives aviation security inspectors explicit powers to test security systems in security controlled airports, on aircraft and in certain other places associated with aviation industry participants. Secondly, it updates training and qualification requirements for screening officers and the means by which they are set. Essentially, this bill allows for more comprehensive and uniform training of aviation security officers to ensure that they can be more thorough as they go about their important role of testing security at our airports, and the associated maritime security measures. Importantly, this bill allows for test pieces to be used in order to identify weak spots that could be exploited. There is no better training that we can give our security personnel than practical, hands-on experience. In fact, it is appropriate that we do so, considering that this is how we train and best prepare all of our frontline security personnel. With those comments, I commend this bill to the House.
I offer my thanks to those members who have contributed to the debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020. In summing up the debate, I note that the testing and training bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports. This bill has been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which recommended that the bill be passed. The bill has also been reviewed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and minor but important amendments have been incorporated into the bill on advice from this committee.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hardworking men and women who work at our airports and seaports in screening roles. Whether they be aviation security inspectors or security-point screening staff, the work they do diligently is vitally important and keeps Australians safe. The bill supports the important work that they do, and I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Scullin has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original 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.
I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government is a strong advocate for clean and fair sport, as demonstrated by the sport integrity reforms enacted in its response to the review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, (the Wood review). While Australia can do what it can in its own backyard, sport is a global activity, and it is important that Australians are subject to the same antidoping arrangements as our international competitors.
The World Anti-Doping Code (code), administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and implemented by sports and governments around the world, ensures that athletes are treated the same and abide by the same core set of rules everywhere, regardless of nationality and sport. Australia, as a signatory to the UNESCO Convention against Doping in Sport (convention), has an obligation to implement antidoping arrangements that are consistent with the principles of the code.
WADA initiated a comprehensive review of the code in late 2017, as it does every six years, to ensure it remains up to date with doping methods and practices. A key theme of the review was proportionality—to ensure the code targets the right stakeholders and applies consequences that are proportionate to an individual's culpability.
Consequently, some of the key changes to the code include:
To ensure that core antidoping arrangements are harmonised across the world, international sporting federations, governments, and antidoping organisations that are signatories to the code are currently updating their antidoping policies and legislation to reflect the revised code.
The Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020 ensures Australia continues to meet its international obligations to enact legislation that is consistent with the principles of the code and its associated international standards. The revisions to the code will commence from 1 January 2021. If Australia does not amend its legislation to reflect the revised code, we will be non-compliant with our obligations under the convention, and Australian athletes will be subject to out-of-date antidoping arrangements.
Sport Integrity Australia is the Australian government agency responsible for working with sporting organisations to eliminate doping. Sport Integrity Australia's powers and functions are specified under the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 and the Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020.
A key revision to the code is broadening the scope of those who can be subject to antidoping arrangements. This is largely in response to the Russian doping scandal, where the McLaren report stated that Russia operated a state-sponsored doping scheme for several years. Key facilitators of the scheme sat outside the jurisdiction of the code. In response, the revised code will now provide antidoping organisations authority to subject individuals such as board members, officers, directors and specified employees to certain antidoping rules which target facilitation. Importantly, the code recognises that such individuals should not be subject to the full requirements of the code, such as whereabouts and testing.
The revised code also recognises that, in certain circumstances, it may not be appropriate for an antidoping organisation to publish the details of an individual's antidoping rule violation. The code requires an antidoping organisation to maintain a public-facing violations list which details information of all antidoping rule violations (except for those under 18 years old). The revised code broadens this exception to include athletes who compete for recreational purposes (unless that person has been considered a national level athlete or international level athlete within the previous five years), and individuals who do not have the mental capacity to understand the antidoping rules.
The revised code recognises that antidoping organisations require greater flexibility to respond to misinformation regarding an ongoing antidoping rule violation. Currently, the code restricts when an antidoping organisation can respond to address misinformation to when the comments can be directly attributed to the athlete or support person, or a member of their entourage. The revised code broadens this to include where the comments can be attributed to information provided by an athlete or a member of their entourage. This revision also allows the government to continue to implement its sport integrity reforms outlined in its response to the Wood review.
The proposed amendment to the definition of athlete sits outside the revisions to the code. The amendment is necessary to clarify the operation of the National Anti-Doping Scheme, that a person remains an athlete (and subject to the antidoping rules) for six months after the time that person last competes. This provides more clarity and certainty around whether a person is an athlete.
The government remains committed to the fight against doping, and it is paramount that the international sporting movement and governments work together to implement harmonious core antidoping programs that reflect the code and its accompanying international standards. This bill ensures that Australia continues to play its part in international antidoping arrangements, safeguards the health and wellbeing of athletes, and meets its obligations under the convention. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
by leave—Today I would like to update the House about the critical work that the government has done to reduce natural disaster risks and increase Australia's resilience.
In February this year, in my first statement to parliament on the disaster risk reduction framework, I spoke to you about the long-term work underway across the nation to reduce the potential for harm from natural disasters, and to enable a prosperous and resilient future.
At the time, we were in the midst of the unprecedented 2019-20 bushfire season.
The loss and devastation we saw is heartbreaking. Numerous communities continue to bear those scars.
Our thoughts go out to the families, friends and communities who have lost loved ones and the Australians who lost homes and businesses, and have been working hard to rebuild their lives—in the middle of a global pandemic.
I reiterate my thanks to all those Australians, volunteers, charities and not-for-profit organisations, and paid personnel, involved with emergency management for their dedication and tireless effort as we come into this high risk weather season.
This season, the Australian government is working closer than ever with state and territory governments, industry and the private sector to continue to deliver outcomes and services to the public in the challenging context of COVID.
The National Coordination Mechanism and Emergency Management Australia are leaning into a number of substantial challenges we are collectively facing by developing measures such as COVID-safe guidelines for evacuation centres and protocols to enable our emergency services personnel to deploy across state and territory borders where required.
The 2019-20 bushfires exemplified the value and importance of emergency services workers to the protection of life and property, and Australia's resilience and prosperity.
The mental health of Australian emergency services personnel is paramount as there is increasing recognition of the potential impact of repeated workplace trauma and the stressors associated with these occupations.
The Australian government remains firmly committed to taking actions that ensure our career and volunteer emergency services workers, retired emergency services workers, and their immediate families and kinship groups receive the necessary support to prevent and treat post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illness arising from their service.
The Australian government is investing $15.9 million to support the mental health of emergency service workers and their families who responded to the 2019-20 bushfires through Black Dog and Fortem, two leading mental health organisations. Included in this is the development of the first mental health national action plan to reduce suicide and mental illness among emergency services workers.
After the year that was 2020, it is more important than ever, that we—the Australian government, states and territories, and the community—work together to reduce our vulnerability to risks and build our resilience as we adapt to a changing climate, and prepare ourselves for the potential of further devastating seasons.
As I said in my previous statement and repeated on many occasions in this chamber, our emergency services are world class. Our state and territory emergency management and resilience personnel have proven themselves in the face of consecutive disasters to be of the highest calibre. For that, I thank them.
But there is always more to be done, and a greater role the Commonwealth can play. And we do not shy away from this role.
The Australian government is taking the lead to increase our recovery from, and resilience to, natural disaster. We are tackling some of those deep, underlying issues which put us, as Australians, at risk.
Today, I am pleased to be able to update you on the government's significant progress over the last few months towards building Australia's resilience towards natural disasters and our plans moving forward.
The National Bushfire Recovery Agency (NBRA), established early in 2020, is leading nationally coordinated recovery and resilience activities to support communities and families, volunteer emergency service personnel, farmers and foresters, and small businesses recover from the devastating fires.
Since I last addressed parliament on this matter, the Australian government has committed more than $2 billion to the National Bushfire Recovery Fund to support relief, recovery and resilience activities across bushfire ravaged communities. We have spent $1.2 billion from the fund so far, as well as $659.6 million from other disaster support funding mechanisms including disaster recovery payments and allowances.
Of the $2 billion, our commitments include:
NBRA continues to work closely with impacted communities, local and state governments, charities, industry groups, insurers and peak bodies to ensure communities are supported in their journey to recovery.
Along the way, we are working to boost resilience of these local economies, infrastructure and communities through Local Economic Recovery projects, and we look forward to continuing this work.
We want to learn from past experience.
The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (Royal Commission) handed down its final report in October 2020.
On 13 November, in response to the royal commission, the Prime Minister announced the Australian government will:
These reforms will assist the government to provide strong leadership in emergency management and to drive a reduction in disaster risk.
All national initiatives like this require coordination with our state and territory counterparts. National cabinet has agreed the National Emergency Management Ministers Meeting will be initially responsible for driving and coordinating implementation of the royal commission's recommendations, including design of ongoing governance mechanisms.
We have also made progress on a number of initiatives since my last statement.
The first National Action Plan to implement the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (the Framework), was endorsed by emergency management ministers in May and captures efforts across the nation.
The framework sets the five-year foundation to 2023 to address systemic disaster risk in all sectors. The framework outlines four priorities, which are: understand disaster risk; accountable decisions; enhanced investment; and governance, ownership and responsibility.
The Australian government is driving this program of measures, in partnership with states and territories, to realise the outcomes of the framework and increase the resilience of Australian communities.
The total investment in resilience initiatives across the Commonwealth identified in the national action plan is $1.7 billion—this is in addition to the value of initiatives in the state and territories, private or community sectors. Spanning the period 2015-2027, these initiatives support the four priorities of the framework.
We have completed or made considerable progress towards completing a number of initiatives set out in the national action plan. Of note:
In June 2020, the Department of Home Affairs concluded a pilot project in the freight and supply chain sector to test the feasibility of a national climate and disaster intelligence capability. The pilot was conducted in partnership with other government agencies and the research sector. The pilot validated the need for a national capability and showed a clear benefit for Australian communities and businesses having better decision-ready information and advice. The pilot outcomes will inform options for establishing the Resilience Services Australia.
$145 million is also being invested from 2015-2021 into the first phase of National Environmental Science Program—a long-term commitment funding environment and climate research; $149 million invested from 2021-2027, including for systems that will advance understanding of Australia's climate, its extremes and associated drivers, including the fundamental drivers of rainfall, drought and bushfires.
Continuation of the Regional Land Partnerships, the Australian government's flagship natural resource management program to support delivery of on-ground natural resource management actions across the country also continues.
The Australian government and state and territory governments are also developing measurement, evaluation and learning arrangements to support implementation of the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. These arrangements will track the effectiveness of our collective national efforts, and facilitate ongoing learning, to reduce disaster risk.
Further, we have committed $8 million to the development of a Public Safety Mobile Broadband proof-of-concept trial. In July, the Commonwealth reaffirmed its commitment to making available dedicated spectrum. It's going to ensure our emergency services are equipped with the best possible communications technology to assist their work.
Delivery of these programs and initiatives is critical to achieving the vision set out in the framework. Australia is projected to see more heat extremes and fewer cold extremes. We need to plan for and adapt to the changing nature of climate risk now and in the future. We are committed to researching and understanding what the best technologies and risk reduction methods are so that we can adequately adapt to, and prepare for, our changing climate.
On 23 July 2020, the Minister for Science, Industry and Technology and I announced $88.1 million in funding to extend and scale up critical research into bushfires and natural hazards. This includes $86.1 million to support a new, world-class research centre for natural hazards resilience and disaster risk reduction, building on the work of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre. Our departments are currently working to implement the new centre, which is expected to be operational from 1 July 2021.
We have also renewed funding for the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, committing an additional $12.8 million over four years from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2024. The institute delivers a range of disaster resilience products, programs and services, and it shares this knowledge and learning across all governments, the private sector and communities to advance the collective approach to disaster resilience. We have committed to spend $50 million from the Emergency Response Fund on mitigation and resilience, and I can advise the House that it will be spent during this financial year.
This work demonstrates our commitment to the Australian people to build a prosperous, resilient nation. I ask the Australian people to consider what you can do to reduce risk, to better prepare for natural disasters and to come with us on this national journey towards a safer, more secure nation.
I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management for his update on the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. On behalf of Labor, I would like to echo his thanks to all those who were part of fighting the Black Summer bushfires and those who will risk their lives and dedicate their time this disaster season to keep Australians safe. Thank you so much for your sacrifice.
Thirty-three lives were lost in the fires last summer and countless more from toxic smoke and conditions surrounding the firegrounds. Over 24 million hectares of bush and farmland were burnt. Over 3,000 homes were destroyed. An unfathomable number of animals were killed or displaced. The loss and indeed the terror of last summer's bushfires are still very fresh in most peoples' minds and, for too many survivors, reliving it is a daily experience. We know too that there are families still living in old caravans and sheds on their land, some without running water, 12 months after fires swept through. We know there are people still anxiously waiting for work to start on their homes being rebuilt, if they will be rebuilt at all. We know there are communities struggling with mountains of paperwork for grants for the financial support they are entitled to.
Labor know the bushfires have had a lasting impact on communities right across Australia. That is why we don't want to see others go through the same thing in the future. We must ensure that we do everything that is humanly possible to safeguard communities not just from bushfires but from floods and cyclones, which have left a trail of devastation in their path in towns and cities around our country. This is why the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework seemed like a step in the right direction. When this was announced in 2018 it sounded like this government was finally starting to acknowledge that we need to prepare for disasters and invest proactively, rather than waiting until disaster strikes. But, unfortunately, this program has become yet another symbol of that which the Morrison government loves most: a flashy announcement with no follow-through. The Prime Minister and this government love to get out there and get the headline and make it seem like action is being taken when really nothing is being delivered. The Australian people are sick of this.
Let's not forget that the Morrison government announced this National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework way back in 2018, but it took them until mid-last-year to commit any money to the framework and then another year to get any money out the door. In July 2018, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework warned that the changing climate was exposing the country to natural disasters on 'unimagined scales, in unprecedented combinations and in unexpected locations'. This warned the government that more and more people and assets would be exposed to these disasters, with essential services—including power, water, telecommunications and financial services—being particularly vulnerable. And yet, it still took the government nearly two years to fund another through the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. It's frankly astounding that this did not elicit some sort of urgency from this government, which has failed its own deadline on the national implementation plan, which it promised to hand down in 2019.
Even in March this year, with bushfires in the front of everyone's mind after the Black Summer blazes, nothing had been spent. Only now, in recent months, are some of the states starting to see funding. While it is excellent to see the federal government begin to fulfil its commitments to the states, there are some still being left behind. It is very concerning that some of those are at great risk at the start of this disaster season. For example, take the Northern Territory, which, due to the La Nina weather pattern, is at high risk of facing a more intense and longer cyclone season, or New South Wales and Western Australia, which, according to the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, can expect an above-average risk of bushfires and grassfires in the months to come. Not a cent has been spent.
I do appreciate the update from Minister Littleproud on the trickle of funds being released through the Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. I would also have liked to have heard about projects being funded through the Emergency Response Fund. The government announced the $4 billion Emergency Response Fund for disaster, recovery and mitigation in last year's budget. This could have been releasing double the amount of funding in Commonwealth contributions than the Disaster Risk Reduction Framework towards resilience progress. Right now, the fund could have been used to protect communities from the cyclones, floods and fires we know are coming. It could have been used to build fire breaks, evacuation centres, flood levies and cyclone shelters to keep Australians safe. Instead, in 18 months now, the Morrison government has not announced a single project—not one project announced, not one cent spent, not one job created and not one community protected. Instead, we get one line on the Emergency Response Fund in this ministerial statement:
We have committed to spend $50 million from the Emergency Response Fund on mitigation and resilience, and I can advise the House that it will be spent during this financial year.
Forgive me, Minister, for not believing you on this, but the government has a long track record of grant announcements and no delivery, as we've seen in this area as well.
The longer this government delays in investing in natural disaster mitigation, the more lives are put at risk and the higher the cost of repairs. We saw the consequences when Prime Minister Morrison ignored bushfire warnings last year. He must not ignore disaster warnings again. We must see the Disaster Risk Reduction Framework being given the priority it deserves—the priority all Australians deserve—and the federal government committing to disaster prevention projects that will keep all Australians safe.
I rise to speak on the Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020. 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 high standards of integrity expected of Australian athletes and sports organisations, and supports the changes in this bill to align Australia's anti-doping legislation with global standards; and
(2) calls on the Government to hold themselves to the same high standards of integrity and do what the Prime Minister and Treasurer said they would do—fund the projects recommended by Sport Australia under the Community Sport Infrastructure grants program".
This bill seeks to amend the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 and the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019. Australia has ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. This means we have an international obligation to align our antidoping arrangements with any revisions of the WADA code, the World Anti-Doping Code. This bill seeks to ensure that Australia's antidoping legislation is aligned with recent revisions to the World Anti-Doping Code, international standards which come into force on 1 January 2021. Labor supports Australia being at the forefront of global efforts to deal with doping in sport. In turn, we support Australia fulfilling its international antidoping obligations. Therefore we support these amendments, which will ensure our domestic antidoping arrangements remain aligned with the WADA code.
This bill does three key things in response to the WADA code revisions. It adds relevant nonparticipants to the persons who may be subject to the National Anti-Doping scheme. It gives the CEO of Sport Integrity Australia discretion not to publish details of an antidoping rule violation when the athlete is recreational or does not have the mental capacity to understand the antidoping rules. And it allows the CEO to respond to misinformation. This bill also makes consequential amendments to the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019 to enable a nonparticipant to apply to the tribunal for arbitration of a dispute arising under an antidoping policy. These measures all respond to the WADA code revisions.
Beyond that response, the bill also seeks to extend the definition of 'athlete' to include persons who competed in sport within the last six months. That measure is designed to deal with the potential for the current definition to be interpreted narrowly as only a person who currently competes. Sport Integrity Australia believes that a narrow interpretation could restrict its ability to investigate possible antidoping rule violations. Initially stakeholders, including the Australian Athletes Alliance, raised concerns with the opposition about the potential for this measure to impact retired athletes. Labor has worked with these stakeholders to seek clarification on that aspect of the bill. The government has since made it clear that the measure does not apply to formally retired athletes but instead to athletes who for some reason, perhaps injury, are on a short break from competing. Athletes who intend to compete again remain within the National Anti-Doping scheme to ensure they continue to be compliant with their obligations under the World Anti-Doping Code on their return to competition. The same stakeholders that raised concerns have advised the opposition that, given the clarification, they now believe this aspect of the bill is appropriate.
Labor supports measures that strengthen Australia's protections against evolving threats to the integrity of sport. We recognise that these protections, particularly in relation to doping in sport, can place a large burden and a lot of pressure on athletes. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders and to monitor the implementation of Australia's new sports integrity operations to ensure they deliver the dual goals of protecting Australian sport and protecting Australian athletes. Labor supports the bill. Given this bill's focus on integrity in sport, I have moved a second reading amendment noting the high standards of integrity expected of Australian athletes and sport organisations and calling on the government to hold themselves to the same high standards of integrity by funding the projects recommended by Sport Australia under the Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program.
The sports rorts affair is notorious for the complete lack of integrity by ministers in the administration of grants to Australian sporting organisations. The government has introduced this bill to ensure Australian athletes adhere to the highest standards of conduct on the sporting field, but, when it comes to integrity in sports grants administration, this government has set an appalling example. The government acted with a complete lack of integrity around the $100 million Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program and the $150 million Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream program. The government rorted these programs to channel grants to marginal electorates and Liberal-held electorates, for its own political gain, and ignored the needs of sportspeople in electorates in regional Australia like Shortland. They provided $10 million to improve facilities at the North Sydney pool, in one of the wealthiest parts of Australia. I've no idea how that particular project, the North Sydney pool, could qualify for this grants program.
In contrast, not a cent was provided for any project in the Hunter Valley or the Central Coast. I will give you an example. The mighty Garden Suburb Football Club, in my electorate, has seen a boom in female football players. Only a decade ago, it had one or two female players. Now half of its 500 registered members are female football players. But they don't have a single changing room to change in. They are forced to get changed in the back of cars, in the canteen, in the bush. That's a disgrace. A grant of only $300,000 would repair this horrible situation. This is but one club in my electorate that has seen the boom in female sport participation, a boom across Aussie Rules, soccer, touch football, rugby league and rugby union. They are all missing out—in contrast to the $250 million that was rorted by this government. This is why this second reading amendment is so important. It calls on the Prime Minister to hold himself and his ministers to the same standards of integrity expected of our athletes and sports organisations.
One way the Prime Minister can demonstrate that he has learned the lessons of the sports rorts affair is by doing what he and the Treasurer said they would do—that is, fund projects that were recommended by Sport Australia under the Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program. After being caught out by the Auditor-General for funnelling millions of dollars in sports grants into marginal and target seats before the 2019 election, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said they would provide more funding in the budget. On 29 January the Prime Minister said:
… there are many other projects that you would like to support, and the Treasurer and I will consider that as we go forward.
On 20 January he said: 'I will work with the Treasurer to see how we can better support even more projects in the future.' On Insiders, on 2 February 2020, the Treasurer said:
What the Prime Minister has foreshadowed is given the strong community need and the importance of supporting these sporting organisations, we would, in the context of the Budget, revisit a program of this type.
… … …
A support to support the actual sporting clubs.
The Prime Minister told the sporting clubs that missed out because of the sports rorts affair that he would revisit the grants program in the budget. If he was serious about integrity in sport and serious about integrity in government, he would have delivered on these undertakings. Yet, as usual, Scott Morrison is all talk and no action. There was nothing in the budget for the sports clubs who were snubbed in the sports rorts affairs. As my colleague the shadow minister for sport has pointed out, after building up the hopes of hundreds of community sports club that his government ripped off, the Prime Minister has again treated them with contempt. The Prime Minister was happy to splurge hundreds of million dollars on sports projects that he thought could win him an election, but he clearly has no intention of making right his rort and no idea of how sports is hurting.
Female sports participants in my electorate are hurting right now. They lack places to get changed with the dignity that every person in this country should be granted when we encourage them to play sport. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are dudding the female football players, the female sports people of the electorate of Shortland. The Australian Sports Foundation has reported that more than 16,000 community sports clubs could be forced to close the doors permanently because the impacts of COVID-19. The millions of Australians who take part in or volunteer in community sport every week all deserve so much better than a Prime Minister with nothing to offer but empty promises.
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 Shortland has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Twenty years ago all of Australia stopped to watch Cathy Freeman win gold for Australia at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. The new kid on the block was Ian Thorpe, a 16-year-old who smashed records in the pool. Susie O'Neill, Grant Hackett, Leisel Jones and Michael Klim became household names. The Sydney Olympics signalled the start of a new millennium. Australia was united as we cheered our athletes on and showcased the Australian spirit to the world. If the world didn't know where Down Under was, they sure did by the end of the Olympics.
Australians pride ourselves on honesty, integrity and a fair go, on and off the field. We don't suffer fools lightly and we won't tolerate cheating. We do not tolerate it among ourselves and we will not tolerate it in others. Earlier this year Australian swimmer Mack Horton reignited his feud with Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, who has previously been suspended from competitive swimming due to doping charges. In front of the entire swimming fraternity, Mack refused to share a podium with the swimmer, making a stance about the need to ensure a clean playing field. The public support for Mack was overwhelmingly positive. Our athletes have to work hard—and their families, too. It's early mornings at the pool, it's long afternoons at the football oval, it's driving all over the state and country for competitions and meets. To have all that hard work devalued because of the actions of individuals who don't hold the same values is deeply upsetting. On home soil, the never-ending saga of the Essendon Football Club rocked the sporting world and dominated the news for years. The system was let down, as were other players, fans and supporters.
In Australia we have a reputation to uphold on the global stage, and that is why bills like the Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020 are so important. It ensures we are in line with the rest of the world, and in some cases leading the world, in having a united antidoping approach.
This bill amends the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 to reflect the 2021 code and ensures that Australia continues to meet its obligations under the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. UNESCO recognises that doping jeopardises the values, ethics and integrity in sport, and the health of those involved in it.
The World Anti-Doping Code is a core document that harmonises antidoping policies, rules and regulations within sport organisations and among public health authorities around the world. The code is reviewed every six years to ensure it continues to be relevant and up to date. It's a document that accounts for the latest in doping technology and practices. These continue to change as science informs better management and measurement.
The revised World Anti-Doping Code is due to commence on 1 January 2021 after an extensive review undertaken by WADA—or the World Anti-Doping Agency—from December 2017 through to November 2019. This bill will allow Australia to sign up to the code and, in return, enact the code within our sporting bodies and ensure our own agencies, like ASADA, are working within the code and are consistent with the principles of the world antidoping convention and what is happening around the world.
By aligning our own practices to the UN and the rest of the world, we are working to create a level playing field for domestic, international, professional and amateur sport, and to end the scourge of performance-enhancing substances and methods. Australia has always participated in its global health obligations and involved itself in the decisions made by global agencies. We have an important role to play as a middle-order country that punches above its weight with regard to great integrity, and the world antidoping convention is no different.
Australia has participated in the review and provided feedback and comments throughout the review process to ensure we were active in the decision-making process. The Australian government consulted with several stakeholders, including national sporting organisations, Sport Australia, the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee—and a big shout-out to one of my colleagues from Monash University, Sue White, who's on that committee—and local antidoping experts throughout the code review process. Given Australia's consistent views against doping and our inherent approach to demanding a fair go and integrity, I'm sure the convention is better for having our participation and expertise. Our medical researchers and health practitioners are well regarded around the world. The revised code was approved by the WADA Foundation Board at its meeting on 6 November 2019 at the Fifth World Conference on Doping in Sport in Poland.
This bill will also widen the net and extend the National Anti-Doping scheme to include other people under the code. Previous to the review, only the athlete and support person, such as a coach, were subject to the code. Under the new guidelines, sporting administration bodies like the Australian Olympic Committee can determine who it would like to subjects to its antidoping policy. It's anticipated that a sporting administration body's executive and senior management would be subject to this bill as well as specified employees.
By widening the net to include not just the athlete and the coach, the code will seek to discourage doping facilitation such as trafficking or administration of a prohibited substance or method. It will also aid in the reporting of an antidoping rule violation or tampering with the doping control processes. This latest review also works to close a loophole that will strengthen the definition of when you are formally defined as an athlete with regard to this bill.
In addition to required code amendments, the bill amends the Sport Integrity Australia Act to amend the definition of athlete to continue to capture a person for six months after the last time they competed. This will work to stop the practice of athletes competing then retiring for six months. During this time they could theoretically be able to engage in doping and other performance enhancing measures. They could then stop doping and return the sport having benefited from the performance enhancers that are tested once enrolled back in competitive sport. They would not display any positive result.
This bill makes sure those who remain in organised sport under a gruelling training regime are not disadvantaged by those who leave the sport and then come back simply so they can avoid detection for doping. This bill is not to arbitrarily go after athletes who have genuinely retired.
Signing up and participating in these types of agreements strengthens our global health diplomacy. It adds validity and integrity to our sporting culture. It means other countries want us to compete in their competitions because they know we run a good clean fight, even if we are, on occasion, beaten. It means that we can continue to hold our heads up high at international events and that Australians are respected in their chosen sports. I commend this bill to the chamber. I think it speaks a lot to the sort of people we are as a country.
I rise to speak on the Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 by expanding the operation and provisions to include those nonparticipants in sport, to amend the definition of an athlete and other amendments.
I can't start and get into the technicalities of the bill without acknowledging my personal experience with this. It is one of those lucky days where I can combine so many areas of my life, my passions and the amazing opportunities that I've had. I first competed at the Winter Olympics when I was 17. I think that was my first experience, from an international sport, with the amount of codes and the amount of legislation, but also the testing and the need for sport to be clean. In those days, 1992, we hadn't yet really come to terms with how broad and how big a problem doping had become in sports, especially around the Olympic sports and those kinds of things. It was really interesting over the course of my career, from, in 1994, having to do a gender test to prove my gender to be permitted to compete as a female at the Winter Olympics, to then having to undertake a number of doping tests. I'm probably one of the very few in this chamber, I would say, that has had to undertake a doping test. These are so important. It is important that the international community have come together with this legislation, with the wider code, to ensure that we have clean sport.
If you speak to athletes about what it is that drives them to participate in sport, it is that passion about doing your best, about seeing what your limits are and seeing if you can go past them. It's about really trying to excel in something that you love doing. One thing I think that a lot of athletes have in common is that we tend to like a clean playing field. People want to know that you're going to win or lose fair and square. You want to know that there are rules of play, that there's a procedure by which you can win, or succeed, and that it is an even playing field so it truly is a test of your ability, your talent, your determination and your skill.
There is an incredibly disappointing experience where doubt enters sport, where the results and those heroic outcomes get tainted by the allegations. When they are made out to be true the outcomes are sullied. When allegations of cheating are made out to be true it is such a disappointing moment for sport because we know that those who missed out on the opportunity to be on the podium, because a drug cheat was there at the time, will never get that moment back. You can rectify the record years down the track, when science and technology has caught up, but you can never give the athlete back the moment that's been lost, that opportunity to stand on the podium, to hear the anthem, to watch your flag go up on the post.
It's really important that governments and sporting codes work as hard as possible to keep sport as clean as possible. Sadly—maybe human nature—there is always that desire to cut corners and find ways to cheat. But it is encouraging when internationally we come together to put solutions on the table.
The World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA, was established in 1999. It's an international independent agency composed and funded equally by the sport movement and governments of the world. So it was widely recognised that everyone needed to come together for that. Its purpose is to research, educate and develop antidoping capacities and to monitor the World Anti-Doping Code. Of course, there's no point having a code if it's not monitored and applied, and that's where it gets tricky. The agency was founded by the International Olympic Committee with the declaration of Lausanne in response to the growing pressure stemming from doping episodes, including the allegations and systemic doping around the 1998 Tour de France cycling season. I remember those days well, '98 being a big year in my sporting career, but also 1999. I saw that shift, as an athlete competing; we were regularly drug tested and had to engage with that process.
WADA has been a consistent positive force in sports. Its influence culminated in the banning of countries from competing in international events and levelling the playing field in various sports. The World Anti-Doping Code, which WADA monitors, harmonises antidoping policies, rules and regulations within sports organisations and among public authorities around the world. It works in conjunction with six international standards which aim to foster consistency among antidoping organisations in various areas. What's important is that the WADA code is up for review on a regular basis, because we know we have to keep up to date with developments and the latest technology. Sadly, the cheats tend to always be a step ahead of the movement and the authorities trying to catch them.
In January 2003, the first code was approved in Copenhagen during the second World Conference on Doping in Sport. Approximately 700 sports organisations have accepted the code. Signatories include sporting organisations that belong to the Olympic movement, national antidoping organisations and national and international sporting federations outside the Olympic movement. The purpose of the World Anti-Doping Code and the antidoping program are clearly to protect the athletes' fundamental right to participate in a clean and doping-free sport; promote health, fairness and equality for athletes worldwide; and ensure harmonised, co-ordinated and effective antidoping programs at international and national levels with regard to the prevention of doping. Australia is a signatory of the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. Under this convention we've agreed to implement the code. So I very much support the code and the international efforts to fight doping.
We have to have ongoing efforts to protect Australian sport, but we also always need to be conscientious. We've often been the first to accuse others but find excuses for our own. We have to be consistent in making sure that we want clean sport everywhere. It is an ongoing process, and threats evolve over time. No system is ever perfect. I was incredibly privileged to be a member of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, ASADA, and the ASADA Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel for several years. It was incredibly rewarding as a past athlete to have the opportunity to be on the administrative side of trying to reconcile applying the code and the rules and hearing how the athletes were dealing with the code and any transgressions.
In December 2017, WADA initiated a two-year three-phase code review progress, which involved extensive stakeholder consultation regarding the code, the international standards and the Athletes' Anti-Doping Rights Act. The stakeholders identified 51 significant changes between the current code and the 2021 version. Some of the changes are substantial and very important. The code has been amended to reflect an increased emphasis on the importance of athlete health and to provide a better statement of ethical foundation. Under article 2.11, the new antidoping rule violation of threatening another person to discourage that person from good-faith reporting to authorities is important, because it's often through anonymous tip-offs that we start to investigate cheating behaviour.
We need WADA accredited laboratories to have the ability to detect the minuscule quantities of prohibited substances in athletes' samples, and that has increased exponentially. Timing is everything with a lot of these substances, and more often than not it is the out-of-competition testing that is vital, because it's when people are in their preparation phase for big events that you are more likely to catch them if they're using banned substances. That ability to detect the tail end of prohibited substances is very important, because that alleviates a bit of the pressure on timing. It also raises the question of whether more people will be caught inadvertently. There is an incredible onus on athletes that they bear responsibility to be aware of everything that enters their body, which is an incredibly high bar and a high amount of responsibility on them, especially on junior athletes.
When I was on the ASADA Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel, one of the most frequent occurrences we had was people getting caught out by their supplements. These are supplements that are, for example, coming in from overseas; they have ingredients not automatically labelled up front, but if you search them on the internet it becomes clear that some of the ingredients in the substances are banned. It was disappointing to see how often that was the problem for the people who were getting caught.
A key theme of the review is proportionality, where WADA aims to ensure the code targets the right stakeholders and applies consequences that are proportionate to an individual's culpability. This is where it gets really difficult, because, invariably, most athletes who are caught will have the defence that they didn't mean to do it or it was an accident. I don't think I've ever seen any athletes really come clean and take responsibility. But we do need to be able to differentiate between an athlete who has genuinely been caught out by a supplement or by ingesting a banned substance completely inadvertently and unknowingly and an athlete who is attempting to make up a story or hide.
We've had some pretty amazing cases of this from around the world. I was very privileged to go to the PyeongChang Winter Olympics in 2018 as an arbitrator. I sat on the court of arbitration for sport; in fact, I sat on the appeals in relation to whether Russian athletes would be permitted to compete at those Olympic Games. That was a case where it was incredibly systemic. We saw 298 athletes investigated; 200 were caught doping, and 47 Olympic medals were stripped. There were real concerns over their systemic approach to doping, and that continues today. We still have issues of compliance with RUSADA when it comes to the code and true independent testing occurring.
What is also important about this bill is it extends the code to applying to relevant nonparticipants to be subject to the National Anti-Doping scheme. That's important, because what we find in the course of investigations is that there are a number of parties involved over the process of how athletes come to be in possession of banned substances, and we need to make sure that all of those responsible are caught and dealt with. It may be medical practitioners providing it; it might be pharmacists. We have to look at who is accessing these substances.
The Sport Integrity Australia CEO now has discretion not to publish details of an antidoping rule violation when it's a recreational drug or if the athlete does haven't the mental capacity to understand the rules. We have to be clear that consequences of an adverse analytical finding are severe. Athletes are judged, and the damage to reputation is irretrievable more often than not, so we have to be very cautious in how the information becomes public. The code is the foundation of antidoping efforts internationally, so it's very important that governments and national sporting organisations get behind it and keep on improving it.
The most important message I can put out there, though, is for the athletes. You need to stay informed. Under the code, you have to log your whereabouts at all times. You need to be aware of all the ingredients of any over-the-counter supplements. It's very important for all of you to go to the Sport Integrity Australia website and make sure you are aware of your obligations and everything.
Lastly, whilst the fight against antidoping and cheating in sport is incredibly important, we can't ignore the other issues sport faces. Up there with doping, is the risk and threat of gambling impacting on the outcomes of sport and organised crime in association with gambling having a huge impact on the integrity of sport. I would urge the government to do more in combating that and in making sure that we have strong legislation to deal with any gambling and those consequences when it comes to sport. Sport should be about encouraging people to do their best and inspiring others to really perform and give 110 per cent. It's incredibly rewarding, but we need to keep it clean.
For many Australians, sport is an ingrained part of our national and personal identity. I think that's for two reasons. One is that, as a country, we see our sporting individuals' and sporting teams' success as our entire country's success. We are proud to cheer on Australian teams, and there's probably nothing that sport-loving Australians like more than cheering on Australians at the Olympic Games. I'm conscious that I'm speaking in this debate after a former Olympian—who I did cheer on, for the record. We see the success of Australian athletes and teams as Australian success and also, as part of that, we understand that the large sporting moments in our history are political moments sometimes and culture-changing moments.
You don't have to look any further than Cathy Freeman's magnificent victory at the 2000 Olympics as evidence of that. That was not only an amazingly successful win for an athlete that perhaps we will never see the like of again for her natural ability; it was also an incredibly strong statement about the history and the possibility for the future of the relationship between those of us who have come to Australia in the last 200 or so years and the longest living civilisation in the world, in our First Nations people. In her quiet and unassuming but incredibly determined and powerful way, Cathy Freeman paved the next 20 years in Australia of that walk to reconciliation that we are still on. But we are so much further down the road because of her and her amazing athletic ability.
I think the second reason so many Australians have sport intrinsically embedded in their personal and national identity is that those of us who are involved in grassroots local sport understand that, yes, it's about playing the game and sometimes it's about being able to win and get a trophy, but most of the time it's about the community that forms around your club or the sport you play and the support that local clubs and sporting associations give to people in the community not just when they're playing their sport but in their time of need. They are two big reasons why Australians, on the whole, are so passionate about integrity in sport, a fair playing field and everyone getting the same go and having the same opportunity to have that successful outcome.
We see examples everywhere of how local sporting clubs and associations are so much more than just the game that they play. And today I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Game Changer's Reuniting the Peninsula relay run, which was run two weekends ago. Twenty-two MPNFL clubs—all of them—participated in a 174-kilometre relay, visiting the grounds of each of those clubs in one day, to reunite the clubs on the peninsula after this horrid year of 2020 and to look forward to season 2021. Just as importantly, they raised money for mental health education programs which will be delivered to the MPNFL in 2021 and beyond.
Game Changer provides the link between those who need help and those who can provide it. Every single club in that league stepped up and participated in the peninsula relay run. I want to thank all of the clubs and all of the people who participated, but, of course, I want to particularly thank the Pines, YCW, Seaford, Langwarrin, Mount Eliza, the Bombers and Karingal for doing what everyone in our community knows you do all the time—fostering bonds, fostering connectedness, fostering community and making sure you contribute to helping people in our community who need help, at the time they need it, as well as competing fiercely against each other to try to win that trophy.
Integrity in sport is also, as I said, about fairness. Australians are very keen to be able to see decisions being made in a way that is transparent and based on some obvious criteria. It might seem that I'm about to launch into the government over the sports rorts—before I do that, I want to echo the sentiment of Michelle Martin, one of Australia's finest female athletes and a former world No. 1 squash player, on behalf of everyone around the world who loves the sport that I love, and say that it is extraordinary that breakdancing is in the 2024 Olympics and squash isn't. Before any breakdancers get upset with me—I think you're amazing. I don't know how you do what you do. You're incredible athletes, plus you've got great rhythm. Don't get me wrong—sport dancing is terrific but, I'm sorry, it doesn't belong in the Olympics before squash.
Squash, around the world, ran an amazing campaign—headed by Nicol David, who is the second-best female squash player ever, after Australia's magnificent Heather McKay, and Ramy Ashour, who is absolutely the most freakishly talented man ever to play squash—to get squash into the Tokyo Olympics. We were all beside ourselves with amazement and dismay when we didn't get in. Basketball, which is already in, was allowed to have another division, of three-by-three; there are all sorts of different categories for BMX; but squash didn't make the Tokyo Olympics.
Now, we are absolutely flabbergasted and dismayed. I just want to quote what Michelle Martin said. She was almost at the point of thinking that perhaps the Olympic Games might become a 'mockery', because squash can't make the Olympic Games but these apparently modern sports that appeal to young people can. The Olympics mean something; Olympic medals mean something. I call on the Australian Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee to take a long, hard look at yourselves and put squash in the Olympic Games. While you're at it, have a look at softball and baseball and cricket and netball and these sports that can't make the Olympic Games, when sports like basketball get to have a three-by-three competition.
I want to finish my contribution by speaking to the second reading amendment briefly and saying that the sports rorts scandal that this government engaged in, in order to try to bribe their way to an election victory, diminishes this government. The way they've handled it since it was uncovered diminishes this government, but, just as importantly, it is just another dagger to the heart of integrity and trust in the political system and it was done using people who volunteer hundreds of hours of their time in order to have their local club that they love have a chance to get a grant so that their facilities are much better. That's a slap in the face. We have so many sporting facilities that should be upgraded. There are more in my electorate that should be upgraded, and I'll continue to put submissions in to the government and fight for them. Everyone who plays sport knows that you follow the rules, because, if you don't follow the rules and you win, you can never really be proud of your victory.
I thank everyone who has made contributions to this debate on the Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020. To continue to be a world leader in sports integrity, Australia must demonstrate its commitment to the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the World Anti-Doping Code—or the code—and the broader international antidoping effort. The government is demonstrating Australia's commitment to clean sport by amending our antidoping arrangements to reflect the revisions to the code and to hold our athletes, support persons and, now, those considered nonparticipants to the highest standard. It's also important to acknowledge the effort of the World Anti-Doping Agency drafting committee, who have listened to extensive stakeholder feedback and input to include revisions that were accepted by the broader antidoping community, including governments, international sporting federations and major event organisers.
I would like to thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for its comments and suggestions on the bill. The government has taken the comments on board and included the bill's replacement explanatory memorandum that further clarifies how the bill's impacts on privacy, while minor, are proportional and legitimate to the policy outcome. These points were considered and accepted by the committee. I know Australians are excited about the prospect of cheering our Olympic heroes at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics; however, just as importantly, Australians want to know their athletes are competing clean and competing fair. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Shortland 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.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak and make a contribution to debate on this very significant piece of legislation, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020. I flag that I will be putting before the House a second reading amendment. I want to acknowledge that this is obviously a bill that exists in a much wider context. Indeed, legislation covering similar ground came before the House recently as part of a package of reforms which go back quite some time. These reforms are a part of Australia's engagement with very significant international efforts to combat money laundering, recognising its awful consequences domestically, in terms of criminal activity and terrorism financing.
The amendments in this bill adapt and update money-laundering offences to combat the modern networks, the evolving networks. I guess this is one of those areas where governments here and governments internationally have to be extremely agile in responding to a constantly evolving series of threats and challenges. Those modern money-laundering networks need to have a modern and robust legislative response if we are to engage with the great ill that they do to our society. The changes also go to asset confiscation laws and would enable us to strengthen those undercover operations which are so necessary. I will go through some of these reforms in more detailed remarks, but I just wanted to acknowledge a couple of things first, if I may.
Firstly, the nature of legislation such as this is that it often involves some quite technical provisions and it shows the importance of due consideration to reforms—agreed reforms, bipartisan reforms—ensuring that they are entirely fit for purpose, particularly when there are some additional powers being conferred, as is the case here. I am grateful for the work of all members of the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for applying their scrutiny to these provisions, as they have done to similar provisions of related legislation. I found two submissions of particular interest, and I want to raise them in my contributions before the House.
I want to acknowledge the longstanding work of the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania of the Uniting Church in Australia, who have had a deep interest in this matter and many other issues of social and economic justice in Australia. The submission notes the longstanding interest they have had in the need to reduce money laundering in Australia and, of course, globally. They have obviously made a substantial contribution to advancing that debate here. They note:
Corruption and money laundering do real harm to people, holds back development and undermines confidence in government and public institutions.
The synod resolved to prosecute the case in that context. That's a call that I am keen to respond to in this place. The submission also notes:
Successive Australian Governments—
I know that this is a deeply bipartisan concern—
have signed up to international standards committing to assist with global efforts to recover stolen assets shifted across borders.
The commitments that we have made in these forums mean that this parliament needs to put in place laws that are fit for purpose to give effect to those commitments and give effect to international arrangements, such as the UN Convention against Corruption, to which Australia is a party, and the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development.
These are matters which are also traversed in the Sustainable Development Goals and the work that has been done by the High-Level Panel on International Financial Accountability, Transparency and Integrity for Achieving the 2030 Agenda, which has been looking at these issues. They have noted in an interim report that was released only this year:
Cooperation on confiscating and returning the proceeds of corruption is far from effective. The process remains extremely burdensome and lengthy for countries that saw their resources drained—especially those that are seeking to recover assets stolen by formerly entrenched kleptocratic rulers.
This is part of the challenge we are responding to. We have to acknowledge that Australia is home to stolen assets that have been shifted across borders. The Australian Federal Police reported they have restrained more than $250 million in criminal assets in courts across Australia and overseas in the last financial year—assets that make many forms, which again goes to the complexity of the challenge. I put these matters before the House before turning to detail because I think it's very easy to look at the technical provisions of this bill without having regard to the context.
The other submission that I want to refer members to is that of the Law Council of Australia. Their contribution is a very helpful one going to the details of the bill before the House. I think it is significant to look at the broad position that they have taken. They first recognised the nature of the problem in quite similar terms to the Senate but went on to acknowledge:
… the significant difficulties identified in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill in relation to the investigation and enforcement of money laundering offences in contemporary circumstances.
What I was talking about earlier is the constantly evolving and complex environment. The submission goes on to say:
These difficulties are said to have arisen from the diffuse, opaque and dynamic nature of the legal, financial and administrative arrangements that organised crime syndicates have adopted to conceal the criminal origins of the funds and evade tracing, particularly by establishing complex distribution chains, and tightly limiting the information that is known to each person in a chain about the origins and ultimate destinations of funds. It has also been observed that serious and organised crime groups have significantly diversified their criminal activities.
This highlights again the importance of vigilance in our legislative initiatives as well as in our enforcement activities.
I'll turn now to the provisions of the bill, and I should be clear and say this is legislation which Labor supports as Labor supports the government's efforts to deal with the objectives underpinning this legislation. The explanatory memorandum to the bill notes that the proposed amendments, which I'll turn to in a moment, would increase the pressure on the growing strength of transnational, serious and organised crime groups by targeting the financial benefits they seek to gain by reason of their illicit activities. This is of course a goal that we share with members opposite and indeed which is shared across the entirety of the Australian community. Our challenge is to make sure that this goal is advanced through this legislation and, more broadly, by closer attention on the part of the government to our international efforts to deal with these issues—and I will be touching on these matters in the course of my contribution.
The bill has seven schedules and would propose to amend the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the COAG Reform Fund 2008 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to do the following: update Commonwealth money-laundering offences to address the behaviour of modern money-laundering networks; remove unnecessary obstacles to securing convictions and introduce new sentencing thresholds; clarify that the obligations imposed on investigating officials under part 1C of the Crimes Act do not apply to undercover operatives; ensure that buy-back orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act cannot be used by criminal suspects and their associates to buy back property forfeited to the Commonwealth or delay Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings; clarify that the Proceeds of Crime Act permits courts to make orders confiscating the value of a debt loss or liability that has been avoided, deferred or reduced through criminal offending; clarify the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act in relation to the restraint and confiscation of property located overseas; strengthen information-gathering powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act by increasing penalties for noncompliance and clarifying the circumstances in which information gathered under these powers can be disclosed and used; and, lastly, expand the official trustee and bankruptcies powers to deal with property, gather information and recover costs under that act to allow the official trustee to discharge its functions in a more cost-effective manner.
While this bill has significant merits, we note that the Morrison government has been very slow to progress wider anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reforms. Australia remains years behind comparable countries when it comes to implementing anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reforms and will still not have responded to all the criticisms made by the Financial Action Task Force in its mutual evaluation report on our regime from 2015—five years ago. I touched on this in some detail in my contribution to related legislation in the parliament only a few days ago, but this criticism stands and it is very significant. While these objectives are shared, there is more to be done. Accordingly, 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 that:
(a)Australia has still not implemented all of the 2016 recommendations from the Report on the Statutory Review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations;
(b)other international jurisdictions are already moving ahead of Australia with stronger anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing protections;
(c)AUSTRAC warned the Government in 2017 of significant regulatory gaps that raised significant money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing risks for casino junket operations, and the Government did nothing; and
(2)calls on the Government to ensure Australia is not regarded as a soft-touch for money launderers or terrorism financiers".
This second reading amendment is important because it shows in this area, as in so many other areas, the gap between the rhetorical position of this government and the substantive action that underlines it. My friend the member for Fraser has done very significant work in this area. I look forward to hearing his contribution to this debate, because he has warned, in this place and outside, about these issues for some time, eloquently and effectively. It's time that his consideration was matched by urgency of action by this government.
We made commitments some years ago which are yet to be enacted. That's not good enough. That's not good enough in any respect but particularly so when we think about the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing. Criminals and terrorists both seek to stay one step in front of the law. If the law fails to evolve as we've agreed to, that is obviously much easier for them. As we fall out of step with comparative jurisdictions, it seems very obvious to me the incentive that that provides to undesirable elements to locate their activities here. That is something we have to respond to. We have, of course, heard some awful stories, highlighted by the member for Fraser and others, in junket casino operations, which require more urgent action. Again, these are not problems that exist in Australia alone. They are global problems. They threaten our national security and the integrity of Australia's financial system. I can't put it more clearly than that.
The last thing any country wants is to become a soft touch for money launderers or terrorism financers. I think I can speak for every member in this House in setting out that aspiration as a proud Australian. That's why our framework must continue to evolve. It must be fit for purpose, otherwise we will become a weak link in the global financial system and a soft touch for organised criminals seeking to launder the proceeds of their crimes.
The world's financial watchdog in this area, the Financial Action Task Force, has expressed serious concerns about our framework and this government's failure to implement reforms not just according to the Financial Action Task Force timetable but that were adopted by this government. The consequences are apparent and serious. AUSTRAC, this government's own regulator, gave these risky casino junket operations a tick of approval only three years ago. Since that time, tens of billions of dollars have poured into Australia through these channels, but there has been no proactive action on the part of this government to close these gaps, which were exposed in 2017.
Only because of the work of journalists such as Nick McKenzie, and later the New South Wales government's casino inquiry, has widespread money laundering and terrorism financing been exposed. Labor had to fight to get AUSTRAC to get to release, in full, its 2017 report into the casino junkets. Initially AUSTRAC would only release a heavily redacted report. Again, as with the delay, this is not good enough. It was only after Labor senators moved an order for the production of documents, which forced the government to release this document, that we found out AUSTRAC warned the government that there were major gaps. Having said that, Labor support the bill and of course welcome every effort on the part of this government to improve our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework with this legislation or otherwise. But this legislation comes more than four years after the then Minister for Justice tabled the Report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations, which first called for these changes in March 2016. We do call on the Morrison government to take anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws seriously. Getting this framework right is too important to get wrong. I commend this bill to the House.
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 member for Scullin 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.
I rise to strongly support the arguments so clearly laid out by the member for Scullin. This is a bill that we support, but I will say at the same time that it is a bill that is so narrow in its scope, so limited in its ambition, that we need to use this time that we have to consider this bill to point out that this government should be doing much more. Indeed, as I will point out during my contribution, statements from those in this government years ago reinforce how tardy this government has been in undertaking reform in such an important area.
As the member for Scullin pointed out so clearly, this is a very technical area; it is an area where it is possible to get lost in the weeds—the weeds of banking regulations, the weeds of payment systems. But what we always need to draw ourselves back to is the fact that this is not a victimless crime; this is not just about bits and bytes flowing around the world; it's not just about dollars being transmitted between one person and another, under regulators' eyes. This is about money laundering as an integral aspect of crime; it is about money laundering as an integral aspect of fraud, terrorism, human trafficking, and conveying the ill-gotten assets of totalitarian regimes. We talk often in this place about the importance of proper regulation when it comes to terrorism. We talk of fraud and the way we react internationally with regimes that don't respect human rights. We talk about all of these first-order issues but it means nothing if we don't at the same time regulate appropriately the ways in which these activities are funded or the ways in which the proceeds of these activities are distributed. It is absolutely critical that we get this right.
This bill, as I said, is a useful step forward; but it is a tiny step forward—at a time when anti-money-laundering, in its scale and sophistication, is evolving so rapidly. By some estimates—by the UN, by Ernst & Young and many other entities—global money laundering is now worth more than US$1 trillion. As I said, that US$1 trillion isn't just a number to put out there; it's a number that underpins a range of activities that are dangerous to our national interest and involve significant harm to vulnerable people.
As the member for Scullin pointed out, this government has missed so many deadlines since 2013. The then minister for justice said in September 2016 that the Turnbull government would be closely consulting on regulation of tranche 2 entities. In 2017 he said a cost-benefit analysis for extending the AML/CTF regulation was well advanced. And then he said 'it is well progressed and will be completed by July this year'—July 2017. Clearly, that didn't happen. The previous member for Higgins, when she was minister for revenue and financial services, said 'the tranche 2 cost-benefit analysis has been completed in 2017 and is being considered by the government'. That was three years ago. As the member for Scullin indicated, this is in response to a review commissioned by this government and it is also a response to numerous pieces of analysis undertaken by the Financial Action Task Force and other international bodies which point to Australia as being a laggard in this area. So by the government's own comments on its performance it is years behind schedule—and a bill like the one we are discussing today is simply not good enough.
Let's look at the OECD. The OECD said in 2019 that Australia's real estate sector, which is very attractive to foreign investors, was at significant risk from money laundering. We have had a number of instances of the media, regulators and other entities pointing to dubious transactions. Money laundering occurs in the most sophisticated ways but we in Australia, given the lack of comprehensiveness of our regulatory regime, are also exposed in a number of sectors to the old-fashioned brown paper bag of money as well. The OECD lines up with the Financial Action Task Force. The IMF says recent high-profile money-laundering cases have pointed to weaknesses in Australia's AML/CTF regime. This is absolutely critical. Money laundering is now very much an international phenomenon. It is absolutely critical that Australia does not become the weakest link, that Australia does not become a magnet for laundered money, a place where inappropriate activities that punish vulnerable people and are against our national interest are funded by international flows of money. That is a serious risk this government is taking far too long to deal with.
As the member for Scullin pointed out, we need only look at a number of very high-profile cases in recent years. The Crown junkets are a classic example of where this government is not keeping up with high-risk activities that are occurring under its nose. Indeed, it took New South Wales government investigations to turn a spotlight on this for there to be real action. AUSTRAC, the government's own regulator, gave a number of these risky casino junket operations a tick of approval three years ago, and it was only fighting for unredacted documents that demonstrated that the risk that these junkets posed was actually better known at the time than was admitted. It is a material risk that we need to better deal with. The full report made it plain that AUSTRAC and this government knew about those risks and took no action. As I said, it's disturbing that a New South Wales casino inquiry has been necessary to bring a number of these systemic problems into the light of day.
We also, of course, have Westpac, with 23 million breaches and $11 billion in suspicious transactions, with a number of those transactions relating to child abuse. Again, that reinforces the fact that this is not just about dollars swishing around the globe; this is very much not a victimless crime. In so many instances of AML, we can point directly to money being used for inappropriate activities or money flowing from inappropriate activities. We also had the Commonwealth Bank, which reported 53,000 suspicious activities at high-value ATMs. This is a bill that we will support, but so much more needs to be done, something that we have pointed out on numerous occasions. We look forward to seeing much more substantial activity in the future.
I thank colleagues in the House for their contribution to the debate. Combating transnational serious and organised crime groups is a key priority for the government. These groups eat away at the heart of our society, mercilessly pursuing profit at the expense of the health, prosperity and safety of ordinary Australians. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 takes the profit out of crime by strengthening money-laundering offences, criminal asset confiscation and controlled operations, ensuring that law enforcement has appropriate powers to cut off the lifeblood of organised crime. I will shortly seek to table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum in response to comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
I indicated before to the House that I would shortly be tabling an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I do that now and seek leave to move that the bill be now read a third time.
Leave granted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
In 2020, raw sewage should not be pumped into one of Sydney's major waterways, but that's exactly what's occurring at Botany Bay during heavy rain. Sydney Water has been regularly discharging hundreds of millions of litres of sewage into the Sydney Airport Wetlands which then flows into Botany Bay, via Mill Stream. The discharges usually occur during heavy rain and can see the equivalent of hundreds of Olympic-sized swimming pools of sewage sent into the wetlands. It literally stinks. Sydney Water has sought, and been granted, a renewal of this authorisation by the federal department of infrastructure and transport—but unconditional, because any discharges in wet weather are likely to exceed the acceptable limits for water pollution and result in objectionable odours. The impact is prohibited under the airport's regulations—not to mention the health risk and inconvenience that it causes to local residents and people who swim, fish and walk along the Foreshore Beach.
On behalf of the community, I strongly object to Sydney Water being granted approval to discharge sewage into Mill Stream and Botany Bay. It's time for the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for infrastructure and transport to get Sydney Water to finally commit to improving their infrastructure, so there is no longer a need to pump raw sewage into one of Sydney's major waterways. The approval should not be unconditional. The approval should be on the basis that Sydney Water commit to upgrading their infrastructure and stop pumping raw sewage into Botany Bay.
Congratulations to Tallirah Gale from Ulverstone Secondary College, who has been invited to participate in this year's Curious Minds program. Funded by the federal government, this program brings together young women from year 9 and year 10 to pursue their interest in STEM. Speaking about her wonderful achievement, Tallirah said that she was very grateful that her teachers have provided her with opportunities to explore STEM. Through the six-month program, Tallirah hopes to develop her interest in marine biology and zoology as well as exploring her passion for biodiversity, animals and the environmental influences impacting habitat. When it comes to STEM, Tallirah and I have a lot in common. We both understand the importance that STEM plays in our everyday lives and our future. Tallirah is keen to share her knowledge. She encourages young people across the north-west, the west coast and King Island with similar dreams to get involved, and so do I. STEM skills are critically important to our region's current and future prosperity. It's vital that our young people are equipped for whatever the future job market might hold and STEM skills go a long way in helping that. Have a great week, Tallirah! Thanks to her teachers at Ulverstone Secondary College who have done such a magnificent job in nurturing all curious minds at this school.
Yesterday the government introduced legislation that would cut workers' pay. Twenty-four hours later, from reading the media, it looks like the Minister for Industrial Relations is under pressure and is apparently in retreat. But, if he and the Prime Minister were serious, they would withdraw this bill today—this bill from the Liberal Party that cut penalty rates, the Liberal Party that has frozen superannuation and, don't forget, the Liberal Party that delivered WorkChoices. They are sitting on legislation to cut workers' pay. Last Christmas the Prime Minister fled to Hawaii and abandoned Australians in the bushfire crisis. This Christmas he has given them a gift of a pay cut. A cut in wages means three things. It means that people have less to spend to support local businesses, it places more pressure on family budgets, and it results in a slower economic recovery. So why is the Morrison government so determined to make it happen? Let's not forget that the economy is, apparently, doing so well that the government says it's time to withdraw JobKeeper, but now they say the economy is doing so badly that we need to slash wages for the exact same people who have been the heroes of this pandemic. These proposals were never raised during months of discussion with employers, unions and the government. What a Christmas present for Australians! It's clear that only an Albanese federal Labor government and every member on this side of the House can be trusted to stand up for the rights and pay of working Australians.
An Albanese federal Labor government is a bit like a mirage in the desert. I don't think it's coming any time soon, but, anyway, there you go. There is a percentage of people who still think that a mobile phone is for having a conversation on. In fact, it is the key to so much more. As you and I know, it is the key to mobile technology, to the internet, to the internet of things. But there are some people that are somewhat left behind and haven't actually made that transition yet. So that's why I was very pleased with the announcement this week of the regional tech hub, which is going to be run by National Farmers Federation in the next two years. It will supply a one-stop shop of information for people who haven't, if you like, caught the technological wave.
I played in a band for many years. I know my way around band equipment, but I go into a music shop now and sometimes the jargon has passed me by. It's the same when you come to technology. If you've been out of the loop for a while you sort of get a bit embarrassed about asking the questions. 'Can I get fixed wireless? My neighbour gets fixed wireless. Am I on satellite or does the does fibre come down my street?'—whatever it is. 'What do I need to do to get a booster on my phone? What kind of phone do I buy to get the best reception?' That's what the tech hub is going to supply for regional people. It will be run by the National Farmers Federation. It will be a great thing.
I am looking forward for 2021. It has been a difficult year. I know many Australians have had a very rough time. People have lost their jobs, people have been managing chronic ill health or disability. There are families who have been separated and Australians stranded overseas. I look forward to next year because I hope and I believe it can be better than 2020.
Australia should emerge stronger and fairer from this pandemic, but it won't happen with this slack and self-satisfied government that is always punching down. It won't happen with a government that responds to a crisis by cutting wages, freezing pensions and breaking promises—a government obsessed with slogans and with no interest in solutions. When they say their approach is targeted and temporary we know exactly what they mean: it won't be fair and it won't last. They deliver taxpayer fattened bonuses for CEOs with more belt tightening for millions of Australians who are already doing it tough. Australia deserves better than that. We can do better than a PM who doesn't hold a hose but will make you shake his hand. We can do better than PM who won't take responsibility for the fact that aged-care workers don't have time to help residents get dressed but needs to ask his media team whether today's the day to put on the long pants. I'm looking forward to 2021 because we can, as a nation, set off on a better and fairer course, holding no-one back and, most importantly of all, leaving no-one behind. But that requires a change. It requires change. It requires an Albanese federal Labor government.
I'm just trying to keep a straight face here. As we come to the end of a long and difficult year I'd like to extend my gratitude to the community of Wentworth for keeping New South Wales COVID safe. For all those in my community who have practiced social distancing, have worn masks, have undergone testing and have checked in on their neighbours I want to extend my thanks. It's the efforts of individuals like you, little by little and day by day, that've helped to ensure our success.
I also want to make a special shout-out to the schools in my electorate. This has been a particularly tough year for students from kindergarten right through to years 11 and 12. Teachers and schools have done a great job in getting through this. Students deserve a remarkable vote of thanks and respect for having got through one of the most difficult years in the academic history of Australia.
Earlier today I was honoured to help light one of the candles for Hanukkah to celebrate the start of Hanukkah, which kicks off tonight. Hanukkah is a particularly important festival for the Jewish community in Australia. It celebrates the triumph of light over dark, of hope over despair and of good over evil. I wish everyone in the Jewish community Hanukkah sameach!
Finally, in very happy news, I'm delighted to tell the children across Wentworth that I've just head from Brad Hazzard. He's been in touch with the North Pole and he's agreed to grant an extra special essential workers exemption to Santa Claus and his elves—provided all presents are delivered after bed time and, to minimise contact, the elves maintain 1½ meters of social distancing and they wash their hands regularly! Merry Christmas everyone!
I would like to read from a letter that Cecilia Webster recently wrote to me on behalf of all nurses: 'As everyone knows 2020 is the World Health Organization's Year of the Nurse and the Midwife. It was to be a year of celebration and recognition of the contribution of nurses worldwide over the last 200 years. But this year has overwhelmingly highlighted the courageous work of nurses and other healthcare workers in the face of a once-in-100-years pandemic, a pandemic that has infected more than 51 million people and claimed the lives of more than 1.27 million souls worldwide.'
I agree with Cecilia that it's timely that the Australian government and community recognises all nurses who have been on the frontline and were the final line of defence against the pandemic: nursing patients who were COVID-19 positive, manning testing stations, going into nursing homes under extraordinary circumstances, and even contracting COVID-19 in the course of their duties. They have been, and continue to be, under enormous stress because of their workload under the virus. They wear PPE, work longer shifts, have greater risks, have disrupted holidays and endure the loneliness of quarantine and separation from families.
It is time for an Australian nursing medal in recognition of meritorious nursing service to Australia as part of the Australia Day awards. Cecilia, it's a great idea and I'm going to back you for it. I hope everyone else does too.
There is no more important responsibility for this House than protecting our vulnerable kids in Australia. Child sexual abuse is a very real threat. It is a scourge. We must not shy away from it and we must tackle it head on. It's highly confronting. The things we hear about this terrible crime are incredibly hard to comprehend and process, but we cannot stay silent on this issue because that is what the predators count on. The predators count on us turning away—turning the volume down on the TV when we hear a story on the news because we don't want to hear it—when really we should be turning it up and having that difficult conversation with our families and our kids.
The importance of highlighting this issue has led me, along with my colleague who's in the chamber today—the member for McNamara, who is as passionate about this issue as I am—to found the Parliamentary Friends for Combating Child Exploitation in Australia and the ACCCE. On Tuesday, we launched this important group and heard from the AFP Assistant Commissioner, Lesa Gale, and Detective Sergeant Kate Laidler, the AFP Victim Identification Officer, who provided an update on the recent Operation Arkstone. The recently-completed operation resulted in 46 children in Australia being removed from harm and 828 charges laid. The reality is to start having a conversation with your children early, go to the ACCCE website as parents and find the resources there, take the seven-day online safety challenge and help protect your family and community.
Single-use plastics are one of the biggest environmental threats of our time. On average, Australians use 130 kilograms of plastic per person each year and only nine per cent of that is recycled. More frightening still, up to 130,000 tonnes of plastic will find its way into our waterways and into the ocean. This needs to be urgently addressed. In Warringah we have several organisations actively trying to reduce the amount of single-use plastics in our oceans and environment: Strawkel, where people snorkel and look for rubbish; Pittwater Eco Adventures, that encourages people to pick up plastic rubbish on stand-up paddleboards; and the Seabin Project, that sucks in plastic rubbish floating on the water surface. We have developed the Warringah Roadmap to Zero which is also addressing how households in Warringah can reduce their use of plastics and, ultimately, omissions across many sectors.
Today I met with Zero Co, a company challenging the use of single-use plastics. Their goal is to prevent one million plastic bottles being thrown away in the next 12 months and they have already prevented 714,650 so far. In South Australia, they recently banned plastic cutlery and straws. That was hailed as historic. We need to see this type of legislation across all states and territories and we need to lead that federally.
I'm very lucky to have an electorate that is beautifully nestled between the Adelaide foothills and the River Torrens. So it's no surprise—that being the catchment for the upper Torrens—that I've got a number of waterways such as Fourth Creek running through my electorate. There are also lots of great Landcare groups who do such excellent work in our nature areas throughout the electorate—particularly through the waterways—and many of them were successful in the Communities Environment Program grant scheme that was announced at the start of the year. Of course, the coronavirus—as it impacted on everyone—has also impacted on them. I just wanted, on the last sitting date, to extend my warmest congratulations to those groups who were able to successfully complete all of those funded programs despite the challenges that came their way. We are making excellent progress in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide in improving our environment and particularly in improving the catchment area, which is a complete metropolitan area in the city of Adelaide. They do phenomenal work. It was a pleasure to help them secure those grants and get the support for the programs that they do. Despite the disruptions of COVID, they were all able to successfully complete them. I congratulate them warmly, and I look forward to working with all my Landcare groups for the next 12 months for more success.
It is the last day of parliament for the year, hopefully, and I want to put on record my thanks to my family for this year. It has been a tough year for everyone. It has been a tough year for all our colleagues in the House and in the Senate. It's been a tough year for all our staff, the clerks, the Serjeant-at-Arms, the Comcar drivers, the chamber staff, security, the AFP and everyone who's involved in making this place tick and particularly for us as we were sitting at home for six months in lockdown going through a pandemic. I want to particularly thank Joy, the cleaner in my office. She is a wonderful lady and does a fantastic job. She goes above and beyond the call of duty. These cleaners don't get paid a lot by this government, but they do fantastic work.
To all the people in the seat of McEwen, I want to thank you for this year because it has been tough, as I've said—the Men's Shed, One Voice, the Lancefield operation for homeless people at Transition Village, the Mitchell Suicide Prevention Network, the Wandong History Group and the people at Japara aged care where 17 residents lost their lives during the pandemic. But there have been positives like the Upper Plenty Primary School Zoom meeting we had with grade 3 and grade 6 kids. And there's the Romsey and Lancefield Districts Historical Society and the people from Field and Game.
As we go home at the end of the year and we sit down and think about Christmas, I want us to think about this photo. The Prime Minister of this country, this is the face he's put on Christmas.
The member will put the prop down.
When you sit down for dinner, just have a think about these two poor kids locked up unnecessarily. It's a disgrace. (Time expired)
I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people of Townsville for everything they have done and been through the last few years. Their resilience and sense of community has truly been astounding. From the devastating floods in 2019 through to the year that has been 2020, the people of Townsville have gone above and beyond for their fellow community members. Some of our businesses and livelihoods have changed forever, with jobs one day but gone the next, the unknown, national and state lockdowns, a global pandemic—a horrible time for so many.
But through all these tough times we as a community have come together, with everyday people helping each other through charities, the military and community groups, putting the people of Townsville first. I am so proud to say I live in Townsville. I want to let the parliament know about all these amazing organisations and individuals, but we would be here all day. We have fantastic people in Townsville.
Coming into Christmas, the festive season, I want to let the people of Townsville know: you're amazing, you're tough, you're resilient and I am so honoured to be your representative here in Canberra. Most importantly, you deserve to have a happy and merry Christmas and a safe new year. Spend time with your families, spend time with your loved ones, spend time with your mates and look after each other.
Many in our Bendigo Karen community are facing long delays when it comes to applying for and receiving Australian citizenship. It is one of the most significant issues that has been identified as affecting our Bendigo Karen community. Over the past two to three years a number in the Karen community have been facing problems. The main delay is they have applied for citizenship but not yet been invited to sit the test, while some have sat the test and are waiting for that special ceremony to become Australian citizens. Most haven't been invited.
The Karen community in Bendigo settled through the Humanitarian Settlement Program and they have made a life in Bendigo. They are a huge part of the success of our community, working in many of our food-manufacturing industries and in our auto industry, as well as many other industries. They are a big part of our community. We now have, it's estimated, over 3,000 living in our area, and at least 136 have spoken to our office and identified themselves as having troubles receiving Australian citizenship. They are keen to become Australians and to stand with us. Some want to represent us in the armed services and some are keen to become police officers, something you cannot do until you're an Australian citizen. This government should immediately look at this issue and help these people take that final step to become Australian citizens.
The year 2020 is coming to an end. Thank God for that! Hallelujah! As years go, this one has been an absolute shocker. A global pandemic hit. Lives were lost and livelihoods were shattered. It took a toll on businesses, families, schools and organisations. For those of us who have the privilege to serve, we see the best of it and we see the worst. It reminds us constantly to focus on what's most important. Three things come to mind. They are not awfully insightful things; they are basically truths that become self-evident as time goes on. First and foremost, we're fortunate to live in Australia. Secondly, we're fortunate to be Australians and to live among people who know how to pull together when adversity strikes. Thirdly, our way of life and our values are our greatest strengths and have to continue to be protected.
To you, Mr Speaker, to my colleagues, to those opposite and to the wonderful people of the Sunshine Coast, I wish you a merry Christmas and a very happy New Year.
I present to the House 'The Scandals of Christmas':
On the first day of Christmas the PM sent to thee, thirty million for a piece of land that was only worth three.
On the second day of Christmas the PM's plans were set, Mathias Cormann job-seeking on his own private jet.
On the third day of Christmas the PM gave WA, 'teaming up with Clive Palmer' to soothe their border closures away.
On the fourth day of Christmas the PM sent away, Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer while leaving stranded families at bay.
On the fifth day of Christmas the PM left us stunned, with $100 million of sports rorts for his re-election fund.
On the sixth day of Christmas the PM closed the door, to protect the minister for energy and his war on Clover Moore.
On the seventh day of Christmas the PM made an app, it cost $70 million but it couldn't find a scrap.
On the eighth day of Christmas he did not disclose, he was in Hawaii but he didn't hold a hose.
On the ninth day of Christmas while Victorians were stuck at home, he sent us all a message: you guys are on your own.
On the 10th day of Christmas the PM decided to say, we're passing a bill and it'll cut your take-home pay.
On the 11th day of Christmas there was no more to doubt, his robodebts were illegal and he had $1.2 billion to pay out.
On the final day of Christmas a year that belongs in the bin, all we got from this PM was marketing and spin.
I'd like to finish the year on a positive note. The 2020 Ross Vasta Christmas Appeal has only one week to go, and I would like to thank everyone who has donated so far. This year I partnered with national online charity GIVIT to provide much-needed support to families in Bonner. Christmas is always a hard time for people who are struggling financially, exacerbated by the economic impacts of COVID-19. Sadly, GIVIT has seen a significant increase in the number of people needing help, including many who have never needed to ask for help before.
With many families in my electorate still doing it tough, it has been nothing short of overwhelming to see the community come together to support those families who may be looking at a very different kind of holiday season. By partnering with GIVIT, who work with charities in Bonner, we are able to recognise those families in need of support and ensure that 100 per cent of the funds go directly to helping them during this difficult time. This Christmas appeal is supporting not only families but small businesses as well, with all donations being used to buy essential items and gift cards from Bonner's local businesses. Our small businesses are run by hardworking local families. As well as utilising their goods and services during this appeal, I would like to encourage everyone to go local first and support them over the holiday season. To anyone wishing to donate to my Christmas appeal, jump onto my website or Facebook to find out more.
The pandemic shone a spotlight on essential workers who are too often overlooked and I would like to shout out to our beloved posties. Like so many workers who got us through the pandemic, they've been given a raw deal by the Morrison government and Australia Post. They've been forced to do two full postal runs in a single day, otherwise known as the alternate day model, and at the same time have had one in four postie jobs cut thanks to legislation passed by this awful government. You know what? The posties are angry. The Communication Workers Union of Australia conducted a survey of Melbourne postal workers which found nearly three-quarters of posties couldn't take their meal breaks. Two-thirds of posties reported to have had to speed on footpaths because they were under pressure to complete their rounds. Rather than acknowledging these concerns, the acting CEO of Australia Post dismissed them as unrepresentative, claiming the alternate day model is 'going very well' and that they're 'getting very positive feedback'. Really? This is hubris. What did the workers do? They stood up and fought back—1,400 posties, 85 per cent of the postie work force in my electorate and across Melbourne signed a petition to the contrary. The petition states the cuts are an abject failure that has led to a great deal of stress and anxiety amongst the posties as well as severely damaged morale and a range of health and safety issues. Our posties deserve better. The Morrison government doesn't care about them. An Albanese Labor government would have their backs.
For years I have been a fierce critic of Australia's most lawless organisation, the muscle faction of the ALP, the CFMEU. Recently, I've picked up an unlikely new ally: the members of the CFMEU. Sick of the bullying and thuggery of their construction division, mining and energy members want out. And who could blame them? The CFMEU has breached the law more than 2,000 times and racked up $17 million in fines. Divisions are poaching members from one another by the thousands while its leaders run personal vendettas against one another. Even their own former national secretary, who once had to take the union he led to court himself, believes it is totally dysfunctional. It appears that some of the more decent CFMEU members have had enough of this lawlessness and they've gone awfully quiet. Thanks to the Morrison government legislation, those in the energy and mining divisions have the opportunity to take back their freedom and repair their sullied reputation. I hope they'll be taking advantage of that very quickly.
Amid all of this infighting and lawlessness, the CFMEU have got one group of staunch supporters and that is the ALP. When will those opposite stop taking donations from this bunch of bullies? It's time the Labor Party showed some back bone and de-amalgamated from the CFMEU.
First it was snapback, then it was comeback and now it's cutback—cutting back wages and conditions and presiding over the worst growth in wages that this country has ever seen. Under this Prime Minister, workers of Australia have the smallest slice of economic pie since Aunty Jack was on TV and the Skyhooks were the top of the pops. He's loaded with slogans but devoid of new ideas so it's back to the same old Liberal playbook: cut wages, cut conditions and hit workers and their families. For 12 months, every clown in the coalition muppet show has been saying, 'If you let us cut your super, we'll give you a pay rise.' We now know their plan is to cut your super and your pay rise. You can't trust anything they say. Companies take JobKeeper while giving their bosses a bonus. Multinationals get big profits but pay no tax. Liberal Party mates get $30 million for a block of land worth 10 times less than that. What a way to say merry Christmas. This time last year, the Prime Minister said he doesn't hold a hose. Well, he does hold a red pen and he should put a red line through this plan to cut workers' wages.
Forty-three years ago my husband and I moved to Mildura for his internship at the Mildura Base Public Hospital. One of the first specialists we met was a man called Kevin Chambers, a general surgeon and a friendly true blue Aussie. Kevin was a mentor, giving his time and expertise to many junior doctors who would follow him around the wards, feeding off his kind and excellent sense of humour. He became a stalwart in the region's local medical profession and could always be relied on for his witticism and dry humour. He cared for several members of my family and thousands of local families with dignity, respect and compassion.
Two weeks ago, Kevin, sadly, passed away. One of his final actions was to ensure another surgeon would promise to take his place to serve the people of Sunraysia. This was the type of man Kevin was. It was never about him; it was about meeting the needs of his patients and the strengthening of the local health system. Bridging the divide between rural and metropolitan healthcare delivery was a driving force in Kevin's life and career.
I too am passionate about regional and rural health care. I've made no secret of it and I will continue to wear out the carpet to Minister Hunt's office to fight for improved healthcare delivery in Mallee. I hope Kevin's example will inspire young doctors in our region to take up the torch ignited by one of the best surgeons our region has ever seen. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How can Australians trust what this PM says about wages when he has a history of making misleading statements, including, denying the $1.7 billion cut from aged care when it was in the budget papers; denying more Australians are out of work because he excluded them from JobKeeper; pretending robodebt wasn't his policy; wrongly claiming Kevin Rudd had travelled overseas; and denying his role in the sports rorts, in spite of the colour-coded map?
Under the policies of this government, Australia has faced its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression. Seven hundred thousand Australians—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland is warned!
avoided losing their jobs because of the quick, timely and well-targeted support that was brought together by this government. That changed the landscape, economic and otherwise, for Australians during this crisis. Seven hundred thousand Australians would have otherwise lost their jobs. On top of that, as a result of those important supports, we have seen some 80 per cent of the jobs that were lost through the COVID-19 crisis, jobs that were reduced to zero hours, come back over the course of these many months. And not only that; the actions of the government have ensured working together with state and territory premiers and chief ministers, coming together in the national cabinet, which will meet tomorrow for the last time this year here in Canberra, to keep Australia safe and provide the platform for the economic recovery that is occurring.
The Leader of the Opposition might not know what's going on in Australia, but this government does. That's why we've provided the support that we have. The people we must thank most for Australia coming through this crisis are all of those Australians who've quietly gone about their business, helping each other to get Australia through.
Opposition members interjecting—
The angry remonstrations by the Leader of the Opposition betray only one thing: the only job that he is worried about is the one that those behind him are seeking to take off him.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House about how everyday Australians have done what they do best, as they stepped up and came together in a united, national effort to get us through one of our most challenging years, and how the Morrison government both thanks and supports them as we look ahead to 2021?
In 2020 I have never been more proud of this country than I am today as we go towards the end of this year, and I've never been more thankful to my fellow Australians for the effort that they have put in, quietly going about—not seeking thanks—looking after their fellow Australians.
Opposition members interjecting—
I don't understand the interjections from those opposite, because I would assume they would share these sentiments as we express thanks to the people of Australia.
This year, in my Christmas card, there are eight Australians who I want to thank because they represent that united national effort. Gerren Lowe is the Broadway Coles popular greeter. Those who have visited the Coles store there would have seen his cheery smile. He's kept people safe in that shop over the course of COVID-19.Annette Kuipers is a hospital cleaner from St Helens in Tasmania, giving encouragement and care for the sick. Nathan Watts from the CFS in SA was one, joining so many others, at Adelaide Hills and on Kangaroo Island through the black summer fires. Queensland teacher—
The Prime Minister will pause for a second. The member for Shortland has been warned. He continues to interject so he'll leave under 94a. The member for Brand can join him if she wishes to, and the member for Dunkley is warned also.
The member for Shortland then left the chamber.
Queensland teacher Lisa Bates kept her year 6 students learning throughout the course of COVID-19 when they had to go to remote learning—
Sorry, Prime Minister. I said to the member for Brand she could leave if she wanted to. It seems she's walked. The Prime Minister has the call.
Private Frank Marrar, a proud Indigenous Australian, who answered the call on both operation COVID assist and bushfire asset; Von Harrington, who called those, as a volunteer, who were in isolation to let her fellow Australians know that while being in isolation they were not alone; and then there's 10-year-old Darcy Hetherton, who was making face masks in regional Victoria. It says on the front of the card, 'Grateful, joyful and hopeful.' We can look forward to 2021 with hope because of the extraordinary work of Australians over the course of this year. We can look to this Christmas season and seek out the joy that is available there as we come together with our families and with fellow Australians. For some Australians, that will be more difficult because Christmas can be a very difficult time of the year, particularly when, for many, there will be one less place at the table.
I would ask all of us here in this place to join the House to thank Australia, to thank Australians. This has been a united national effort of so many Australians quietly going about their business to ensure that this country is amongst a handful of nations in the world to be able to come through this terrible crisis. As Prime Minister, I'm deeply grateful to the people of Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask: will the Prime Minister back down on the cut to take-home pay that he claims he hasn't made?
The Minister for Industrial Relations has the call. Sorry, the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. He needs to state what the point of order is.
My point of order is regarding the standing orders that allow the Prime Minister to have someone answer questions on his behalf. That's allowed, but it cannot be allowed with just a contemptuous nod of the head. It's got to be referred, and the parliament deserves to be treated with respect.
In response to the point of order, I'm just going to point out a couple of things to the Leader of the Opposition. I'm not going to take the House to the page of the Practice that makes clear the very long history of the Prime Minister being able to refer questions to any minister, and I am not going to take him to the page of the Practice where it says how that should be done, because it doesn't say so. There's been a long history of Prime Ministers not coming to the microphone and referring the question away. That's certainly been the case. It's something I'm happy to look at. This is the last day of this year. Certainly he's not the first Prime Minister to look to a minister and ask them to answer the question. The Minister for Industrial Relations has the call.
The double negative question was: will the PM back down on something which the government has not done? No, we won't, because we haven't done it and therefore there is nothing to back down on. The question really is: why are the members for Watson and Grayndler on their motorcycles seeing who can jump the biggest shark? What is going on there?
Ms Burney interjecting—
Member for Barton, I wouldn't be talking about being lucky to be here. The Manager of Opposition Business on point of order?
It's on direct relevance. It's not open to ministers to reframe the question as they would like to have had it asked.
In response I'll say that it's not open to questioners to demand they answer it in a certain way. It was a specific question, but it was a question that had at its heart an allegation. The minister answering is quite entitled to rebut an allegation in a question.
We reject the allegation wholeheartedly. There they are on their motorcycles—vroom-vroom!—getting ready to jump the biggest shark they can find. Why are they both trying so hard to overreach each other?
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
I am going to caution the member for McEwen for his interjection. It is disorderly to start comparing anyone in this House to some fictional character. I will say to the member for McEwen that it's dangerous territory for him. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
It goes to accuracy, because a motorbike can't jump a shark!
No, there is no point of order.
I will explain to the Leader of the Opposition what the phrase 'jumping the shark' means after question time. But why are they both trying to overreach each other? Why are they both trying to come out with the most absurd, ridiculous untruth in a question that they possibly can? It's because it's the final audition for the one job that they both want, and that is the job of the person sitting over there. They both want and envy that job, and that's why we are getting this ridiculous overreach.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government recognises and thanks Australia's supply-chain workers and businesses who have helped our nation get through one of its most challenging years?
I thank the member for Cowper for his question. Regional Australia is at the heart of our nation, and no more so than this year. It has been magnificent throughout this global pandemic which has caused such heartache throughout the world. Regional Australia has been there for each and every one of us. It has maintained its strength. We say thank you to those people in regional Australia for their determination, for their fortitude and for their mateship. Our regions upheld restrictions even in instances where there were no cases in their communities. We have relied upon our regions to lead the way through the response to COVID-19.
I take this opportunity to thank each and every Australian, not just those in the regions but each and every Aussie, particularly those in country and coastal committees, for persevering in what has been a remarkably challenging year. Thank you to the truckies who've kept supermarket shelves stocked and delivered critical medical supplies across state borders. Thank you to the aviation sector, which was hit first and hit hardest at the very beginning of the pandemic. Planes in the air equals jobs on the ground. With the easing of restrictions nationwide, we look forward to seeing a resurgence in air travel in the weeks leading up to Christmas so loved ones can be reunited at this special time.
Thank you to our farmers, our fantastic farmers, who have continued to produce the world's best food and fibre. Thanks to the overseas labour force currently working hard in Australian orchards, meatworks and elsewhere and those who will follow from the Pacific and other nations next year, hopefully, in a trans-Tasman bubble. Thank you to the many hardworking people who have continued to work to ensure the delivery of essential community infrastructure, in construction, planning, project management, manufacturing and supply. Thank you to our frontline workers, our teachers, our healthcare workers, our first responders, for your commitment, your dedication above the call of duty. Thank you to the small-business owners, particularly those in regional Australia, who have adapted, who have diversified and who have persevered to keep their doors open and stay connected with their workers, their employees. We owe them a debt of gratitude. Together we have weathered the immense challenges brought about by COVID-19. We've done it together. This Christmas, this summer, think local, shop local, buy local. Please buy Australian. Buy Australian produce. It is so essential, and we have the very best in all of the world on our shelves. Look for that Australian logo. Please buy it. Help an Australian farmer. Help somebody from regional Australia. It's so, so important. Together we will recover—united, stronger, stoic. Together.
The Leader of the Opposition?
Just briefly, I associate Labor with the fine words of the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to a shout-out to all those in the regions who have looked after us during this difficult year.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the former finance minister's statement that low wages are a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture. Will the Prime Minister admit that his new workplace laws are part of his deliberate scheme to cut take-home pay?
Let me describe the system that we envisage and wish to see operating effectively in Australia, the model of industrial relations that we are working towards:
It is a model which places primary emphasis on bargaining at the workplace level within a framework of minimum standards provided by arbitral tribunals.
It is a model under which compulsorily arbitrated awards and arbitrated wage increases would be there only as a safety net. This safety net would not be intended to prescribe the actual conditions of work of most employees, but only to catch those unable to make workplace agreements with employers. Over time the safety net would inevitably become simpler.
We would have fewer awards, with fewer clauses. For most employees and most businesses, wages and conditions of work would be determined by agreements worked out by the employer, the employees and their union.
These agreements would predominantly be based on improving the productive performance of enterprises, because both employers and employees are coming to understand that only productivity improvements can guarantee sustainable real wage increases.
That was Paul Keating, members. That was the original vision of the enterprise bargaining system, and that is a vision that we share with that former prime minister, because enterprise agreements, when they prevail over awards, result in workers being paid 40 per cent more on average. That is the system that we need to revitalise and that is the system that is the subject of our bill to make for a better Australia, with more people in better-paying jobs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The 2020 UN Production gap report has reported that the world is heading for a temperature rise in excess of three degrees on current emission reduction commitments. In response, leaders around the world are speaking at the COP 26 Climate Ambition Summit this Saturday, to honour their commitment to act to stay within 1.5 degrees. Is it correct that, as a result of your government's failure to commit to increase its ambitions and do what it takes to stay within 1.5 degrees, you are not invited to present at the COP 26 Climate Ambition Summit?
I can assure you of this: Australia's climate and energy policy will be set here in Australia, in Australia's national interests, not to get a speaking slot at some international summit. The only approval I seek for the policies of my government is that of the Australian people. That's it. The only people I answer to in this place are the Australian people. And our government stands to serve the Australian people. Whatever country it may be that may seek to impose whatever position on this country, Australia's policy will always remain sovereign within our borders and nowhere else.
What I can tell the member—I'm sure she would be pleased to know—is that over the last two years, Australia's 2030 position on the Paris targets we have committed to has improved by 639 million tonnes. This is equivalent to taking all of Australia's 14.7 million cars off the road for 15 years. Our emissions have fallen since 2005 by some 16.6 per cent. Over 430 million tonnes—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Warringah, on a point of order.
On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question is whether he's presenting at the Climate Ambition Summit.
As I have said many times before, if the member for Warringah had simply asked that and only asked that, the Prime Minister would have been compelled to give a very specific answer. Unfortunately for her, she included a long preamble that made a number of statements about the subject matter, and that enables the Prime Minister to answer all aspects of what a member asks in their question and not confine him to the preferred aspect, which was the specific question at the end. The Prime Minister is in order.
I do note the point of relevance that the member offered up just now. The member thinks what's relevant is whether you speak at summits. That is not something that troubles me or concerns me one way or the other. If people wish us to speak at them, we're happy to come; if they don't, I'm not fussed.
What matters is if you actually reduce emissions. There's been a 16.6 per cent fall in emissions since 2005. Since emissions peaked in 2007 there's been an almost 20 per cent fall in emissions. On the earlier figures, this compares to a zero or 0.2 per cent fall in like countries like Canada and New Zealand. Australia has record investment in renewables. Australia has a plan to put the technology in place to reduce emissions and ensure we achieve the Kyoto commitments, as we already have demonstrated, and, importantly, the Paris commitments before us. What matters is what you get done, and Australia is getting it done on emissions reduction. That's what matters to the Australian people, not how many speeches you give and not how much ambition you declare. I may have an ambition to play front row forward for the Australian Wallabies, but that ambition won't be realised. What is being realised is Australia meeting its emission reduction targets. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's economic support continues to help Australian families and businesses and how grateful this government is for their courage and determination as we come back from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Ryan for his question and acknowledge his experience on Brisbane City Council, the biggest council in the country, before he came to this place. In the electorate of Ryan there are more than 70,000 taxpayers who are getting tax relief as a result of the policies that we on this side of the House have supported and have legislated. More than 5,000 businesses in the electorate of Ryan are benefitting from the JobKeeper program, a program which has been an economic lifeline for workers across Australia.
The member for Ryan, like others on this side of the House, understands that through COVID-19 Australia has faced the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression. We saw 1.3 million Australians either lose their jobs or have their working hours reduced to zero. We saw GDP growth fall by seven per cent in the June quarter, the biggest fall on record. But now the economic recovery is on, and Australia is seeing the jobs coming back. Eighty per cent of those 1.3 million Australians are now back at work. The effective unemployment rate has come down from 14.9 to 7.4 per cent. There are two million fewer Australians on JobKeeper in the month of October compared to the month of September. Business and consumer confidence is now back to its pre-pandemic highs. We saw that GDP growth in the September quarter was 3.3 per cent, the biggest quarterly jump in 40 years.
This economic recovery belongs to every Australian. Every Australian family and every Australian worker have delivered this result with the economic recovery now underway. And we are grateful to the small business owners and workers right across the country. Small-business owners are the first in and the last out. They work the front office and they work the back office. And they have worked through this pandemic to find a way to get to the other side, and we give thanks to those small business owners and their workers right across the country, and also the lenders. The lenders have partnered with the prudential regulator and government, and we have seen that 900,000-plus loans have had their payments deferred, worth more than $250 billion. So, this very much has been a team Australia moment, a team Australia effort where families, workers and businesses big and small have come together to ensure that Australia rebounds from this biggest economic shock since the Great Depression.
My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Yesterday the minister denied that a personal carer in aged care could lose up to $11,000 a year from their take-home pay under the government's legislation. Why won't the minister acknowledge the truth: that if there is no 'better off' test then every penalty rate and shift allowance is at risk?
That is because there is a 'better off' test, and it remains in the legislation, as it was always designed to do. I think what the member is talking about is what's known as crisis provision, which was inserted into the Fair Work Act by the Labor Party—section 189. And maybe I can share with the House some of the very rare instances in which that has been used in the past. In 2011, under the then Labor government, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation needed to allow for extreme weather events and made an application, agreed to by all 19 of its employees, to work their ordinary hours in a way that was not catered for in the award. The Fair Work Commission agreed with the agreement amongst all the employees and the employer that that was a commonsense change that was not contrary to the public interest and should be approved—and it was approved. That seems to us to be a reasonable, limited response in a crisis circumstance.
In another example, in 2011 a fresh produce business in Cairns, after floods and Cyclone Yasi and what was described as the extreme weather event of the 'nonoccurrence of winter' that had impacted the production of fruit, had an agreement by all staff to work additional hours at ordinary rates. Again, the independent umpire, under the provision inserted into the Fair Work Act by Labor, made a determination that the application agreed to by employees and agreed to by the employer was not contrary to the public interest, which is the firm, clear, necessary safety net test there. And that agreement was agreed to. The idea that what the member is suggesting would occur, either in the present system or in the very modest addition that we have suggested to section 189, is simply not correct.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on our national health response to COVID-19 and in particular how the Morrison government recognises and gives thanks for the remarkable work of our medical and healthcare workers, who have kept Australians safe through 2020?
I particularly want to thank the member for Chisholm. Through much of the early part of the COVID pandemic she was one of the great forces of community glue in this country. She stood for Chinese Australians, along with many others, and provided that support, provided that rallying point, and I want to thank her for that.
I want to acknowledge that, around the world, we have now passed 68 million cases of COVID and 1.56 million lives have been lost. In the last 24 hours, 640,000 cases have been detected and over 12,000 lives have been lost. In Australia, in the same time as those 12,000 lives have been lost, we have seen zero cases in an ICU, zero Australians with COVID-19 on ventilation and zero cases detected across the country within the community. On that basis, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude and thanks to our health workers. On behalf of the government, on behalf of the parliament and on behalf of all Australians, I thank our amazing health and medical workers around the country.
In my own electorate, for example, there is Peninsula Health. In particular, I thank Tresna Cuttriss, the nurse unit manager at Frankston Hospital. I choose her because she has been an inspiring leader. Interestingly, it's a very similar role to the one my mother had in the same hospital half a century ago. Tresna received the first COVID patient into her ward in Peninsula Health. She helped train a team. She helped keep that team safe. She helped keep people on the peninsula safe. She led the nurses to, in my view, their highest moment since the Second World War. They have been among the finest of Australians at the greatest time of need. They have been extraordinary—along with our doctors. Dr Peter Kelley leads infectious diseases at Frankston Hospital and across Peninsula Health. He has worked on infection control and safety. And there is the CEO Felicity Topp. There are all the nurses, all the doctors, all the orderlies and attendants within that facility. Across Australia, our pharmacists stayed open. Our pathologists have been on the front line—and or specialists, our physios and our allied health workers. These are the Australians who have helped keep other Australians safe. This has been the hardest of years, but I believe it has been the finest of years. Above all else, we thank our health workers, our medical workers and our nurses. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under his new workplace laws, workers who stack supermarket shelves five nights a week from 6 pm to 10 pm could lose up to $5,500 a year? Why is the Prime Minister's Christmas thankyou to frontline workers a cut in their take-home pay?
With respect to the member for Spence's question, the scenario he outlines is not possible and would not happen—not now, not under what has been proposed by way of reform, not ever.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government recognises and thanks Australia's manufacturing industry for rising to the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic, including by supplying critical medical items?
I thank the member for his question and acknowledge that manufacturers in his regional electorate were some of the most vital in our response toCOVID-19. In fact, one of the first manufacturers I called back in February was Ray, at Med-Con in Shepparton. At the time, that great family business was the only manufacturer of surgical masks in the country. Working with us, and aided by Defence Force engineers, Ray and his team set about increasing production to provide the masks that we needed. With the help of Foodmach in nearby Echuca, which manufactures new machines, Med-Con increased production from around two million masks a year to over 59 million. Many others have now joined that market too, and this year our nation will produce more than 400 million surgical masks. But it's not just masks that we made. Grey Innovation and ResMed produced the ventilators that we needed. Many small and large distillers pivoted to produce hand sanitiser. Our food manufacturers worked around the clock to meet demand and keep our supermarket shelves stocked.
I thought I'd use this year's last question time to give an example that demonstrates how businesses in the supply chain benefit when we scale up production and take on innovative new projects. One of the projects that we backed in April was a collaboration to produce emergency-relief hospital beds, led by medtech company Stryker South Pacific and three other Aussie businesses. One of those businesses is Fallshaw Group, which makes wheels and castors, a 100-year-old Melbourne based family business. From this collaboration, Fallshaw went on to supply castors to Stryker's international and local teams. They hired six new staff and moved to two production shifts in order to ship 2,000 castors a day to the United States. It's a great example of how traditional companies, through collaborations, can achieve scale and take their product to the world. And that's exactly what our $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy is all about.
A silver lining of this crisis is that Australians have gained a deeper understanding of the vital role of our manufacturers, and there's been a renewed interest in buying Australian-made products. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank our Aussie manufacturers for their massive contribution this year and for the role they will play in our comeback.
My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Under the government's legislation, a cleaner working part-time could lose $6,600 a year from their take-home pay. Why is the Prime Minister punishing frontline workers with a cut to their take-home pay?
The question is once again untrue; it's incorrect, it wouldn't happen, it doesn't happen and it wouldn't happen in the future. I think, member for Cowan, that you and I would agree that that scenario would never be considered to be in the public interest, which is the existing test—and it would be the preserved test—which is the reason it doesn't happen now and it's the reason it would never happen in the future. The question is, once again, desperately wrong and from a desperate leader.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Would the minister outline to the house how the Morrison government recognises and thanks the incredible work of Australia's Defence Force personnel in helping our nation through one of our most challenging years?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question. As he's somebody who's worn the uniform of the Australian Defence Force, I'm sure he would want to join me, as I'm sure everyone in this House would, in wishing our defence personnel and their families all the very best this Christmas and new year—especially, this year, our veterans and their families for the sacrifice that they've made and, in some cases, the sacrifice that they still make today, either in their own lives or in the support of others, including their mates and their colleagues. Some of them have done it over many decades—they've advocated, they've provided support to loved ones and they deserve great credit for it.
All Australians were proud when 8,200 defence personnel at the beginning of this year provided support through Operation Bushfire Assist, which was an operation designed to help those Australians who were in their darkest hour of need. The Australian Defence Force keeps us safe, not just internationally, when they're deployed, but here at home as well. The depth and breadth of their skill and expertise is a national treasure, and we really do recognise that today.
I want to say thank you also to the defence personnel who have been involved in the government's response to COVID—those defence personnel who have been posted up in the Torres Strait, those who have been providing those supports on our borders, those who have been providing support at our airports and in hotel quarantine, and those who have been providing other support across the country to keep Australians healthy and safe. The men and women of the Australian Defence Force have carried out evacuations this year. They've set up shelters and they've transported emergency personnel. They have done our country proud. More than 11,000 personnel have been deployed as part of Operation COVID-19 Assist, and they have the grateful thanks of our nation. As the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology pointed out before, there was a remarkable story that we were confronted with in the National Security Committee where we needed to produce more masks. We know that defence engineers from the Land Engineering Agency, the Special Operations Logistics Squadron and Joint Logistics team worked with a particular company to produce those masks. They stepped up in a remarkable way. In an operation that would normally take many months or years, to retool and to adjust the settings at that factory, our defence personnel worked day and night to make it happen because our country needed that of them.
The ADF is a pillar of society. They do deserve our thanks. To the personnel both serving and retired, our defence veterans and their families, I thank them so much this Christmas for the work that they've done for our country during 2020, our most difficult year in modern history.
on indulgence—I associate Labor with the words of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. This has been an extraordinary year in which our sense of what defines a hero might have changed, and, in terms of our health workers, they have worn a different uniform. But, as the minister has said, those who have worn our nation's uniform have, in their thousands, been providing assistance to Australians in so many different ways. From the bushfires last summer through the COVID-19 crisis, in nursing homes, in the factory in Shepparton making surgical masks, on border controls, on phones doing case tracing, they have been doing it all. As a nation, we are grateful to our Defence Force as always, but, this year in particular, we owe them a debt of gratitude for a different role that they've played but a role which is just as significant.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the Prime Minister's new workplace laws, a pharmacy assistant working a 38-hour week could lose $6,000 a year. Why is the government's Christmas thankyou to frontline workers a cut to their take-home pay?
They simply could not—which really raises the question: why would the Leader of the Opposition be sending out his backbenchers to ask questions solely designed to scare people unnecessarily before Christmas? Why would you do that? How desperate do you have to be to send out your backbenchers to ask questions based on totally false assertions and premises? Totally false, completely wrong, raising impossible scenarios—how desperate would you have to be to do that, when the only conceivable reason is to scare people unnecessarily, unfairly and untruthfully?
My question is for the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government recognises and thanks Australians and, in particular, our emergency responders for stepping up to support their communities during this challenging period marked by drought, bushfires and the pandemic?
I thank the member for Mallee for her question and acknowledge that this year Australia has faced up to some of the harshest challenges it has ever faced. As a nation, we have come together and worked together. In fact, it's not just our politicians and it's not just our civic leaders; it's been ordinary Australians doing extraordinary things, whether it be bushfires or drought. We have seen ordinary Australians stand up. The perfect example of that is a young lady by the name of Grace Brennan who has the quintessential bush story. A city girl goes to visit a friend in the bush, meets a young bloke, falls in love and moves to the bush in the middle of the worst drought in our nation's history. She sees the pain and heartache that her township of Warren is going through and goes on to create the Buy From The Bush campaign, connecting bush businesses with city customers. Within seven weeks she has 130,000 Instagram followers and has increased rural postage by 30 per cent. Within seven months she got $5 million worth of revenue put into regional communities, and 20 per cent of those businesses employ a new person. Forty per cent of those businesses then go on to trade and sell their wares interstate, and 19 per cent internationally. Ninety-six per cent of those businesses are in fact owned by women.
This is a great idea from a lady who didn't recoil, didn't retreat and didn't go back to the city but stayed and helped her fellow Australians through some of the worst times that rural and regional Australians have had. This is something that an ordinary Australian who stood up with her fellow Australians, shoulder to shoulder, did in making sure that she created opportunities for her fellow people in Warren.
One of the businesses that signed up said,' Buy From The Bush not only helped us financially but it helped tell the real story of the drought. We're not Aussie battlers or starving sheep that need charity; we are doers who need some patronage from our city cousins, and that's exactly what we got through Buy From The Bush. This is what I wrote on the day after being featured in October 2019: "Yesterday I processed 66 online sales. Normally, I wouldn't make 66 online sales in a year. I sold $2,000 worth of greeting cards in a day and, although I'm exhausted, I'm over the moon. This morning I spent $160 at the post office. I bought myself breakfast at the cafe because I was feeling so rich and, with the orders still rolling in, I've decided to hire the local painter to paint my spare room, a job I've been wanting to do for ages. And I'm going to take the local window-covering business up on their quote to build my new house."'
This is not just a story of survival, this is a story of thriving in regional and rural Australia. And to ordinary Australians, like Grace Brennan, who stand with their fellow Australians in their time of need, our nation says thank you.
My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Under the Prime Minister's workplace laws, a cook working from 6 am to 2 pm for five days a week, including weekends, could lose more than $6,000 a year. Workers like these have spent 2020 worried about their livelihoods. Why is the Prime Minister punishing them with a cut to their take-home pay?
Why is the member deliberately trying to scare them for no reason whatsoever? Why would they deserve that after the year that they've had? Why would the member do that?
Again, the scenario that the member has raised just wouldn't happen. It doesn't happen now and it would not happen under any of the changes that we are suggesting before the parliament. It simply wouldn't happen. There are a range of protections to ensure that that scenario would never arise—a range of very strong protections. They start with the fact that any of these sorts of applications have to commence with agreement between the parties: the union as the bargaining representative, the employees and the employer. Indeed, one of these questions was asked earlier by the member for Spence and, not that long ago, in March 2017, the member for Spencer said: 'All of the workers on these enterprise bargaining agreements vote to either accept the agreement or reject the agreement. What worker would vote for less pay and fewer conditions? Answer: no worker would.'
That was the member for Spence. And that's the beginning of the protections for the process; at the end of the protections for the process is the public interest test that exists in the relevant section, which says that the Fair Work Commission can never approve any agreement if it will be contrary to the public interest to do so. I think that the member and I would both agree—and all the members opposite would agree with all the members of the government—that the scenario that you've raised could never be reasonably considered to be in the public interest. That's why it could never happen.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government recognises and thanks the incredible work of everyday Australians who have stepped up and offered critical volunteer support throughout this challenging year?
And, in his capacity as the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, will he please update the House on the tireless work of Australians involved in the NDIS who have assisted us through 2020?
I thank the member for Boothby for all of her hard community work, especially in raising the issue of endometriosis, in line with the members for Berowra, Forrest and many other members who have stood up in this chamber for important issues.
In this country there is, and has always been, enormous need, and when there's need, there are volunteers. The year 2020 has been one of extraordinary need: drought, fires, floods, pestilence and pandemic. Australians have stood up to this: delivering food hampers, checking on neighbours, Lifeline calls, lifting communities, encouraging, cooking, delivering, supporting and—to all of these fabulous Australians—we all collectively say thank you.
There are people like 20-year-old Alex, who was concerned about his sister, a doctor, skipping meals as her workload skyrocketed. Alex began to batch-cook lasagne for her. Alex put an offer for help on Facebook and, within a short time, had 10 others helping him to literally pump out 300 free meals across the Melbourne metropolitan hospital system. I reckon we can all say thanks to Alex for that.
There are people like South Australian farmers, Meg and Ollie Clothier, who dedicated 2020 to caretaking properties so drought affected farmers can get a much-needed break. The couple have clocked up 35,000 kilometres in this pursuit and I reckon this House can say thank you to Meg and Ollie for that sort of work.
There are people like the Lions Club of Mount Gambier, who provided firewood and a heap of encouragement to South Australian Police and Defence Force personnel as overnight temperatures plunged at lonely checkpoints. I reckon we can collectively shout out to the Lions Club for that.
There are people like Steven, an NDIS participant, who volunteered his sewing skills to make pouches for orphaned wildlife out of donated and discounted fabric, and his mum, Mary, who made sure that these pouches went all over Australia. I reckon we can say thank you to Steven and Mary for what they've done.
There are people like Shane, an NDIS participant, whose manufacturing company released a new line of water based hand sanitisers to address the very real hidden challenge of how to maintain hand hygiene when manually using a wheelchair. His company has just launched a whole new range of Australian made, wheelchair-accessible sanitiser stations. I reckon, as a House, we can do a big shout-out to Shane for his work helping people with wheelchairs.
There are people like Volunteering ACT, right here in Canberra, whose members have supported some of our community's most vulnerable during the bushfire recovery. I reckon we can shout out to volunteering ACT for all of that great hard work.
It's been a tough year, but Australians are a resilient lot and they've stood up, they've helped those in need and I think collectively we can say thank you.
My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to the report in the Fin Review, 'Porter retreats in union brawl', saying that the provision to cut take-home pay was included at 'the last minute' and after the negotiations between business, the unions and the government had concluded. Why didn't the government ever raise this proposal with unions before including it in the legislation tabled yesterday? What exactly are you retreating from if there's no problem?
Again, the premise of the question is completely incorrect. The idea, the proposition and the assertion that we have had question after question and that there is anything in what has been proposed that would result in the type of reduction that the Leader of the Opposition suggests, is completely wrong.
The protections that exist in the act presently, that Labor inserted, are precisely, word for word, the protections that we have suggested should remain in the legislation that is now before the parliament.
Dr Aly interjecting—
The member for Cowan is warned.
When you go to the relevant provisions, the protections that would absolutely and in all circumstances prevent happening what the Leader of the Opposition wrongfully says would happen are these: you can never have the approval of agreement unless, 'The approval of the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest.' That is the protective line inserted by Labor, and here they are replicated in the reforms before the parliament. These are the exact same words: the approval of the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest. This is desperate, absolutely desperate. Tell untruths, try and scare people—the signs of absolute desperation.
If Yoda were here, he would remind us that fear of leadership tensions leads to the dark side. Leadership fear leads to anger. Anger leads to wildly untrue assertions in question time. That is the path to the dark side of politics, and that's the path that this Leader of the Opposition is on.
My question is for the Minister for Education. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government recognises and thanks the remarkable efforts of Australia's childcare workers and teachers in helping our nation get through 2020? Will the minister also outline to the House the incredible resilience shown by our students and, in particular, our year 12 students, in making it through this year?
I thank the member for his question and also for his dedication to the schools, the childcare centres in his electorate and his passion for education.
This year has been a year like no other for those in the childcare sector. At the heart of the pandemic, those early childhood educators were called on to provide care for those essential workers' children, for those vulnerable children, and they fronted up day after day to make sure that that care could be provided. There was a lot of uncertainty. There was a lot of fear about what was happening with the coronavirus, what was happening through the pandemic. Yet those early childhood workers, those educators, turned up and made sure that those children were cared for and looked after. On behalf of every member of this House, I say thank you to those early childhood educators for that work.
When it comes to our schools, we also need to thank our principals and our teachers for the work they've done this year. I recognise the member for Gilmore—the pair of us went down to her electorate to a school in Broulee, which had been impacted by fires, and that's often forgotten now. Darren McPartland was there making sure that he provided protections to those children who'd been impacted by the fires. I thank the member for Gilmore for inviting me to her electorate. Something that I will never forget is the session we had with those students who'd been impacted by those fires.
And of course there was the coronavirus. I say to all the state and territory education ministers: thank you for coming together and making sure that we could provide that certainty for year 12 students when it came to their ATARs. Incredibly important decisions were made—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned!
to give that certainty to them. The way we were able to come together as education ministers right across the nation to do that was incredibly important.
I say to those year 12 students, who have been through a year like no other, who had all their dreams of what their year would look like turned upside down: the resilience that you have shown, your commitment to continue to work through this and make sure that you got through this year was second to none. Although schoolies and the end of the year mightn't have been the same, what you've done is quite extraordinary and will stand you in good stead. I say to all those year 12 students—and I'm sure I say this on behalf of all the House: very good luck with your results at the end of this year because you deserve—(Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why do the Prime Minister and the government constantly make big announcements without delivering them, including spending $6.8 billion less on infrastructure than in the budget papers; announcing the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility in 50 media releases and then scrapping it; announcing the Urban Congestion Fund but delivering only one in five dollars; and spending nothing from the $4 billion emergency response fund on bushfire-devastated communities?
We have seen this all day from the opposition. They have saved their worst for last. Here we as the government have come together, and we have been thanking Australians for their tremendous efforts this year, and we continue to do that in this place. I want to thank all those who are out there building the more than $100 billion worth of infrastructure that this government has committed to over the next 10 years—projects like the Western Sydney international airport in particular. This project is going to change not just New South Wales and Sydney; it is going to change the entire nation. When we came to government in 2013, I had sat on the opposition benches for six years. Over those six years, I heard the Leader of the Opposition go on and on and on and on about Western Sydney international airport. He didn't turn a sod. He didn't even get up a sign. The Leader of the Opposition, when it comes to the Western Sydney international airport—
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my left! The members for Greenway and Bruce!
didn't do anything, despite the pleas of those in his electorate and despite everything he said he needed to do on Western Sydney international airport. He was transport minister for six years. He couldn't get a runway. He couldn't get lift-off. He couldn't even get himself out there to actually make the project happen. So I'm not going to take a lecture from the Labor Party, when this government has been delivering the jobs on the ground—the 1½ million jobs that were created before we came into the COVID-19 recession—and saving 700,000 jobs through the economic supports we put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Australian people know because they have seen this government get on with the job. They've seen us deliver on the ground. This desperate Leader of the Opposition can crow and carry on all he likes, but the Australian people have worked him out and those behind him have worked him out.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government recognises and thanks Australia's export sector for rising to the challenge to help their fellow Australians get through what has been a very challenging year?
I thank the member for Lyne. As he and all members know, it has been an extraordinarily difficult year. We've had drought, we've had flood, we've had bushfires, and we've had the devastation of COVID-19. We all remember those terrible days in March and April when meat, fruit and veg and many other essential items were flying off our supermarket shelves. At that time, Fiona Simson, President of the National Farmers Federation, urged Australians to be calm because farmers had their backs, and she was right. They had our backs then and they've got our backs now. So today we thank our farmers and we thank our orchardists and exporters for all of the wonderful work that they did, and continue to do, for our country.
Around Wellington in the central west, they're talking about the best season for 40 years. Around Dubbo and through to the Macquarie Valley, they're talking about a bumper harvest—perhaps the biggest on record. Have a look at what's happening in the member for Lyne's electorate. There you will find Macka's, which is a fourth-generation family-owned meat producer that operates a number of properties from Salt Ash through to Gloucester. This year they have opened up 10 new export markets, including Japan, Korea, Singapore and the Philippines. Well done, Macka's! Have a look at what's happening in my own neck of the woods around the central west. This week we've got central west cherries winging their way to Vietnam from Caernarvon orchards and many others around this area. They're helped by the federal government through the International Freight Assistance Mechanism—our $669 million program that supported over 8,000 flights and over $3.3 billion of high-quality Australian produce to leave our shores, supporting our primary producers and farmers. We know how important it is, because one in five jobs in Australia, and one in four jobs in regional Australia, are supported by trade. We've just recorded our 34th consecutive month of trade surpluses. This government, on this side of the House, is supporting primary producers and exporters. We've concluded eight free trade agreements, we're working on the EU trade agreement, and we are working on the UK trade agreement.
Today, we thank our exporters, our orchardists and our farmers. And, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, let's support them this Christmas. All Australians can support them by putting more lamb and snags on the barbie this Christmas, by serving our wonderful Australian wine at Christmas time and by putting local cherries on the table at Christmas time—Lord knows we've got plenty in our office. Or you could put out a bottle of Aussie port for Santa on Christmas Eve. Our farmers and exporters have had our backs and we've got theirs. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that his eight-year-old government is riddled with waste and scandal, including spending $30 million on airport land that was worth only $3 million to a Liberal Party donor, $100 million on sports rorts, $4½ billion to fix the second-rate copper NBN, $1.2 billion to compensate robodebt victims, $20,000 on Cartier watches and millions on his dud COVIDSafe app?
No.
My question goes to—
Ms Murphy interjecting—
The member for Dunkley will leave under standing order 94(a). She was warned earlier.
The member for Dunkley then left the chamber.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce can join her.
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
My question goes to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Will the Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government recognises and thanks the efforts of our Pacific partners and the Australians who have assisted them to get through this most challenging of years?
Opposition members interjecting—
I thank the member for Fairfax for that question. I want to counsel the opposition: don't knock No. 11. Australia has some great No. 11 batters. Glenn McGrath got 67 against New Zealand once. The No. 11 question is very important!
I do want to join with the member for Fairfax, with his experience in agriculture, in welcoming our Pacific family and the work they've done through this pandemic. It's been one of the most difficult years in 100 years for the globe, yet Australia and our family and friends in this region have come out of the year better than every other single region in the world today. Notwithstanding the challenges we face and notwithstanding the difficulties we've had, together, as partners, as friends, we want to join all Australians in thanking our Pacific family for what they've done to protect themselves and protect our region and for the cooperation we've had.
I do want to start by highlighting again for the House that 12 out of the 15 countries in the world that remain COVID-free are in our region. It's because of the decisions that our partner countries took early in this pandemic, as did Australia, to protect themselves and to protect each other. I want to thank every Australian who's worked here, and also abroad in our Pacific partner countries, to help our partners through this.
Many countries, understandably, in a difficult time—in an uncertain pandemic—made a difficult decision to withdraw their consular staff. Many NGOs had to withdraw their people out of countries in our region. But this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister and ourselves, made the decision to keep our consular staff in place throughout the whole pandemic. And we thank every single member of that consular staff in every single country that turned up every day and did everything they could to help other people get through it.
I want to join the acting Minister for Defence in what he said. Our defence personnel stayed in our region as well, working hard to help people get through this. I want to thank the aid and development sector. I want to thank Australian Aid, our partners who deliver these great programs all through our region, for staying in place in a very uncertain time, for continuing to deliver those essential programs.
Earlier in the week the Minister for Health came out to my electorate and visited ResMed. We had the great fortune to address 1,500 workers of ResMed on the floor. The Minister for Health spoke to them to say thank you. ResMed is an Australian startup company which is now a great global company. It is an advanced manufacturing company in Australia. They took great pride in what they did for the Australian government in producing ventilators, in producing PPE and in producing masks. I can tell this House, and everyone here will join me with this sentiment, those 1,500 workers in ResMed took the greatest pride in the fact they had produced masks and PPE to help other countries in our region as well. They beamed with pride because of the work they'd done to help other people. That's the Australian spirit. We help ourselves but we help others as well.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
If I could add to earlier answer?
Yes.
I need to also acknowledge Regina Crouch from Western Australia. She's an aged-care nurse. She travelled 3,000 kilometres to Victoria to help in the aged-care response in that state during the course of the second wave of the pandemic. She is also acknowledged. I'm happy to table our best wishes to Australians.
Last night we saw a very successful collaboration across the parliament to ensure two seats for the Northern Territory into the future. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the government for supporting the resolution, which was formulated by Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which was put to this parliament and got bipartisan support. It guarantees us in the long-term the seat in the Northern Territory. So I thought today might be a good day to do it, to come here and indicate that I'm about to roll the swag. I'm a bit of a relic. I'm the only one left in this parliament—Senate or House of Reps—from the Old Parliament House. I've taken the decision that I won't be contesting the next election. I was first elected 33 years ago. I've had 12 elections and 31 years now in the parliament, having lost, sadly—not my delightful day—an election in 1996 but was re-elected in 1998. It's been an absolutely enormous privilege to serve the people of the Northern Territory for that time. And I will continue to serve them until the next election.
Of course, Christmas and Cocos Islands were also part of the seat of the Northern Territory where I was the single member for four elections. They are also part of the seat of Lingiari, my current electorate, which, just to remind you, is 1.34 million square kilometres and half the Indian Ocean.
It's a great, great honour. There is no-one else in this chamber who will have watched this speech, but the great Mick Young stood at the dispatch box when he was retiring from parliament and talked about what an honour it is to serve in this parliament, and it is. It is a huge honour for all of us, no matter where we come from, to serve our communities, to serve the nation in this place. It's been my great honour, my great privilege, to be able to serve here as the member for the Northern Territory and the seat of Lingiari for 31 years now. I can't think of a greater honour, frankly. I don't think there's any better public services you can do than to speak, represent your electorate, represent your community and speak up on behalf of it. But it doesn't come without cost, as you well know.
This part will be very difficult for me. My family have shown love, loyalty, sacrifice, forbearance and given me support over such a long period. Elizabeth, my partner, gave birth to Frankie, our first daughter, a fortnight before the first election that I ran in—a fortnight! She was in good shape. Within a fortnight after the election, she was driving up the Stuart Highway with me as the new member for Northern Territory, showing off the child. Frankie is a wonderful young woman. We've had three other children since. Tom, Tess and Jack have not known anything other than me being a member of parliament. I have to tell you that that meant many, many years where I was only home eight or nine nights a month, such was the travel required. In fact, I did a bit of a calculation late last year and worked out that over the years I'd been flying in the air for two years. Ludicrous, but nevertheless true. So I want to say thank you, Elizabeth. I love you. I love you, Frank, Tom, Tess and Jack. You are a credit to your mother because she raised you. I was an observer—tolerated, but an observer.
I obviously want to thank my friends in the Labor Party and the trade union movement for their ongoing support, and the community for working with me over those many years and years still to come. My colleagues here in the caucus—I've had a lot of them.
An honourable member: Name them!
I might start! I've known a lot of them. Remember, I've seen come to the dispatch box now eight prime ministers, starting with Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, obviously. I had the great privilege to serve in this period. I'm unique in this place—well, we're all unique, but in this case, in the Labor Party—because I've been in government for 15 years and a member of the executive for 12 of them: six as a parliamentary secretary or assistant minister and six as a minister in various portfolios.
You all know what an honour it is to be able to work with some of the best people in this country, the people who serve us. So I take great pleasure in remembering all of those people I've worked with, including my own staff—electoral staff and ministerial staff. I remember two people in particular, and I want to remember them because they're dead: Carol Burke, who used to work for me in my Darwin office, and Jack Crosby, who worked for me. Both of them passed away in the last five years, but both of them gave sterling loyalty and service to the community as well as to me.
We don't get many opportunities to express the disappointments we sometimes have. Over the period, I've seen a bit of shenanigans. I've been shafted a bit, it won't come as a surprise. But I've hung in. I think the interesting thing about the parliamentary process and about our caucus is that, despite the differences we have, we have a common purpose. There are some who are pretty adventurous. We see it from time to time. They think they're the best thing since sliced bread. They last about two rounds of the revolving door, and then they're off. On the other hand, we have people of commitment on both sides of the parliament, and we need to recognise that commitment for what it is. My colleagues, I'm so pleased, so honoured, to be part of your team.
I contemplated talking about a whole range of historical events that have taken place over this period, but that will be for another time. There were some interesting times had. There have been some interesting times inside the Labor Party—I kept notes by the way!—especially when there have been leadership disputes. So I know who did what to whom and how often they did it. I've got very good records, so watch out, you mob!
I want to briefly pay tribute to the cooperation across the parliament on parliamentary committees. We have the adversarial politics across the chamber; we all understand that. But the truth of it is this parliament works really well in the committees. My colleagues who are here and who chair the committees that I've been on over the last little while will, I'm sure, agree that we've been blessed by the way in which the committee system has worked for us. I want to thank in particular an odd bloke, the member for Leichhardt. We're on a committee together. He keeps saying: 'What do you get when you get two Warrens together? A lot of rabbits.' I'm not sure about that. He's one in the spotlight. And I thank the member for Berowra for his companionship and good work. He's a good person.
My first election was an interesting experience, as they all are. I had to win a marginal seat off those opposite, which I did, ultimately. But the NT News was not helpful. One banner headline was 'Friend of Gaddafi'.
Some things haven't changed!
Also they called me a 'left-wing loony'. Well, they might be right! But prior to entering parliament I had the great honour and privilege at one period to work with the great Nugget Coombs, a really remarkable Australian. I worked with him and Maria Brandl, an anthropologist, on a project in the north-west of South Australia, where I worked and lived out of a little Pitjantjatjara community called Pipalyatjara. I worked with Nugget on this project. It changed my life. It's the reason I ended up here. It changed my life, because I was living and working with Aboriginal people in a very remote place who were being oppressed, and who still are in many ways, and who were going without. I was doing a project which was examining the impact of government programs on traditional socialisation. One of the programs I was looking at was CDEP. I won't go into the arguments about CDEP here, but it's given me a history. So it was very important to me. From Nugget, who was a mentor of mine, I really learnt what public service is—not only about public service and the way we should engage in it but the importance of the Public Service. I think we in this place need to comprehend how important the Public Service is to us and to the Australian community.
I then went back to teaching for a while after doing this research project out of the Australian National University. I went to work with the Central Land Council in Alice Springs, where my boss was Pat Dodson. He still is! Things don't change. He's up there—look! As I'm sure Pat will attest, we were guided by some great Aboriginal leaders, some great people of great wisdom from the bush. They weren't literate. English was their second or third language. They were old men, largely. There were not many women in these leadership positions at the time. I know they taught me a great deal. It was what they taught me, and the time I spent with Pat, under his guidance, that drove me to believe I should become a member of parliament.
So, having a very strong belief in social justice and a belief in the need to do something right, I contested the election. I went to that election knowing that I needed to rely upon the strength and wisdom of Aboriginal people. I stand here because of them. The only reason I became a member of parliament and have remained a member of parliament is the support I've been getting from the Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory. I'm not talking about just marginal support here. I'm talking about successive elections where I've been getting 80 and 90 per cent of the vote. That puts me in a pretty unique position, given that 42 per cent of the population of Lingiari are Aboriginal people. I am their voice in this place. I owe them so much. I have learnt so, so much. I've learnt about respect and humility and I've learnt about patience. They have such great patience.
When I stood up in the Old Parliament House on 17 September 1987 to give my first speech, I said, among a number of things:
As a nation we have yet to recognise and accord Aboriginal people the justice that is their due.
It is still the case. I said:
This nation cannot pretend to wear the mantle of maturity until the indigenous rights of Aboriginal Australians are given formal recognition and the demands by Aboriginal and Islander people for compensation for lands stolen and for social and cultural disruption are addressed. In my view, this should involve appropriate amendments to the Constitution.
This was 1987. I said:
It is time that the politics of division in this country were put aside so that at last the injustice of the Aboriginal dispossession is recognised and dealt with in a way which is satisfactory to Aboriginal Australians.
That was 30 years ago, and here we still argue about the need for a voice to parliament, a makarrata, treaty-making, truth-telling. We have an obligation. We have a chance. We should be able to do it, Prime Minister. We should be able to do it. Come with us. Let's make it happen.
I want to conclude by reminding you that I'll be rolling my swag at the end of the term, not tomorrow. But I want to just finish by reading a quote from Xavier Herbert. It's not immediately relevant today, because land rights has been achieved, by and large, except for the deficiencies in native title, which are a discussion for another day. He said this, and I think it's a really strong statement that bears out the need for us to actually do things. Before I read it, I want to thank Pat, Malarndirri and Luke for your wonderful support. He said this:
Until we give back to the black man just a bit of the land that was his … without strings to snatch it back, without anything but complete generosity of spirit in concession for the evil we have done him—until we do that, we shall remain what we have always been so far, a people without integrity, not a nation but a community of thieves.
There are moments in this place that count, and that was one of them. There are moments we'll remember, and that was one of them. And there are people who make a difference, and Warren Snowdon is one of them, being in this place since 1987—or in the old chamber. I worked in Old Parliament House, and I first met Warren then and was struck by his passionate commitment to his electorate, to the people of the Northern Territory and particularly to First Nations people. He is passionate, determined, sometimes uncompromising, difficult at times but always focused on the endgame, always focused on the outcome and making a difference each and every day.
He is someone who wasn't successful in 1996. When the tide goes out, sometimes it takes good people with it—and it did. But I am always in awe of people who hang in there and choose to run again, for unfinished business—and indeed there was unfinished business for Warren Snowdon, serving as a parliamentary secretary in the former Labor government but then coming back and serving as a minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments, in veterans' affairs; in defence science and personnel and in Indigenous health. His absence will be a big loss to this place. Veterans and serving personnel—men and women who wear our uniform—have such high regard for Warren Snowdon, because they know he is on their side.
He'll continue to serve in the term. When Warren and I had a private chat a little while ago he was determined to see the people of the Northern Territory maintain two seats—not out of personal interest but because it is in their interest, being such a large geographical area, although it does have a lot of its population in the capital city, so that the people in the regions and people in remote Indigenous communities are not forgotten. These are communities that would struggle to get representation unless there were two seats in the Northern Territory. So, he fought very hard to make sure that was going to happen, even with the knowledge that he had come to his decision. I've asked him to continue to serve on the front bench. We'll have some changes of arrangements; the Prime Minister will have some. But I've asked Warren to continue to serve on the front bench, because he will work until the very last day, to the best of his capacity, as he always has.
Warren's played a mentoring role not to one generation of Labor MPs but, because of the nature of this place, to generations of Labor MPs, as well as connecting with people on the other side of the chamber, as someone of goodwill. His experience counts. His knowledge counts. I've been in a couple of ballots in my life, and I've never had as quick a conversation as the one I had with Warren. I rang him up and he answered, and I said, 'Warren, Albo here—' and straightaway I heard, 'Yep, I'm voting for you'—bang. That's what happened on the Monday, I think it was, after the last election. And that's Warren: what you see is what you get. He tells you what his view is and he puts it forward, regardless. He doesn't do a calculation of what's in his interests. He has a view, and he's prepared to put it and prepared to argue his case. That's why he is respected by all of us and loved by most of us, including myself. A few of us will gather tonight at the usual place, a gathering that Warren convenes as part of his role as elder statesperson, getting people together to engage in dialogue. I join with him, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, in thanking Elizabeth, who's made an extraordinary sacrifice. The Prime Minister and I live pretty close to the runways at KSA. To represent such a large electorate, around which you have to travel such distances—travelling on those little planes too—is a major challenge. And Frank, Tom, Tess and Jack, we thank you as well, for sharing your dad with us.
Warren, we will have more to say at events to come, but, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, thank you. Thank you for what you've done. Thank you for what you'll continue to do as the member for Lingiari and as a member of my front bench until the next election. And thank you for what you'll continue to contribute.
I well recall that, both since 1996, when Warren was elected as a member, and before then, he was a spokesperson for First Nations people. One of the things that has happened in this place since Warren has been here—and we're better for it, on both sides—is that we actually have representation from First Nations people. That hasn't happened by accident. That's happened because people like Warren, very early on, campaigned to make sure that the Australian Labor Party took the decisions that we have to get that representation. Pat Dodson wasn't doing numbers in the WA branch, I've got to tell you!
You have to make those conscious decisions that we need a parliament that reflects Australia, and that means getting First Nations people here. Warren has been absolutely unconditionally determined to advance the interests of First Nations people. It's fair to say, I think, that it would be difficult to think of anyone since Federation who, over such a period of time, has that as their record in this place. Certainly, no-one would have argued the case—through native title, through land rights, through, now, constitutional recognition—as Warren has. That is a great legacy.
When we recognise First Nations people in the Constitution and give them a voice to this place, as you have argued, Warren, you can feel good about making a difference and making a contribution to that change happening.
I thank you, Member for Lingiari, for your tremendous service to our country. I also thank you for the acknowledgment of the way our parliament has come together to ensure there are those two seats for the Northern Territory. I, along with my many colleagues here who feel similarly, thank you for your passion and advocacy. I'm pleased that that has met with your agreement and that you could stand at this dispatch box and say that here today. As the Leader of the Opposition says, it was one of those important moments here in our parliament.
I've known Warren—Snowy—for some time as well. He's the sort of chap who, when you came here as a new member, would give you a nod in the corridor or down at the gym, or give you a friendly smile or say something usually pretty funny, often at your own expense. But that's the sort of bloke he is. Warren, like all Territorians, is a Territorian first. And he's a proud Territorian. Some might say he was made for the front page of the NT News. I don't know. I'm sure he got his fair share of them, as some of us have.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, there are many things that I know he can feel a deep and great sense of accomplishment about. As Prime Minister, I thank you, Warren, on behalf of the Australian people for your service to Indigenous Australians, and not just in this place. It is a service that I have no doubt will continue long after you leave this place at the next election.
But I also want to join with the Leader of the Opposition, together with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and veterans all around this country, in thanking you for your passion and dedication to our veterans. You've led the way in that area. You've had the great honour, which I know you would feel deeply, of being able to serve them in all the ways that you have. It is one of those portfolios of government that doesn't know partisan colour. And in that portfolio you were a great choice for your party because of your deep commitment and passion to our veterans. I know that will also continue.
In this place, it's not often, I think, that members get to leave here with a great sense of accomplishment that is at the same time not accompanied by bitterness, and I think that is also a mark of you, Warren. You've been here a long time, you've seen a lot of stuff—you've done some of it, I suspect! But you leave it there and you move on and you look forward to your next contribution that you can make, and I think that's a great credit to you and the sort of bloke you are. And that's why I think you're pretty well liked around this place. Your presence will be missed by all of us who've got to know you, even in a small way, and by those of us who know you extremely well, particularly your own colleagues.
Can I also join in acknowledging Elizabeth, Frankie, Tom, Tess and Jack. My daughter was born a couple of months before I came to this place, so I have some knowledge, particularly in those early years, of what you would have gone through with Elizabeth—you come home and the kids are there and you go, 'I'm doing something for the next few hours, if not few days.' I applaud your commendation and your gratitude to Elizabeth. That's probably why, mate, you are still together. You're now going to be able to, in a not-too-distant time from now, share precious time with her and the rest of your family in your post-political career. They share in your service, they share mostly in your sacrifice and they are joint inheritors of your legacy as well. Your children will be able to be very proud of their father.
I'm glad you kept notes, because I reckon it would make a cracking read! 'Snowy' is an obvious title, I reckon. I'll finish on this—and this is probably one of the best acknowledgments that a Liberal can give to a member of the Labor Party: you're a good Labor man. You're a very good Labor man. Thank you for your service.
on indulgence—I want to absolutely pay tribute to the member for Lingiari. As the veterans' affairs minister, I'm just reminded, the member for Lingiari described himself as a relic. Well, we in the National Party think you're more of a treasure than a relic. We in the National Party will pass the hat around and buy you a new swag. You're going to need it! The Northern Territory News, one of my favourite papers, should have on the front page tomorrow not a crocodile but 'Man with the mo to go'. You've been a great contributor. I used to write a few headlines once upon a time. I like to think I still can. If the editor is watching, consider it!
When I went to the Northern Territory in August, I bumped into Elizabeth and Warren.
An honourable member interjecting—
I often go there. I love the Top End. I bumped into them in the mall. Who would have thought! I'm just walking along and I bump into Warren Snowdon. We had coffee the next day with Luke, and it was great. If you want to know what's going on in the Top End, you catch up with Warren. You have a convivial cup of coffee. We had one and then we had another and then we had another. And we did agree at the time that the Northern Territory—sorry, Prime Minister!—should have two seats, and I know the Prime Minister agrees. We believe that regional voices are important. The Prime Minister knows that. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. When you represent an area of 1.3 million square kilometres, those people deserve a voice as well as anybody in this parliament. It's so difficult to get to every far-flung corner of Lingiari, but you, my friend, have done it superbly. I wish you and Elizabeth and your four kids and the family all the very best. You deserve it. I know you are going to be here for however long it takes for this term of parliament to continue. We wish you all the very best. The National Party wishes you all the very best. The government wishes you all the very best. Mate, you've got a very, very bright future. Isn't it great you can hear people eulogising about you and you're still very much alive!
I know there are many other members who want to say something today, but they'll have that opportunity throughout the sittings next year. I personally just want to say I agree with all of the words in the speeches. I won't repeat them. We've known each other a long time too, and I knew throughout this week, as we were speaking, it was a big decision and it was a difficult speech in many ways. I did make a note before question time not to throw you out today. I thought that was quite important.
An honourable member interjecting—
He didn't interject, so that's rare too!
I present Auditor-General's audit reports of 2020-21 and report Nos. 22 to 23. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
It comes to this hour on this last day of the parliament sitting to offer some thanks to members of this place, to all of those who look after us and to the many Australians around the country. As we do this, I think it was apt that last weekend I had the opportunity to be out in south-western Sydney. I was at Buxton with the local member. We were there on what was both a happy but also a very sad occasion at the same time, because we were there to unveil, to open a memorial playground in honour of Geoff Keaton and Andrew O'Dwyer. We were joined there by their many friends from the Horsley Park Rural Fire Brigade, captained by Darren Nation, a great Australian, and, most importantly, by Melissa and Jess, their partners, and, of course, Andrew's daughter Charlotte and Geoff's son Harvey.
It reminded us of the journey we have been on. On 19 December it will be one year since we lost Geoff and Andrew, and we lost many more over the course of the year that followed, 2020. We have lost those to COVID; we have lost those in bushfires. It has been a year of great loss for Australians, terrible loss, loss that will leave deep scars on Australians and on our country. They are deep and they will take a long time to heal. That healing process will come and will flourish from the care and the compassion and the love and the affection that is provided by their fellow Australians. We will see the visible evidence, we will see the superficial evidence of things improving, but we know that 2020 will be something that will take Australians many years to get over—their mental health support in the years ahead; the regrowth of our economy, the restructuring of our economy so that it can grow again and realise the lives and livelihoods that Australians aspire to.
That is the year we have been through, so as we come to the end of this parliamentary year and look forward to the Christmas period and the new year period, we look forward with a sense of hope. We look forward with a sense of gratefulness, despite everything that has happened, despite everything that has been lost, and know that things will regrow, that things will rebuild and that lives will be restored. Our nation, particularly now as we come up to Christmas, has come together again as borders have come down and families will meet again right across the country—from coast to coast, from north to south, Australians will come together again over this Christmas period. This was an important goal, and I'm so pleased that it has been realised.
There are many people to thank as we come together. I particularly want to thank all the members of this place as I start. We have all, in our way, carried leadership responsibilities this year. In our local communities and the many other ways we serve—in our families, in our roles here as members of this parliament and those in the other place. We have been supported by so many in those jobs and we have sought to support so many in the great works that they have been doing in our community—the many that were referred to and thanked in question time today: our defence forces, our frontline health workers, our teachers, our businesses, our employees and those who have taken great risks, helped out and reached out to others in times of need; we need them all.
As we go into this holiday season, and let's hope it is a good one, there will be many who will continue that job over the break—Lifeline and other services and volunteers; those who will be preparing things for Christmas Day such as food, shelter, comfort, help and support or simply company; doctors, nurses and medical staff who will be on call; the police, the paramedics and the ambos; the surf lifesavers who will be on our beaches and the Rural Fire Service volunteers who will be ready to go again, on call—indeed, they have been called out in so many places already this season. Elderly Australians, many of whom are completely alone and isolated, will know the loving touch and care of those who work in our aged-care facilities. To our defence forces, who continue in Operation COVID-19 Assist, and the 1500 Defence Force personnel who continue on operations all around the world: we thank you for your service and we are proud of you and your service.
I also want to acknowledge the incredible support and actions, taking on the commendation of the member for Lingiari, of our Australian Public Service. They have had, I believe, their finest year during the course of this COVID-19 pandemic. Never before, certainly in my experience in this place and I think for many generations, have we called upon our Australian Public Service to do more in the interest of Australians than we have in this past year to work promptly, carefully and effectively, to advise, assist, support, implement, deliver and be candid and ensure that as a government we could stand with Australians at their time of greatest need and as a parliament we could do the same. The Australian Public Service have had their finest hour in so many that we can remember. I'm deeply grateful to them, and I don't want to single any of them out because it is a shared commendation for them. From the quietest service to those I would meet with on a regular basis in my office or the many ministers here, all of you in the Public Service, whether serving here in Canberra or elsewhere around the country: thank you, thank you, thank you, on behalf of a very grateful nation.
Mr Speaker, here in the parliament in particular, can I thank all of those who have worked so hard in what has been an extraordinarily strange year for us to gather. To you and the President of the Senate: I'm not sure there was a guidebook for you to deal with these things as we sought to work through this year and keep our parliament functioning in the way it has. I thank the opposition for their support in ensuring that was made possible. In particular, I thank the Clerk of the House, the Deputy Clerk and the clerk assistants. To Claressa, Catherine, Stuart Woodley, Jerome Brown and Peter Banson: thank you very much for your tremendous work this year. To James Catchpole, the Serjeant-at-Arms: thank you for the tremendous work you have done to ensure that we've been able to continue to function in a parliament over the course of this most difficult year in the way that we have, and to do it in as normal a way as we possibly could.
I thank all the attendants—Luce and the whole crew. We know Luce well and we know them all. We thank them all for the great job they've done looking after us in all sorts of ways this year. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty this year and looked after us tremendously well. A new innovation here is the video link, which I even got to appreciate looking over the chamber from back there and observing question time for the first time in a very long time rather than being here in the chamber to participate. Thank you to all the technicians and all those that made that possible this year—not just for how things worked in the chamber but in particular for our members and senators, in Victoria especially, who are unable to be here in this parliament. They were able to participate with questions and through other contributions and also through the committee work that is so important—and I want that committee work to continue during the course of COVID. So thank you to all of those who were involved in that.
I thank our own whips, led by the member for Forde. Bert has done a tremendous job under what are quite extraordinary arrangements. The Chief Opposition Whip sadly can't be with us. We understand why. Again, we wish him all the best. Having to arrange the changed seating arrangements and all those issues added additional challenge and complexity. I want to thank also the members for Boothby, Grey, Nicholls and Flynn for your great teamwork. Our whips, government or opposition, don't just ensure this parliament moves as smoothly as it possibly can; as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree, our whips provide great pastoral support to members in this place. The whip's office is a safe place where you can go and speak to colleagues. You can get the support you need. You can share things and stresses that may be pressing upon your service here in this place. It is as true on the opposition side as it is on the government side. We thank the whips, and the staff in the whips' offices as well, providing that support and comfort to all of us.
I wish the Leader of the Opposition and his family all the very best for the Christmas period. Whether either of us gets a break over the summer, we'll see; where we're needed to be, we'll be. But I do hope that you, Anthony, and your family will be able to enjoy some good time together and have a break, and we can return for what will be another very busy and very full year over the course of 2021. We are looking forward to a very happy 2021. When we say happy New Year to each other as we come to the close of this year, I think there's going to be a special meaning in it. We're going to really mean that we're wishing for a very happy new year in 2021—something very different from what we have experienced during this year.
I also need to acknowledge Stephen Boyd, who retired from the Department of the House of Representatives earlier this year after 26 years of service. I remember sitting on the House Economics Committee many, many years ago in opposition. He was the secretary to that committee at the time and he has served in many, many committees. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and all opposition members and their staff. I thank my team. I have had the opportunity to get around this week and say thank you to you.
I particularly thank the Deputy Prime Minister. The Liberals and Nationals have been together for a very long time—75 years—and we always serve together and we always bring our perspectives to the table together. We're always strongest when we're together, and that has particularly been on display this year. I want to thank all of my Liberal team and, through the Deputy Prime Minister, all of the Nationals team for the way we have come together for the nation over the course of particularly this past year.
I thank the deputy leader of the Liberal Party and Treasurer. It's pretty tough coming into a job which your boss used to have. He's always got plenty of suggestions and always has a very unique perspective on it. But I really want to congratulate you, Treasurer, not just on the extraordinary work you did on the economic recovery plan this year; I particularly want to thank you because, as a Victorian member of this place—and I acknowledge the Minister for Health also in a similar way—you had to be so often away from Amie and the kids and had to be here well beyond parliamentary sittings, isolating on a couple of occasions I think it ultimately was. To be here in that way, I know how much that was impacting on you. But you kept your focus, you kept your commitment, you kept your discipline and you stayed on task. Amie and the kids, we thank you. We hope you'll enjoy some good weeks with them over the break.
I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Health very similarly. These were the portfolios that were really drawn upon this year. People had to stand up. He's not that tall a fellow, but he stood very tall this year. He was a giant—almost as tall as the member for Groom!
I thank the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Mathias Cormann, for the great work he did this year. He's now engaged in another great enterprise. I heard from him this morning. I thank the new Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. I thank also his new deputy leader, Senator Cash. They're getting off to such a great start, after a particularly busy night last night, in making sure the chambers are working effectively and working together with their team.
I want to thank all the coalition members' staff. I had the opportunity to do that this week in a special phone hook-up. It was a very large number. I'm so pleased we were able to do that. I hope they will get some peace and some downtime over the course of the break as well.
I also add my thanks to my own staff, led by Dr John Kunkel. I thank him for the tremendous work he does in driving our government, working with the secretary of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Phil Gaetjens, and all the team there. It's been an interesting year in our office. There have been many prodigious contributions. That has included seven children born to my staff over the course of this year. We've got baby girls Evelyn, Evie, Vera and Matilda, and we've got baby boys Xavier, Anthony and Hugo. I think Hugo might even be in the chamber. He was a little earlier. And we have two more arriving very, very soon. There he is! Hugo is up there with Sonia. That's tremendous.
I thank the Leader of the Government in the House, Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. This is not a job, I can assure you, that he craves. It's not one that he seeks. But it is one that is purely done with a sense of duty, responding to the call for service. He does it in his absolutely impeccable way. I want to thank you, Christian, for the tremendous job which you continue to do even as we speak in making sure the parliament has worked so well this year.
To the Federal Police who look after me and my family, the Minister for Home Affairs and his family, and the Treasurer and his family, and others who look after us from time to time, thanks very much for your efforts this year. To all the security in this building, the caterers, the library, Hansard and support staff and even the media in the building—it has been a very strange year for you, too—we thank you for the jobs that you all do to make this place what it is.
I thank the cleaners around the building, particularly those in my office, Anna and Maria. They are sisters. And there's Lucia. All up they have clocked some 30 years in this building. They've been cleaning up a lot of mess for a long time, and I suspect they will continue to for some time still to come. We thank them for their great smiles which greet me every single day.
Let me conclude by saying there are a couple of things we missed in this building this year. One of them was the school groups, I'm sure. It was great to wave to them across the glass here today, but to see the schools coming back to our parliament is a bit like birds returning after a storm.
We're passing through that storm as a country. The signs are there. As we go into this time of Christmas, it gives us time to reflect on the renewal that will take place—and it will take place. It will give us encouragement as we go forward into the future. Australians, my prayers for you and your family this Christmas are that you will find peace in a year where there has been little. You will find hope, and you can cling to that hope as you go into 2021. God bless you, Australia, and thank you very much. Merry Christmas and a very happy 2021.
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.
Last year I started with the observation that it had been a very eventful year, and it was, but it had nothing on 2020, it's fair to say. The phrase 'year from hell' comes to mind: drought leading to bushfires leading into a pandemic—just extraordinary—with some floods thrown in between. It was quite a tough year for so many Australians.
Just as there have been many downsides, there has been an upside. We have been reminded of things about the Australian spirit. Neighbours have looked after each other. Essential workers have continued to turn up to work, whether it be nurses, aged-care workers, childcare workers, cleaners, truck drivers delivering food and essential services, or farmers continuing to produce product for us to get by. There's been a sense of looking after each other in that great Australian spirit.
My local neighbourhood has now got a little app that people connect to so that the elderly who couldn't go out and do their own shopping because of the threat of the virus were looked after by others—strangers, people helping each other out. That app led people to go and fix the garden for people, putting the garbage out and bringing it in. That spirit, I think, has been tremendous this year. It has reminded us that, when the going gets tough, Australians do look after each other.
Of course that followed extraordinary bravery, including the 33 lives lost during the bushfires. Those scenes from the beaches—apocalyptic, something out of a movie—didn't look real. People have been dealing with trauma in the wake of that, and it has been a very tough year.
I think we end the year knowing that we can stand tall as a nation. We can look forward to 2021 with a sense of optimism. I think that we will move forward, as the Prime Minister said, and look forward to genuinely saying Happy New Year and hoping that indeed it is a happier and less difficult one than 2020. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his words. I wish him and his family all the best for Christmas, and likewise to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party. To others on the other side of this chamber: I wish you and your families all the best.
To my team: I thank my deputy, Richard Marles, and the leadership team. In the Senate I thank the leader, Penny Wong, and Kristina Keneally, who has had a particularly tough year in losing her dad, on the other side of the world just a couple of weeks ago. Having to say goodbye over a video link is just incredibly tough. Kristina Keneally has our thoughts; it will be a very difficult Christmas for her.
To our Senate Manager of Opposition Business and the person who has chaired the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, Katy Gallagher: it's been an amazing effort. She is part of the economic team, along with my shadow Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, who has done such a terrific job.
Our Manager of Opposition Business, Tony Burke, who will make a great Leader of the House, is also the leader of Labor's musical division, the Left Right Out band. I say to those opposite who haven't had the opportunity to hear this band: don't feel bad about that! If ever you're wondering what the noise is coming out of corridors on a Tuesday night, I recommend walking to the outer corridor rather than there. But Tony makes up for it with enthusiasm in the House, and he has an outstanding deputy in Mark Butler.
I would like to make a special mention of our Chief Opposition Whip, Chris Hayes. Last year I actually said that if he stayed off his motorbike he should be alright. Well, that was optimistic! He didn't stay off the motorbike, but he also didn't stay out of hospital. He had pretty significant surgery but he has come through it all the best. To him and Bernadette, we look forward to welcoming Chris back in this place. He plays a very important role.
To all of my Labor colleagues and my Labor team: I thank each and every one of you, and I look forward to working with you over the coming year and perhaps year and a bit—whenever the election is, anytime the Prime Minister chooses to have it from the end of next year through to early 2022. I thank all of your staff as well. They have had a particularly difficult year, as have the staff of all members of parliament, in looking after issues that are not the run-of-the-mill issues. There have been people who have required support and I really thank them.
I do want to say that it is just an incredible honour that I cherish and am humbled by to lead the Australian Labor Party. When I joined this party, when I was still at school, the idea that I could be Labor leader was certainly not something I had—you won't find any school yearbooks from me saying that I'm going to be the leader of the Labor Party. I don't take it for granted. We are the oldest party in Australia—indeed, one of the oldest political parties and movements in the world—and we are the largest party in this parliament. I'm very proud that you've given me the honour of leading you.
My own staff is ably led by Tim Gartrell, an experienced person and the last bloke to be campaign director when Labor went from opposition to government—a handy person to have as your chief of staff. And I thank Paul Erickson, our national secretary, who is aiming to duplicate that feat by Tim Gartrell, working with his team at the ALP national office. I thank the staff in my electorate office. As leader, you spend more time away than normal. It's led by Sue Heath, who is an experienced electorate officer across three states. She brings that capacity to the office.
I do want to acknowledge the families of all the members as well. They give up a lot. I want to give a shout-out—he'll be embarrassed by it—to my son, Nathan, who turned 20 on Tuesday. It's one of the first times I haven't been able to spend his birthday with him. I say to the Leader of the House, you've done a better job with the next sitting calendar, because next year we get up a little bit early. It would be good to not sit in December and cram it in a bit earlier so that we can go to school functions et cetera. To Nathan, it really hit home to me on Tuesday—I've got to say—that there are times in this job when you wake up in the morning and you think about your family and what you're giving up, and that was one of those times. I'm very proud of him. He's grown into a very fine young man. We had a lovely dinner with him and his girlfriend on Saturday night. I look forward to seeing him tomorrow, when I arrive home.
To the parliamentary staff, I thank the Speaker for the extraordinary job that he's done. I think he is a very, very fine Speaker indeed. I thank the Clerk, Claressa; the Deputy Clerk, Catherine; the chamber attendants, including Luch; and the Hansard staff, who, for better or worse, immortalise every word in this place the moment it happens; the keepers of knowledge and history in the Parliamentary Library; the staff of the House and the Department of Parliamentary Services; Dom and his crew at Aussies; and everyone at the staff cafeteria. I have to make this point: if you want to define the public sector versus the private sector, this is one area where the public sector has excelled in since it was brought back into public hands. The truth is that it's much better than it was. They do a great job; they always have a smile. They've, of course, had to deal with the difficulties of COVID. Keeping people safe has required extra work by all of the staff in this building.
To whoever made the decision to put a coffee cart near my office, thank you—that has been a particularly good initiative. To the hardworking cleaners, one of the things about this year that I hope is never forgotten is the role that cleaners play in our society. To Joy and La, who take care of my office, thank you. To the COMCAR drivers and staff, particularly my Sydney drivers, Greg and Susan, thank you. To everyone at FCM Travel Solutions, Parliament House security, the AFP and, indeed, all the staff at Parliament House, thank you.
To the press gallery, I thank most of you. I would like to make a special mention of everyone at AAP. Even by the standards of 2020, it's been pretty tough for you, not knowing whether you would still have a job or continue to exist. I am confident—I hope—that when we get back in 2021 we'll have a public gallery as well. I think that for all of those issues that we've had as challenges in 2020.
I say as well to the special workers, aged-care workers, nurses and teachers, who had to reinvent education this year, thank you for what you've done. I give a shout-out to year 12 students, who had it particularly difficult.
Victorians, of course, had a really tough year. It was very difficult for all those who had to isolate. I acknowledge everyone who's lost a loved one in this pandemic, everyone who's lost their job and is facing a lean Christmas and everyone still living in a caravan after losing their homes in the bushfires.
I do want to say that, for a community of a very different sort, a highlight of my year in 2020 was watching us put 60 points on the Sydney Roosters in the last round for South Sydney. I look forward to a more successful 2021 there. It might have been different had Adam Reynolds not worn yellow shoes and stepped on a line.
I thank the people from the electorate of Grayndler in the inner west of Sydney. Unless we are good local members, then nothing comes beyond that. All politics is local. I have a vibrant, fantastic community that I'm very proud to represent. It's diverse. It has a lot of professionals. It also has more boarding houses than any electorate in the country. It has a lot of poverty. It is a multicultural electorate, with more than 40 per cent of people speaking a language other than English at home.
Lastly, I say to the Prime Minister that we will have a plan for the next election and I say to the Liberal Party that we have a plan for 18 years time as well. Because, when parliament resumes, there will be no fewer than six newborns on our side to five parents. I say that because Anika Wells, the member for Lilley, went beyond what is reasonable—
An opposition member: Queensland efficiency!
With Queensland efficiency, she had two at once. I got to hold the twins last Saturday in Brisbane. It's quite remarkable—and it's a good thing for the parliament—that we have had, literally, six newborns in the last month on our side of the parliament. The new parents are Anika Wells—times two—Alicia Payne, Marielle Smith, Pat Gorman and his partner, Jess, and I think Matt Keogh's partner, Annabel, gave birth just yesterday. It is a good thing, and it says something about how this parliament is getting more representative for the people who vote for us. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a great new year.
For the information of honourable members, I present determination No. 1 of 2020, concerning the appointment of the position of Secretary to the Department of Parliamentary Services.
To correct the record, in a speech earlier today in the Federation Chamber about automated external defibrillators, I mentioned that there was one in the staffroom behind the Federation Chamber, but there is not. I've sent a letter to your good self, Mr Speaker, asking whether the health plan could be assessed to see if there could be one on each level of parliament in case we have an episode where we need to apply a defibrillator quickly.
The Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to deliver for Australians.
I call upon those honourable 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—
Last summer, this Prime Minister wanted to force a handshake on you. This summer he wants to shake you down for your pay. This week he has reminded us, emphatically, that Labor values are very different to the values held by those opposite. They're in their eighth year and, by the time of the next election, they'll be shooting for 12 years in government. They have had eight years and three prime ministers—it's like a bad version of Dr Who. The lead character keeps regenerating: we get a different face, different voice and different shtick, but the values are the same.
This Prime Minister is using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to cut the wages and conditions of Australians. His proposed changes will allow employers to eliminate penalties, loadings and other conditions simply by claiming they've been adversely affected by the pandemic. What thanks to the nurses, the cleaners, the supermarket workers, the childcare workers, the teachers, the truck drivers, the aged-care workers who've got us through this pandemic! The Morrison government wants their reward to be a pay cut. The government pretended it was consulting unions and employers. It didn't mention any of this—not a word—but waited until it was over and then sprung this in the legislation.
The bottom line is this. The Labor Party that I lead won't be supporting legislation that cuts wages and conditions—not now, not ever. For the past few weeks, this announcement-crazy government has been telling Australians that the economy is going gangbusters and that growth is strong. They're spending millions of dollars telling Australians there's a comeback but at the same time arguing that businesses are in so much trouble because of the pandemic that they should be allowed to cut wages. Both arguments can't be right. The characteristics of this government are becoming very clear. There are three themes of this government: (1) they stand for promises, not delivery; (2) they are characterised by waste, rorts and mismanagement; and (3) they leave people behind and hold them back.
First, when it comes to announcements and not delivery, the national integrity commission: we're still waiting. It was announced years ago. And when it comes to funding, the $4 billion emergency response fund: there are still people living in caravans; they haven't spent a dollar of it. They talk about manufacturing—$1.5 billion—but they're going to spend three per cent of it this year. Then there's the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—better known as the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. In five years they've spent $169 million of the $5 billion. But the Water Infrastructure Loan Facility is perhaps the best, because it didn't get a dollar out the door, just 50 media releases before being abolished.
Then there is waste and mismanagement—robodebt: illegal, unjust, cruel, resulting in a loss of lives, literally. The settlement was $1.2 billion, but the government say that that doesn't amount to a concession that there was anything wrong or illegal. The NBN was obsolete before it was even built, and now they've got to go back and fix it, with $4½ billion. The dodgy land deal out at Western Sydney: $30 million for a $3 million piece of land. And then there's sports rorts. It'll just keep going. Sports rorts: $100 million based upon a colour coded map, with dozens of emails between Bridget McKenzie's office and the Prime Minister's office—colour coded, ripping off those people who, in good faith, had put in applications. This government is producing $1 trillion of debt that will rise up to $1.7 trillion, but they don't have any reform program.
And then we come to leaving people behind and holding people back. Aged-care residents: there will be at least 685 empty chairs around dinner tables at Christmas because this government refused to step up to its responsibility and have a plan specific to aged care in the pandemic. The government had been told by the interim report of the royal commission and still didn't respond. And there are women and families being left behind when it comes to child care. In the programs rolled out, a million casuals were left behind. And, if you look at the interim report of the disability royal commission, disabled Australians were left behind. University workers and the arts sector were ignored. Workers aged 35 and over don't get any support. They're going to lose JobKeeper and they're going to have their unemployment benefits lowered to $40 a day but they're going to be excluded from any subsidies or any support whatsoever. Then there are the aviation workers. They've lost their jobs only to be replaced by cheaper workers, and this government just gives them a clap. When it comes to leaving people behind, 39,000 Australians have been literally left behind overseas. They're stranded overseas. Remember, four months ago I said we should be using the RAAF VIP fleets. They said, 'No, it's busy.' But it's not too busy for Mathias Cormann to fly around Europe, not too busy at all. Those planes could be used right now to bring Australians home, but, once again, they're leaving Australians behind.
So the next election will be a clear distinction between those of us on this side and those on that side. The truth is that we got through the pandemic because of Labor values. Labor values are about looking after each other. Labor values are about the power of government to change lives for the better. But this government's reverting to type, as we see in the IR legislation. We on this side stand for cooperation; they stand for politics, spin and needless conflict. We stand for understanding the role of government in improving the lives of Australians; they think if government gets out of the way it will all be fine. We see a role for government intervening in the economy in the interests of Australian families. We want the economy to improve not just in itself but so that the economy looks after people, not the other way around. They believe in trickle-down economics, which rains misery on working people. We stand for social and community housing; they look down on people who live in social and community housing. We see taxpayer money as the means through which government can serve the public good; they think it's Liberal Party money to just slush around as they want. We support cheaper child care; they punish those who want to work more than three days a week. We stand for a future made in Australia, creating jobs and resilience in the process; they dared car manufacturers to leave the country. We stand for an Australian rail manufacturing plan that will trigger a renaissance of rail manufacturing in this country; they stand for importing trains that aren't fit for purpose and that have to be fixed up here. We stand for creating an Australian skills guarantee with one in 10 workers on government projects to be apprentices; they've smashed apprenticeships such that there are 140,000 fewer than when they come to office. We stand for a commitment to zero emissions by 2050; they stand frozen in time while the world warms around them. We have a Prime Minister getting on the phone, begging to be able to speak at a conference this weekend but being dismissed by world leaders. We stand for our future as a renewable energy superpower; they stand still, tied to the past. We stand for respecting and valuing older Australians; they failed older Australians. We stand for transparency and accountability; they stand for Angus Taylor.
What we have is a PM obsessed with marketing slogans, more prime marketer than Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister who is always there for the photo op but never there for the follow-up, who is always political and who is wasting the economic recovery. We have a PM who will force a handshake but flee from accountability. Remember this: he is a Prime Minister whose attitude towards responsibility is summed up in that one famous phrase, 'I don't hold a hose.' It's someone else's problem. He's never about fixing it; he's just about the announcement. (Time expired)
Well, it wasn't The Audacity of Hope, was it, Deputy Speaker? If you were looking for The Audacity of Hope, you would have been sorely disappointed. That's what we get from the opposition in a year where we've had the most difficult challenge faced by the Australian community in 100 years. No audacity, no hope, but a collection of negative, negative material at the end of a year.
This year I believe we've seen the best and the finest of Australians—our community, our people, our businesses, our governments, our states, our territories, our Commonwealth, our defence forces, our health personnel. We've seen the best of people. Together we have come through in a more cohesive state than any other society on the planet. Whatever your political ideology, and we have different ones, all of us know that in a crisis, in an emergency, the government has a pivotal role to play—and there's no doubt this is a crisis and an emergency. Regardless of our differences in approach, regardless of our fundamental differences in political beliefs in this chamber, there's no doubt that all of us come together at this time.
For the Leader of the Opposition to stand here on a matter of public importance on the last day of the year, after the year we've had, and simply pick a collection of things he finds very negative is a failure of leadership. I think people over there think it's a failure of leadership. I think they understand it is a failure of leadership when you think about what was needed from Australian leadership this year. The standing up of the national cabinet at the beginning of this year is a great example. There are political differences, differences in approach, differences in nuance, yet they've come through it together. Tomorrow when the national cabinet meets here in Canberra, again after having successfully steered this country through this, you'll see examples of state leaders and a federal leader who have been prepared to put aside their differences to work together in the broader interests of the Australian community.
I don't know where the Leader of the Opposition spends his time, but you can walk down any street of this country, you can go into any pub in this country, you can go into any club in this country, you can go into any hospital in this country and people will tell you in every corridor, on every street, in every bar: 'We are really grateful to our governments, collectively, for the way this country has gotten through a very difficult year.' That's what you hear.
We are grateful to them. The question time that the government put forward today was about our gratitude for what Australians have sacrificed, what they have done for this country to get us through this in the most cohesive state of any country in the world. We are the best region in the world, because of what we've done together with partners. It does require people to put aside their differences. It does require oppositions to not be relentlessly negative at this time. We understand that in opposition you've got to be negative—people do. But in a crisis it might've been better not to be.
At the end of this difficult year it might be better to come to the table and have some audacity and have a little bit of hope for people. That's the government's message going into this break. There is reason for great hope of recovery, a comeback in 2021, where Australia will be well placed in the world to take advantage of what we have achieved and the sacrifices we've made. Because of the sacrifices of Australians, we find ourselves in the best position to take advantage of the vaccinations that are coming on. The government has made investments in those vaccinations. It's a key deliverable for the Australian people next year. We've got the right investments in the right vaccinations. We're making sure that we have access. We have not just looked after our own population, we have said to our region—with real regional leadership of the kind Australians expect us of us—we will vaccinate our partners, our neighbours, in the Pacific and South-East Asia. We will help others as well as help ourselves. That's real leadership.
We've also prepared Australians by putting out more money than has ever been spent before. The Labor Party says it isn't enough, but it's a record amount for any government to ever put forward to sustain people in their jobs and keep businesses' doors open this year. Whatever your view about when it should come off and when it should taper off, we all agree on the fundamentals. The Labor Party agrees. The Leader of the Opposition agrees. It should be tapered off when it can be. We must get people off it and back into work, with jobs being retained but also created again, and that's what we're seeing now at the end of the JobSeeker period. We are seeing businesses graduating off it. They're saying: 'Our revenues are up. We can come off.'
That is where one difference about ideology comes back into play. Of course we should put it aside in a year like this. Of course we should work together with the power of government to help people's lives. But what is the purpose of welfare? It's to get people through a tough period, not to keep them permanently on it. It's to get them back on their own feet. It's to make them stand up again. It's to give them their own dignity in their own job. It's to get them back into their own business. It's to give them hope again. It's to get them moving forward, not to keep them permanently chained to it. Everyone who believes in that understands what that is about. Given that we have had the toughest year ever, we must do everything possible to keep people getting back to work. That's why this year we've seen the biggest comeback in our economy's history. That is fantastic. Thank you to the Australians that are doing it. Thank you to every small, medium and family business that has toughed it out and has very tough scars from this year but is still employing, keeping its workforce on, keeping their hours. We as a government are trying to do as much as possible to make sure you can keep all your employees all through 2021 and you can add more shifts.
Of course, the Labor Party is running the mother of all scare campaigns on it. We are saying, 'Let's reasonably and properly release some of the shackles of the industrial relations system so that employers can keep people in jobs and bring people in the door.' And they've run the biggest scare campaign today—relentless negativity again—instead of saying, 'We are in the toughest economic conditions in 100 years, and in 2021 we want to make sure that employers and employees can continue to do what they do best, which is work together on keeping businesses open.' That's the only way forward, the only way we will recover, the only way we will come back.
We can look at the achievements that we've made in health—and we thank everybody who has worked in health care, our hospital workers, the people who have done significant work in aged care that has put us in such good stead—but we can also turn to the other achievements that have been made this year. When you think about how many things have been done while we've had the pandemic on, it's quite a list. Instead of criticising the government on minor and technical issues and trying to find some point of difference or a wedge, it is time to continue to work together while we get through what is going to be a very difficult 2021.
I've spoken about vaccinations and I've spoken about the need to continue to get Australians home. The opposition has said the government hasn't done a good enough job. Since the beginning of the pandemic, I remind the House, 432,000 people have returned home. That's a fact—432,000 Australians. And we welcome them home. And everyone who needs to come home will come home, and we'll keep working at it. I again want to thank DFAT and our consular officials around the world for the work they've done in what is a most difficult year, with sovereign countries shutting their borders, transnational and internal. We've been able to get people out of very difficult situations, and not enough credit has been paid.
Opposition members interjecting—
To our officials.
Opposition members interjecting—
No, no. I do want to thank our officials. I want to thank everyone. We have spent all day today thanking every Australian we can—in every agency, in every Public Service sector, in every part of our country—who has done something to contribute. They have been magnificent. That's the difference between government and opposition. That's the difference between leadership and a failure of leadership.
We are coming to the end of the year and going into the Christmas break. In every pub, in every street, in every bar, in every part of the country, Australians have a great pride in all of their governments and their country, and they should. They should be proud because we've come together. They should be proud because we've done something which no other part of the world has done. They should be proud because we've got a plan going forward to not only retain the benefits from the health sacrifices we've made, which have put us in the best stead in the world, but to take advantage of the economic opportunities with our advanced industrial manufacturing plans, our defence sovereign capability plans and all of the forward-thinking things that will put us in good stead to have sovereign capability here to create those jobs, to back Australians' innovation, to back those small and medium businesses. That's what people want from their governments, state and federal. They want some hope. They want some audacity of hope. They will not get it from the Leader of the Opposition.
This afternoon we've heard a remarkable contribution from the member for Lingiari. He reminds us of what a privilege it is to serve in this place. All of us come here seeking to make a difference. All of us come here wanting to leave our mark. We seek to play our part, but the focus of our attention is on the Australian people, the people out there that we represent. But that isn't the motivation of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. When the Prime Minister comes to work each and every day, there is only one problem that he is trying to solve: how can he shape the bulletins that will be on the news that night? That's the only thing he is trying to do. It's all about the marketing; it's all about the publicity. We've just seen the 10 minutes of self-congratulation—that's what it's about. It is not about the Australian people.
When there is a difficult issue, they are nowhere to be seen. Think about the IGADF report, the Brereton report, which is one of the most difficult and complicated issues that have faced this government and the Australian Defence Force. We have been supporting the government in dealing with this very complex issue, but I make this one observation: on the day it became public, the political voice of this country, as represented by the government of our country, was silent. The government did not appear. It was one of the most difficult days in the history of the Australian Defence Force, and they weren't there.
What it means is that you have a situation where the gap between the talk and the walk has never been more profound. We've got a government which, 18 months ago, announced a $4 billion Emergency Response Fund. Since that time, we've had the biggest megafire ever recorded on this continent. Where we're up to right now is that not a dollar of that fund has been spent. They're always there for the announcement, but there has been absolutely no delivery.
Back in September, the Prime Minister announced his promise to bring every stranded Australian home. That's what he did. We've seen him try to wriggle out of that promise a lot over the course of this week, but back in September that's what he did—because that's what he needed to say that day in order to shape the news that night. Well, here we are today. If you arrive back in this country after midnight tonight, you'll be spending Christmas Day in quarantine. There are 37,000 Australians stranded overseas right now who have not been brought home by a government that promised they'd do it. The delivery is nowhere to be seen.
We saw all the hoopla around the COVIDSafe app. This was going to be one of the most innovative and important steps that this government was going to take in terms of managing the coronavirus crisis. Seventy million dollars was spent, most of it on marketing, all there for the publicity. I'm advised that, to this point in time, there have been 17 confirmed case traces as a result of the app. Do the sums. That's, like, $4 million for each confirmed case trace. They're there for the publicity but absolutely not there for the delivery.
For me, one of the biggest examples is our Future Submarine Program. When this government came to power, they were promising it in the mid-2020s. In the last seven years, it has slipped by 10 years and the price has almost doubled. There was a commitment to have 90 per cent Australian industry content, and right now what this government has delivered is no commitment whatsoever, because there is nothing contracted. For all the hoopla we've seen over the last few years, the delivery has been hopeless.
This is a moment in time where we need leadership in our country. But we've got a Prime Minister who avoids responsibility, who absolutely shuns follow-through, who avoids delivery and who is all about himself. He is not about you.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for me, and probably for you, this feels a bit like Groundhog Day, because I think this is the third week in a row that I've had the great pleasure to speak about an MPI. This MPI contains the words 'government' and 'deliver'. I'm delighted to speak about what the government has delivered, not only on a national level—
Opposition members interjecting—
I can hear members opposite agreeing with me. I'm delighted to speak about what the government has delivered, not only nationally but also locally. I know that the minister here, the member for Nicholls and other people in the chamber here could all stand up individually and talk for 15 or 20 minutes about what they've delivered just in their electorates, let alone—and the member for, whatever your electorate's called, on the Sunshine Coast.
I said this before in an MPI last week: this year, two generic themes have dominated our country and countries throughout the whole world. We have faced a great health challenge, and, because of the health challenge and the impositions that have been placed on businesses and economies, we have also faced great economic challenges. Whatever measurements you use in looking at how Australia has fared on the health issue, given the number of people who have been infected with coronavirus and the number of fatalities, tragically, from coronavirus, Australia has done very well compared with what has happened internationally. Australians feel very, very grateful that governments across this country have done so well with the coronavirus. There was a bit of a hiccup in the quarantine system in Victoria, but we'll let that one go today. Australians have felt safe with—
Honourable members interjecting—
New South Wales—what a great example! I commend the New South Wales government. The New South Wales government is much better than any—
An honourable member interjecting—
The Victorian government—a Victorian MP opposite me is talking about the Ruby Princess.
An honourable member interjecting—
Your Premier stuffed up.
An honourable member interjecting—
With your quarantine system, he stuffed up—
The minister will—
and then had to put Victoria into a very damaging—
The minister will resume his seat! Members will address their comments through the chair, and there won't be any argument across the table. The minister.
I take your correction there, Deputy Speaker. Any Victorian should be very disappointed with what Daniel Andrews did and the loss of control they had with the quarantine system. Another member opposite brought up New South Wales. I think New South Wales have done an excellent job. They've had their borders more open than just about any other state. I live near the Queensland-New South Wales border. Those border closures were very damaging. And they were unnecessary because we were COVID-free in northern New South Wales. The commercial damage that was done was very extensive. I'm glad the New South Wales government has been brought up. They did very well.
If you look at the statistics, the COVID pandemic has done a lot of damage to the global economy, but, looking at global statistics, Australia has done very well, albeit that unemployment has gone up, which is a tragedy for everybody who has lost their job. Growth levels fell in the second quarter, which has been very damaging to our economy. But, if you look at consumer confidence and growth in GDP since then, Australia has done very well compared with international economies. We can have great confidence that next year will be very positive, because, as a government, we on this side of the chamber understand that what's going to help us out of this is the private sector. Eight out of 10 jobs are in the private sector. We know that. and we want people in small businesses and in large businesses to invest in their people and to invest capital so we can grow our way out of this. That's why we have given 11½ million people a tax cut. Some 11½ million Australians have got a tax cut because we want Australians to have more money in their pocket so they can help us grow out of this.
I've mentioned the instant tax write-off before. We implemented this policy about four or five years ago on a much smaller scale. I know that businesses in my community are very positive about it. They noticed economic activity pick up as soon as that was brought in. We've put that program on steroids; big business can now have access to that program. And what's it about? It's about businesses investing in capital equipment and businesses, therefore, being able to employ more people. We've provided two obvious economic supports, and the one that has affected a lot of people is JobKeeper. This has been a massive investment by the Australian government and, therefore, the Australian taxpayer to keep people in their jobs.
I call the member for Sydney.
Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, and I wish you and your family a happy Christmas. You can imagine the Charles Dickens classic A Christmas Carol retold in the setting of the parliament here with the Prime Minister as the character Scrooge, visited over three successive nights by the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Future. What would be the nightmare from the Ghost of Christmas Past? It would probably be the Harvester judgement, saying that a worker needed a living wage to raise his family in frugal comfort. What would be the Ghost of Christmas Present? It'd be a strong union movement, standing up, with the Labor Party, against the government's proposals to cut wages. What would be the Ghost of Christmas Future? Well, I think the most terrifying thing that the Prime Minister could drag out of his subconscious would be an enterprise bargain, with year after year of wages growth locked in for the workforce. That's the Ghost of Christmas Past, Present and Future: the fear that our Scrooge of a Prime Minister has, imagining that Australian workers actually keep the pay they're on or—God forbid!—actually increase their pay and their comfort at home after this most difficult of years.
This plan to cut wages we know has been the government's plan for some time, because the former finance minister—the one jetting around Europe at the moment at $4,000 an hour—tipped it out. He didn't mean to, but he tipped it out. He said, 'Low wages are a part of our economic strategy.' Well, we see that in this legislation. This is the embodiment of that. But what's the government trying to do? They're trying to slide it through with nobody noticing. They have used COVID as cover. They're trying to use COVID as cover to do what they have always wanted to do, which is: cut wages and conditions; make work less secure for Australians; make sure their take-home pay is cut or doesn't grow.
They're using COVID as cover, and not just to cut wages. They're using COVID as cover to cut superannuation. So it's not just today's take-home pay that they want to see fall. It's your future comfort. It's your retirement income. The government made 600,000 Australians drain their superannuation to survive the initial weeks of the COVID crisis. They used COVID as cover to smash superannuation, because, from the day that Paul Keating first explained that he wanted to make superannuation something that all workers could benefit from, not just managers—from the day that Paul Keating said he wanted to democratise a comfortable retirement—those opposite have opposed it, and they've used the cover of COVID to smash the superannuation system and to claim that increasing superannuation to 12 per cent, as they promised they would do, would come at the expense of wages. Well, every other time we've cut superannuation, we haven't seen an increase in wages; we've just seen an increase in poverty in retirement.
Universities—here's another battle that the government has been wanting to have for—who knows?—however long. They've always been after the universities, haven't they? Again, they have used COVID as cover to more than double the cost of a university degree. Those opposite cry crocodile tears for the terrible year that year 12 students have had this year. They have had a shocker. It has actually been a year from hell for these kids. They're going to be graduating into an unemployment market—much tougher. They're going to struggle to find work. No gap year; no chance to save a bit of money before they go off to uni—none of that. What they're facing is no job and university fees twice what they should be: a $58,000 debt—an American-sized university debt—when they graduate. And then those opposite will say: 'Oh, isn't it hard that they can't save a deposit for their first home?' No wonder, when they're paying off American-sized university debts!
This government continues to use COVID as cover for the $30 million land deal for land worth $3 million; for the $100 million sports rorts; for the $1.2 billion compensation bill for the illegal robodebt scheme. It doesn't matter—ministerial accountability is gone; it's dead, and those opposite are using COVID as cover for that. (Time expired)
The best thing about being able to talk about what the Morrison government has delivered this year is that I get to talk about what I've delivered for my community of Lindsay. Throughout the challenges this year, the bushfires—
An honourable member: You've only got five minutes!
I know. It's an endless list. But the reason I'm doing it is because I'm always fighting for what my community needs and what they deserve. It's like the upgrade to Dunheved Road: we had $63½ million committed as part of my election commitment. That was delivered, but our community deserved the full upgrade to that road. So the Morrison government came in as part of the budget and fully upgraded that road for people in my community so they can get to where they're going and home again safely and quickly. That is just one of the things that we have delivered this year in the electorate of Lindsay. We delivered it together; it wasn't just me, it was our community working together. We've worked together when it comes to jobs and we've worked together when it comes to health. As the Prime Minister said today it's a united national effort and it's been very much a united local effort too.
As I said, we had Dunheved Road, but we've also delivered on safety for our community. Everyone in Lindsay loves the Nepean River. We walk around that river daily—families walk around the river, young children ride their bikes and we have a great men's group which uses the river too. I know that our community deserves to be safe, so I committed $1 million to be invested into the safety of our community on that river, and that was delivered.
We're also delivering congestion-busting infrastructure. This is because of Western Sydney airport coming in—a great opportunity for our community in Western Sydney that is being delivered by the Morrison government. We also have that great rail link from St Mary's all the way to the airport, and a science park being built. These things are about opportunities for our young people, something I am completely passionate about—ensuring that our young people who are growing up have the skills and the education to take on those jobs of the future that are coming into Western Sydney. We are delivering on that as well.
We're also delivering for our small and medium-sized businesses. The biggest feedback I get when I go out and about in Lindsay is that JobKeeper was an absolute lifesaver and a lifeline for them. Over 5,000 businesses in Lindsay accessed JobKeeper. And it's not just me saying that; I have people telling me that, including Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre. Luke Hepburn is the general manager of the centre, and he said: 'Witnessing all the local trades that have engaged in our renovation program'—from an election commitment that I delivered—'means that we've been able to keep people employed. We were on JobKeeper, and those people have been able to keep their jobs.'
Across Lindsay and Western Sydney, something that I'm always really excited to talk about is the way that we're delivering for Australian manufacturing. I had a petition signed by many people across our community, our small businesses and our manufacturing businesses to drive manufacturing into Western Sydney. I believe we have the key to the new era in manufacturing. I established an advanced manufacturing task force, bringing experts in manufacturing, small businesses, higher education, schools and TAFE together to work out how we can ensure we are at the heart of Australian manufacturing. From Baker & Provan in St Mary's, to Grant Engineered in Penrith and Plustec in Emu Plains, the list goes on. We have a strong manufacturing industry, and they know that we're supporting them and that we're delivering for them—over $1 billion in delivery for Australian manufacturing by the Morrison government. As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, we're backing businesses like these to do what they do best: create local jobs for local people.
Over the last five months, 650,000 jobs have been created across Australia. This year in Lindsay we've delivered infrastructure, we've supported jobs through the pandemic and we've backed manufacturers while helping Australians most in need. We've done this, but it's been a hard year for us in Lindsay and we've gone through much together. Most importantly, I want everyone to have a safe and happy Christmas and the best new year. (Time expired)
( Not only is this government not delivering for Australians; it also, you could almost say, enjoys misleading Australians. It is a government that likes to make announcements and then almost do the exact opposite. There are a few examples. This government also likes to rewrite history. It was only after we had the Centrelink queues out the front of their offices and in their electorates growing that they actually moved to do something like a wage subsidy. It was this government and this Prime Minister who suggested that wage subsidies, when Labor put them forward, were socialism. A ridiculous idea! Now they're the best thing ever. The JobKeeper program is a wage subsidy. It was only after we started to see the shutdown of industries because of the COVID-19 crisis and people—after being stood down, after being told they didn't have work—turning up at the Centrelink offices did this government act. It's a government that's not delivering for Australians, not when it's needed, not on time, not in a prepared way. It's a government that likes to rewrite history. It's a government that likes to mislead.
Take the university reforms: the government said the university reforms would be great for regional students. They're not great. What we've seen since their reforms have come out is not only a doubling of course costs but many universities being forced to sack staff, sack academics and close courses because this government didn't extend JobKeeper to their sector. We've seen entire courses go online. So for regional students, like those in my electorate of Bendigo, if they want to do an arts degree next year, not only will they have to pay double for it but the entire degree will be delivered online. This isn't good news for regional students. This sees them disadvantaged. This government said they did a great job and they support our educators. We had the minister stand up in question time and say, 'Thank you for the job you've done.' Well, thank you is not enough and it doesn't make up for the fact that this government kicked them off JobKeeper.
The first workers in this country to be kicked off JobKeeper were our early childhood educators. So it was: 'Thanks for the job you've done. We're going to cut your support and kick you back to JobSeeker or back to the low pay you're on.' These educators have worked hard. They turned up and they did the job, and they didn't really get the thanks they deserve from this government. Many casuals are still unemployed. They're waiting for numbers to pick up and hoping 2021 will be a better year.
Let's talk about the lack of support from this government for our aged-care workers. They keep using the excuse of the royal commission not to fix the issues in aged care. There's an interim report that's been released that details how this government now can help our aged-care workers, who are tired, who are stressed, who did everything they could to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They worked longer shifts. They worked back-to-back rosters to make sure that their residents were safe and supported, yet they haven't got extra staffing; the government hasn't agreed to Labor's proposal of having minimum staffing levels. Instead, all they get are more excuses. The government is not supporting not only our aged-care workers but the residents they care for.
Probably one of the greatest areas where this government is not delivering and is not supporting people is the area of insecure work. The pandemic this year has exposed the fault lines in insecure work. Many people who were stood down and many people who might have come back into hours didn't get the hours they had. The Prime Minister boasted that 80 per cent of jobs are back, but they're not at the hours that they were. On top of that he said that they're now going to give employers the opportunity to cut pay, cut conditions. How is that delivering for Australians and Australian workers? Putting forward a proposal where the BOOT, the better-off-overall test, is paused—I cannot get over how we have an IR minister who doesn't understand his own legislation. When you say that you can pause the BOOT for two years, it means that we will have agreements that undercut minimum conditions. We will see workers end up on less money, workers in industries where they can't bargain for better pay.
This government in 2020 has failed Australians. It's failed Australian workers and failed Australian families. I hope that they pick up their game and do better in 2021, because our country cannot afford another 12 months of a government not delivering for them. (Time expired)
2020 has been a difficult year, and we all hope for a better 2021. Australia has successfully suppressed COVID and the economy has begun its comeback. We on this side of the chamber know that if Australian small business is okay then families will be okay and communities will be okay and ultimately all will be okay. That's why we have cushioned the blow with the outstanding JobKeeper program and so many other programs that I'll talk about today as a matter of public importance.
There are 15,000-odd people in Moncrieff on JobSeeker. They know firsthand how the extra support of the coronavirus supplement has cushioned the blow of the pandemic. Small-business operators graduating from JobKeeper were grateful for the swift action that kept them going. They are now seeing their sales pipelines refill as the comeback gains momentum on the Gold Coast. That's certainly been the case for Southport Printing Co. in Southport in Moncrieff. I visited there last week to see them graduating off JobKeeper. Their business is growing and moving into a bigger premises. They're investing. With the instant asset write-off, they're going great guns. I applaud them for the hard work they've put into their business over this period.
Parents all around the Gold Coast have heaved a sigh of relief because of the apprenticeships that have now become available. One of them was at Southport Printing Co. Actually, I think they put three new people on at Southport Printing Co. during this period. All around Moncrieff people stop me in the street, and do you know what they say? They say: 'Member for Moncrieff, can you please tell our Prime Minister and our Treasurer how grateful we are for JobKeeper here on the Gold Coast. Thank you for cushioning the blow, for keeping the doors open, for keeping Gold Coasters in jobs.'
We shouldn't be surprised by the ineffectiveness and the desperation that we've seen on the other side from the Leader of the Opposition, because trying to have a bet each way just never works on significant challenges. You can't have one foot there and one foot somewhere else. You can't have a bet each way. You have to commit. That is the failure and the desperation that we've seen even today in question time from the other side. I would suggest that the member for Grayndler get a new message that's not so obviously bogus to the Australian people. Something a bit more believable, I think, is what we need. In the real world, I have to say, the fake news from the other side has failed. We've seen time and time again in question time the untruths that come from the other side around industrial relations, for example.
The good people of Moncrieff and all Australians are the ones who are delivering our comeback. They are the ones who are working hard. Small business are pushing their businesses forward. The Morrison government has been backing Moncrieff and backing Australians to deliver through an array of measures, some of which I would love nothing more than to highlight today in this chamber. Those on the other side really need to acknowledge that this Morrison government has delivered over $500 billion in response measures. That's right—$500 billion. We've delivered not just to those Australians who vote for the Liberals or those Australians who vote for the LNP. No, we've delivered for those Australians who vote for Labor and those Australians who vote for the Greens. Even those Australians who vote for One Nation or Centre Alliance, or whoever it is they choose to vote for, have also been supported. The Morrison government have not left an Australian behind. We have supported all Australians through this pandemic.
I'd like to highlight a couple of other measures. The $101 billion economic lifeline that is JobKeeper has been vital for Moncrieff. It's been vital for the nation. Tax credits have been vital. The cashflow boost has been vital. Small businesses are so important on the Gold Coast. What about the $200 million in tax cuts that have gone back into Moncrieff alone? The instant asset write-off is supporting businesses—small businesses and medium businesses—and they're spending it in the economy. The instant asset write-off is absolutely being used by small business across Moncrieff, and I'm very proud of that. The Gold Coast is being backed with $10 million in regional tourism funding as well, $50 million is going to business events upon which we rely and $62.8 million is for the local jobs program. The Gold Coast has its own employment facilitator.
As the sitting calendar comes to a close, I know in my heart of hearts that my government and my Prime Minister and cabinet have delivered for the 10,500 small businesses in Moncrieff and for our families and communities. I know that when I go to my coffee shop on Saturday morning. When I go to my butcher, Steve, and say, 'Give me some lamb chops for lunch,' he knows this is the government that has kept his doors open and his business going.
I was just listening to the speech from the member opposite, who used the term 'fake news' about the opposition. If you want to talk about fake news, we all remember 2001 and 'children overboard', which was the panacea of fake news that was propagated to the Australian public through lies and propaganda. So don't talk about fake news, because you guys are the experts on it!
We've seen three prime ministers in eight years. We had Mr Abbott in 2013, and we saw the cruellest budget cuts this nation had seen. Health, education and a whole range of other things were cut. We then had the Turnbull Liberal government where, really, there was nothing happening. Mr Turnbull was dominated by the extreme right wing of his party. About the only thing he can claim to have achieved was to sit on the fence getting a sore bum because he didn't want to upset the right-wing element in his party. And we saw the blowout in waiting times for aged-care packages under his leadership. And now we have the Morrison Liberal government, a government that has left far too many Australians behind. Too many promises are being broken. It's a government that loves the marketing, photos, handshakes and constantly being in the media but without actually producing something, without actually doing something for the betterment of Australians.
What is truly important to this government? Today we have seen industrial relations again on the forefront. In other words, they are looking at how they can chop the minimum basic wage of some of the poorest people who are struggling on the lowest wages in this country. The government can't help themselves. Cutting wages and workers' entitlements is in the DNA of this government. It always has been. The industrial relations minister got up today and said, 'No, that's not right, this isn't true.' I was here when Work Choices was on, and that's what they were saying back then—every day there was another story of someone who had lost work entitlements or had lower wages because of the government's policies. And we're heading down the same track again.
What is truly important to this government? The reality is that it's about cutting wages and ensuring that their big mates in multinational companies are doing well. Why go after the workers with this particular policy that they are trying to sell? Instead they should be chopping at the multinationals who are paying no tax—companies that have offshore accounts and companies in the Cayman Islands. But we've seen nothing in that area. Instead, they came up with robodebt. Someone in the government thought: 'Let's go after some of the most vulnerable people'—the unemployed, people on the disability pension, people who are on the age pension—'and see what we can recover to get a budget that will put us back in the black'. There were other ways of doing this. They could have tackled some of those businesses that pay zero tax in this country.
We have seen sports rorts—$100 million of taxpayer money to prop up the Liberal Party's electoral chances. We've seen their faulty NBN. They were ridiculing our NBN when we were in government. They ridiculed it year after year after year. But they've put their tails between their legs and have now implemented what we were promoting back in 2013. We've sent dodgy land deals—$30 million for a $3 million piece of land from a Liberal donor mate, $30 million for a piece of land that was valued at $3 million. If that isn't dodgy, I don't know what is. And still we have no integrity commission. They promised us an integrity commission. Where is it? I wonder why! It would look at deals like the dodgy land deal paying $30 million for something that is valued at $3 million. They promised a $4 billion Emergency Response Fund that would spend $200 million a year, yet not one cent has been spent.
The list goes on and on and on. They announced the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy—and only three per cent will be spent this year. It would have been great if they'd put some of that money into South Australia when GMH was there producing cars and employing 1,000 people, and 30 jobs per assembly-line worker— (Time expired)
I rise to speak on this important issue. Listening to those opposite whinge and whine and moan and complain incessantly, it reminds me of that scene from Life of Brian. 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' they said. Aqueducts, sanitation, roads, health—the list goes on.
But I want to talk about something very, very important, because we all know that one of the principal obligations of any government is to keep its citizens safe. This government has done such an outstanding job in delivering for all Australians, unlike those opposite when they were in government. This government walks the talk when it comes to defence. As the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, it has been my absolute privilege to see our great men and women in uniform, to be able to work alongside them to some extent and to assist them to do their job. We're doing that by providing unprecedented sums of money. A sum of $270 billion is being spent on defence procurement over the next 10 years. That $270 billion is the largest expenditure in Australia's peacetime. In fact, it takes our commitment to two per cent of GDP, which is what we promised we would take our defence expenditure to.
I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you're thinking: what was the defence expenditure under the Labor government? When the Labor government left power in 2013, their defence industry expenditure was the lowest that it had been since 1938. How many ships did they build when they were in government? It was zero—zip, zero.
We walk the talk when it comes to defence. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the best kit, and nothing is more deserving of the best kit than the best defence force. As we saw in the 2020 Defence Strategic Update, we want to ensure that our policies shape, deter and respond. We want to be able to shape the Indo-Pacific, the environment in which we live. We want to be able to deter those countries who may seek to do us harm. And, if they do seek to do us harm, we need to be able to respond with credible force. That is exactly what this government is enabling our Australian Defence Force to do.
I want to send a big shout-out right now to the Minister for Defence, Senator Linda Reynolds. She has done an absolutely outstanding job, as has the Minister for Defence Industry, Melissa Price. Together, those two ladies have worked absolutely exceptionally in continuing the great work of the previous defence minister and the previous defence industry minister, who both set Australia up to do an absolutely fantastic job. Both our existing defence and defence industry ministers have continued on in those traditions and are doing absolutely outstanding jobs. When I talk to men and women in the military, they tell me that they are so pleased that they actually have the gear that they need.
I spent some time recently on HMAS Collins, one of our Collins class submarines. I was very fortunate to spend three nights and four days—somewhere around there—on board. It was a great time. I got to see our men and women working for the defence of our nation. Really, they are absolutely professional, and I've seen that right across the board. Why? It is because we enable them to do the job that we ask them to do by giving them the kit that they require, by giving them the kit that they demand and by giving them the kit that they expect. Those opposite did nothing other than cut defence budgets for the years and years they were in government. But we support our ADF, and we will continue to do so.
The discussion has concluded.
I present the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's report on its perishable agricultural goods inquiry.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) a Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention be established to inquire into:
(a) the findings of the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Mental Health, the Report of the National Suicide Prevention Officer, the Victorian Royal Commission, the National Mental Health Workforce Strategy and other recent strategic reviews of the current mental health system in light of events such as the 2019 Bushfires and COVID-19 pandemic, including the capacity of the mental health workforce to respond to such events; and
(b) other matters not addressed by these recent reviews, including:
(i) emerging evidence-based approaches to effective early detection, diagnosis, treatment and recovery across the general population and at-risk groups, including drawing on international experience and directions;
(ii) effective system-wide strategies for encouraging emotional resilience building, improving mental health literacy and capacity across the community, reducing stigma, increasing consumer understanding of the mental health services, and improving community engagement with mental health services;
(iii) building on the work of the Mental Health Workforce Taskforce and forthcoming National Medical Workforce Strategy, the roles, training and standards for all health and allied health professionals who contribute to mental health care, including peer workers, that are required to deliver quality care at different levels of severity and complexity, and across the spectrum of prevention, early intervention, treatment and recovery support;
(iv) the funding arrangements for all mental health services, including through the MBS and PHNs, and whether they are structured in a way that supports safe, high quality and effective care in line with the qualifications of practitioners and needs of consumers across whole of population;
(v) the use, standards, safety and regulation of telehealth services and the role and regulation of domestic and international digital and online mental health service providers in delivering safe and high quality care in Australia; and
(vi) any related matters.
(2) the committee present an interim report on or before 15 April 2021 and its final report on or before 1 November 2021;
(3) the committee consist of eight members, five Members to be nominated by the Government Whip, and three Members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any non-aligned Member;
(4) in respect of initial appointments to or subsequent changes in membership of the committee when the House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for two weeks:
(a) the relevant Whip must nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the Speaker and such appointment or discharge shall take effect from the time the Speaker receives the written nomination; and
(b) at the next sitting, the Speaker shall report the change to the House and the House shall resolve the membership of the committee;
(5) participating members may:
(a) be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip, the Opposition Whip or any minority party or independent member; and
(b) participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any question before the committee;
(6) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(7) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(8) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;
(9) before the start of business and at any time a vacancy occurs, the committee shall be informed of the name of the member who has been:
(a) appointed by the Prime Minister to be the chair; and
(b) appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to be the deputy chair, who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(10) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(11) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(12) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee;
(13) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(14) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(15) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee;
(16) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(17) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives;
(18) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of any former committee on related matters; and
(19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
I want to make it very clear that the opposition was not consulted about the creation of this committee. This committee is not necessary. This motion comes after a two-year Productivity Commission inquiry looking into mental health, and the government's response is to create another talkfest. Mental health is one of the most urgent crises facing this country. Mental health is meant to be a national priority. This government commissioned a Productivity Commission review of mental health in October 2018. The draft report was finalised on 31 October 2019. The final report was given to the government on 30 June 2020. The government had said they would respond in next year's budget, in May. The final report was released to the public, after the government had had it for five months, on 16 November. And now we have, without a word of explanation from the government, this motion to create a committee to consider the implementation of the Productivity Commission report. This is kicking mental health into the long grass. This is saying, 'We won't have a response in the May budget.' This is saying: 'It's all too hard. What we're going to do is have another inquiry.'
Do you know how many inquiries there have been into mental health in Australia since 2013? The number is 58. There have been 58 inquiries into mental health in Australia since 2013. And what is this government's answer? Another inquiry—a parliamentary inquiry to look at what the Productivity Commission found. This is deeply disappointing. There were a thousand submissions to the Productivity Commission's inquiry. Organisations and individuals spent a lot of time on their submissions to the Productivity Commission. What are we going to say to them now? 'Write another submission. Come and give evidence to the politicians. Come and give evidence to the parliament, because what you said to the Productivity Commission, to the Victorian government's royal commission and to the 58 other reviews is not enough. We need to hear more.'
We don't need more talk about mental health; we need some action. We are meant to all agree about what happens with mental health. I wrote to the Minister for Health last year, and I did so at the suggestion of the shadow assistant minister, the member for Dobell. She gave me an excellent suggestion, saying, 'Why don't we treat mental health as our predecessors treated HIV/AIDS and say, "This is a big national crisis; let's work on it together"?' Now the government says, 14 months later: 'Let's have a parliamentary inquiry so we can work on it together. Let's kick it down the road, beyond the budget, to late next year.'
We have said, time and time again—I think our bona fides are clear—that we will give bipartisan support to the government on any substantial measure relating to mental health. But what I won't support and what I won't be silent about is this last act of this last sitting day of parliament, at half past five on a Thursday. The minister at the table can't even be bothered to give a speech to explain the government's decision. The Prime Minister, whose personal decision this was, as I understand it, can't be bothered to come into the chamber. It's left to the minister on duty. I don't blame the minister on duty; he's doing what he's told. He's not been given any speaking notes to explain why, two years after the Productivity Commission inquiry was commissioned and after it has reported and its report has been released to the public, we're now going to need a parliamentary inquiry to consider how to handle the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review and the 58 other reviews of mental health in Australia.
I said to the minister last year, 3,000 Australians a year take their own lives. This epidemic of entirely avoidable deaths is arguably the greatest health challenge Australia has faced since the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. I went on to say that there are many health policy areas in which we disagree, but I believe it would be possible to set aside our disagreements to work together on this urgent national priority. We said this 14 months ago.
Not everybody will agree with the Productivity Commission review. Maybe we don't agree with every element of it, but, if the government just got on with it and responded to it and started implementing the bits that at least they'd agree with, they would have no stronger supporters on this side of the House. But instead, with not a word of consultation, the government arrogantly decides we're going to have a committee. They rang us last night and said, 'We're going to have a committee.' They didn't say, 'Do you think we should have a committee?' or 'Do you think this is something that we should work on together?' They just said, 'There's going to be a committee.' We'll turn up at the committee. We'll nominate members on the committee—very well credentialed members when it comes to mental health. But I say this to all those mental health advocates across Australia who've been waiting for action, begging for action—for those individuals who've seen politicians saying all the right things about mental health and thought at last the mental anguish that they've been going through might be recognised by this parliament, those who hoped for better and hoped for more—I'm sorry that this parliament is going to submit you to another process where you have to come and give evidence and submit to yet again another inquiry. I'm sorry your government is letting you down by not implementing the Productivity Commission's review and responding to the Productivity Commission. I'm sorry this government is not doing better for you.
I meet, as the member for Dobell meets, constantly with mental health advocates. They don't have all the answers. Who does? But they've got a lot of the answers. We know what the answers are. The Productivity Commission has laid out the cost. They've laid out a way forward. We can have a discussion about which bits will work and which bits won't. We'll respect the government's right to reject or accept the recommendations as they see fit—they're the elected government. But what I won't cop is a talkfest. What I don't approve of is this arrogant treatment of mental health, which just throws it in and says that it's all too hard, after years of inaction, years of talk and years of saying: 'It's good we're talking about mental health now. It's great we're now talking about these issues.' No, it's not. How about we actually start doing something about these issues? We need a revolution, not an evolution, when it comes to mental health, and we don't have time to wait. We don't have time for more inquiries. It's time for this government. I've always said I accept the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health's findings when it comes to mental health reform, but I'm going to call out inaction when I see it, and this is inaction. It's disappointing inaction. It's inaction for which people will pay a price. It means we're just going to have 12 months more of talk and submissions. It means we're going to have 12 months more of argument and debate. Reform and investment in mental health just won't happen on this government's watch.
Question agreed to.
() (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee report, incorporating descending reports, entitled Report on the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 15 of 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights's 15th scrutiny report of 2020. This report contains a technical examination of legislation with regard to Australia's obligations under international human rights law. It sets out the committee's consideration of 19 bills introduced into the parliament between 30 November and 3 December 2020, and 99 legislative instruments registered under the Federal Register of Legislation between 11 November and 1 December 2020, which is obviously quite a lot. The committee has made substantive comments with respect to three bills and instruments, including legislation previously commented on, in this scrutiny report.
In this report the committee seeks further information in relation to the Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2020. This legislative instrument increases the application fee for migration litigants in the Federal Circuit Court from $690 to $3,330. That's a 482 per cent increase. Obviously, reading between the lines, for those that understand Federal Circuit Court work, a 482 per cent hike is particularly going to be an issue for asylum seekers dealing with immigration matters. While the bill also provides for the ability to seek full or partial waiver of this fee in cases of financial hardship, the committee is seeking further information in order to assess what implications this may have in relation to the right to a fair hearing, which includes the right to access to justice. The cost of accessing courts is a key component of this right. The right of access to justice may be permissibly limited if it is shown to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. Obviously, a 482 per cent hike doesn't quite tick all of those boxes. We look forward to the response from the minister. The statement of compatibility does not recognise that this measure may engage the right to a fair hearing. As such, the committee seeks clarification as to the definition of 'financial hardship', what guidance would be given to the court in establishing whether hardship exists, and the objective sought to be achieved by this measure.
In addition, in this report the committee makes concluding comments with respect to the Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020, which has now passed. This bill amends the Native Title Act 1993 to extend the operation of the future acts regime for another 10 years. This regime permits the construction of public housing and other infrastructure on Indigenous-held land without requiring the consent of native title holders and registered claimants. The committee considers that while the bill promotes the rights to an adequate standard of living, education and health through facilitating the timely provision of public housing and other public infrastructure, it may also limit a number of other human rights, including the rights to self-determination, culture, equality and non-discrimination. The legal advice to the committee is that this measure does not appear to constitute a proportionate limitation on the rights to equality and non-discrimination, self-determination and culture. The committee notes in particular that the consultation process provided for in the future acts regime appears to lack several constituent elements of free, prior and informed consent for the purposes of international human rights law. The committee makes several recommendations to assist with the proportionality of the measure, including requiring a consultation process which is guided by the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the development of guidelines to inform decision-makers working in this area.
Finally, I note that this is the 15th and final scrutiny report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for 2020. As I have previously noted, I have some concerns about this once bipartisan committee moving in some instances to dismiss expert international human rights legal advice, but I'm proud of the way in which this committee has continued its scrutiny work throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This has included regularly meeting remotely via teleconference and continuing to scrutinise the many legislative measures which have been introduced to address this unprecedented health crisis. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis. With these comments, I commend this report to the chamber.
I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The summer holidays are almost here for the people who I serve in the mighty Eden-Monaro, and after the year that we've all had this important break takes on new significance. I think it's fair to say that most people feel they didn't get a holiday last summer. Bushfires forced thousands of visitors to leave, while residents dug in to face the unfolding crisis at our front door. Floods, COVID-19 and border closures followed, only adding to the emotional, environmental and financial distress in our community.
This summer presents an opportunity to recharge, to renew and to reconnect following the challenges of 2020. This downtime also allows for some reflection and with that comes a real sense of gratitude. Around 750 homes were lost across the Snowy Valleys, Snowy Monaro, Bega Valley, Eurobodalla and Queanbeyan-Palerang shires. The need for shelter has been enormous and for many people remains unresolved.
In the Bega Valley, the Social Justice Advocates of the Sapphire Coast took on that challenge and restored a little bit of dignity and comfort to those people who had lost everything. The advocates and their Liferaft project have so far delivered over 60 restored caravans to bushfire survivors. Three have been delivered this week alone. People with nothing but a brick chimney on their burnt-out block have been given a base to rebuild their lives. The caravans have been donated by people, churches and charities spanning the breadth of our great country. A lack of affordable housing and homelessness were already issues in Eden-Monaro before the Black Summer. However, this issue has now been exacerbated in 2020.
In their annual report, the justice advocates made the point that their caravans are far from the ideal solution and that they are yet to see an adequate overall plan from government to meet the need in the community. They point out that substantial investment is needed in transitional accommodation, as well as in ongoing and social and affordable housing. Like Labor, the advocates see the jobs potential of this work and, like Labor, they see social housing as a key driver in the renewal of regional communities like mine.
In the community of Tumbarumba, local leaders are also coming up with solutions for our future. The plantation timber industry is the town's biggest employer. However, those jobs are now at risk, with over 40 per cent of the town's pine timber supply destroyed by bushfire. I sponsored a local delegation to parliament last week for the presentation of an economic impact statement, showing that by the middle of next year 157 jobs could be lost from the Snowy Valleys, 140 of which are in Tumba. But the community has presented the government with solutions, and found timber further afield that, with goodwill and transport assistance, could be redirected from overseas processing and instead be processed locally. I'm hopeful that these commonsense ideas will get the backing of the government.
Of course, regional communities have always taken the lead in shaping their own futures and responding to local needs. Before the bushfires and COVID—and it's hard to remember those days sometimes—prior to last Christmas, people of good heart and hand were already at work in many communities that I serve, and they remain so. There are organisations like St Benedict's Community Centre, a cooperative of Christian churches in Queanbeyan. Staff and volunteers open the centre on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, offering practical and emotional support, information and advice, and hot meals, free of charge.
The good people of Eden-Monaro are matched only by our stunning natural environment, which tests us at times. But this summer we'll once again draw people from near and far for rest and recreation. I say to those choosing to holiday in Eden-Monaro, for the first time or for the hundredth time: thank you and welcome. You have chosen the most amazing community to share this time with and the most diverse and thrilling landscape. I have no doubt that you will be richly rewarded, not just by the activities, local products and services in the environment but by the smiles from the business owners and residents, happy to welcome you back.
For some, the first anniversary of Black Summer has already elicited and will elicit painful memories. One of the hallmarks of 2020 has been the empathy we have shown each other. That time, warmth and respect is something we need to be extra mindful of as anniversaries approach and as we continue to manage COVID-19. We have laughed during 2020 about wanting to reboot this year, but, on reflection, there is much we can take strength from—far more than I have time to share today. Thank you to the people of the mighty Eden-Monaro, who have shown such perseverance in the face of so many great challenges. I hope this break provides the opportunity to set us all up for a happy and healthy 2021.
As the year draws to its inevitable close, I rise in this House to thank very much the residents of Ryan for all of their hard work during this year. There are so many people to thank: the service organisations and volunteers throughout the community—the RSLs, the Men's Sheds, Meals on Wheels, Picabeen Community Association of Mitchelton; the teachers who have had to deal with online learning and the added burdens of classrooms that have been disrupted; the mental health support workers, like those in headspace at Taringa; the small-business people, who have had to do so much to adapt and ensure their businesses survived; the service and hospitality workers, like those at our supermarkets, who faced the brunt of it way back in March and April; all the way through to the people working on the COVID-19 vaccine at the University of Queensland who have spent so much time away from their families in order to undertake that endeavour on behalf of all Australians. I could go on and on.
This has clearly been a difficult and anxious year for all the residents of Ryan, but they have proved remarkably resilient. They have again shown some of the best of what our community is, and there have been some remarkable stories of community spirit. There were the drive-past Anzac parades when we couldn't get together and observe our normal ceremonies. There were the cafes that turned into family restaurants to provide home-cooked meals for those who needed them. There were neighbours looking after neighbours, and communities coming together wherever they could. It was difficult, but it never got the better of those in the Ryan electorate.
The efforts of the Ryan community and the efforts of everyday people all over Australia are the reason why Australia is a beacon to the world for how we've dealt with COVID-19. You know that the government has had your back throughout, and provided economic assistance and health advice where it could; but it has been your efforts, as Australians and as the residents of the Ryan electorate, that have ensured that Australia has successfully got on top of COVID-19.
Given it's the end of the year, I want to thank the staff in my electorate office. We kept the office open throughout the entire COVID-19 period. We were lucky that we didn't have to go into lockdown the way that Melbourne did. I thank my staff for being there and for facilitating my efforts to be there for my community throughout this year, no matter how tough it got. People always wanted advice. They needed help sifting through all the information that was coming in thick and fast. My staff were there to help me do it, so thank you so much to them. And thank you to the local LNP members who have facilitated my efforts as well. They're stalwarts in the community in their own right. Thank you to my wonderful family, who have supported me throughout this year as well and who have always supported our efforts. And, of course, I thank the people of Ryan for all of your efforts.
Moving to a more serious note, if I have one message for this Christmas it would be this: when you have your toys under the tree, as I'm sure you will for your families, for your nieces, for your nephews, do me a favour and double-check that they don't have unsecured button batteries. It is the end of another year—I'm sorry to end the year on a negative note, but this is important—and another year has gone by with the ACCC failing to give recommendations to government about how we fix the scourge of button batteries. It's pretty simple: button batteries need to be secured. One Australian child a month is injured by button batteries, and that is one child too many. For two years it has been a consumer priority for the ACCC. We want their recommendations, because I know that Minister Sukkar is seized of the opportunity to do something about this and we want to do something on behalf of Australian families.
You can all be part of it this Christmas. If you're going to have small children in your home, make sure you've secured all your button batteries and you don't have any products that can be easily taken apart and the batteries removed. They're silver, they're shiny and they're so easily swallowed by young people. We don't want to spend this Christmas hearing another story of a young child who has been terribly injured by these scourges. One of my wishes for the new year is that we as a government take action to make sure that these button batteries are secured in these products going forward and that it's a mandated requirement.
To end on a happy note, I say, 'Merry Christmas,' to all the residents of Ryan. I wish for you a much better 2021. I congratulate you on all your efforts and your stoicism in 2020.
This year has been tough on the coast. We faced the threat of bushfires, floods and the virus. I'm proud of the way our community has pulled together. In my last speech in this place for the year, I'd like to recognise some special local people and volunteer groups who have helped us all through 2020. I'd like to start by recognising the volunteers of the local Rural Fire Service brigade from Berkeley Vale, Blue Haven, Charmhaven, Tuggerah, Ourimbah, Warnervale, Yarramalong, Kulnura, Dooralong, Wamberal, Wadalba, Narara and Matcham-Holgate, the Wyong Operational Support Brigade, the Wyong caterers brigade and the Central Coast Communications Brigade, who worked tirelessly during the Black Summer bushfires keeping locals safe and travelling to help brigades in communities under threat. The Central Coast strike team helped fight fires on the Mid North Coast, the South Coast, the Southern Highlands and the tablelands.
While everyone did a tremendous job, I would like to acknowledge the superintendent for the Central Coast Rural Fire Service, Viki Campbell, who was recognised as the Central Coast Australia Day ambassador for 2020. As brigades prepare for the fire season, they are spreading a little bit of Christmas cheer with their annual firetruck Santa runs across the coast, kicking off last week and finishing on Christmas Eve. Last year the Charmhaven RFS Santa run raised $6,500 to help rebuild the Rainbow Flat RFS station destroyed in the Hillville fire.
This year, through COVID, like many others, I've missed visiting local schools. But that hasn't meant missing out on meeting inspiring young people doing their bit for our community. Getting rid of fireweed at Long Jetty Landcare, I met 11-year-old Matilda Baldwin. One of the youngest volunteers, Matilda comes along each month with her sister, Georgia, and her mum, Carly. On top of Landcare, Matilda collects bottles to raise money for her school, Our Lady of the Rosary at the Entrance, and is a driving force behind the school's composting and worm farm, and the new year should have a school garden up and running. Matilda also collects soft plastics for recycling and bottle caps for Lids 4 Kids. Thank you for all you do, Matilda.
This summer we are expecting a bumper season on local beaches as people holiday closer to home, and they are very welcome. Keeping us safe on the sand and in the water are the hundreds of local surf lifesavers. I'd like to give a shout out to Ben, of Toowoon Bay Surf Life Saving Club. Ben is 18 and he lives with an intellectual disability. After achieving his surf rescue certificate four years ago, he trained at Toowoon Bay. I'd also like to congratulate Ben on achieving his Certificate II in Kitchen Operations. I was delighted to recognise Ben with a Dobell award this year.
Now I'll go to a volunteer with an outstanding record of service in our community who has gone that extra mile in 2020. It's Chris Miles. Chris joined Wyong District Netball Association almost 50 years ago and has helped the association grow to over 2,600 registered players. Chris is a coach, an umpire and the longest-standing secretary of our association, and current president of WDNA. This year Chris, along with the entire executive team, worked tirelessly as WDNA adapted to meet the COVID-safe requirements of New South Wales Health, the Office of Sport, and Netball New South Wales so our local competition could go ahead. I'm proud to have known Chris since I was 11 years old and wish her the best for Christmas.
It's been a particularly tough year for the arts community, so I'm delighted to recognise Josh Maxwell. Josh is the 2020 New South Wales volunteer of the year for the coast and has been the driving force behind the artistic community in our area for 14 years. A volunteer theatre producer, he's racked up 30 productions. He co-founded Jopuka, the coast's own youth arts company, where he is the volunteer director. This year Josh was also a member of the youth arts COVID-19 impact study working party, which mapped the impact of the pandemic on this sector. Thank you, Josh.
Finally, I turn to one very special daughter determined to give her dad the best 90th birthday party. When COVID-19 restrictions were introduced, birthdays, weddings—like for my brother, Iggi, and his partner—and family celebrations were postponed or cancelled. So Sharon Lucas did her very best to make the 90th birthday of her dad, Arnold Keating, memorable. Sharon planned a month of celebrations, organising 13 lunches and dinners at her parent's house in Mardi, with a small number of guests on each occasion. Each birthday was a three-course meal of Arnold's favourite food, followed by a cake. I think I joined Arnold's 12th 90th birthday party in November. Happy birthday, Arnold. I would like to thank Viki, Matilda, Ben, Chris, Josh, Sharon and everyone who's made 2020 that little bit easier or brighter for someone else.
I'd like to finish by wishing everyone on the Central Coast a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe new year. Finally, to my nephew Gabriel, my godson, happy 21st birthday. I'm looking forward to celebrating with you at Nanna's place on Saturday. Congratulations!
I've just tabled the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' report. In the interests of facilitating the progress of the House I didn't seek leave to make a few comments, but in this adjournment debate I will touch on a few things that have come out of that report. Of course, all members will have a chance to contribute to the debate on the report in the Federation Chamber in the new year.
We all come to this place with varied backgrounds and different skills and experiences, but everyone in this chamber is interested in the way we run elections. How could you not be? We are all here because, of course, we contest the democratic process and we all have a reasonable interest in the way we run elections. I think we all bring the same fundamental principles to that debate, which is that we want to make sure we continue to live in a vibrant democracy. We want to make sure that all Australians equally participate in that democracy. It's the people of this country that choose their government. Happily, they seem to quite regularly choose us. But, nonetheless, the opportunity for reform is always there after an election. To digress, we also have new challenges since the inquiry into 2019 because of the coronavirus pandemic and how we may need to prepare ourselves to run election campaigns in quite a different set of circumstances to those which we're used to.
One of the important things that the majority report recommends is the introduction of optional preferential voting in our system of government. I'm a very strong supporter of this. I think it's quite fair and reasonable that not only you should be able to vote for who you wish to serve you in the parliament but you shouldn't be forced to. You can have the option to, but you shouldn't be forced to choose from every candidate. You may decide that you want to cast your vote for one person, and if that person is not capable of being elected then after that you may wish for your vote to be exhausted. If you believe in democracy, and if you believe in giving people the power to choose their governments, then I think this is a fundamental right that we should have.
We are a peculiar jurisdiction, given that we have compulsory voting, and not only do we have compulsory voting but we also force people to vote for every candidate. So you have the perverse situation where there might be five, six or seven candidates and you might choose to vote for someone at No. 1. It could be that your fifth versus six preference ends up determining who is elected when they were the last two candidates you wanted to select. I believe that in a democracy you should have the right to not be forced to vote for every candidate and you should be able to choose if you want to vote for just one, two, three or four of the options you've got before you and of course reserve the right to vote for every candidate if you wish.
The other important reform which I think will achieve some consensus is making changes to pre-polling, in particular curtailing the period from three weeks to two. It has been recommended unanimously by all members of the committee that we move in that direction. There has been enormous growth in pre-poll. It's important that people have access to the pre-poll process, but running it over three weeks is somewhat of a logistical nightmare for all of us that are on the frontline of these campaigns. Given the consensus of all members on committee I hope that that is a reform that's likely to be instituted before the next election.
The other one that is quite interesting but disappointingly has become necessary to address is the issue of political violence, both physical and non-physical violence. We had testimony from a number of candidates, particularly coalition candidates. The member for Boothby in particular had a terrible ordeal through the campaign that no-one who is seeking to put their hand up to represent their community in a democracy should have to go through. Despite the horridness of what she was subjected to, which was both physical intimidation and other forms of slander and harassment, there have effectively been no consequences for the people involved in inciting that against her—not just the people who actually did it, but the organisations that seem to encourage their volunteers and broader networks to be so nasty and aggressive towards political candidates that they fear for their safety.
We are recommending that this needs to be addressed and that we need to consider forming criminal penalties against people who, in the political process, engage in that type of behaviour. There's a lot more I could say—my time's running out—but it's been an excellent process. It's vital to our democracy that we always continue to reform, and I commend that to the House.
I had planned for this speech, the second last that this House will hear for the year, to be full of Christmas cheer and bonhomie, but a number would not leave my head. That number is 64—64 women and children dead from family violence this year. That got me to thinking of other numbers attached to other lives, and of other lives cut short.
Every week, one Australian woman is killed by their partner or former partner. For women aged between 15 and 44, family violence is the leading cause of death, disability and illness. Women and children in Tasmania trying to flee family violence are being turned away from crisis shelters because they are packed full, so they stay. More than 30,000 older Australians have died over the past three years while on the waiting list for in-home care. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for Australians aged between 15 and 44, with people in rural areas twice as likely to take their own lives. In October and November, nine ADF veterans died by suicide. Between 2001 and 2017, there were 419 suicides among serving, reserve and ex-serving ADF personnel. More than 2,030 Australians died after receiving a robodebt notice—429 were under 35, and 663 had been classified as vulnerable.
Around 3.24 million Australians, or nearly 14 per cent of the population, live below the poverty line—774,000 are children under the age of 15. Thirty-four per cent of single women in Australia are living in poverty by the time they're 60. Single women aged 60 and over are the most likely household grouping to live in poverty. Around 1.6 million Australians receive JobSeeker, which is returning to less than $40 a day—not $40 a day for incidentals, but $40 a day to cover everything: rent, food, petrol, the kids' clothes, medical and power bills. I couldn't do it. I doubt anyone here could. It is shameful that we place this burden upon others that we would not be prepared to accept ourselves.
In Tasmania the unemployment rate is 8.2 per cent, with 21 jobseekers for every available job. More than 50,000 Tasmanians are either looking for a job or cannot get the hours they need to make ends meet. Tasmanian wages have fallen by $71 a week, while national wages have fallen by $56. Tasmanians earn $280 a week less than the national average.
Australians need $545,000 in their account to have a comfortable retirement. Women retire with just $290,000. A modest retirement is defined as having $24,250 a year. This means men can afford to live for 22½ years after retirement and women can afford just 12—too bad that they live, on average, five years longer than men.
In Tasmania's south, patients are waiting 58 days—nearly two months—for urgent infectious diseases care, 69 days for urgent aged-care outreach, 76 days for urgent wound care, 100 days for urgent diabetic service and 111 days for urgent paediatrics medicine. It's not urgent if you're waiting so long. More than 200,000 Tasmanians have at least two chronic conditions. Tasmania has the nation's worst GP bulk-billing rate, with about half of all patients facing out-of-pocket costs. And 3,300 Tasmanians are waiting desperately for public housing—if you're a priority, you're waiting, on average, 64 weeks.
As much as I wish this speech could have been breezy and fun and Christmassy, I can't escape the fact that so many of our fellow Australians are suffering. They're in real pain. Their days and nights are spent in hardship, in poverty, in violence, in addiction and in anguish. The fact that these figures exist is all the proof we need that we are not doing our jobs well enough. And I did not go into rates of addiction, incarceration, chronic disease, racism and the growing threat of far-right extremism to our democracy. The existence of these statistics should give us no comfort. It doesn't matter if some are marginally better than others or which side of politics did better; these figures represent a failure of national leadership.
It may not be our job to mollycoddle, but it is our job to provide resources, support, compassion and national leadership. It is our job to show the way by example and to demonstrate by our words and our actions what matters most in this country. It is our job to provide a national conversation grounded in tolerance, decency and respect and to deal with the serious matters that confront our nation. As we turn off the lights in this place and lock its doors for the holidays and go back to our homes and enjoy our Christmas, let us resolve that next year we will do better. We were sent here to do serious work, to lead a nation, and next year we must do better. (Time expired)
Representing just a dozen in this place are MPs who are custodians of mangroves, mudflats and great sand islands—the member for Petrie is among them. I'm really shocked by how we have potentially compromised a generation of tourism on Fraser Island, the greatest sand island of them all. There have been 86,000 hectares ferociously burnt since 14 October, and it was almost six weeks before any action was taken to control the fire. There's always a place for low-intensity fires, but what happened on Fraser is a big warning for all the other great sand islands that are prone to bushfire. It is also a warning to the men and women who fight those fires. It's simply unacceptable for it to be left in the hands of fate or chance.
Adding to the almost Keystone Cops experience, the Queensland government—having just six weeks ago celebrated the arrival of a water bomber—hadn't even got the leasing arrangements right and not only was the water bomber not called upon for six weeks but it's lease actually ran out for six days and the plane wasn't even available to fly. These things are part of basic emergency preparedness, and we all know money invested in prevention is far more effective than what we're doing now, which is literally hundreds of firefighters—the numbers have fallen since the recent storm—fighting a fire that's out of control. It's not just out of control but threatening the absolutely pristine World Heritage listed parts of Fraser Island. Only luck has spared them.
I'm calling today on the state government to elevate their level of concern—and the new ministers will be Ministers Scanlon and Crawford—and improve their understanding of the delicate balance on these islands. Let's be completely honest, there are some competing priorities out there. There is the importance of Indigenous land tenure and providing that justice which is being rolled out on Stradbroke Island at the moment. But on Moreton Island we see a slightly more precarious situation where the relationship between National Parks and Indigenous custodians is less defined. So I'm calling on the state government to be very clear about these great sand islands and the arrangements we have for natural disasters, including fire. We need to do that, of course, because you don't always get the time you had on Fraser Island and, even when given time on Fraser, we couldn't get it right.
Australians are proud of the way we fight bushfires and proud of the way we live in areas that are bushfire prone. We want to take every precaution we possibly can. What that requires is published, publicly well-known fire plans developed in consultation with our Indigenous elders long before a bushfire shows up. You can't be knocking on the doors of our traditional leaders hours before you're planning on sending the plane into the air. That's precisely what happened. Indigenous elders need all the information presented to them. They can make perfectly well-informed decisions if given that opportunity. The conversation has to be held in advance about areas of the islands that have significant cultural value, areas where we might manage a non-intensive fire differently to a high-intensity fire. All of these provisions need to be understood not only by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service but also by the firefighters and, in reality, the general public. There are a lot of stakeholders on those islands. It's not just those who live there; it's those who run businesses, those who are dependent on tourism and those who are camping. They all want to know that they can do it safely and the island wants to know that they can safely do it in 10 or 20 years time.
For those reasons, I'll do one final call as we close out this year to make sure that we don't have a repeat of the bushfires we saw 12 months ago. The best way is prevention, and that starts with decent planning on our great sandy islands.
The question is that the House do now adjourn.
Question negatived.
Sitting suspended from 18:10 to 19:23
I move:
That the amendment be disagreed to.
I want every single person on the other side of this House to listen to what I've got to say, because this is your parting message to the people of this country—the people who have lost their jobs and the people who are unemployed. The Prime Minister's decision to oppose this amendment is a rotten Christmas present for 1.8 million Australians. It's cruel and it's an insight into the true nature of the government. By opposing this amendment, the government is telling Australians that the rate of unemployment payments will go back to the old Newstart rate in March—no ifs, no buts. In the other place, the government told Labor that you would support this amendment when it came back to the House, but you've reneged. That's what you've done: you've reneged. What does that say about this government? What does it say about this Prime Minister? Let's reflect on what this amendment will actually do.
A government member interjecting—
You might think it's funny, but people who are unemployed won't, friend. They just won't. So I suggest that you listen to what I've got to say. What does it say about this Prime Minister? Let's reflect on what this amendment will actually do. It will allow the minister to continue paying the coronavirus supplement after March next year. By refusing to accept this amendment, the government is saying that they do not even want the option of helping people who have lost their jobs. He is not the daggy dag he pretends to be—quite the opposite. This is another chance for the government to do the right thing, and, yet again, they have done the wrong thing by the Australians who need them the most.
Question agreed to.
I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate, and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
House adjourned at 19:26
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Falinski) took the chair at 10:00.
At the start of my contribution I'd like to say Merry Christmas to everyone. I updated the House at the end of October on the changes to Australia Post's delivery model and the impact this was having on my constituents. Since that time, I've been contacted by many more constituents—by those complaining about deliveries and also by employees of Australia Post who are gravely concerned about what is happening to their organisation. At the outset, I want to make it clear that this contribution is in no way an attack on the employees of Australia Post, and I again place on record my admiration for their work. This is no reflection upon them but on their management and the impact that their changes are having on the health and welfare of their employees and the service to my community.
The first point I want to make is that I'm very concerned about the health and welfare of workers at Australia Post. I particularly thank those who have approached me over the past few weeks to relay their concerns. They are so worried about their current situation that they asked to remain anonymous—and, of course, I will respect this. The news they relayed to me was not good. There is more mail and fewer staff, and employee hours and overtime have been cut. I'm sure that management will say that this is not true, but I believe what the constituents have told me directly to my face rather than what faceless executives in Melbourne have said on the public record. One worker has told me, 'We just want to go back to providing the public with the service we used to,'—and I have heard shocking cases of changed practices, inefficient practices, that mean that mail is not being delivered and is being returned to the depot. It's just a failing, failing service.
I'm proud to represent the sixth-oldest electorate in Australia. One retiree has contacted me about his experience with express post. His express letter took six days to arrive from Sydney. This is a two-hour drive from my electorate. The constituent wrote: 'A lot of elderly people don't know how to use email and rely on letters to communicate with family and friends. How does Australia Post justify their huge salaries? I would love a $5,000 watch. We could use it to afford living and medical expenses.' One young mother, Alex, from Garden Suburb, has experienced problems with deliveries. She was at home all day when her package was supposed to be delivered, yet she received a text message that night telling her that, as she had not been home, she needed to go to the post office in the next suburb to collect it. These are examples that clearly show that the reduction in services is impacting the people I represent in this place.
Australia Post is a much-loved and relied upon institution. Members don't like having to make contributions like this one. I'd certainly prefer to be focusing on the many positives from Shortland. But, when constituents come to me stressed and concerned about their work, it is my job to let them know that I hear them and that I will take this fight up for them.
In 2017 four-year-old Mia Wilkinson was a happy, active and healthy young girl who loved swimming and gymnastics. In October that year, Mia suddenly became critically ill and ended up in an intensive care unit on life support. Mia had sepsis in response to a bacterial infection. Against all odds, she fought hard and survived this deadly disease. But, as a result, her arms were amputated below her elbows and her legs were amputated below her knees. This brave young girl continues to amaze her friends and family with her resilience and strength.
Mia was one of the lucky ones. Every year in Australia, an estimated 18,000 adults are treated in an intensive care unit for sepsis. Of these, almost 5,000 will die. That's more than one person killed from sepsis every two hours. Shockingly, this is more than twice the number of deaths caused each year by road traffic accidents. Of those who survive, around half will be left with a permanent disability or impaired function. For children, sepsis is the leading cause of death and disability, according to Queensland Health, and yet we hear very little about it. Around half of all Australians haven't been heard of sepsis let alone the fact that people with the illness require urgent medical attention, just as they would with stroke, for example.
What is sepsis and how can we prevent it? Sepsis is the body's immune system overreacting to an infection, which can harm organs and tissue. It has been referred to as a silent killer because it can be extremely difficult to identify in the early stages. Symptoms such as laboured breathing, rapid heart rate, lethargy or confusion can be suggestive of less serious illnesses, like the flu. A misdiagnosis can be fatal because every hour of delay in getting proper antibiotic treatment increases the risk of a person with sepsis dying by between four and eight per cent. Professor Simon Finfer, a professorial fellow in the critical care and trauma division at The George Institute for Global Health, called sepsis a genuine time-critical emergency.
Little Mia Wilkinson was initially diagnosed with a gastro bug by her GP and sent home. A day later, her parents noticed she seemed incoherent and disoriented and took Mia to an emergency department. There she was diagnosed with influenza B and viral myositis and sent home again. Later that day, Mia developed a rash on her legs and was rushed back to hospital, where medical staff finally realised it was sepsis. Thanks to the perseverance of Mia's parents, she is still with us today. But the more awareness we can raise of this silent killer, the greater the chance of saving lives and preventing thousands of others from enduring what brave little Mia and her family have gone through.
I want to share the story of Stephanie, an epidemiologist from Newcastle, and her partner Tommy from the Solomon Islands. They fell in love in the Solomon Islands last year, in May they got engaged, and they were planning a wedding in 2020 and a family in 2021. Then the pandemic hit. Stephanie was with Tommy in the Solomon Islands at the time but was recalled to Newcastle to provide expert assistance to our initial pandemic response. Naturally, they applied for an exemption to travel restrictions for Tommy to join her—not citizenship, they just wanted permission for him to fly. Sadly, Border Force refused, with only the vague explanation that reuniting them did not outweigh the risk to the Australian community. Very strange, given that the Solomon Islands is one of the few countries to remain free of COVID-19 community transmission.
Stephanie has applied for the exemption 12 times, after hearing that success can come after multiple applications. Indeed, I'm aware of cases where exactly this happened. What a waste of public resources, not to mention people's time and energy. Anecdotally, there are also reports exemptions are more likely to be granted to people from largely white, western countries. It would trouble me greatly if this is a factor here. Stephanie has now been separated from Tommy for more than 250 days. Unsurprisingly, her mental health is deteriorating. In her words: 'The absurdity of this is too much to believe, and I'm completely heartbroken. I'm starting to look at options to leave Australia so that Tommy and I can be together.' This would be a great loss to our community and indeed, our nation, given Stephanie's important contribution to our pandemic response. On this, Stephanie wrote: 'It's painfully sad and confusing that constant refusals for me to be reunited with my partner should result in me considering ways of leaving the country when Australia is desperate for people with the skills that I have.'
While I'm not privy to the internal workings of Border Force or how decision are being made, I see a grave lack of transparency, accountability and due process. If you're a formal Liberal minister it seems you can come and go as you please. Indeed, we have learnt that Tony Abbott has been granted multiple automatic exemptions, while tens of thousands of Australians and their loved ones remain stranded. Stephanie's plight deserves the minister's close attention. I urge him to put a stop to the constant refusals which threaten to send a highly skilled Australian epidemiologist from her home and our shores. This would be a terrible loss for Australia. I urge the minister to reconsider Stephanie's application as a matter of urgency and compassion.
Australia is home to such a wonderful and vibrant art, culture and entertainment scene. From the ancient traditions of our Indigenous peoples to the modern, from the great works of our opera companies to the diversity multiculturalism has brought to our shores, the arts help define us as individuals and as a nation.
We all know that the arts and entertainment sectors have been amongst the worst hit during the COVID-19 pandemic, something I've spoken about before in this place. I am certainly seeing this in the evidence we are receiving through the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts hearings and submissions. I'm very pleased to be a member of the committee during its critical inquiry into the needs of the arts sector as we emerge from the pandemic. Across my own electorate, theatre companies, musical groups, galleries and performance spaces were shut or unable to perform due to the entirely necessary but devastating COVID-19 restrictions. But the good news is that, as we end this awful year, we are seeing the green shoots of a return to some kind of normality. It is going to be a long, hard road back, but we can start to hope that this has been a long intermission, which will lead to a second act brimming with excitement and hope for the future.
Like Malcolm returning to take back his birthright from Macbeth, the arts community in North Sydney is returning with a myriad of productions and activities. I hope local residents will take advantage of these opportunities with gusto, and, by so doing, show their support for our local artists and performers. For example, the magnificent Ensemble Theatre has launched its 2021 season with the promise of seven great productions, starting in January with a classic riff on Australian decency, Kenny. We've already been delighted by the Hunters Hill Theatre company's production of Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap; of course, I'm sworn not to reveal whodunnit. Lane Cove Theatre Company will start 2021 with the epic struggle between good and evil, Jekyll & Hyde: The Musical, and Willoughby Theatre Company's Priscilla, Queen of the Desert will dazzle audiences in May next year with its shimmering costumes and performances. It will mean something extra when Tick belts out 'I will Survive', I'm sure—and I'll refrain from singing that now! For music lovers, the incredible Lane Cove Youth Orchestra, led by Lyndall McNally, is back next week, with its Live at Last isolation project, which seeks to capture the loneliness of lockdown and includes a new work by resident composer Tim Hansen. In the visual arts, I was immensely proud to help launch last Friday the Royal Art Society of NSW's latest exhibition, which celebrates the society's 140 years. It can be viewed at their Lavender Bay galleries. These are just a taste of what has been and what is to come in our local arts scene. There are many, many more, which I don't have time to mention. So my message to residents is a simple one: why not include a ticket or a subscription to an arts event in the presents under the Christmas tree this year? It would make a great gift, both for your loved ones but also for our artists, who've endured so much in 2020, and would give them the Christmas they deserve.
There are about 37,000 Australians stranded overseas during a deadly pandemic who are desperate to come home, and Christmas is in two weeks and one day. On 18 September, the Prime Minister said he understood the problem. On 18 September, the Prime Minister promised to fix it. Since then, the number of Australians stranded overseas has grown by more than 40 per cent. The Prime Minister promised to fix the problem; 82 days later, the problem is 43 per cent worse. There are countless Australians crashing on couches, and people who need medical care who have lost thousands of dollars in cancelled flights. Many from my electorate of Corangamite are stuck overseas. A humanitarian worker from Anglesea on the Great Ocean Road has spent the past year selflessly giving of himself to limit the destructive impact of COVID-19 in Africa. Ian Dawes has been stuck in the Middle East with no return date. He and his wife are growing increasingly anxious as his visa expiry nears. Ian was in South Sudan and Iraq doing humanitarian work, before becoming blocked from returning home from Duhok. Ian asked my office a very sensible question: 'A major concern is, if I cannot go home, where am I expected to travel after Iraq? Why does the government assume other countries would allow me entry when my own country won't?' Ian is just one of the many, many constituents that have called, emailed, written and Zoomed my office to seek support where this government has failed in its duty.
Section 51 of part V of the Australian Constitution makes the Morrison government exclusively responsible for quarantine. There are seven different models of air mobility craft in the Royal Airforce. There are built-for-purpose COVID field hospitals, only eight kilometres from here in the ACT, that the government constructed in 37 days. There are spacious and sweeping areas with no standing population all across our great country. The task is challenging, to be sure, but it is the government's job. If you wanted to do it, you would. You'd get the ministers together. You'd make a plan. You'd actually create federal quarantine spots. You'd organise the flights, and you would bring stranded Australians home.
Ian from Anglesea got up and travelled to the other side of the world to help people in need as the pandemic swept across the globe. Ian's an ordinary citizen who put others before himself in a crisis. But his government, the Morrison government, cannot do the same. This is what the Morrison government has made of the 82 days since promising to fix the problem: the problem is 42 per cent worse. Please, Prime Minister, act on this now and bring our Australians home.
Nobody who was in Lithgow or its surrounding districts on Saturday 21 December 2019 will ever forget that day. It was on that day, during the long, exhausting Black Summer, that the hills around Lithgow exploded into flames. The Lithgow Workies Club served as the community's emergency evacuation centre, and I was standing outside the club as the emergency was at its height. You could feel the heat from the flames from the car park. The air was filled with the sound of sirens. I could see homes on fire in Lithgow. There were choppers in the air. There was smoke, and people were scared. Community members started arriving at the club. Some asked what was going to happen. Cars towing trailers filled with farm animals pulled up.
Amidst that terrible emergency on that terrible day, the Lithgow Workies Club served as an oasis of calm and compassion. Nobody was turned away. The very young and the very senior, animals big and small—all were made welcome and reassured by the calm, friendly and familiar staff at the Lithgow Workies Club, who, at the same time, were no doubt worried about their own families, friends and properties.
So today, I would like to thank and pay tribute to the management and staff of Lithgow Workies for the courage, kindness and compassion they displayed on that day and on many others during that awful summer. In particular, I would like to acknowledge general manager Geoff Wheeler; directors Howard Fisher, Michael Quinn, Ray Warren, Darryl Goodwin, William Gregory, Trevor Schram, and Darry Fitzgerald; and staff members Shane Wade, Julie Rushworth, Shae Gillard, John Pillans, Linda Crowe, Brian Bonus, Joel Bilby, Merilyn Moore, Donna Bender, Lexi Smith, Kurt Lewicki, Gavin Wormald, Jamie O'Conner, Tony Northey, Dawn Hinchcliff, David Sutherland, Gilles D'Argent, Joy Brown, Tim Standing, Mark McPhail, Mohammed Tahsin, Luke McLean, Dylan Williams, Chris Starkey, Wendy Halpin, Kayla Anlzark, Brooke Tilley, Jonathon Engeler, Jillian Wheeler, Melanie Quinn, Jemaya Staines, Mitchel Cunningham, Bailee Staines, Sarah Mariner, Nicole Brookes, Marie McFadden, Sheena Braine, Lyn McCann, Dorelle Barbaro, Donna McManus, Kristy Futcher, Renae Piggott and Saaskia Girdler.
It's sometimes said that during the difficult times, when the chips are really down, you can see a person's real character. And the same could be said about communities. If Australia wants to see a study in courage and bravery, compassion, love and kindness, it should take a good look at how Lithgow and the communities of the Central West dealt with the bushfire emergency during that summer of black. Lithgow showed the nation that it has all those qualities in spades. So, on behalf of a grateful community, I'd like to offer a heartfelt thank you to all of the staff at Lithgow Workies. Our parliament acknowledges this wonderful club and the wonderful community of Lithgow today.
Merry Christmas, everybody. This is my last speech in this place for this year, so I want to use the opportunity to thank everybody in my local community who has done so much to help us get through this year from hell—doctors, nurses, ambulance officers, cleaners, scientists, cops, teachers, childcare workers, aged-care workers, truckies, taxi drivers, bus drivers and lots more. They've reminded us just who does the most important jobs in our local community. What's that old saying? Not all heroes wear their undies on the outside. A lot wear uniforms. A lot wear name badges and lab coats. So thank you. Thank you for helping to keep us safe.
I also want to thank everyone in my community who went and got a COVID test when they felt a bit crook, everyone who followed the rules and everybody who gave up so much. We didn't just miss out on going to the footy and going to parties this year; a lot of us missed out on going to funerals, and we missed each other. There have been some ordinary moments—politicians fighting over borders; people fighting over bog rolls—but they've been the exception. This year we've really proved what an extraordinary country we are—and it's not just how we've fought off the worst of the pandemic. This year we also had to fight fires that killed billions of animals, destroyed millions of hectares, incinerated thousands of homes and killed at least 34 Australians and Americans. In the aftermath of that, as the smoke cleared, my community shone again.
I've spoken before in this place about some of the extraordinary things that my community did to help others who'd lost everything in the fires, and here's just one more. Majd Chami is a young bloke who lives in my electorate; he's just turned 18. He did the HSC this year. But he did a lot more than that. He works at Berala Woolies and he's the customer service manager there. When the bushfires torched the South Coast of New South Wales, he put a small donation box out the front of the store to encourage customers to put things in. The problem was: the box wasn't big enough, because, within a couple of days, he had enough donations of food and other essentials to fill a truck, and he took the truck down to Ulladulla to help people who'd lost everything.
He did the same thing when Beirut exploded in August—except, in that case, that was a tragedy on the other side of the world, so people couldn't donate food. So he encouraged people to donate cash and set up a mechanism at the cash register where people could donate. When other Woolies in the area found out, they did the same thing and it extended right across New South Wales. Within a couple of weeks, he'd raised $74,000 for the Red Cross in Lebanon.
It shows the difference one person can make. When the whole community joins in, we can do even more. And we proved that this year.
I would like to speak today about the situation in Artsakh, a matter of deep concern for thousands of Armenians who call Bennelong home. I had hoped to be delivering this speech in a motion earlier this week, but, unfortunately, it was not selected for debate. Regardless, what is happening in that part of the world is deeply concerning and needs to be called out.
While 2020 has been a horrific year for the whole world, spare a thought for the people of Artsakh, nestled between Armenia and Azerbaijan, who have had the added tragedy of war visited upon them. In September, Azerbaijani troops invaded the area, which is largely inhabited by ethnic Armenians who have lived there for centuries. Azerbaijani troops bombed the capital, and there have been allegations of war crimes committed through attacks on hospitals, churches and schools.
I stood up in this chamber months ago calling for peace in the area. While it is pleasing to see that a ceasefire has been agreed to, it is deeply saddening to see that the conditions this imposes on the local residents of Artsakh are oppressive and short-sighted. Huge areas of Artsakh have been turned over to Azerbaijan, which undermines the territorial integrity of the country. Azerbaijanis aren't happy that they haven't won more land, and Armenians are devastated that their land has been taken. This is not a recipe for long-term peace.
This conflict sounds distant, but, for thousands of Armenians in Bennelong, it is chillingly real. Many have family in Stepanakert or, worse, have family in the convoys of refugees who've had to flee.
A few hundred Armenians came to parliament yesterday to hold a protest against the Australian government's apparent ongoing apathy over the conflict. I joined them in front of the lawn with my friend and colleague Tim Wilson, and together we were pleased to accept a letter, which we have passed on to the government. In Australia, we must do more to condemn the aggression in the area and call for self-determination for the people of Artsakh.
I visited there last year and was impressed by how normal things were. People weren't greedy for expansion or hungry for war. Like everyone else across the world, they just wanted peace and security so that they could live their lives in harmony. This opportunity has been ripped away from them, while the international community has stood by.
Thank you to the Armenian National Committee for your continued activism and support of all Armenians living in Australia. And, most importantly, our hearts go out to everyone with friends and family in Artsakh. This has been a tragic conflict, but there are real concerns that it may be dwarfed by a disastrous peace.
I rise today to outline to the chamber a report that we have prepared in my electorate that is based on the experiences of Bendigo and Bendigo residents with the aged-care sector. It is no secret to any of us that the aged-care sector is in crisis. It was in crisis before the pandemic, the pandemic has exacerbated the crisis and today we're still in the same situation. Whilst we acknowledge that there is currently a royal commission into the quality and care that residents receive within aged care, we felt the need to put the Bendigo experiences of the aged-care sector on the record. I'll be seeking at the end of my contribution to table the report that we've prepared, because I feel that the voices of the people that we have heard in Bendigo do deserve to be on the Hansard record.
This report into the experience of many in my region is damning. We wrote to everybody over the age of 55 and asked them for their experiences. We asked them to complete a short survey, and this report contains the findings. We found that 90 per cent of people we surveyed agreed that there needed to be minimal staffing levels set in aged care and that these ratios needed to be safe.
It came as a shock to many in my electorate that we don't already have minimum staffing levels, that it's left up to the individual organisation or facility to set their levels. That created a difference of experiences. Ninety-seven per cent of people surveyed agreed there should be better training and support for staff in aged care. Seventy per cent said they agreed that people working in aged-care facilities did not have access to appropriate PPE during the pandemic and did worry about the future. These are just some of the statistics contained in the report, which says that people in my electorate of Bendigo agree that we need to have safe minimum staffing levels in our aged-care facilities and we need to support the staff working in the facilities.
When we spoke to people working in the sector, their stories backed up what others said: that they felt under pressure, that there weren't enough of them, that they're exhausted, particularly at the end of the pandemic and where we are at the moment in Victoria, that new staff didn't have the skills of old staff, because there was not the same focus on training.
This report is important. It is compelling. I seek leave to table the report so others can learn from our experiences.
Leave not granted.
I'd like to acknowledge the incredible success of the Dunoon United Football Club. Dunoon is a great little village in my community. It's home to around 1,000 people in the village and surrounds. Despite its small size and the club only having been founded in 1984, they have on average 250 players a season, with 15 to 20 teams. The club was recognised as club of the year for northern New South Wales in 2013 as well as the best sports organisation at the 2018 Australia Day awards. The social six competition started in 2015 and now has 25 teams focusing solely on the social benefit of community sport. The teams are for all ages and all skill levels.
Dunoon United have also shown enormous success in developing female football. Females make up nearly 50 per cent of the player base, and the club has produced a huge amount of representative talent: Claire Farrington, Breanna Gatt, Jazmin Bertuzzi, Nina Collins, Darcy Heffernan, Gabriella Hill, Cassandra Hill, Emily Bloomfield and Audrey Jones all came through the juniors at the club and have gone on to play national Premier League or higher. I may be a bit biased, but Rosie, my daughter, was a pretty handy player for the club as well, I thought! Claire Farrington has gone on to play for the Brisbane Roar and has now moved to America to play college football.
I'd like to acknowledge the current executive. To President Liz Vickers, Vice-President Simon Webster, Brenda Reyes, Rob Gatt and the committee: Leisa Hofstetter, Luka Taylor, Gary O'Connell, Linda McDonald, Bruce Nixon, Max Nunnen, Abbey Hodson, Vanessa Eden, Scott McNeil and Jess Hyde. All their successes are through hard work and a clear vision of the purpose they have for the club. I believe the club is one of the finest examples of community sporting organisations I've seen.
I'd like to acknowledge the incredible career of Michael Smith, who has retired from the New South Wales Ambulance service after 41 years. Michael was born and raised in Lismore and joined the ambulance service on 15 October 1979, aged just 19. When he joined, it was just nine weeks of training and he was straight into the ambulance as a paramedic. He's been stationed at the Lismore ambulance station for his entire career. He spent 25 of those 40 years with the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service as a paramedic and was one of the longest-serving helicopter paramedics in the state. His passion for his job has worn off on his family, too: his daughter, Lucy, is a paramedic in Queensland, and his son, Ben, is a combat medic who served in Iraq. Michael was very thankful as the New South Wales and Queensland health organisations organised for Lucy to spend the day working with her father on his last shift. He has recently won a New South Wales Service Medallion for his incredible career in service. I know his wife, Julie, and his children, Ben and Lucy, are very proud of him. Michael, I thank you for everything you have done for our community.
We take so many things for granted, and having regular meals is one of them. But it's estimated that up to one in five Australian children could be missing out on meals, for many different reasons. It's a shocking statistic. But the awesome staff at Vineyard Public School have decided to do something about it. They've started a free breakfast club. Each morning, staff voluntarily arrive early at school to make sure their students are learning on a full stomach. The breakfast club is generously supported by Riverstone residents and community organisations, including Foodbank and the Riverstone-Schofields RSL. Donations are always welcome, including non-perishable items. I recently visited the school to make a donation of reusable bowls, plates and cutlery and a new toaster. The staff are passionate about what they do, and this initiative is making a real difference to the attentiveness and behaviour of students in the classroom. Congratulations to the team at Vineyard Public School for your leadership and for making such a big difference to these children's lives.
I also want to acknowledge a hidden gem in Lalor Park: the Hub Markets at the Lalor Park Community Hub on Heffron Road. The markets comprise locals selling handmade crafts as well as jams, bric-a-brac and jewellery. The stallholders are so passionate about what they do. I want to mention Jimmy Singh, who is a good friend of mine and a keen woodturner. It was a pleasure to visit Jimmy at the markets last month to pick up some unique Christmas presents for my friends and family. I also scored a stash of chutneys, mustard, jams and pickles that I've brought to Canberra for my colleagues to enjoy. If you're in need of some Christmas gift ideas, there's still time to pop down to the markets. There is a twilight session on tomorrow, Friday 11 December, from 2 pm until 7 pm. Please consider supporting our local stallholders when you're shopping for Christmas gifts this year. Shop small, and shop local—because local small businesses have done it tough this year, and they need our support more than ever.
On a final note, I want to wish all the residents of Greenway a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. 2020 has been an incredibly difficult time for so many in our community, particularly with necessary restrictions meaning we haven't been able to mark important occasions like Easter or Anzac Day as one community. But because of the community's hard work and willingness to follow health advice, we're now in a position where we can gather safely, and I thank all the residents of Greenway for the way in which we've conducted ourselves over the past couple of months. May this Christmas period bring you joy and happiness, and I wish you very well for the year ahead. If you are travelling on our roads, please do so safely. I look forward to continuing to work for you as our local member of parliament in 2021.
I hope the member keeps a COVID-safe distance as we descend on her office for the chutney! I call the member for Leichhardt.
The Queensland border has finally come down, and the visitors are pouring in. But we're still being subjected to some baffling decisions by the Queensland Labor government. Cairns is home to the largest reef fleet in the state, and operators have been itching to take people out on our magnificent and very healthy Great Barrier Reef. But, despite the fact that you can go to the local pub—you can sink a schooner with your mates or dance away the night—and you can go to a football field with 52,000 people, sadly, our reef operators are still being subjected to draconian restrictions. One of the excuses the state Labor government have given our reef operators as to why planes can be packed but reef operators are being forced to operate on less than 25 per cent capacity is—wait for it—that 'consideration must be given to the possibility of inclement weather and how this would impact on capacity and social distancing if people were forced inside'. What an absolute load of rubbish. The hypocrisy is now beyond a joke. Queensland Labor government are also flatly refusing to make public the so-called health advice that this decision has been based on. What are they hiding?
The Queensland Premier ran a very successful COVID scare campaign to get people to vote for her, and it worked. It's now time to move on and get back to some sort of normality. But what makes my blood boil even more is the fact that we now have an Assistant Minister for Tourism Industry Development in Michael Healy, based in Cairns, and he's been as quiet as a church mouse in relation to this issue. This is the same person who had a former career as a senior executive in the local marine tourism industry, so he knows too well the impact that these restrictions are having on his former industry, and I have absolutely no doubt that he's been giving the same lip-service to the industry, with talking points that are fed to him from Brisbane.
But our city and our reef operators want more. We've been shut down for months. This is our opportunity, leading into Christmas. The Victorian and New South Wales borders are open. People want to get out onto the reef. They cannot get out there at the moment because 25 per cent capacity makes it impossible. So we are getting a lot of people going up there with an expectation and leaving very, very disappointed, making it much harder for our reef operators to resume. We want people to fly into our city. We want some advocates for our city. And we want somebody who will stand up and fight for the industry.
I say to Mr Healy: you need to get out there and have a voice. Sadly, over the last month in the role, he's been off to a very poor and disappointing start. I'm not really surprised. He's always been a Brisbane man based in Cairns. I just hope that, in time, with a realisation that he has a responsibility to an industry that he knows so very well, he will actually get out there and say: 'This is not good enough.' We've still got time before Christmas. The flights are coming in. And I very much hope that he proves me wrong and gets out there and does his job.
I am reluctant to call the member for Solomon, as I fear he is going to breach a standing order! But I call the member for Solomon.
Thanks, Deputy Speaker! I stand with the former Yellow Wiggle, Greg Page, in his mission to save 25,000 Australian lives in Australia every year. I recently caught up with Greg, and he told me the story of how he collapsed on stage during a Wiggles performance. He was raising money with the Wiggles for the bushfire victims. He collapsed because he was having a heart attack. What saved his life was that a bystander performed CPR and also that nearby and available was an automated external defibrillator or AED at the RSL club where the Wiggles were performing.
Greg has now started a charity called Heart of the Nation, dedicated to saving the lives of people who experience sudden cardiac arrest, whether it's at home, at the workplace or out in public. A better community response for people going into cardiac arrest can help increase the chances of surviving it, and Greg is working hard to raise public awareness about how we can do just that.
It's vital that more people are confident in performing CPR and that we have more defibrillators out in the community available for people to use. We also need more people to know how to use the AEDs. Only one in 10 people survive a heart attack—one in 10. Knowing where an AED is located in a public space can certainly be the difference between life and death. Here in the Federation Chamber, there's an AED in the back. We need to develop a nationwide approach to locating AEDs, both through improved signage and a single phone app. I want to congratulate St John Ambulance in the Northern Territory for the incredible work that their paramedics do and their dedication to community education and awareness through their first aid and CPR courses, and on their excellent campaign to place up to 1,000 public-access defibrillators, AEDs, in the NT by next year.
With sudden cardiac arrest being one of the leading causes of death in Australia, having a defibrillator, an AED, in your workplace, your community club, your sporting organisation or at home, can be the difference between life and death. We need to make defibrillators more accessible and train more people in the use of them, and we will increase the survival rates.
It's important that signage for AEDs is unique and highly visible so it doesn't get lost among other emergency signs. I ask honourable members to just keep a lookout when you're going through an airport or another public space and see if you can see the AEDs. Sometimes you can't. One of the reasons for that is that they're not bright enough—they don't stand out enough.
I congratulate Greg Page on the work he's doing. This yellow colour—of my bright yellow skivvy—may be something that you just can't miss.
Today I rise to speak about and thank those who assisted at a major fire which occurred recently within my electorate of Mitchell. On Sunday 29 November, during a weekend of sweltering heatwave conditions that Sydneysiders will remember, a fire began at Water Dragon Way in Moxham Park stretching from Winston Hills through to Northmead. Homes on Whitehaven Road were immediately affected, and embers ignited onto a heritage listed house. Residents will remember the winds that weekend, with gusts of up to 100 kilometres an hour recorded at the height of the fire as it spread aggressively and quickly throughout my electorate in Northmead. Sixteen fire trucks, a waterbombing aircraft and 100 firefighters responded to this fire and controlled the blaze by late afternoon. Many homes were at risk, but, thanks to the efforts of firefighters, locals and citizens, only one house received actual fire damage.
I want to commend and thank Fire and Rescue NSW RP 57—Rescue Pump Wentworthville—together with 15 other Fire and Rescue NSW brigades and the North Rocks Rural Fire Service, who were so quick to respond to this dire emergency in these dire conditions at 10 Whitehaven Road, Northmead. I also want to thank Rescue Pump Wentworthville, who were first on the scene and returned the following day; P58, Pump Beecroft; T94, Tanker Kellyville; Amy Andrew and Chris Langshaw; P94 Pump Kellyville Station Commander Bill Devereaux; David Winchcombe and Josh English; AP97 Aerial Pump Huntingwood; P96 Pump Scofield Station; pumps Guilford and Parramatta; CAFS; pumps Smithfield, Eastwood, Cabramatta, Seven Hills, Horningsea Park, Silverwater; and the bulk tanker from Hornsby.
Fire and Rescue NSW were ably supported by the Rural Fire Service from North Rocks, and 11 hours and seven minutes after the time the emergency was called, the fire was blacked out, with Fire and Rescue NSW looking actively to extinguish hotspots until the evening. The fire was completely extinguished 24 hours after the initial call after those 45-degree days. From a day of extreme fire conditions, I also thank 67 Baulkham Hills station commander and firefighters as they were at a fire in Epping.
To the residents, who went above and beyond, helping their neighbours and the properties—I was texting with people in the street as it was occurring. I want to make particular mention of the Campbell-Rogers family, who that morning had discussed their bushfire plan with Chris, their dad, who is paraplegic and in a wheelchair, with limited mobility. They got him out and they got their mum out, but the three teenage children, Eleanor and the twins, Erica and Peter, decided that, if there was time, they would assist with putting out spot fires before evacuating. With 100-kilometre-an-hour gusts and the fire raging down a bush corridor opposite their house, they evacuated their dad and then hosed down neighbouring properties and doused spot fires when they saw them before the firefighters were able to take over.
I want to thank them. I want to thank everyone in that street who helped each other out. That's the great Aussie spirit. I want to take the opportunity to say: get your bushfire plan ready for this summer, and look after each other as this family ably did for our community.
I recently met with Harry Gill and other community leaders from the WA Punjabi CLUB, who raised concerns with me about the farmers protests occurring in India at the moment. As some members may be aware, in India there are currently nationwide farmers protests happening in response to new agricultural laws in the country. Farmers in India say the new laws will leave them poverty stricken and at the mercy of corporations and monopolies. The situation is really quite concerning for thousands of Australian citizens, residents and students who have strong ties, family and links with farming communities in India, in particular the Sikh community. Cowan has a large constituency of Australians from the Indian diaspora, who have made and who continue to make such a significant contribution to Australia. I'm particularly proud to represent them here.
The changes that are being introduced in India are particularly significant as the agriculture industry there employs more than 40 per cent of India's workforce. In a country of over 1.3 billion people, it's actually quite hard to fathom how many people this has the potential to impact, but evidence of the scale can be seen in the size of the protests currently in India.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:44 to 10:50
As I was saying, in late November, India had the largest protest in history—a nationwide general strike in support of the farmers that involved around 250 million people. Since then, hundreds of thousands of farmers have converged around Delhi to protest against the laws. There are over 500 farmer unions protesting. Transport unions representing over 14 million truck drivers, bus drivers and taxi drivers have come out in support of the farmers, threatening to halt movement of supplies in certain states.
The protests have forced the Indian government to meet with representatives of the farmers, but so far they haven't been able to reach a compromise. In response to these laws, the farmers are asking for a revocation of the farm act, for minimum price floors and for the government to withdraw all the legal cases against protesting farmers. The community representatives that I met with even told me that, in order to discourage farmers from joining the protests, some Indian media outlets have tried to defame the Sikh farmers by labelling them terrorists. I certainly hope and urge that the Australian government use all its diplomatic efforts and means available to support the farmers in India. I hope the Indian government takes these needs in consideration.
In the time left, I'd like to thank Mr Harry Gill, the WA Punjabi Club and the Sikh community in Western Australia for the invaluable contributions that they continue to make to our country.
I really want to wish the people of Petrie a merry Christmas. As you would know, Queenslanders from the Sunshine State are a happy bunch. I think it's all the vitamin D we get up there! But we're blessed in the Petrie electorate with a wonderful outdoors climate, and we love to take advantage of that. Suburbs like Clontarf, Margate, Woody Point, Redcliffe, Scarborough, Newport and Deception Bay all hug the Moreton Bay coastline, and the rest of the suburbs enjoy cool sea breezes and treat the waterfront as an extended backyard.
Beach activities like swimming, kite surfing, lifesaving, boating, jet skiing, dragon boat racing, sandcastle building, whale watching or just picnicking bring the tourists in droves and, of course, generate much-needed business for SMEs. It's a diverse, innovative and hardworking economy that takes advantage of the region's natural assets to bring positive outcomes to the greater community. The Morrison government announcements around the JobMaker hiring credit, boosts to apprenticeship subsidies, the instant asset write-off scheme and the all-important JobKeeper have helped shore up local jobs and businesses.
The area is one of the fastest growing in the region, and with this comes increased pressure on infrastructure. The Morrison government has a very good working relationship with the Brisbane City Council and the Moreton Bay Regional Council and, combined with our federal funding, those councils have a strong record when it comes to delivering on time and on budget. Projects like Norris Road and Hoyland Street at Bracken Ridge are underway and will improve safety and traffic flow. I'm also looking forward to working with the Moreton Bay Council on different road projects in Griffin, Kippa-Ring and Mango Hill. The Queensland government has finally begun work on the Deception Bay overpass, and the federal government has contributed 80 per cent of that funding. That's going to be great for the residents of Deception Bay and the businesses up in that area.
The Morrison government recognises the Petrie electorate is a tight-knit community and values volunteers. This year, there's been $70,000 in grants awarded to community volunteers—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:53 to 11:09
I want to thank the community volunteers in my electorate: school P&Cs and P&Fs, sporting and recreation clubs, environment groups, church groups, Lions, scouts, guides, RSLs, Quota and Zonta. Thank you to all of these different organisations for what you do.
I also want to say sorry to people in my electorate who have lost loved ones this year. Losing a loved one is very difficult. My uncle died in October this year, and it's very hard. Leading into Christmas, I just want you to know that I know that it's a tough year for you, particularly with the global pandemic, but life is about relationships, so make sure you spend time with loved ones.
I know that 2021 will be great for our nation. Coming out of the pandemic will be difficult, but I think that we're a great country. We'll continue to do well, and I'll continue to do my best as your MP.
I stand here as a proud Queenslander and a big fan of all things sport. When you think of Queensland, you think of our great sporting prowess. This week the Queensland government and Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk look forward in a way that continues to put our state's best foot forward in regard to our economy, jobs and the future of our great state. This week the Premier met with John Coates from the Australian Olympic Committee to reboot Queensland's bid to host the 2032 Olympics. The meeting laid the groundwork for the full bid process to restart early next year. Instead of, as is traditional, a city hosting the games, Queensland's bid involves a statewide approach, which will likely include regional cities like Cairns, Townsville and the Gold Coast. Securing the Olympics and Paralympics would pour tens of billions of dollars into the economy in tourism exposure and in the building of transport infrastructure.
Government analysis has shown that a 2032 Olympics could turbocharge Queensland's economy, with fast-tracked infrastructure projects and a tourism boost creating as many as 130,000 jobs and bringing in $2.5 billion that would be provided by the IOC. Preliminary investigations by the Council of Mayors of South-East Queensland have found that ticket sales would be around six times greater than those for the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games. This is what a strong future looks like for our state and our country. The Queensland government is dedicated to creating more jobs, and every Queenslander knows this is a fantastic opportunity for our state yet still understands that a vaccine and a lot of work will need to be undertaken to host such a prestigious and large-scale event.
Reflecting on the last few months, we know that there are challenges for our economy, both at a state level and at a national level. But the leadership of the Queensland Premier in keeping our borders closed and restrictions in place has put the Sunshine State ahead of the country. These decisions have meant that Queensland has been able to host some of the biggest sporting events held in 2020. Amid the extraordinary complications of coronavirus, the Queensland government has proven that it is the option for the Olympics, and I commend its leadership in the House today.
I know from visiting with the president of the IOC late last year that we were able to highlight what a magnificent sporting state my home state is, but I think it's time that our entire state got behind a future bid. I was delighted to see that the Premier has restarted the bid process for our home state, and my message is clear: let's go and get the 2032 Olympics for Queensland.
I thank the member for Oxley. Are we allowed to reveal that you're already in training for the new breakdancing category?
I'm already—
Well experienced!
on the dance trip!
What would you do if you were told you had a couple of weeks left to live? You'd get your affairs in order. You'd go and say your goodbyes. You'd go and kiss your loved ones. Some people didn't get the opportunity to do that this year. During COVID, 908 people passed. My condolences to all of their families. It's terrible, ghastly, to lose a loved one, particularly if it is a child. But, unfortunately, year in, year out, when it comes to road safety, 1,200 is the number of Australians that we lose on the road. We just seem to be numb to it. It's preventable; it is absolutely preventable. We spend money on roads. Both sides of this House are united in trying to save lives on the road, particularly on our urban roads. You are 17 times more likely to die in an urban area or in a regional and remote area. It's preventable because driver distraction is now playing an increasing role in fatalities in road accidents.
Some of us would normally have travelled abroad but will choose to stay here in Australia this year and travel on Australian roads. Please, when you're planning your holiday this year, drive to the conditions. Do not be that family that creates heartache and pain—for your wives, your husbands, your parents or your children—for those that you leave behind. When you get into a motor car, the safety of everyone in that vehicle is your responsibility. When you're a cyclist on the road, you are responsible for your own behaviour. It is your responsibility when you are a pedestrian, walking on a sidewalk, to be aware of the inherent dangers. It's your responsibility when you're behind the wheel of a truck to make sure that you're consciously competent and aware of the lives around you: those who you can see and those who are in your blind spots. If we do that, we can save a few more lives this Christmas—if people make a conscious decision when they go onto the road that they want to get home to their loved ones. Too many Australians—1,200 Australians—lose their lives annually. It's preventable. This pain shouldn't have to be felt by families and shouldn't have to be felt by our communities. Please, do the right thing this year: don't drive while you're drunk, put your seatbelts on and look out for driver fatigue. Get home safely to your parents and have a merry Christmas.
As we've heard from others, 2020 has been a very tough year for so many in Australia, including in my home state of Tasmania and particularly for those working Tasmanians and those that have been on the front line during this pandemic. To the supermarket workers, the cleaners, the truck drivers, the nurses, the aged-care workers: I want to say a huge big thank you for all of the work that you have done in what has been an incredibly difficult year.
I've said in this place before that Tasmania now has the highest unemployment in Australia. We also have the lowest participation rate. We also have the lowest percentage of the population in the workforce. Tasmanians also have the lowest wages: both the average and the median wage in Tasmania are lower than anywhere else in the country. Tasmanians have been doing it incredibly tough. And then what we saw from this government was an unscheduled Christmas present: cuts to wages for some of the lowest-paid. I will not stand by and allow this government to unilaterally cut the wages of some of the hardest-working and lowest-paid workers in my community. It is simply not on. I cannot believe the denials we heard from some on the government side yesterday in question time. They said that this was absolutely not what they were doing—and then I picked up the newspaper this morning to see them saying, 'We might undo it.' Yesterday you weren't doing it, and today you are going to undo it! What are you actually doing to workers, who have had an incredibly tough year? It's not fair. They've had enough. They've worked so hard, for so many in our community, all this year. It is not okay to play these games with their wages. They've had an incredibly tough time.
So many Tasmanians are unemployed. Indeed, the shocking number for Tasmania is that we have half a million people, that is 50,000 Tasmanians, who are either looking for work or looking for more hours. Fifty thousand—it's an incredible number of people doing it incredibly tough. When I get out and about in my electorate and talk to people about what sort of a year it's been, and in the calls to my office and contacts with my office, there are so many people crying out for assistance. We know that the changes to JobKeeper have had a huge impact on Tasmania's unemployment rate already. We know that the changes to JobSeeker are going to have a further impact on the Tasmanian economy. Talking to local business owners, cafe and restaurant owners, they are already seeing less money moving about in the Tasmanian economy because of these changes. At a time when unemployment is going up, and at a time when people's wages are already low, this is not the right thing to do. It is absolutely not the right thing to do to have less money circulating in the economy. My home state of Tasmania will not be able to survive with the types of cuts that the government are making to JobSeeker and JobKeeper and the cuts they are now proposing to the wages of very hardworking Tasmanians. The government need to rethink their strategy; I'm glad they are. But for them to say yesterday that they were not doing this—frankly, Tasmanians find that insulting.
I'd like to recognise the great work and the opportunities provided through All Abilities Futsal at Port Macquarie Sports Stadium. I recently met with Chris Whitfield and Cheree Risson, who run this fantastic program for people with disability and diagnosed mental health disorders. All Abilities Futsal started only three years ago as a once-a-week afternoon activity, and now they have more than 40 members and it runs every single day during the school week. The program works closely with the players and their families to ensure they can play safely and can connect with each other to achieve positive, long-lasting relationships.
Just watching the games, it was very easy to see what it means to the players. It was more than just a game of indoor soccer; it was a team, a sense of belonging and being part of a community. There was one young fellow there whose family, I was told, hadn't seen him run for 10 years, and he was out there running around in defence and in attack. There was another fellow there who, I was told and later saw confirmed, could kick the ball at 58 miles per hour. That was the kicking speed. So I made sure I stood behind him! This is great work done by Chris and Cheree , and I'd like to thank them and commend the players on the fantastic efforts that they all make.
I recently met with Les Mitchell, Sue Proust and Ted Giblin from the Hastings Birdwatchers. They expressed their concerns about the declines of common species of birds such as the willie wagtail, the laughing kookaburra, the galah, magpie-larks, welcome swallows, pied butcherbirds and crested pigeons. The Hastings Birdwatchers were established in 1993 and now have about 115 members. The principles of the Hastings Birdwatchers are to protect and promote the welfare of birds and their habitat. Indeed, groups such as the Hastings Birdwatchers advocate for birders to recognise their role in ensuring our native birds are here for our future generations by respecting and supporting the protection of birds and birdlife habitat. Groups such as the Hastings Birdwatchers carry out linear surveys, sometimes over decades, and devote their own time and pay their own costs for the benefit of birdlife and its habitat.
I'd like to thank them for the work that they do and for raising their concerns with me—in particular on the EPBC Act. I will continue, as their local member, to work with them in the future.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I rise to speak and take note of this report, because the National Disability Insurance Scheme is so important to so many people in the electorate of Dunkley. It has provided an opportunity for parents to get the sort of support they need for children, who often have severe physical, behavioural and intellectual disabilities. It's offered the opportunity for adults to live lives of dignity that before the NDIS they really struggled to access or to afford. It's really important, therefore, that we do all that we can to ensure the NDIS is working appropriately; the NDIA is overseeing a system that's making people's lives better, not harder; and that we safeguard against incremental attacks on that very important scheme.
There are two matters I wish to raise briefly in this contribution. First is to join my Labor colleagues and the shadow minister in thanking the incredible people who work in the disability sector. Whether it be work with people who are participants in the NDIS or with people who aren't participants but have disabilities, disability workers are some of the most amazing people in this country. Their work is often, as with aged-care workers, as much about love as it is about pay. It is certainly not about conditions, because they are doing an essential job of caring for vulnerable people, often for very little pay and in bad conditions. To the unions that represent workers in that sector—the ASU, the HSU, the United Workers Union and the AWU—we hear you and the way you stand up for your members. I can promise to be part of ongoing work to ensure that the insecure nature of a lot of the work in this sector is a priority to be addressed.
The second matter I want to raise is the proposal from the minister for these independent assessments. This is something that has been raised to me by a number of my constituents, both participants in the NDIS and service providers. We've seen that the minister, through the agency, has released discussion papers or consultation papers, and I have given an undertaking to my community that I will be holding a forum early in the new year for all those people who are concerned or interested in what this proposal might mean to them, as participants, service providers or family and friends of those who are participants, so that we can, as a community, discuss the issues and contribute to the consultation process.
I hold grave concerns about this independent assessment process, as do almost all of the experts and participants that you would speak to. I don't often advocate that people go and read an article in a newspaper to educate themselves about the complexities of a policy issue, but I would suggest that anyone interested in the status of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and where this government appears to be taking it takes the time to read Rick Morton's article 'The seven-year plot to undermine the NDIS' that was in TheSaturday Paper on 5 December. It does identify the way that, under this government, more and more control of what happens in the NDIS is being vested in the minister and the Commonwealth and not in the states and the participants. Having the decision-making power concentrated in the hands of the federal government or the minister is not what the scheme was intended to be. As Labor's shadow minister has said, he is concerned that 'there is a faction within the government who just simply want to reduce costs and make it hard to claim'—'a faction'; it's not everyone in the government, and we've seen the hard work from government members on the NDIS review committee and others. So it's not a blanket concern, but certainly it would appear that there are those whose commitment to the NDIS is less than satisfactory.
The concern as to the independent assessment process is that it takes away the ability of participants to have assessments completed by medical practitioners and allied health professionals, like psychologists, that they have an ongoing treating relationship with, and puts it into the hands of someone who doesn't know their history and background. It may be that, in some circumstances, that sort of assessment might be appropriate, but taking away the choice from participants may possibly have grave negative consequences.
So too may the possibility also raised in Rick Morton's article that, in order to bring about this change, the government will need to rewrite sections of the legislation that governs the NDIS, including the provision that regulates the relationship between states and territories and the Commonwealth and that, if that occurs, it would be 'the final step in giving all significant control of the NDIS to the federal minister'. Given the history of the way social services have been run under this government and the responsible ministers, that should be a grave concern to anyone. It should be a concern anyway, even if the responsible minister was the best minister anyone had ever seen, because, as I said, it is not the intention of the legislation.
As former Prime Minister Julia Gillard told TheSaturday Paper, people:
… campaigned for the NDIS because they wanted to be able to make decisions about their lives and to customise the best mix of services for their unique circumstances, needs and life plans.
Any reforms to the NDIS must remain true to these aims.
That will be my guiding principle as I work with my community to put forward our response to what appears to be a very inappropriate move by this minister to yet again undermine this service that is essential to so many vulnerable Australians.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Hello again, Deputy Speaker Freelander. I want to make a few remarks on this report. Many would say cyber-resilience is not the most sexy of topics, but it's incredibly important. I've been on the Public Accounts and Audit Committee as deputy chair for 4½ years now, and this report is very significant. There are some thematic recommendations that I think bring together work that the committee has done over the last few years and work that the Auditor-General has done for probably seven or eight years, with growing degrees of frustration. I stress that this is a set of bipartisan recommendations. Continuing the general tradition of the audit committee, all members of the committee have signed up to this report and these recommendations. I thank the chair and government members as well for their constructive contribution. In particular, though, the member for Gellibrand, who has particular expertise and passion about this area, made really substantive contributions.
This discussion occurs in the context, of course, of serious and growing cyberthreats to our nation, not just to the private sector but also to the public sector. I believe government should be an exemplar, not just because the operations of government themselves are critical to our national security, continuity of government, the welfare of the populace and so on, but also because government, in this area and in so many others, should be setting the example, the gold standard, for the private sector to follow.
So I put the question: how is the government going? Given my 4½ years looking at it and probably seven or eight years where this has been a real focus for the Audit Office, I have to say, depressingly, that not very well is the succinct answer. This report—signed off by all government members—is in many senses a damning indictment on the Morrison government's failure to ensure the cybersecurity of its own departments and agencies. There are a few that have come through, I would say, that are doing very well. Defence generally seems pretty good. The Australian Taxation Office is good. The Reserve Bank is good. But it falls away fast in terms of actual performance. There are staggeringly high rates—report after report—of noncompliance from the Commonwealth government with its own cybersecurity framework. As the years go on, you sit through these cyber inquiries and you feel like the proverbial goldfish going round in the bowl—here we go again. You hear the same excuses, 'Sorry, we didn't quite comply with the framework', 'We didn't quite get the mandatory four' or 'We haven't really got to the essential eight standards.' There are a series of recommendations, I think, that really start to suggest change.
I want to read into the Hansard a quote from the Auditor-General from his mid-term report. He's been in the role for five years. I nerded out a few weekends ago and spent a Sunday morning reading his mid-term report, and I'm very glad I did. It provides some really, really sharp insights from the person responsible for auditing the performance of the public sector for the last five years. He said:
… the category which consistently has the most number of financial audit findings raised relates to the information technology control environment, with the most common area relating to weaknesses in security management. These findings are consistent with the conclusions in performance audits of cyber security, which have also consistently identified non-compliance.
With cyber security being an area of government priority for many years, these findings are disappointing.
Now, if you read audit reports, the word 'disappointing' is very high in the lexicon of 'not good, bad, bad-bad'. It's Auditor-General language for 'this ain't good enough'. He continued:
The public sector operates largely under a self-regulatory approach. Policy owners—for example the Department of Finance for resource management … the Attorney-General's and Home Affairs departments for cyber security; and the Australian Public Service Commission for integrity—establish the rules of operation and then largely leave it to entities' accountable authorities to be responsible for compliance.
That's generally it. You find that the department sets the rules and then it's up to the other departments to follow the rules. Good luck! He continued:
There are almost no formal mechanisms in these frameworks to provide assurance on compliance. Often the ANAO is the only source of compliance reporting and our resources mean that coverage is quite limited. While I agree that accountable authorities must be responsible for entities' compliance, it is also clear that policy owners need to be held accountable if the regulatory frameworks they put in place for the public sector do not result in an acceptable level of compliance. For this to occur, they should at least have processes in place to identify the level of compliance and be willing to modify their regulatory approach if it is not working. Unfortunately, this has not been a common approach.
In plain English, what the Auditor-General's saying is that Home Affairs and AGD are responsible for the cybersecurity standards, and then they say, 'That's it. It's not our fault.' Well, we've had year after year of failure, where government departments fail the government's own cybersecurity standards, and this can't go on in the current threat environment. It can't go on. We cannot, year after year, have the same failed audit reports where things are not done properly.
Actually, it's not largely a problem with the rules, although we have suggested a few changes; it's a problem with culture. Cyber-resilience is about the application of the cybersecurity framework, and that goes to culture. Are these rules being operationalised in departments? It's nerdy stuff, but it's incredibly important.
What we found was that only just over one in four Commonwealth entities audited by the Australian National Audit Office had implemented the top four security measures recommended by the Signals Directorate—six years after they'd become mandatory. Six years on, one in four has implemented the top four mandatory rules. That's just not good enough. The government has had seven years of audit reports from the Audit Office and its own Public Accounts and Audit Committee, and they've failed to fix this. Despite the warning, the Morrison government hasn't done the basics. It's not good enough just to announce you've got a new framework. He's always there at the cybersecurity centres, popping up to say, 'We're going to impose new rules on the banks and new rules on the infrastructure providers.' Well, you've got to get your own house in order. You can't just be there for the photo op and not there for the follow-up. You can't just make the announcement of a new policy but not actually do the hard work of making sure all of the government's own departments, after seven years, comply with the most basic of standards. And the threats are growing.
I'll just mention three of the recommendations. First, we are saying that it is time. The Attorney-General's Department made this recommendation two years ago and the government went waffle, waffle, waffle. It is time the Attorney-General's Department came back and said, 'Why can't we mandate the essential eight?' There are the top four and there are these other ones that are more than good to have now. We want a report back to the committee on why we can't have all of those eight as mandatory and why we can't at least apply the top four to government business enterprises and the corporate Commonwealth entities. There are different sets of rules for the GBEs and for the public sector non-corporate entities.
Second is the protective security framework which sets the rules that the government adopts. This is something the Chair has been very interested in, and we support her in this. A few years ago the Audit Office thought, 'We need to put some more attention to this.' They looked at the rules and said, 'Actually, this isn't quite right for an audit framework.' So they've come up with a fantastic audit framework that the National Audit Office now use to audit cyber-resilience. It looks at behaviours—what's actually happening—not just what the rules are. We think that there's a need to align and harmonise those two frameworks so that some of the excellent insights that the Audit Office have gathered from their work and the behavioural stuff get back-engineered into the framework of the harmonisation, and the annual self-assessment questionnaire, which all the entities have to do, needs to actually pick up on this. It would make the whole auditing and accountability process much more transparent and much more streamlined if there were a more robust set of criteria that the agencies had to respond to. This is a very significant report. It will cost money. Someone's going to have to pay, but we've said, 'Enough is enough.' We cannot keep going on in the current threat environment. When we have a look at state actors, non-state actors and random hackers around the world, we cannot keep going on like this and having the same sets of repeated failures.
About 10 or 12 years ago, under the former Labor government, there was a degree of frustration from the parliament about major projects in Defence; parliamentarians were frustrated with this. The public accounts and audit committee then recommended the establishment of the Defence Major Projects Report, which the then Labor government, to its credit, funded. It's not always comfortable for governments to fund these things, because they're going to point out some of the government's own shortcomings, but it's the right thing to do from an audit methodology point of view if you're serious about integrity. It's now continued for 12 years, and it's a good report. Every year, out comes the Defence Major Projects Report. It's a limited-assurance audit report, where the public accounts and audit committee sets the rules each year for this and Defence and the Audit Office go and do it together. Defence gets value out of it, and the Auditor-General comes back to the parliament and says: 'Out of the major projects that you've put on the list, these ones are going well, for these ones we reckon there's not the evidence behind them, and we've got some problems with these ones.' It's a good report and it has improved Defence major projects.
We think it's time that we look at having the same limited-assurance audit report for cybersecurity, where, every year, the Auditor-General would do a limited-audit assurance report across all of the major public-sector entities and provide that advice to government. In this instance—a bit like Defence, but it would probably be a bit more so—there are national security sensitivities about identifying where the vulnerabilities are, so there might need to be a sort of sealed section of the report that goes off to ministers and the executive, or that the committee is briefed on in-camera, and the published version.
I commend this report. It is nerdy stuff, but it's incredibly important. I thank all of the committee members for taking this topic seriously and actually looking at some systemic recommendations, rather than just whacking the latest agency through the door.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to make some brief comments on the recently tabled interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, Never again: Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, on the destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters. Along with all of my Labor colleagues, I am very pleased to see that this report was unanimous. I was present in the other chamber when both the committee chair and the deputy chair spoke to this report, and it was very clear to me that there was a united voice on that committee on the shocking, outrageous destruction of one of the most culturally significant sites in Australia.
The destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters, which we now know were assessed as having the highest archaeological significance, was both disgraceful and a deliberate act. I think that is really what has been so shocking: the deliberate nature of the blasting. It is was a truly awful and avoidable act of destruction. It should never have taken place. But it should also never happen again anywhere in Australia. This interim report goes some way to putting some focus on the failings of Rio Tinto, the mining company that was responsible, and also on the inadequacy of the heritage protection laws at both Western Australian state and Commonwealth levels. Nobody gets off scot-free here. Nobody actually did the job that was expected, and, indeed, demanded in order to ensure adequate protection of what are not only ancient but also incredibly rich and diverse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures in this nation. Indeed, we often hear the comment that Australia is home to the world's' oldest continuous living culture. These are remarks that I hear at every citizenship ceremony, at every important occasion and in debates both in parliament and in the nation more broadly, yet under all our collective watches—we all bear some responsibility now—we witnessed the destruction of a site with at least 46,000 years of cultural significance but also some very contemporary significance. We know that one of the artefacts—a hair belt—following DNA testing had direct genetic links to surviving members of that community. So I don't think we can underestimate the pain and anguish which the traditional owners suffered.
As I said, this report has also identified some industry-wide problems such as the inadequacy of other legislative regimes for the protection of First Nations heritage. Many of the recommendations are directed at Rio Tinto, but they do affect the mining industry more broadly as well and, as I said, the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments. Labor expects all parties to respond to this report as a matter of urgency. The report notes a lack of communication between the offices of the federal ministers for the environment and Indigenous affairs, their departments and the frustrated efforts of the PKKP peoples to protect the rock shelters under the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. We welcome changes that are being made by the Western Australia government to strengthen protection laws. But we've got a long way to go, and I expect them to do more. We eagerly await the remaining work of this inquiry.
I want to close my comments by giving a special shout-out to one of the Catholic primary schools in my electorate, Holy Family Primary School, which contacted me when news about the wilful destruction of those caves broke back in June or July of this year. They had a lot of questions of me as their federal member in this place. I connected with them via a Zoom meeting from Parliament House to try to address some of their concerns. They expected this parliament to act swiftly and decisively. I'm looking forward to sending a copy of this interim report to Holy Family Primary School. I give a sincere shout-out to the school, to the principal and to the teacher, Jane Dougherty, who contacted me with all of those incredibly thoughtful and reasonable questions that young Australians have about the apparent disrespect that we have for the longest-living culture on this planet.
Debate adjourned.
Fraser is a community with remarkable diversity. Over 30,000 Vietnamese Australians call Fraser home. Vietnamese Australians have made an extraordinary and enriching contribution to our nation. Many of the Vietnamese Australians I represent left behind the country they love as refugees. This country welcomed them with open arms. I'm proud that communities like Sunshine and St Albans were especially welcoming to these new arrivals. Many of those families still call those suburbs home today. As the member for Oxley said in this place just a couple of days ago of the Vietnamese community in his electorate:
They are a proud group of Aussies who love this country but have never forgotten the country that they left behind …
I echo that sentiment. It very much applies to the Vietnamese community in my electorate.
I'm grateful to the Vietnamese Australians in my electorate for the welcome they've given me as the member for Fraser. They make an extraordinary contribution to our cultural life and to our economy. They are also a very generous and giving community. One example of many is the tireless support over many years that they have given to healthcare in the west, including extensive fundraising for the Joan Kirner Women's and Children's Hospital. Of course, this philanthropic, community-minded spirit has very much continued during the difficult COVID pandemic that we've just experienced throughout much of this year. Many vulnerable, isolated people were given considerable support through volunteer organisations throughout Fraser, but the Vietnamese community certainly gave considerably in that respect.
One of the first community events that I've been able to attend since the easing of restrictions was for the Au Co dance group, which promotes Vietnamese culture through song and dance. I was very glad to have been able to support this group, which received much-deserved funding through the 2019-20 Volunteer Grants program. To have got that grant in a very competitive process reflects their wonderful contribution to our community. I want to acknowledge a few of the Vietnamese community organisations that give so much to our community: the Vietnamese Community in Australia—Victorian Chapter; the Australian Vietnamese Women's Association, which attends so many of the functions that I attend in my electorate; the Australian Vietnamese Arts association; the Vietnamese Brimbank Senior Citizens Friendly Group; the Vietnamese Chinese Elderly Association in the west—and it was my privilege to grant a number of certificates to centenarians this year; the Hong Bang Vietnamese school; the Indochinese Elderly Refugees Association; the Quang Minh temple; and the United Vietnamese Buddhist congregation of Australia-New Zealand.
In addition to singling out the Vietnamese community, I also want to make some observations about what has been an extremely difficult year for the whole Australian community, but obviously, during parts of this year, in particular, for Victoria, for Melbourne and for Melbourne's west. In some respects, Melbourne's west was hit as hard as any community in Australia, in terms of the health aspects of the COVID pandemic but also in terms of the economic aspects, the mental health aspects and the isolation. It's been a very difficult year for the community.
I'm very proud of how the community was able to live, for many months, according to a number of very stringent but necessary constraints. In doing so, the Victorian community has been able to reduce the infection rate of COVID to extremely low levels, and indeed we now see that we have had a number of consecutive weeks of zero cases and zero fatalities.
It's important that we compare this to the experience overseas. At around the same time that Victoria was experiencing multiple hundreds of cases a day, a number of European cities and European countries were experiencing similar levels of infection. It is telling to compare and contrast the trajectories that those communities overseas and Victoria have experienced in the intervening period. Victoria stands out as a beacon for what can be achieved with a sensible and balanced response. I want to pay tribute to the community, obviously, but also to the state government and to bureaucrats and to the people who work in all of the different service agencies; to people who worked in aged care—to so many people in Victoria, in the community and in government, who were able to work together with the community to make that lockdown work.
Now, in contrast to those communities overseas, we are, thankfully, moving towards a Christmas where people can see their families and their friends, and we celebrate that. I thank the Victorian community for what they have been able to achieve and congratulate them.
Stretching over 286 kilometres, the Logan and Albert rivers have sustained the people of Forde for generations past and will do for generations to come. Over tens of thousands of years, the traditional owners of the land, the Yugambeh people, have camped, fished and lived along the banks of these two great rivers. More recently, the early German settlers in the mid-1800s found a peaceful haven overlooking these two rivers. Thereafter, these two beautiful rivers, nestled between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, have provided a living for people on their banks and everywhere else in between.
With the advent of early European settlement came dairy and cane farming, and the cane farming industry in particular still survives to this day. At its peak, the region was amongst the world's biggest and best sugar producing areas. In fact, the cane farms are still present today and Australia's oldest rum distillery, the Beenleigh Artisan Distillery, was born here and continues to distil the finest rum from vats of over 100 years old. The Rocky Point Sugar Mill, the only privately owned sugar mill in Australia, was established in 1879 on the banks of the Logan River in the Woongoolba area, which is in the electorate of Fadden—so my neighbour Stuart Robert's. From the rum distillery, to the cane farms, to the sugar mill, to a growing aquaculture industry, and, historically, to the dairy industry as well, the rivers and the industries born on their banks continue to flourish.
Today, in the modern era, the Logan and Albert rivers present us with different opportunities to pursue an ecotourism future focused on providing fun-filled experiences for tourists, families and recreational fishers alike. The Logan River Tinny Trail—an initiative of Logan City Council—is the beginning of this river based tourism dream, offering a self-guided heritage trail to provide an insight into the river's fascinating history, using a range of interpretive signs.
Mother Nature has provided us with these two great rivers, and it is our duty as custodians of the land to protect them, just as our Indigenous Australians have for millennia before us. The Morrison government's Fisheries Habitat Restoration Program will deliver $8 million in funding for 28 restoration projects across the country, including, importantly, in the Logan and Albert rivers. Under the program, $300,000 will be delivered for the Fishers for Fish Habitat on the Logan Albert rivers project, a collaborative and coordinated effort to restore the once-thriving fish population in these iconic South-East Queensland rivers. Implementing components of an approved strategic fish habitat restoration plan, this project will be spearheaded by Healthy Land and Water, an organisation with over 20 years experience in working to improve the natural environment. As experts in research, monitoring and project management, Healthy Land and Water deliver innovative, science based solutions for challenges affecting our landscape, waterways and biodiversity. Healthy Land and Water will spearhead this project with local community and stakeholders.
Some of the activities to be undertaken in the project include: at Ryedale Park establishing and monitoring fisher access tracks and boardwalk through the saltmarsh and mangrove ecosystems as well as the installation of in-stream structures for fish habitat; along Scrubby Creek the installation of habitat structures, large woody snags and riparian vegetation; in the Logan River Parklands bank stabilisation including large woody structures and revegetation; and in the lower Albert River, an oyster reef trial using gabion baskets filled with recycled shell installed in approved locations. People who love to fish know very well the importance of providing the right habitat, water quality and environment for our fish. OzFish brings volunteer fishers together to protect and care for our key fishing spots. They will be stepping up to create a new chapter for the Albert and Logan rivers. OzFish will be supported by existing chapters to actively involve our local fishers in the project.
Healthy environments are important not only for our plants and our wildlife but also for the health, wellbeing and happiness of us human beings. It gives us the opportunity to get out and be involved in our communities. I commend this program, and I look forward to seeing its results in the future.
The rental affordability index released last week shows Hobart is still the most unaffordable city to rent in Australia. Indeed, despite amendments to residential tenancy laws during COVID-19 which, among other changes, prevent rent increases on residential tenancies, rents in Hobart have still risen 37 per cent over the past five years. Alarmingly, Deputy Speaker, these increases are significantly outpacing any growth in wages, because although household incomes in Tasmania are significantly lower than the national average, rents are only marginally lower than the mainland averages.
This gap between income and rental expenditure is only widening. For example, the weekly median rent for a unit in Hobart is currently $403 compared to that of a Melbourne unit at $384 a week. The latest CoreLogic report shows that Tasmanian incomes are $226 a week below the national average. In other words, we are required to pay more with less. The outrageous prices of Tasmanian rentals really boil down to one thing—the lack of supply. Indeed, Tasmania's vacancy rate is currently sitting at 0.6 per cent, while there are 3,373 Tasmanians on the waiting list for social housing, with priority applicants waiting an average of 64 months to be placed. The result is that over 8,000 households in the private rental market are in housing stress, and this is unacceptable.
Adding to this problem is the impact short-stay accommodation, such as Airbnb, is having on the rental market in Hobart. The lack of regulation in this area has led to more people converting their properties to short-term accommodation rather than making them available as long-term rentals—something that obviously is urgently needed in Hobart. In fact, a report released last week by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute shows that, worryingly, Hobart has the highest short-stay density in the country and one of the highest Airbnb densities in the world. University of Sydney housing researcher Professor Phibbs confirmed that 12 per cent of Hobart's rental market is dedicated to short-stay rentals. That's more than one in 10 properties that Hobart renters are locked out of.
Tasmania has some of the slackest regulations surrounding Airbnb. While many cities around the world are recognising the impact that Airbnb has on housing affordability and availability, the Tasmanian government and Hobart City Council are just bickering about who's responsible. Someone needs to take responsibility because the community is crying out for reform. It's crying out for stable, affordable and safe housing. It is simply unacceptable that there are thousands of Tasmanians in precarious housing situations. It is unacceptable that Tasmanians are sleeping rough, couch surfing or in unstable short-term accommodation. There was a story on the ABC on Tuesday reporting on a mother and her four children having to sleep in swags in her father's shed when they vacate their current rental in a matter of weeks.
Hobart's housing crisis is deeply entrenched and severe. As the CEO of the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania rightly puts it, this is the new normal. People are sitting back and waiting for a drop in prices. It's not going to occur. Frankly, we need dramatic changes in public policy and support from both the state and the federal governments. We need more crisis accommodation. We need more Housing Tasmania properties and other social housing. We need more supported accommodation for people with specific needs. We need tax reform, including watering down negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. We need rent-to-buy public housing. We need a 30 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. We need permanent and improved grants and access to low-interest loans for first home buyers. And we need light rail to the northern suburbs to better link affordable housing with the city and jobs. As I said before, we must rein in Airbnb and not allow its growth to continue unchecked. In fact, we must return it to the original model, where locals can make a bit of extra money from spare rooms and granny flats. That way tourists to Hobart could enjoy an authentic local experience without Tasmanians being squeezed out of their own communities. Everybody should have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. The state and federal governments need to step up and do much better.
This year has been an incredibly difficult time on the Sunshine Coast and right across Australia. However, there are important signs that our economic comeback is well underway. The road ahead will be long, hard and bumpy, but, thanks in part to the strong financial management and decisive action of the Morrison government, the Australian economy has remained resilient and is well placed now to grow next year. In my electorate of Fisher, I have a clear vision for 2021 and the major projects I believe we need to drive that recovery. My plan for Fisher in 2021 is all about creating jobs and building a more resilient and better connected Sunshine Coast as we emerge from the COVID pandemic.
First, I'll be fighting for a real public transport plan that would be a catalyst to transform our community: heavy rail from Brisbane via Beerwah and along the CAMCOS to Caloundra, Kawana and Maroochydore. This project would provide public transport connecting the largest communities on the coastal strip and, critically, it would be linked by the North Coast line to Brisbane. Residents could use it not only to move around our community on the coast but also to travel to Brisbane, transforming our economic links with the state's capital as well as taking cars off the Bruce Highway and the major coastal roads that connect to it. This project would leave our region better connected than ever and could form the foundation of a stronger future for the Sunshine Coast.
Second, a growing and increasingly connected community needs cultural and supporting infrastructure to match. I'll be fighting to help make the Sunshine Coast Stadium ready to host some of the biggest games and acts. I'm already advocating for federal government funding to allow a planned 12,000-seat upgrade to begin next year. A bigger, better stadium would draw more professional sports and big shows for our Sunshine Coast locals and boost our region's local economy.
Finally, as we recover from this COVID-19 recession and our improving infrastructure brings more people to the Sunshine Coast, I believe we need to diversify our local economy. We must reduce our reliance on the ups and downs of the construction and tourism sectors and bring the jobs of the future into the Sunshine Coast. I'll be working hard next year to make the most of the Morrison government's $1½ billion modern manufacturing strategy in Fisher. I believe we have a terrific opportunity to take advantage of this investment and bring new jobs to our region in sectors like high-tech manufacturing, defence, agribusiness and medical products. By bringing local businesses together, I'm hoping to help make the connections and build the collaborations that will make the Sunshine Coast a leader in these growing sectors and create jobs for our growing, connected community.
As we close parliament for 2020, Christmas is, as ever, a time to reflect and to plan for the future. However, it is also a time to be grateful. This has been an incredibly difficult year for all of us, but, when we look around at what has happened in other parts of the world, I think we should take time to be more grateful than ever that we live in the best place on earth.
On a personal note, I'm grateful to all the people who made this incredibly busy working year possible for me. I want to thank, first of all, my incredibly supportive family: Leonie, Emma, Caroline, and Sarah—and Rebecca. I almost forgot Rebecca. How could I forget Rebecca! Thank you to the secretariat staff here in Parliament House on the two committees which I chair: Ashley Stephens, Shennia Spillane, Kathy Blunden, Nathan Fewkes, Alisdair Nicholson, Julia Morris, Lynley Ducker, Tony Evans and Steven Ferguson. Thank you to the cleaners and support staff who keep our parliamentary offices running.
I want to thank you my own hardworking office staff, who have perhaps given more to serve their community this year than ever before: Alaina Megson, Leanne Welch, Simon Thwaites, Katie Beesley, Nic Phantomhive, Jak Hardy, Joh Cleary and Lauralie Knight.
Last but not least, I want to say thank you to the dozens of volunteers in Fisher who help me out week in, week out, in my office or in our community and give up their own time to support our work to improve the lives of people on the Sunshine Coast.
Finally, to everyone watching and all of my constituents back home: I wish them a very, very merry Christmas and all the best in 2021.
Coalmining has had a long and proud history in the Ipswich region. In fact, Ipswich was the home to the first coalmine in Queensland, although we were still part of the colony of New South Wales at the time. In 1843 mining commenced on the banks of the Brisbane River at Redbank, and soon coal seams were discovered across Ipswich, including in the rural parts of Rosewood. Coalmining provided work for thousands of people and contributed to the growth and development of the Ipswich region. Unfortunately, coalmining also brought its share of accidents, disasters and deaths.
Specific mine safety legislation was introduced in Queensland in 1898, but it wasn't until after the 1921 Mount Mulligan disaster, where 75 miners died in North Queensland, that we started to take safety more seriously for workers. In the Ipswich region, including Rosewood, the records show that 186 men have lost their lives in mine related accidents, the worst moment in Ipswich being the Box Flat disaster in 1972 near Swanbank. I recall the explosion from when I was a boy; it could be heard across most of Ipswich. Seventeen men lost their lives, eight of those part of the rescue team. An 18th man later died directly as a result of the injuries sustained. Saint Barbara is the patron saint of miners. Each year on Saint Barbara's Day, 4 December, those in the Ipswich mining community stop and pay tribute to those 186 men. I was privileged to be there last Friday, as I've been on numerous occasions, and to lay a wreath to honour those men who lost their lives.
We are fortunate to have a beautiful memorial located in Limestone Park in Ipswich, dedicated to coalmining and paying tribute to each of those men. The memorial is structured around an image of Saint Barbara, with pillars that are illuminated at night and symbolise the coal seams in the region. The main wall displays details of each man who was killed working in a mine in the Ipswich-Rosewood mining region. Alongside their details is a history of coalmining and depictions of the local topography. I want to pay tribute to the Ipswich Historical Society and acknowledge the work of president, Hugh Taylor, who has always been a great source of inspiration and history on these matters. I want to pay tribute to the retired miners who spent years developing the concept and convincing local politicians, community groups and mining companies they needed to contribute to the development of a memorial. Specifically, I want to thank Beres Evans, John Walker and Keith Chicken, and so many others I might add, who lobbied me incessantly, and politicians at all levels. I want to thank all levels of government who contributed towards the memorial, including the support of the mining division of the CFMEU. I want to make mention of New Hope Group, the only mining company who contributed, a company headquartered in Ipswich.
While coalmining is part of Ipswich's history—and I was there 12 months ago when Jeebropilly Mine near Rosewood closed—the tragedies and the sacrifices of local people remain. In the earliest days, coalmining was dug by hand. It was a pretty tough industry. The safety measures now in place have only been developed as a result of deaths and sacrifices. I recall this as a boy growing up in Trumper Street, East Ipswich, directly opposite Charles 'Digger' Murphy, who was the head of the coalminers union, who was a great fellow who made an enormous contribution to workers' safety and workers' conditions. He let me study the Miners' Federation journals when I was at university studying political science. The days of coalmining are over, but we've seen an enormous contribution made by the coalmining industry. The Queensland Mines Rescue Service has evolved. It's no longer in Ipswich; it's based in Dysart in Central Queensland. But we in Ipswich must never lose sight of the development of this industry and the important safety measures that have been achieved. Together with the industries of meat production, woollen mills, railways and defence, coalmining built Ipswich. It built homes, sporting facilities, civic facilities and churches. It built our community.
The memorial is a lasting tribute to the industry, it reminds us of the men who sacrificed their lives and on whose shoulders miners stand today. It's important we take the safety and security of all Australian workers seriously. It is my hope and prayer that the Ipswich and Rosewood Coalminers Memorial is an ever-present reminder of how important it is for workers to come home safely each night. I want to thank the Ipswich Historical Society, those former miners who made the memorial possible, and those who continue to work in the mining industry in my home state of Queensland, for their contribution to our economy and our local communities.
I welcome the fact that the cashless debit card trials have been extended for two years in Australia. But, at the same time, I must say I'm really disappointed that they haven't become permanent in the sites that are designated, including Ceduna in my electorate of Grey—which was, of course, the first site to nominate itself for the process. I might point out that the people of Ceduna, the committees of Ceduna, the representatives of the people of Ceduna, had a hand in drafting the original rules around the cashless debit card, and, indeed, the 80-20 income split came from Ceduna. I was asked on ABC Radio this morning how I felt the debate had gone in Canberra this week. I said I was pretty disappointed with it, especially the allegations, coming mainly from the Labor Party, I must say, that the card is racist. And I think, by inference, accusing those who support the card of being racist. I find that offensive. I find it absolutely offensive, I must say. As I did on radio this morning, I make the point that I have always thought that one of the most important steps in this debate was the designation of Gladstone as a trial site. Gladstone has an Indigenous population of 4.1 per cent. Australia has an Indigenous population of 3.3 per cent. I always made the point that it's important that we have a trial of this card in a community that is not designated as Indigenous—and we do. We do have a trial there, but not with the help of the Labor Party. The Labor Party opposed that trial. So, in fact, the proof is on the line—it is not racist. It targets people of working age who are on a welfare benefit. If they are managing their welfare benefit well, they can get off the card. But many choose to stay on it anyhow.
I don't know if you remember Joe South, Mr Deputy Speaker, but Joe South wrote and sang a song in 1969 called Walk a mile in my shoes, which had the following lyrics:
Just walk a mile in my shoes
Before you abuse, criticize and accuse
How is it that the people of Ceduna, the Goldfields, of Kununurra and of Gladstone have to fight for their right every 12 months to get an extension on this card—and now in two years time—when this is what they want? This is my community. I go there and I speak to the people in the streets, I speak to the community leaders, I speak to the council and I speak to the service providers there. One woman I spoke to, who was about 55 or maybe 60, said: 'I was against this card. I was against this card,' and then she grabbed me on the arm and she said, 'Don't you let them take it away.' But she still has to fight for the right to have this card, because all these people from the east of Australia—from the universities, from social services and high-paid lawyers—are telling them what they should have, as if they don't have a right to actually articulate for themselves.
It is not just the people that are on the welfare card that say, Keep the card'. The rest of the community say it too, because they too have rights and the card benefits them as well. The community is calmer, there are fewer ructions on the street and there are fewer people reporting domestic violence. It is a better place. One young said to me, 'Oh, they got all the numbers, they got all this and they got all that, but I just know that it's a better place.' I don't feel like I'm backing a racist policy. I don't feel like I'm a racist, and I don't feel like the people of Ceduna who tell me to keep this card going permanently are racists either.
I take umbrage at the way this debate has been run this week. I know opposition is a frustrating time. I spent six years there myself. But picking away at good community policy in this way is really a very low path. I condemn those who oppose this. I certainly condemn those who have played the racist card. I hope in two years time, when it comes back up, we have a different parliament and we don't have to fight for the right for the card continue.
As we near the end of one of the most extraordinary years that many of us have ever experienced, I'd like to reflect on some of the highs and lows of 2020—which will surely be a year to remember. In doing so, I want to thank the people of Western Australia, particularly those in my seat of Brand, across the communities of Rockingham and Kwinana.
A lifetime ago, in January, the bushfires that began in late 2019 were continuing to burn with devastating consequences. We saw a tragic loss of life, the loss of livelihoods, the loss of homes and the devastating loss of wildlife. I would like to thank the West Australian Department of Fire & Emergency Services volunteer brigades who gave up their time to protect Western Australians from these fires. To the volunteers of the Rockingham Volunteer Fire & Rescue Service, the Secret Harbour Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, the Karnup Volunteer Fire & Emergency Services, the Baldivis Volunteer Fire & Emergency Services, the Kwinana South Volunteer Bushfire Brigade and the Mandogalup Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade: thank you for everything that you have done this year and for what you will undoubtedly end up having to do over the long Perth summer ahead. To the residents of Brand: please make sure you stay safe, be alert and be prepared to act when you're required to throughout this bushfire season.
Towards the end of January, we began to hear the first stories of COVID-19 infections in other parts of the world. By March, Australia's international border was closed, and the country was in lockdown. Thanks to a swift and sensible reaction from Premier Mark McGowan and the Minister for Health, Roger Cook, Western Australia's interstate borders were also closed. That was a decision that undoubtedly saved the lives of many vulnerable people in our community.
COVID-19 has created many unforeseeable challenges throughout 2020. This awful disease took too many lives. Too many businesses failed, too many Australians lost their jobs and too many families were separated. But in the face of these tribulations we've witnessed human nature at its absolute best. We've seen people in our community continually show up to help others in the face of danger. I thank all the essential workers for everything you've done to keep us safe and keep our economy kicking over. My thanks go to our nurses, doctors, police, aged-care workers, carers, cleaners, truck drivers, FIFO workers, wharfies, teachers, supermarket and retail staff and so many more. I thank the City of Rockingham—the councillors there, the mayor, Barry Sammels; the City of Kwinana—the mayor, Carol Adams, and all her councillors; and all the staff of both of those city councils who worked tirelessly to create COVID-safe environments and plan for the recovery of our great home.
To our local Centrelink office: you often dealt with the most vulnerable people within our community, and the pressure on you was magnified this year like no other. To Sal and all the staff at Centrelink Rockingham: I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To the Kwinana Industries Council and the Rockingham Kwinana Chamber of Commerce: thank you for the support you gave local businesses trying to navigate what COVID meant for them. Thanks to local community groups: Coastal District Care, the Frank Konecny centre, SOUL Soup Patrol, Chorus, KEYS WA, Ngala, the Smith Family, St Vincent de Paul, Communicare, the Salvation Army, Anglicare WA and all the groups that were able to remain open during the pandemic to provide essential services. A particular shout-out to the Autumn Centre that ensured great takeaway meals were available to those who were unable to leave their homes.
Thank you also to the residents of Brand and everyone in the cities of Rockingham and Kwinana. It's a remarkable fact that WA has been able to remain free of community transmission since April. That is because of you and the sacrifices you made. You put in the effort from the start, and that allowed Western Australia to remain a very safe place to be. The year is ending on a positive note, with the promise of a continued recovery and a vaccine that will help return the world to some agree of normality. But for the 650 employees of the BP fuel refinery in Kwinana and their families it's ending with sadness and much uncertainty about the future. BP's decision to close the refinery in a few months came as a devastating blow to these skilled workers and their families that are the heart and soul of my community. Despite this, I sincerely hope these workers can still enjoy a happy Christmas as they plan for the future.
I'd also like to thank the staff of my electorate office who have had a tremendous year and a very challenging year: Andrew Burrell, Kate Gurbiel, Georgia Tree, Ryan Pavlinovich, Jacinta Pember, Jenny O’Reilly and Rex Tion. Thanks also to Marley and Lillian, who volunteered in my office this year—and also to Layla, our office dog.
I'd like to conclude by wishing all members of this House and the other place a very happy Christmas, and I hope they all get to have a restful summer break. I'd like to thank the staff in this building. You do amazing things for all of us. You help us whenever you can with some of the crazy demands that come through to you. After a tumultuous 2020, I think we all need a restful and peaceful break over the summer. I wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a fun summer.
Australia learnt this week that yet another Australian business has been banned from exporting their product to China. On Monday, Chinese customs authorities announced that abattoir and beef exporter Meramist was the latest to have its products suspended from entering that country. Meramist, based in Caboolture in my electorate of Longman, employs 160 people and exports between 65 and 75 per cent of its business to China. It has been exporting beef to China for the past 10 years, and in that time has had no major problems meeting China's import standards and requirements. As a result of the announcement from China this week, the company has been forced to lay off four people from management positions. Meramist expects its trade suspension to be in place for a considerable amount of time and is therefore looking at alternative trade partners to bridge the gap. It's staying positive and hopes that by finding new trade partners it will save around 60 jobs that would otherwise be at risk. China's reason for suspending trade with Meramist was that it allegedly found a container with trimmings inside, yet in the past all containers sent by Meramist to China contained the same trimmings. There was also an honest mistake made around one label being incorrectly placed on a product.
Meramist becomes the sixth Australian beef exporter to be suspended from exporting to China for alleged non-compliance. Five of those are in my home state of Queensland; the other one is in New South Wales. There are another two beef exporters in Victoria who voluntarily suspended themselves during the COVID-19 outbreak and have since been unable to reinstate their exports to China.
The Australian government takes compliance with China's import requirements very seriously, and our regulators will work through the issues according to established practices. The mutually beneficial China-Australia Free Trade Agreement has been in place since December 2015, and during that time Australia has maintained an excellent reputation with Chinese consumers. Australia is committed to the Chinese market and has worked closely with Chinese authorities to ensure all import requirements are met. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment wants to work closely with Chinese authorities as a matter of priority to address the most recent suspension, as well as to seek an update on other suspended Australian meat establishments. Our officials have been working closely with affected establishments to address China's concern with the aim of recommencing trade as soon as possible. While the suspension is disappointing, there are 36 meat establishments that remain eligible to export to China.
Australia has expressed concern over China's measures to disrupt trade with Australia not only on beef but on a wide range of goods. Australia is a reliable exporter of safe, wholesome and high-quality meat and meat products to China. We are proud of the strong regulatory controls in place that underpin the integrity and safety of exported Australian meat. China is an important market for Australian farmers, but it is just one market. Other major export markets for Australian beef include Japan, the US, Korea and Indonesia.
I believe that China's decision to suspend trade with Meramist and other Australian companies is the wake-up call we needed. It's clear that the more eggs we have in the China basket, the easier it is for the Chinese government to disrupt these trade agreements. I encourage all Australian exporters to spread their wings and seek out alternative trade partners where possible.
The Morrison government, meanwhile, is doing its part to help agricultural exporters by investing $328 million in systems to modernise Australia's trading environment and lead a strong economic recovery through the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes $222.2 million to transform our export systems, including contributing to a single, digital, one-stop shop and enabling the fast-tracking of goods to international markets. A further $10.9 million will be invested to reduce the regulatory burden on meat processors like Meramist and to maintain Australia's status as a leading source of premium animal products.
Through the year our farmers have working tirelessly to keep not only us but also our critical export markets supplied with food and fibre. The latest ABARES agricultural commodities report has forecast the gross value of agricultural production to rise by seven per cent to $65.1 billion in 2021. This forecast is a testament to the resilience of our farmers, and it ensures that agriculture will play a major part in our recovery post-COVID.
The Australian government will always stand up for our sovereignty and our national interest. The government this week passed a foreign relations bill with bipartisan and significant crossbench support. The legislation will provide governments, institutions, and the Australian people with confidence that due diligence is given to the international arrangements. I'm proud to be part of an Australian government that supports and stands up for our sovereignty.
The Liberals never liked superannuation. Tony Abbott called it a con job. Bronwyn Bishop said it was designed to penalise business. Paul Keating got universal superannuation going. John Howard broke his promise and froze it. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard raised it; Tony Abbott broke his promise and froze it. Australians have seen this bad sequel of a movie before. After saying that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic policies, and ignoring record low wage growth, the Liberals suddenly say that freezing super will boost wages. Yet their own retirement incomes review shows that a dollar less of super doesn't mean a dollar more of wages. And because returns compound, a dollar put into superannuation turns into two or three dollars at retirement.
It's the same with housing. The member for Banks once said, 'There's no structural problem with housing affordability'. The member for Deakin derisively said: 'Want a house? Get a good job.' The member for Mackellar called social housing 'a socialist plot to increase inequality'. Laughably, they're claiming that freezing super will increase home ownership, which is at a 60-year low. For a full-time worker on average earnings, 12 per cent super will mean over half a million dollars in retirement savings. Senator Bragg was right when he wrote in 2015:
... the contribution rate is not yet high enough to provide fully funded retirement incomes.
Enough with the super hypocrisy. You won't boost wages while attacking unions. You can't boost home ownership while neglecting property tax reform. They're just excuses to cover yet another broken Liberal promise.
Yesterday, I went for an early-morning run with Lachlan Arthur and Cassie Cohen from the Canberra Refugee Marathon Project, and Zaki Haidari, a refugee on a temporary visa. A member of the Hazara ethnic group, Zaki's father was taken away one night by the Taliban. That was 10 years ago and he's never seen him again. Zaki's brother was beheaded when the Taliban stopped him and found out that he was a university student. Zaki fled to Australia in fear of his life. Zaki is one of nearly 18,000 people who are on temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas. Another 10,000 are in the process of renewing one of those visas. They work in the community. Zaki's SHEV lets him work at the Australian National University. But they live their lives in limbo, having to renew their visas every two to five years. Including other irregular maritime arrivals, the so-called 'legacy caseload' numbers more than 30,000. As the Refugee Advice & Casework Service points out, TPV and SHEV holders are excluded from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, HECS-HELP loans, and Commonwealth supported places at tertiary education institutions. They do not have the right to sponsor family members to live with them in Australia and their ability to travel overseas to see their family is heavily restricted.
Mohammed Hussein Jafari from Franklin has been in Australia since 2012 and is currently on a TPV. It's been two years since Mohammed saw his children, nine-year-old Haneh and four-year-old Amir, who live in Iran. Mohammed runs the barbershop next to the light rail in Gungahlin, and I'm just one of his many customers. All of those on TPVs and SHEVs should be given permanent status immediately. Keeping them on permanent temporary status prevents them from rebuilding their lives. It endangers their mental health. Because they've been admitted into Australia, the government's clearly decided they pose no risk to national security. They have no home to return to. We should make them permanent.
Finally, since this is my last speech of 2020, I thank my extraordinary staff who've worked in the office this year: Stephanie Anderson, Nelida Contreras, Jeevan Haikerwal, Oscar Kaspi-Crutchett, Olivia Kerr, Tara Mack, Claire Osborne and Nick Terrell. Together, we've responded to thousands of constituent inquiries by telephone, email and social media; organised our Fenner Lecture with Graham Walker; helped arrange telephone town halls and deliberative democracy forums; and much more. On our wall hang our 'Ten principles of politics'. I'm pleased with the way my staff live those values every day. I also thank our volunteers, including Alison Humphries, and Lynette McKay who volunteered her counselling support skills to call vulnerable constituents during lockdown. I thank electorate office cleaners Julio and Tashi, and our Parliament House cleaner, La, for keeping our offices clean and sanitised in this most unusual year.
Renewable technologies are creating opportunities to decentralise Australia's energy grid and cut our emissions—and we got data about that in only the past 24 hours—while also generating affordable and environmentally sustainable energy sources independent of traditional wholesale providers. The energy sector is the dominant source, of course, of Australia's carbon emissions, accounting for roughly 33 per cent in a recent analysis. It's inspiring to see Australians choosing individual responsibility for their footprint rather than solely relying on big corporates and Canberra. Over the past decade, our nation's solar capacity has grown nearly 100-fold. That includes 2.5 million households and small businesses who are now hosting rooftop solar and generating nearly 12,000 megawatts of electricity—the equivalent of six Liddell coal-fired power stations. The chair of the Clean Energy Regulator, David Parker, is expecting Australia's installed solar capacity to double again over the next four years. Solar, of course, is just one part of Australia's broader renewable energy mix, which includes wind, hydro and batteries as well as others. As outlined by energy minister Angus Taylor, Australia's renewable capacity is growing 10 times faster than the global average. We're leading.
For too long we've assumed that climate change is a complex challenge which can only be solved by Canberra bureaucrats or corporate boardrooms. While globetrotting bureaucrats have argued about emissions reduction for years, Australian small businesses and households have been developing and implementing the technologies to drive our transition to net zero. At its core, climate change is a technical challenge that demands a technological revolution. It's tech to net zero. We need to retain the high-energy generation capacity that drives modern Australian industrial life while reducing and ultimately removing our emissions profile. We know from previous technological revolutions that this change is not driven by centralised bureaucracies and their decision-making but by the need to meet new consumer expectations and demands. As many people have said, you literally did not use taxes to get people into cars and away from horses.
The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries saw increased demand for material goods, which in turn fuelled the development of technologies which could underpin more expansive reduction. In the same sense, the development of renewables is being driven by demand for technologies which bypass traditional, centralised energy suppliers. The trend is clear. In October of this year South Australia became the first major jurisdiction in the world to be powered entirely by solar energy, of which rooftop solar played a dominant role—but, of course, so did wind and so did other technologies, including battery storage. When businesses and households are empowered with greater choice over the source of their energy rather than being dictated to by regulators, investment in more versatile and deployable renewable energy can be incentivised.
There is, of course, a role for targeted public support and investment. The Morrison government's Technology Investment Roadmap is optimising public money for commercialisation of new low-emissions technologies to broaden choice. Furthermore, the government has invested in projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the Marinus Link project, which are targeted to overcome short-term shortages in dispatchable power and, more critically, back up the baseload that Australian industry still absolutely critically needs.
But, even when operated by private industry, concentration within the energy market has led to oligopolies and the rise of gentailors. Despite harbouring some of the most abundant reserves of traditional fossil fuels in the world, Australia's electricity and gas prices for households have increased. When only a few operators control the coal and gas sources that generate 79 per cent of Australia's current energy supply, they have little incentive to lower prices, and this must be combated through decentralisation. Home battery storage is giving households the capacity to retain energy collected from their solar panels during the day for use at night, overcoming dispatchability problems that have slowed the uptake of renewables in creating closed-circuit grids. Localised power grid solutions are now creating virtual power plants, which empower whole communities to collaborate in energy generation and storage and go off-grid if they choose. This is our tech to net zero agenda.
Emotive moral statements from Canberra won't reduce a single future emission. Australia's emissions will be reduced by households and small businesses across the country who decide to invest in localised, renewable and decentralised power grids. These investments will also take much-needed competition into the energy market, breaking apart the oligopolistic grip traditional energy generators. More critically, we are building Australia's economic future. You, too, can be part of Australia's tech to net zero agenda.
The expression 'never waste a crisis' has never been used so many times in so many contexts this year. Of course, the Liberals and Nationals have truly taken this to heart. Yesterday, the second-last day of the parliament, the Prime Minister came and gave working Australians a Christmas present. It was not a thankyou to the heroes of the pandemic: the aged-care workers, the nurses, the supermarket workers, the cleaners, the farmhands and many others. It was a desire to cut their take-home pay. With the industrial relations bill, Prime Minister Morrison has given employers permission to use the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason to lock in wage cuts. No wonder the Prime Minister in question time this week repeatedly refused to say that workers wouldn't be worse off or left behind; he knows they will be.
The proposed changes to enterprise bargaining and the better-off-overall test are designed to make it easier for businesses to undercut one another by paying their workers less. The changes provide minimum scrutiny of these deals both by workers and their representatives and by the Fair Work Commission. The government's industrial relations working group covered five areas the government believed needed reform: casuals, awards, enterprise bargaining, wage theft and greenfield agreements. But nowhere did they say they wanted to address the fact that under their watch, for seven years, growth in wages has flatlined. Nowhere did they say that, under their watch, insecure work has increased, including gig work, which regularly sees workers in our country being paid well below the minimum wage and in unsafe working conditions without bargaining rights. Over one in 10 women are now forced into underemployment under this government's watch. We have an unacceptably high number of casual and insecure jobs. Half a million casuals lost their jobs in the first wave of the pandemic, and the vulnerability of casual workers was the weakest link in our battle to stop the spread of the virus. And nowhere did the government say that under their watch, in 2019, workplace deaths increased for the first time since John Howard was Prime Minister, with 183 people dying in the workplace. That is 183 families directly losing a loved one.
Labor set a test for the government's proposed industrial relations legislation: that it would help secure jobs and decent pay. This was our test. But we cannot forget the heroes of the pandemic: the essential workers, who rely on our workplace laws to protect them. These and other workers have already sacrificed the most and have paid a very high price. As I said, we now have a million unemployed and 1.4 million are underemployed. These are some of the results that we're seeing through this pandemic. WorkChoices 2.0 is taking industrial relations back to the dark old days of the Howard era. This pay cut is Prime Minister Morrison's Christmas present to the workers who got us through this pandemic. The government are undermining paying conditions in a stealthy exercise to make people work for longer and get less money. We heard that ourselves yesterday: they will cut penalty rates but increase the base rate. So for you to earn the same amount of money, you've got to work a lot more hours. What a great incentive for people—go to work for longer, and get paid the same amount of money! It's not fair, and it's not right. As we heard the member for Fenner point out in relation to superannuation, while we all sit here with our 15 per cent superannuation, the government is voting to say to people in the workforce: 'You do not deserve the same conditions that we get. You do not deserve the same support.' It's unfair and it's wrong. That's why we should be fighting this.
Australian workers should know, straight-up: this government is not their best friend. The party that cut penalty rates, the party that froze superannuation and the party that produced the original WorkChoices has now introduced legislation to cut pay. Cleaners, supermarket workers, truck drivers, childcare workers and aged-care staff will all lose money under this nasty scheme from this nasty government. The Morrison-McCormack government is trying to turn the protection that ensures workers are better off into an attack that could leave them worse off. Australians need a government that delivers, especially on the back of this horrendous year that so many casual workers have been dealt. Instead of trying to get Australians back into work, the Prime Minister is leaving people behind—leaving them to go it alone. Australia is in the deepest recession in almost a century. Let's remember, two-thirds of our debt and deficit was built up prior to the COVID pandemic. The Prime Minister's always good at being there for the photo op, but never for the follow-up. He's making decisions that are worse for hardworking Australians.
This bill fails the test, and we will fight it. Last Christmas, Prime Minister Morrison went off to Hawaii to abandon Australians in the middle of our worst bushfires. This year, his Christmas present to all Australians is legislation to cut your pay and conditions. Shame on this government!
As we seek to adjourn this chamber for the final time in 2020, it's an opportune time to reflect on the year that has just been, one unlike any we have seen before and, hopefully, unlike any we will see again. The year started, or, rather, 2019 ended with fires of an intensity which Australia has not seen for decades. Despite my electorate being deeply suburban, these fires even reached us in Bennelong. In November, fires sparked up in the Lane Cove River between North Epping and Turramurra. While the fire is remembered by images of low-flying water bombers turning houses and residents pink in Turramurra, there was, momentarily, a real danger that the fire was going to climb the opposite side of the gully and threaten the bushland suburb of North Epping. While Epping and Turramurra dodged a bullet, there were many communities that weren't so lucky. While, one year on, the fires may be drifting from our memory, those who lived on the front line of the threat will always remember the terror of that moment. The jet engine roar of the fire; the oppressive, brick-kiln wind; the stifling, airless heat—these images will stay forever.
The fires were still dying down when our next crisis hit, which was, of course, the coronavirus. Bennelong felt the economic impact of COVID earlier than most communities. Even before community transmission was seen in Australia, fear of the virus had set in across Bennelong. Debilitating rumours spread around WeChat that the virus was being transmitted around the Chinese and Korean communities of Eastwood. Who was spreading these malicious lies we may never know, but the results were instant. Eastwood, normally heaving around Lunar New Year, was a ghost town. I was joined by members of the chamber of commerce, as well as by my state colleague Victor Dominello, at a deserted restaurant that would normally have been packed with celebrating families. Together, we sought to downplay the threat, in line with health advice of the day. Little did we know what was just around the corner.
While patient zero entered Melbourne, I'm sad to say that community transmission started in Bennelong. First, a case popped up at Ryde Hospital. Then there were cases at Epping Boys High School and at a church meeting at Ryde Civic Centre. Then tragedy struck as the first cases arose in Dorothy Henderson Lodge, followed soon after by Australia's first death from COVID. Dorothy Henderson remained the main hotspot of concern for the next few days, which felt like months, and, tragically, five more people from this home passed away.
What happened next makes me incredibly proud of everybody in Bennelong. From being Australia's worst hotspot, Bennelong saw its cases dry up and, mercifully, local deaths fell to zero. Through good hygiene, social distancing and self-quarantining, COVID-19 disappeared from Bennelong and has only returned in very isolated cases, never since rising to become a cluster. This took sacrifice and hardship from local residents and businesses, and I thank everyone in Bennelong for their determination.
As the year ran on and isolation became our new normal, I was also inspired by the caring hearts of locals. My office became a drop-off point for donations to the wonderful Parramatta Women's Shelter. We were bombarded with responses. We heard countless stories of people checking in on neighbours, and, as shops started opening again, shopping locally became a priority for those who could afford it. While my heart goes out to those businesses that didn't make it through to the reopening, I'm proud of those that have made it through to this more positive time. Now we find ourselves at Christmas time, at the end of this endless year. In a sign of the times, our much-loved annual Ryde Carols on the Commons has gone virtual, and the giving trees in places like Coxs Road Mall are going gangbusters.
In this terrible year, we really have seen the best of people. To conclude, I would like to wish everyone in this place, and everyone in Bennelong, a very merry Christmas, happy holidays and a safe 2021. Congratulations on getting through 2020. I hope you all get a well-deserved break. I praise your resilience and common sense and I thank you for your kindness and generosity. Merry Christmas to all.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:48