I present report No. 36 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 23 August 2021. The report will be printed in the Hansard today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed at the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 10 August 2021.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 10 August 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 23 August 2021, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue:
Owning a share of your work: tax treatment of employee share schemes
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.
Speech time limits—
Ms Owens 5minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Wallace: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) after 20 years of dedicated service, this September, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will withdraw its remaining personnel from Afghanistan; and
(b) in May 2021, Australia's residential representation in Afghanistan and the Australian Embassy in Kabul were closed;
(2) further notes that:
(a) during the past 20 years, 41 ADF personnel and more than 40,000 civilians have lost their lives in conflict in Afghanistan;
(b) despite the continued efforts of the Afghan National Army, the security situation in many districts of Afghanistan remains extremely challenging; and
(c) since September 2020, direct peace talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban have been ongoing;
(3) acknowledges that the withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan presents a significant challenge to maintaining peace in the region;
(4) further acknowledges that Australia and its coalition partners have an ongoing responsibility to honour the sacrifice of 41 Australians and to support the people of Afghanistan in securing a lasting peace;
(5) commends the dedicated members of the ADF and Australian Diplomatic Corp for their service in difficult and dangerous conditions in Afghanistan over the past 20 years; and
(6) wishes the Afghan Government and people of Afghanistan well in their continued efforts toward peace.
(Notice given 24 June 2021.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Wallace—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Dr Haines: To move:
That this House:
(1) recalls the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety made multiple recommendations urging the Government to immediately improve the supply, diversity, and affordability of aged care across rural and regional Australia;
(2) notes that it is now more than three months since the Government announced $630 million over five years to improve the respect, care and dignity shown to rural and regional Australians in the aged care system, including their families;
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) explain exactly when and how it will deliver tangible progress on aged care in rural and regional Australia, particularly through:
(i) rapid improvements to the supply of quality fit-for-purpose residential facilities;
(ii) lowering the wait times for home care packages, which remain unacceptable;
(iii) preventing aged care providers from exploiting consumers through excessive administration and management fees through greater transparency and consideration of imposing caps; and
(iv) specific measures to improve skilled workforce training and retention in rural and regional Australia, including through improved pay, conditions, and staffing;
(b) fully commit to recommendation 86 of the Royal Commission by ensuring at least one registered nurse is on site at all residential aged care facilities at all times; and
(c) implement the recommendations of Multi-Purpose Service Review, which was completed almost two years ago in October 2019 as soon as possible; and
(4) raises specific concerns about the urgent need for a high-care residential aged care facility in Bright in regional Victoria which has gone without a dedicated aged care solution for over three decades, and implores the Government work proactively with the Victorian Government and Alpine Health to implement an effective solution as soon as possible.
(Notice given 9 August 2021.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Dr Haines—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Mr van Manen: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the vital nature of Black Spot Program (BSP) funding in reducing death and serious injury on Australian roads;
(2) recognises that BSP projects target those road locations where crashes are occurring, which are a major cost to Australians every year;
(3) commends the Government for its extensive commitment to road safety through infrastructure investment, by providing $1.1 billion to the BSP from 2013-14 to 2023-24, with an ongoing commitment of $110 million each year following; and
(4) acknowledges research from the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics that the Government's BSP reduces death and serious injury from crashes by 30 per cent, on average at treated sites.
(Notice given 23 June 2021.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits—
Mr van Manen—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
11 August 2021
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements a number of streamlining and integrity measures and improves the visibility of superannuation assets during family law proceedings.
Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges.
This measure will apply to refunds paid since 1 January 2019.
Under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, energy retailers and other liable entities must surrender large-scale generation certificates or pay a shortfall charge. This shortfall charge can be refunded where the outstanding certificates are surrendered within the allowable refund period.
This measure will clarify the operation of the income tax law for energy providers and will ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers.
Schedule 2 to the bill will enable the government to establish a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with the industry codes of conduct by increasing the maximum civil pecuniary penalty amount from 300 to 600 penalty units ($133,200). For a breach of the franchising code by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit obtained from the contravention of the code, or 10 per cent of annual turnover. For non-corporations, the maximum civil penalty available will be $500,000.
Appropriate penalties in the franchising code are necessary to provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the code across the franchising sector, particularly by large multinational franchisors.
Schedule 3 to the bill will reduce red tape and costs for self-managed superannuation funds and small Australian Prudential Regulation Authority funds by removing a redundant requirement for superannuation trustees to obtain an actuarial certificate when calculating exempt current pension income, where all members of the fund are fully in the retirement phase for the entire income year.
This measure delivers on a 2019-20 budget commitment to reduce costs and simplify reporting for superannuation funds by streamlining some administrative requirements for the calculation of exempt current pension income. This is achieved by permitting affected funds to use the segregated method to calculate exempt current pension income.
Schedule 4 to the bill will amend to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) to strengthen the industry codes framework and provide legal certainty that industry codes of conduct can confer powers and functions on third parties to the commercial relationship between industry participants.
Currently, the regulation-making power does not explicitly extend to regulating third parties that assist in administrating or regulating functions of those codes.
These amendments will remove unintended ambiguity by clarifying that these third-party roles are recognised and valid under industry codes. This will provide legal certainty for industry participants across the various codes and avoid risks of legal dispute in the future.
Schedule 5 to the bill improves the visibility of superannuation assets during family law property proceedings.
Where one party is not forthcoming with their superannuation assets during these proceedings, at present it can be complex, costly and time consuming for the other party to access this information.
This schedule amends the Family Law Act 1975 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953to allow parties to family law proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, and the Family Court of Western Australia, to apply to the Family Court registries to request information from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) that will assist them to identify their former partner's superannuation interests.
The amendments also allow for the development of a secure information-sharing mechanisms between the courts and the ATO, as well as setting out the specific rules regarding the disclosure of this information. These amendments ensure this protected information cannot be accessed by unauthorised parties or shared outside of the specific context of permitted family law proceedings.
By supporting more just and equitable division of property, these amendments will help alleviate the financial hardship and negative impact on retirement incomes from separation.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia has an obligation under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 of 2001 to freeze the assets of individual terrorists and terrorist entities and prevent the provision of assets to those persons and entities.
To give effect to this obligation, the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 provides for the listing of persons and entities associated with the commission of terrorist acts for the purpose of applying financial sanctions in respect of those listed.
The Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021 clarifies that counterterrorism financial sanction listings are to be made as legislative instruments. The bill puts beyond doubt any question of the enforceability of validly made listings to ensure that Australia's counterterrorism legislative framework is able to operate as intended by parliament to prevent and respond to the financing of terrorism. The proposed amendments do not alter the existing regulatory framework under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 which gives effect to our international obligations as a United Nations member state.
The proposed amendments mean that counterterrorism listings, once made, will be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as legislative instruments in accordance with requirements under the Legislation Act 2003.Historically, counterterrorism listings have been treated as being administrative in character and not registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. Instead, they have been published in the Commonwealth Gazette in accordance with the requirements of the act as it currently exists. Counterterrorism listings will continue to be set out in a consolidated list which sets out all persons and entities who are subject to targeted financial sanctions under Australian sanctions law. This list is maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and published on the department's website. The bill contains provisions to preserve the enforceability of listings validly made under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 prior to their registration on the Federal Register of Legislation.
The Australian government is committed to preventing and suppressing terrorist acts to support international peace and security. One of the most effective ways to combat terrorism is to deny terrorists and terrorist entities the ability to access funds necessary for the commission of terrorist acts. The amendments in this bill further promote public awareness of counterterrorism sanctions listings while ensuring Australia continues to fully implement its international counterterrorism sanctions obligations.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Report by statement: a review of regulations re-listing Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and the listing of Neo-Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh (Neo-JMB) as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I present a statement to the House of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the review of regulations relisting Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh, JMB, and the listing of Neo-Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh, Neo-JMB, as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Regulations that specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation cease to have effect on the third anniversary on the day on which they take effect. Organisations can be relisted provided the minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation continues to directly or indirectly engage in terrorism or advocate the doing of a terrorist act.
Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh, JMB, was last listed in 2018, and the regulations to relist them were tabled in parliament on 2 June 2021. Neo-Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh, Neo-JMB, was first listed as an alias of Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh in 2018 and following advice from Australian government agencies is now considered to be an organisation that operates independently of Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh. The regulations to relist them were tabled in parliament on 2 June 2021.
The committee's review examines the minister's decision to relist and list these organisations. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation which relists or lists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report its recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the applicable 15 sitting day disallowance period. This statement serves this purpose and has been presented within the required period.
In determining whether the regulations relisting and listing these organisations should be supported, the committee reviewed the merits in accordance with the Minister for Home Affairs' explanatory statement and statement of reasons for the organisations and other publicly available information. In its deliberations, the committee determined that Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh, JMB, is a Bangladeshi Sunni violent extremist group which aims to remove democracy, liberalism, socialism and secularism and institute an Islamic state in Bangladesh. The group's ideology broadly aligns with al-Qaeda's global jihadist ideals. Since first listed on 9 June 2018, JMB has continued to conduct terrorist attacks. There are no known direct links between JMB and Australia. While Australians are unlikely to be directly targeted, they may be incidentally harmed in attacks perpetrated at tourist sites in Bangladesh.
Neo-Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh, Neo-JMB, was first listed as an alias of JMB on 9 June 2018. However, the group is operating independently of JMB and has been listed separately as a terrorist organisation. The group is assessed to be an affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and subscribes to Islamic State's anti-Western ideology, which would consider Australians to be legitimate targets of attack. Neo-JMB has been assessed to have been responsible for a number of terrorist attacks. In Australia, a Bangladeshi student who was reportedly a Neo-Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh member was responsible for a lone-actor stabbing attack in Melbourne on 9 February 2018. Neo-JMB favours lone-wolf or small-group attacks, in which Australians may also be incidentally targeted while overseas.
There is evidence that these groups continue to be engaging in preparing, assisting with or fostering terrorist activities that could potentially and profoundly impact the Australian people. In examining the evidence that has been provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting processes and considers that they have been followed appropriately for these organisations. The committee therefore supports the relisting and listing of JMB and Neo-JMB under division 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests and finds no reason to disallow the regulations.
I rise in continuation on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. Mr Speaker, if you hear the Morrison government speak about charities, you'd think there is an outbreak of lawlessness among Australia's charities, yet the facts speak otherwise. Over the past 3½ years, the charities commissioner has deregistered just two of the nation's 59,000 charities for breaking the law in pursuit of activist goals. That means the annual chance of a charity being deregistered for illegal activism is about 10 in a million, which is about the same as the chance that a typical Australian will commit a murder. But facts have never stood in the way of the Liberals' crackdown on charitable activism.
Their latest proposal would go further than the current law, extending the ability of the charities commissioner to deregister a charity for a summary offence or because the charities commissioner anticipates that the organisation will commit a summary offence. A summary offence might include blocking a footpath, trespassing or even failing to close a gate on a private property, and deregistration can occur because a charity promotes an event—for example, hands out flyers about it or simply puts it on their Facebook page.
This is of a piece with the way in which the Morrison government has engaged with the charitable sector—not a partnership working with them at a time when we've got an economic slump, half the nation under lockdown and a pandemic threatening the country, not a partnership that recognises the important work that can be done working with environmental charities on climate change, with social justice charities on poverty alleviation, with health charities on tackling COVID, but instead a war on charities. The Liberals introduced a bill in 2013 to shut down the charities commission. They wanted to kill the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, a one-stop shop that had been recommended by more than a dozen reviews, including a bipartisan recommendation from a committee in this House of which former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was a member.
Then, four years later, after they realised that they couldn't get the crossbench to support killing the charities commission, they did the next best thing. They appointed, as head of the charities commission, Gary Johns. When did they do it? In the hours following the same-sex marriage vote, in a period in which they judged that Mr Johns's appointment would get least media attention. This was because they knew that putting Gary Johns in charge of the charities commission was like putting Bronwyn Bishop in charge of parliamentary entitlements. It was like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. This is a man who has criticised Indigenous women as 'cash cows', who has attacked charities such as Recognise and Beyond Blue, who has complained that there is a good deal of what he calls 'impure altruism' among charities. So it wasn't surprising that a senior figure in the charity sector described Mr Johns's appointment as charity commissioner as 'bizarre'.
Since the Liberals came to office in 2013, major charities have written three open letters to the Prime Minister complaining about attacks on the charitable sector. The latest attack is one which would reduce the scope for charitable activism. This is because, fundamentally, the Morrison government want legal charities to be talking about individual defendants, not discussing the broader issues of law reform. They want environmental charities to be planting trees, not talking about climate change. They want social justice charities to be running soup kitchens, not talking about the causes of child poverty. Former charities minister Senator Seselja, when introducing the changes, said that this was about a crackdown on 'activist organisations masquerading as charities'. That bells the cat. It's very clear that, in Senator Seselja's view and in the view of the Morrison government, so-called good charities don't do activism; so-called good charities are seen but not heard; they stay out of the way of the government.
This fundamentally misunderstands the important role that charities play in Australia's public debate. It misunderstands the fact that charities, whether they agree or disagree with the government's agenda, enrich the public conversation because they bring the lived experience of the people that they help and their vast experience of working across the sector. At a time when we have the degree of civic connectedness falling to a new low, we need to be encouraging people to join, to volunteer, to engage with their local community groups. At a time when Australian National University data shows that volunteering rates have fallen to an all-time low and data on charitable tax deductions suggests the share of people making charitable donations has fallen to the lowest level on record, we need to be encouraging charities. They are vital to Australia's future.
But charities are shocked by the latest proposals from the Morrison government. The push-back has come right across the ideological spectrum, from Hillsong Church to the World Wildlife Fund. It has come from respected leaders such as Tim Costello, who has likened the change to Vladimir Putin's Russia. The law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler believes the changes are 'fundamentally inconsistent with our democratic system of government'. Law Council president Jacoba Brasch said the changes would 'leave registered charities, including faith based charities, at grave risk of political interference'.
Religious charities are concerned. Anglicare, BaptistCare, UnitingCare and the St Vincent de Paul Society have all criticised the crackdown on charities, and in yesterday's Australian Financial Review there was a full-page advertisement on page 7: 'Don't stop Australia's charities from speaking out.' It read:
We come together as a group of charities providing vital services to the most vulnerable Australians. Charity is not just about helping people in poverty or experiencing disadvantage. It's about creating a country where inequality doesn't exist. Sometimes, this requires us to speak up when we see policy that does not promote the common good.
Our work is driven by our mission, and we speak out with and on behalf of millions of Australians who are denied a voice. We know that positive change comes when people are heard.
New regulations on the charity sector are before the Australian parliament now. These new rules undermine the legitimate and lawful advocacy that is at the core of what we do. They will silence the voices of the people we represent, and stifle our mission to create a just society where all Australians can live their lives with dignity.
The huge administrative and cost burden, red tape and risk these regulations create will divert our time and resources from the frontline services we provide to our communities, hurting the Australians who can least afford it. This is not the partnership the charitable sector wants with the government.
We call on the Senate to disallow these regulations and stand up for Australian charities.
The statement is signed by St Vincent de Paul Society, Catholic Social Services Australia, Anglicare, UnitingCare Australia and others. It recognises the strong, united voice of the sector, speaking out against these retrograde changes. A statement from Hands Off Our Charities on 18 March 2021 said:
As charities, we take our responsibilities to the public very seriously and we want to be accountable to our communities and supporters. We have supported the role of the ACNC in ensuring that public confidence in the charity sector is maintained. However, we already face appropriate penalties for pursuing unlawful purposes and breaking the law. All these proposed regulations would do, is single out charities for disproportionate penalties following minor breaches of a kind that are unparalleled for any other group, including political parties and businesses.
That is signed by a vast range of organisations, including Amnesty International, Anglicare Australia, the Australian Centre for International Justice, the Australian Council of Social Service, Communities Council of Australia, Community Legal Centres Australia, Country Needs People, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Foundation for Young Australians, the Fred Hollows Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, Public Health Association, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, RESULTS International Australia, the Queensland Conservation Council, Save the Children, Tearfund, the Wide Bay Burnett Environment Council and many others.
Alice Drury, of the Human Rights Law Centre, said in the Australian Financial Review on 22 July 2021:
These rules would silence charities at a time when their advocacy is more crucial than ever, as charities support Australian communities through unprecedented crises like catastrophic bushfires and the pandemic.
She went on to say:
These proposed laws are a case of extreme overreach, and have no place in a democracy.
Kasy Chambers, the executive director of Anglicare, said:
They are not just an attack on charities. They are an attack on democracy.
We're also calling on the Government to withdraw these changes—and end these attacks for good.
She pointed out that Anglicare employs 29,000 staff and volunteers, and under these changes they would have to think about potential summary offences for every single one of those people, including a volunteer who might work with them just a couple of times a year.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors, representing 40,000 directors, said on 15 March 2021:
… the AICD does not does consider it appropriate that the ACNC Commissioner has the discretion to remove charities from the register in the circumstances proposed. Given the severe consequences that removal from the ACNC register can have on a charity (including losing income tax concessions), such a power is only appropriate if it is proportionate to the misconduct and subject to procedural fairness such as rights of appeal.
David Crosbie, the CEO of the Community Council for Australia, said:
Any suggestion that the ACNC commissioner can act against a charity because he or she believes they may do something wrong—even when there is no evidence they have done something wrong—seems at best to be against every principle of justice, fairness and procedural transparency, all of which should be fundamental values for any regulator.
Mr Crosbie went on to say:
Imagine if ASIC could de-register any company it wanted to just because as a regulator they thought the company might do the wrong thing?
Would business sectors in Australia accept that as a governance standard?
Clearly not, and that's why the Australian Institute of Company Directors has spoken out so strongly against the government's proposed changes.
Tim Costello, chair of the Community Council of Australia, said:
When I first read the proposed changes to governance standards I honestly started thinking about Stalinist Russia and other countries where judgements about which groups can or cannot operate freely are taken solely to protect the powerful.
Mr Costello went on to say:
I think Australia is better than this, and I struggle to understand any rationale for extending this kind of discretion to a charities regulator.
Marc Purcell, the CEO of the Australian Council for International Development, points out:
At a time when we've got military juntas shutting down civil society in Myanmar, Thailand and China … Australia needs to be supporting diverse opinions, the right of free speech, citizens' right to protest and certainly not muzzling charitable organisations.
As I mentioned before, the submission by Arnold Bloch Liebler to Treasury said that the legislation was 'fundamentally inconsistent with our democratic system of government' and that the changes 'are a clear fetter on freedom of political communication and on dissent by civil society'. They have suggested that these changes may indeed be unconstitutional.
Toby oConnor, the CEO of St Vincent de Paul, said: 'The Catholic Church people, generally around Easter, have a parade or walk in support of refugees, and in the new proposal, if some of our people were blocking a public area, if they failed to move on under a direction, then any charity that's associated with that march could be disqualified from being a charity.' Joe Zabar, the former deputy CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia, makes a similar point, saying:
The Church's traditional Palm Sunday Refugee Rally may trigger action against any Catholic charity that promotes or participates in the rally. While it may not be the intention of the government to include such events, the reality is that the framing of the proposed regulatory changes may capture Catholic charities simply exercising their rights to assemble and advocate for causes which matter to them.
The bill before the House makes sensible changes requiring non-government entities seeking endorsement as a deductible gift recipient to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, or be operated by a registered charity. It will improve the consistency of regulation, governance and oversight for DGRs and support confidence in the sector. But this sensible change is being brought in at a time in which the Morrison government is engaging in yet another attack on charities, prompting yet another open letter from charities, now the fourth open letter from Australian charities in the time of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, crying out as to why the war on charities continues when there's so much good work that could be done by a government that wants to work with charities, rather than against them. Senator Catryna Bilyk's bipartisan Senate report recommended some 2½ years ago that we fix the laws around charitable fundraising that currently require organisations to register in seven different states and territories if they're to fundraise online across the country, wasting about a week's worth of staff member effort for every charity that wants to raise money online every year.
This would be sensible reform. It would remove reporting duplication. It would fit philosophically with the coalition's bent in favour of so-called red tape reduction. Yet that bipartisan Senate committee set a two-year deadline, which expired in February this year. The government hasn't implemented these changes, which cost Australia's charity sector more than a million dollars a month in complying with unnecessary regulations.
There's work that could be done on charitable passports, on making sure that the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission works even more like ASIC, the corporations watchdog, to ensure that charities have a one-stop shop for reporting, on ceding more of those state and territory regulators' powers to the national body and on ensuring that charities are able to minimise the amount of time they spend filling out forms and maximise the amount of time they spend helping the most vulnerable in our community. These would be good changes. The timing for them would be right. At a moment when Australians are more disconnected than ever before in the postwar era, we need a government that will work with charities. Instead, we have a government that's working against charities.
Labor will support the sensible charity reforms in this bill, but we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Australia's charities in opposing the crackdown on charitable activism that has seen the fourth open letter from Australia's charities pleading with the Liberals to stop the war on charities.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The shadow assistant minister is seeking to suggest to the House, if I followed his argument, that there is some risk that Catholics would be prevented from proceeding with their processions on Palm Sunday. This is complete bunkum, quite frankly. I think we should continue to fertilise and irrigate our palm trees because we'll need them on Palm Sunday because I can't imagine a circumstance in which the ACNC would be out there with bunting to prevent Catholics from processing on Palm Sunday. I was once told by a silk I was briefing, 'That's a great argument, son, till you run it and lose.' I think that was his very nice way of saying to me that it was, in fact, a really bad argument and that, to be fair, it wasn't worth the oxygen in the courtroom, and that's what we just heard from the shadow assistant minister—a nice argument till you run it and lose. It was complete and utter bunkum.
We're here to talk about activism cloaked as a charity, or charitable organisations and the confidence Australians need to have in them. That's effectively the debate here, and I think it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the activities of yesterday in this precinct. I'll be brief, other than to say that what we saw yesterday at what is the home of Australian democracy was a cowardly, criminal act. It takes no skill and no courage to walk onto the forecourt of Parliament House with paint tins and matchsticks and set prams alight and deface this great building and what it stands for, not to mention the similar actions that took place at the Lodge. I say to those who perpetrated those offences and those acts: you do your cause an injustice because everyday average Australians look at those images and know immediately that they're paying for the clean-up. I'll be waiting with bated breath to see what it has actually cost the Australian people.
Of course, this is a continuum of the activity that we see at government offices. The department of agriculture was targeted last week. Individual MPs' offices have been targeted. To those people who think that it's a courageous and noble act to commit these criminal offences I say: the more courageous thing is to run for election, come to this place and make your arguments in this place. Don't go down to Bunnings and buy the red paint, because what you're doing is effectively asking your fellow Australians to pick up the bill for your—I was going to say 'misbehaviour' but frankly it is your criminal behaviour.
Enough of that. Listening to the shadow minister, I was sitting here reflecting and thinking this is really a situation where those opposed to this relatively straightforward reform want to suggest that this is something more than it is. This measure effectively seeks to require non-government entities endorsed as deductible gift recipients—that great gift from this place that enables charities to operate as entities with DGR status and offer tax deductions for donated contributions—to be registered as a charity or be operated by a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of DGR recipients in this country have this requirement on them already, and all this measure does is extend that requirement to general DGR categories.
I think it is quite reasonable that Australians expect that, if you are getting the privilege of DGR status, effectively public funding, you should conduct your affairs in a way that would satisfy the ACNC. It is a regulatory reform to make sure Australians can have confidence that entities that are given this great privilege are conducting themselves in a manner that is consistent with their charitable principles. Instead what we see all too often in my view is what the former assistant minister indicated when introducing the bill—namely, activist organisation seeking to cloak themselves in the protection of charitable organisations. They do that for the gravitas and recognition that comes with being a charity and because of the very clear financial benefits that come with being able to offer DGR status, or tax deductibility, to people making significant contributions.
The shadow assistant minister said that what our government wants to see is charitable organisations in the environmental field planting trees not campaigning or being political actors seeking to influence debate. Yes, we do want to see trees in the ground—practical, pragmatic environmentalism. But no-one is suggesting they can't be actors in the civic debate. The implied freedom of political discourse in this country is not something this bill seeks to undermine—frankly, it couldn't—but if you want to enjoy the benefits of DGR status we want to see those charitable objectives addressed. In the environmental space, that is practical, pragmatic environmentalism. If you want to come to this place and walk the halls and act in a way that aligns itself with political activism then you step out of the charity space and enter the field as political actors. There are rules that apply in relation to that activity—and so they should. This is quite an obvious scenario. We don't want people cloaked in charitable purposes pretending to be charities when in fact they are de facto activists and seeking to influence debate in a political context.
The Assistant Treasurer knows that something I'm very passionate about is DGR1 status for community foundations—I can see him almost cringing!
As a member of a regional community with probably Australia's strongest community foundation, I hope very much that the campaign to see DGR1 status for community philanthropic organisations is something that we can see be successful in the not-too-distant future. Once upon a time, Philanthropy Australia, the peak, didn't support that push, and we had a dichotomy of opinion between Philanthropy Australia and the peak for community foundations, the Australian Communities Foundation. We no longer have that dichotomy. We have those two important peak bodies in screaming agreement that this would be a positive outcome for community foundations, regional communities and individuals seeking their support nationwide.
There are currently about 38 regional foundations across Australia, ranging in size. They do phenomenal work on behalf of their communities. Importantly, the evidence is clear that individuals living in a regional community are more likely to give to a charitable organisation if they know that that charitable organisation is based in their community and will apply the proceeds of that charitable donation to their community. It's also a very effective mechanism for achieving outcomes in communities through a vehicle which perhaps wouldn't attract the attention of some of the more substantive nation-run and very large charitable foundations or, indeed, national charities.
I encourage, as I have done for some time now, the government to give strong consideration to DGR1 status for community foundations. It would be a massive win for regional Australia, a massive win for those living in regional communities. More importantly, it would see more money contributed to philanthropic effort in those communities, which can only mean better outcomes for communities. So, here, debating the benefits or the merits, if you like, of DGR status for organisations who seek to use that on occasion to run politically charged or politically driven interests is a frustration for my community, because my community sees the very great work that Stand Like Stone does in the community. It does that without the benefits of DGR status. It sees the great, pragmatic, on-the-ground, real-world outcomes that can be achieved. It sees that it is very much a charity. It doesn't pretend to be what it's not. It's not seeking to hoodwink the government into giving it DGR status, despite not wanting to apply to charitable principles. That's a great frustration for my community and one that I hope we will deal with.
In the meantime, this bill is effectively about asking organisations to swim in their lane. Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of DGR recipients in this country are already required to be registered with ACNC or to operate as a registered charity, but we're clearing up and making more consistent the regulation so that that applies to all entities with DGR status. We're effectively saying to the nation: you can have confidence that when you provide a contribution to an entity with a DGR status that it's a contribution to a charity; that those organisations will swim in that charitable lane; and that, if organisations want to exit that lane and enter the lane that's about political activism, that aims to achieve political outcomes through that form of advocacy, different rules apply to those organisations—rules consistent with other organisations which seek to do the same. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
[by video link] I'm speaking in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, but before I get to the details of the bill, I want to make some introductory remarks about the important roles that charities have played in the community that I represent during this very difficult period of dealing with another outbreak of COVID in Sydney. Over the course of the last three or four weeks I've been ringing a lot of elderly members of our community to check in on their welfare during this difficult time, particularly given that they are not able to get out as much and have as much human contact. I have been blown away by the important work that charities in our community have been performing in supporting not only the elderly but a range of age groups across our community, ensuring that their mental health is in a good state and they are able to access food and groceries, and providing assistance with that; helping with medical appointments; and just improving the general wellbeing of people in our community during this difficult time. I want to congratulate and pay tribute to all the charities in Kingsford Smith and across Australia that have provided support to vulnerable people in our community during this difficult period of COVID. You are the lifeblood of our community and you have helped many, many people through this difficult period. You and your volunteers deserve praise and respect for the work that you do, and we thank you so very much.
In that light, it's a great shame that the Morrison government have been attacking charities over the course of the last couple of years because they may not like what those charities do, what they stand for or what they believe in. If a charities have a different philosophical view to this government, then the government has been cracking down on them and condemning them. The words of the minister, Senator Seselja, highlighted exactly this government's approach, when he said that the government would 'crack down on activist organisations masquerading as charities'. That's code for the government cracking down on organisations whom they don't like, who don't fit with their philosophical view of the world politically and whose activities may highlight some of the wrongdoing and the underhanded tactics of this government, particularly when it comes to issues such as climate change. I think it's a great indictment of this government that they have been attacking charities in that manner over the course of the last couple of years.
Nonetheless, this particular bill is a positive development for charities in that it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as deductible gift recipients to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or be operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and, especially, listed entities will continue to be exempt from this requirement. These changes were announced by the government in their 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and the requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of general DGR categories under our tax law.
This measure will amend the special conditions applying to the remaining general DGR categories and will require non-government entities to maintain charity registration in order to retain their eligibility for DGR endorsement. The amendments include a 12-month transition period, which will give non-charity DGRs time to meet the requirements for charity registration without losing that DGR status, and some DGRs will be able to apply for a longer transition period of up to three years. The measure will hopefully improve consistency in the regulation, governance and oversight of DGRs, in turn helping support continued confidence in the sector and support for DGR entities. These amendments are one part of the deductible gift recipient reforms that were announced in that MYEFO in 2017-18, and the estimated cost for the measure is quite minimal—$0.2 million. That's a reform that we support, but I again reiterate my earlier comments that this government can't pick and choose which charities it likes to operate in Australia. That's a very Stalinist view of the world. All charities, as long as they meet the legal requirements, must be able to register, operate and perform their duties and their responsibilities with their volunteers according to Australian law, free from political interruption from this government.
The second schedule to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to remove the preferential tax treatment provided for offshore banking units, OBUs, and provides transitional arrangements for existing OBUs. This regime is a concessional tax regime that can be used by the Australian financial services sector to provide banking services to offshore customers. When Labor were in government, we cracked down on this tax break in 2011 to rein in banks conducting structured finance transactions through offshore vehicles. But in 2014 the coalition government decided to defer those key reforms, to help big multinationals pay less tax. This has unfortunately been a common theme of this government over its eight years in office.
The government has been quite lax when it comes to ensuring that we have stringent tax laws that crack down on the ability for multinationals to shift profits overseas to avoid paying tax here in Australia and to structure their businesses to avoid tax in our system. The Morrison government has always been too slow to close schemes that let multinationals take advantage of our tax system. Really, it's been dragged kicking and screaming into looking at this issue and taking it seriously through the OECD. Other OECD nations have seen what damage profit-shifting and tax-minimisation schemes can do to not only the GDP of developing nations but, of course, the livelihoods and living standards of their citizens. Avoiding tax in a particular jurisdiction can have a dramatic effect on that country's revenues and GDP and, ultimately, the living standards of that country.
Unfortunately, particularly in the tech space in Australia, we've had many classic examples of large multinational corporations that are able to structure their tax arrangements to avoid paying corporate tax here in Australia. That comes at a cost to the Australian taxpayer. The Morrison government talk a big game about supporting global reform of the tax system, but the reality is that Australia has been out of the game when it comes to this international reform process through the OECD. They won't close debt deduction loopholes or crack down on tax havens. One-third of large companies still pay no tax here in Australia on their profits, and that's despite promises from the Morrison government to reduce tax avoidance. They've been caught out making announcements but failing to follow through on those announcements with any decent reform that actually cracks down on multinational tax avoidance.
Whilst the government are keen on chasing debts from the average Australian welfare recipient through robodebt, more recently in respect of payments associated with JobKeeper and supplements that were provided during the COVID period, they don't do the same when it comes to chasing multinationals that are avoiding tax or, indeed, asking those big corporations that made profits out of JobKeeper over the course of the last 12 months, and weren't eligible under the criteria for receiving JobKeeper, to make those payments back to the Australian people. It's now more important than ever, given the large deficit that our budget now has and the growing net debt of our nation, that everyone, including large corporations, pay their fair share of tax here in Australia. With many small firms in genuine distress amid the latest round of lockdowns, the Morrison government must adopt a zero-tolerance approach to companies that abuse accounting loopholes to minimise their tax.
What's the legacy of the lack of reform and the failure to act on these tax loopholes and act as a good global tax citizen? The coalition's record is clear from the lives of everyday Australians: stagnant wages, insecure jobs, increased costs of health care and child care, longer waits to see a GP, a trillion dollars in debt and baked-in expenditure for the next decade which is unfunded and will only see the budget deficit worsen over time. The government's own budget forecasts show a decline in real wages over the next four years, and independent analysis by the McKell Institute shows that the policies under this government have made the average Australian worker $13,000 worse off, compared to real terms. After promising eight surpluses and delivering eight deficits, including the largest in Australia's history, the government's legacy will be intergenerational debt, without a generational dividend.
So improving the budget bottom line is very important, and, to achieve that, we must make sure that we are cracking down on tax havens and tax arrangements that allow big multinational corporations to shift profits overseas or to structure their tax affairs to avoid paying tax here in Australia. The government's ability to implement measures that are being pushed by the OECD and internationally—and, indeed, by the Biden administration now—to crack down on profit-shifting and crack down on multinational tax avoidance will be the key to ensuring that we get the budget back on an even keel and in a position where our kids don't inherit a generation of debt and deficit that they can never pay back and that confines them to lower living standards and lower real incomes in the course of their working lives.
[by video link] I begin my contribution on this bill by echoing the words of the member for Kingsford Smith and paying tribute to the role of charities. Charities have played an incredible role in Fraser over the last 18 months, during the multiple lockdowns that the people of Fraser have endured. Of course, I acknowledge that the people of New South Wales and other states are experiencing lengthy, extremely difficult and traumatic lockdowns as we speak, and I can only imagine that charities are playing an equally important role in those communities.
In Fraser, throughout these lockdowns, charities have helped people in vulnerable positions: people who have English as a second language, elderly people, people with a disability and people who, due to travel restrictions, have been isolated from their families. Charities have helped people in all sorts of ways—in practical ways such as delivering free meals, shopping or buying groceries for people, and helping people navigate government forms which they otherwise would have relied on younger relatives to help them with. And they've helped people to remain socially connected with their communities. Even if it's by Zoom, even if it's by methods which aren't perhaps ideal, charities have been instrumental in helping people to maintain social connectedness during sometimes long periods of lockdown. And I've found it striking that, once lockdowns have lifted, charities have played a key role. People have flocked back to community events at every opportunity. I look forward to that occurring again when the current lockdowns end.
It has been critical that people receive financial support from all levels of government, and we, of course, see that as a key part of providing support to people. But I also think that it's important to recognise the key role that charities play, and that's why I wanted to begin my contribution by acknowledging the role that charities play in Fraser right now and, I'm sure, will continue to do in the months ahead.
I also wanted to make some observations on the provisions of this bill relating to offshore banking units, in schedule 2. Some of my comments in relation to these provisions are going to mirror comments that I may have made in recent times about other provisions. In a sense, it's a rather disturbing and repeating phenomenon that reflects the way this government operates. When we look at the way that offshore banking units have been regulated, what we see—and I'll work through this later on in my contribution—is that they began with a sensible policy rationale but that, over time, the provisions relating to offshore banking units have been misused.
Under the Gillard government in 2011 and in successive budgets, the provisions relating to offshore banking units were tightened. As speakers on this side of the House have pointed out, one of the early acts of the current government, back when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister, was to undo those provisions, to unwind certain provisions which had very sound public policy bases. Now, of course, what we see, many years later, is the government fixing that error. We welcome their fixing the error, but we do think it is important to recognise that we needn't be in this situation where, in 2021, we are basically back in the situation we were in in 2011, with a whole series of errors in between.
I spoke about similar kinds of public policy dynamics in the previous sitting week, when I spoke on a bill related to the regulation of financial advisers. A whole series of very sensible measures that the Gillard government had implemented under the banner of FOFA had been unwound by this government, and now, following the Hayne royal commission, they are being brought back in. I described it at the time as reflecting that this government's term was a 'lost decade'. This government comes into this chamber and trumpets dramatic reforms which really, in many areas of policy, are simply correcting errors it made earlier on in its long eight years, as in the case of unwinding FOFA and then having to bring back many of those provisions in response to the Hayne royal commission and as in the case of having unwound sensible measures that the Gillard government implemented in relation to offshore banking units and now bringing those measures back in. We see the same thing in so many other areas, like social service delivery. We see massive cuts in relation to aged care and the NDIS and then we see this government, in the last budget, correcting some of those cuts but trumpeting it as major reform.
I think it's important to put that context in place—that so much of what this government puts forward as reform is simply cleaning up its own mess. In 2021, so many areas of policy are no further advanced than they were a decade earlier. That's a huge lost opportunity, because if we look at the area of policy that we are focusing on today we see that so much progress should've been made. For us in 2021 to be debating a bill that takes us back to where we were in 2011, but the rest of the world has moved on so dramatically in relation to multinational corporation taxation and the rest of the world has moved on so dramatically when it comes to the erosion of the tax base, it is ludicrous that we are trumpeting it as some kind of success that we are returning to where we were a decade ago, having made so little progress on so many other areas of the tax base.
As other speakers have pointed out, schedule 2 of this bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act in order to remove the preferential 10 per cent effective concessional tax treatment and the withholding tax exemption for offshore banking units from 2023-24, making offshore banking units subject to the relevant corporate income tax rate from that time. There are also arrangements that close the OBU to any new entrants from the day after royal assent.
The offshore banking unit regime was introduced in 1987 as a tax incentive to attract and maintain financial sector activities within Australia. This was part of a suite of measures which were introduced to open up the banking sector to competition—not just to open it up to competition from foreign entities but to improve competition within the domestic banking system. This was intended to be one of a number of measures which were designed to incentivise foreign banks to maintain a presence in a world in which there was highly mobile capital that otherwise would have been carried through to low-tax environments such as Hong Kong and Singapore. The offshore banking unit tax incentive facilitated the use of Australia as a centre for offshore trading, investment management and lending. The users of the OBU regime have included hedge funds and major Australian financial institutions. But there has been growing concern that hedge funds have been setting up in Australia specifically to take advantage of the OBU regime, and Treasury figures suggest that the cost to the tax system had been rising. So I think, as earlier speakers have indicated, the cost to the tax system has risen from around $160 million in 2006-07 up to over $320 million in the most recent year.
The changing international environment was reflected in October 2018 in the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, which stated that the OBU regime had the potential to harmfully introduce preferential features due to its low-tax rate and the ring-fenced nature that excludes domestic transactions from its scope—that is, the regime was seen to unfairly attract foreign investment to Australia that would otherwise have ended up benefiting another country's tax base. To address the forum's concerns ahead of further reporting from the OECD, the government has decided to remove the preferential tax treatment and close the regime to new entrants. But, as I said, this is something which reflects measures which Labor had introduced some time ago.
The big four banks, Macquarie Group and hedge funds have traditionally been the major uses of the OBU measures for offshore activities. After an expansion of the scheme under John Howard, Labor cracked down on this in 2011 to 2013 to rein in banks that were conducting structured finance transactions known as asymmetric swaps through the offshore vehicles. Labor's crackdown at the time was criticised by the finance industry, and in 2014 the then Liberal Assistant Treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos, implemented more industry-friendly changes to attract mobile financial services.
In the meantime, the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices has made a number of observations that these practices are eroding the tax space internationally and that this is inappropriate. Indeed, one can look at some quotes from an AFR article which was titled 'Australia's $350M bank tax break enrages EU'. I quote from that article in the AFR, written by John Kehoe:
… if the EU designated Australia as home to a harmful tax practice, EU institutional investors such as pension funds would be banned from buying securitised debt from Australian financial institutions.
This would have particularly affected foreign-owned banks in Australia using special-purpose vehicles for securitised debt deals.
So the government was coming under significant pressure from the EU, and of course from the OECD, about this potentially harmful tax regime. Again, if I can draw a parallel to a bill that I've recently spoken on in relation to money laundering, there are significant areas of noncompliance which the Financial Action Task Force has made reference to over many years, yet this government has been far, far too slow to act.
What we see in so many areas is that this government has either been delinquent in taking action or has in fact, in this instance, unwound protections, and now we find ourselves in a situation where, over many, many years, international agencies, the OECD and the EU, in the case of OBU tax regulation, or, in the case of money laundering, the OECD and the FATF have all criticised this government, and all too often the government belatedly, after having been dragged kicking and screaming, implements reforms.
I want to make some observations about the real cost of what I describe as the 'lost decade' of this government—the fact that we are, in this bill, bringing ourselves back to the situation that we were in in 2011. The lost decade is critical, because base erosion and profit-shifting has only grown. If one looks at many of the companies that the OECD and other international tax experts identify as being particularly problematic, their presence in the global economy is only growing.
Many tax experts argue that one of the trickiest areas to regulate when it comes to international taxation is intellectual property. And we find that companies which rely on intellectual property—for example, in technology, the Apples, the Googles, the Microsofts—are companies whose influence in the economy, whose influence in international transactions, whose influence in international investment flows is growing. That is why the OECD, over years, has been placing a greater emphasis on ways in which we can collectively, across the advanced economies, tax these entities more effectively. There are no simple solutions. It's going to take many years of hard work.
But that's why this lost decade is so critical. While other countries have been investing in this EEPS program at the OECD, which has now gone through multiple rounds of policy work, and while those countries are all working on progressing a policy agenda that is dealing with some very, very challenging policy conundrums for some of the largest and fastest-growing companies in our economy, in Australia we find ourselves with bills like this going back to the future—like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill and making no progress. That is the opportunity cost of this government's inaction, of this government's tiny agenda, of this government's delinquency.
We will support the measures in schedule 2, which bring the OBU regime back to where it was, back to where it ought to have been for some time now. But it is worth pointing out that this government's agenda is so limited on so many things, and Australia deserves so much more. We deserve to have a government that has a vision for what our society and what our economy is going to look like on the other side of COVID. We don't want to be a country that is returning to 2011; we want to be a country that has a vision for where we can be advancing to in the future.
This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, addresses some very important areas, particularly Australia's charitable sector. I very much share the concerns raised by the member for Fenner and others about the way the Morrison government are essentially waging a war on this important part of our social fabric. And they are doing this at a time when Australian charities are under huge pressure and have never been needed so much. We are in unprecedented times. We have called on our charities to support us through the bushfire crisis, and now through the COVID pandemic. They are working harder than ever to provide support to Australians and to people in my community, here in Jagajaga, who are struggling at this time.
The charity and not-for-profit sector in Australia makes up eight per cent of our economy, 10 per cent of the workforce and has three million volunteers. We know that during the pandemic charities have had to deal with a dramatic drop in both their volunteer numbers and in their ability to fundraise, and yet these falls come at a time when there is an increase in demand for their services from people who have fallen through the cracks of government support, which we know has been inadequate in so many areas. But despite the challenges that charities are facing through this period, this government is providing little support to the sector and no new initiatives to help them fundraise or to help them recruit and engage new volunteers. On top of that, the Morrison government is proposing to make life even more difficult for the sector by essentially waging a war on charities. We know that charities and not-for-profits need more support from the federal government, not less; they need recognition of what they do to hold the social fabric together, not continued attacks from this government.
Since the coalition government has been in office, major charities in Australia have written three open letters to the Prime Minister complaining about ongoing attacks on the sector. Think about that; three open letters. What a war that this government is waging that this sector has felt it has to operate in that way. We know that the Morrison government has ignored Australian charities' requests to update fundraising laws, which has been a top ask from this sector for many years. Reforming those laws was a bipartisan recommendation of a 2019 Senate committee, which set the government a two-year deadline for doing so, and that time has now passed. After taking two years, the government provided a one-page response and has rejected 11 of the 30 recommendations. So no support for charities to make it easier to fundraise at this particular time
And now we see the Morrison government ramping up its war on charities, to attack advocacy work in the sector. The latest proposal we see from the Morrison government would allow the charities commissioner to deregister a charity merely because he anticipates that it might commit a summary offence. What an overreach that is! We've heard from the member for Fenner of some of the concerns about the decision the Morrison government made to appoint this particular charity commissioner. So not only are there concerns about whether the charity commissioner is someone himself who consults with and supports charities he has now been gifted with these unprecedented powers to deregister a charity because he anticipates it will commit a summary offence.
Things we might be talking about in this space are peaceful protest, blocking a footpath, unlawful entry, malicious damage or vandalism. Again, the member for Fenner raised some of the concerns of the sector about places where this might occur. The Catholic Church, for instance, has talked about its involvement in peaceful events, such as a Palm Sunday protest, which may end up with Catholic charities which talk about such events falling foul of these types of laws. These types of actions would lead to the government taking enforcement action that would include deregistering a charity—absolutely outrageous!
From a party that pretends to espouse the right to freedom of speech, it's clear that it's only freedom of the speech that this government agrees with that it will stand up and protect rights on. When it doesn't agree with the type of speech or the type of advocacy that our charity sector wants to do, they want to shut down that right. They want to shut down the right to protest peacefully because that might make you an activist organisation.
So it's not surprising that Australia's major charities have been very quick to condemn this proposal from the Morrison government. Alice Drury from the Human Rights Law Centre said:
These rules would silence charities at a time when their advocacy is more crucial than ever, as charities support Australian communities through unprecedented crises like catastrophic bushfires and the pandemic. These proposed laws are a case of extreme overreach, and have no place in a democracy.
Marc Purcell from the Australian Council for International Aid Development said that he was:
… really alarmed that there were moves to criminalise the work of charities. … At a time when we’ve got military juntas shutting down civil society in Myanmar, Thailand and China… Australia needs to be supporting diverse opinions, the right of free speech, citizens’ right to protest and certainly not muzzling charitable organisations.
Tim Costello, the Community Council for Australia chair said:
When I first read the proposed changes to governance standards I honestly started thinking about Stalinist Russia and other countries where judgements about which groups can or cannot not operate freely are taken solely to protect the powerful.
I think Australia is better than this, and I struggle to understand any rationale for extending this kind of discretion to a charities regulator.
These are really serious comments from the heads of some of our major charities and charitable groups in Australia—groups that we rely on to do work that's essential in communities across our country.
We know that possible unlawful behaviour carried out by a minority of groups does not amount to a significant issue. This was in fact confirmed by the ACNC commissioner himself. Gary Johns said in a recent Senate estimates that the data did not indicate this was a problem. So there is no evidence of a need for these regulations. Why is the government targeting the entire sector and imposing more unnecessary and alarming red tape on them?
We don't want to see Australian charities silenced, and I urge the Senate to disallow these particular regulations, because they are something that we should stand up against in a democracy. Public advocacy should always play a significant role in our democracy. Asking charities not to be involved in advocacy is asking them to be silent on government failures. Asking environment groups not to put forward suggestions around how we need to tackle climate change is asking them to ignore the biggest part of the work that they do.
It has never been clearer that it's urgent we act on climate change. The IPCC report this week is a message to all of us that this is the time that we must take serious action to tackle climate change before it is too late. And yet it's the message the Morrison government continues to refuse to hear, with no commitment to net zero by 2050, no investment to get us the clean jobs of the future. It's a dangerous position, jeopardising all of our futures. And there is no reason why charities and advocacy groups should not be able to put that position forward and retain a charitable status. Asking charities who work with people in poverty not to advocate for a wider safety net at this time of pandemic and crisis across our country is asking them to ignore the systemic problems they come across. It's ridiculous to ask charities just to hand out a food parcel to someone but not talk to an MP in the government about the broader issues about why that person needs a food parcel. Yet that's essentially what these regulations will suggest to do, so it is really important that they are disallowed.
Schedule 1 of this bill relates to deductible gift recipient amendments, and it does seek to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a deductable gift recipient to be a charity registered with the ACNC, or to be operated by a registered charity. These changes are part of the reform process the government committed to in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. These changes are welcomed by the sector, for streamlining regulatory practice and improving oversight. It is a shame that the government is making these reforms that are welcomed by the sector at the same time as it's trying to shut down their ability to advocate on behalf of the people that they represent.
The second part of this bill deals with offshore banking. Global reform of the tax system is needed, but right now Australia is missing in action. In order to be taken seriously on the international reform process of tax, we must improve the fairness of Australia's multinational taxation system. We need to close down the debt deduction loopholes and crack down on tax havens. We need to get multinational tax right. At the moment, there are too many multinational firms that are routing their profits through tax havens. For the past eight years, this government has been too slow to act to close these loopholes. We know when Labor was in government we addressed some of these tax breaks, in 2011-13, reining in banks conducting structured finance transactions known as asymmetric swaps through offshore vehicles. However, Labor's crackdown was criticised by the finance sector, and in 2014 the then Abbott government made changes to attract mobile financial service businesses. After the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices in 2018, Australia's OBU regime was deemed to be a harmful preferential tax regime on the grounds that it provides a concessional tax rate and is ring fenced to exclude domestic transactions from its scope.
We welcome the government's decision to remove the preferential tax treatment and to close the regime to new entrants, and the work that this bill will do to amend the tax law to remove the effective concessional tax treatment for offshore banking units in respect of offshore banking activities. From the 2023-24 income year, the taxable income of an offshore banking unit on its offshore banking activities will instead be subject to the relevant corporate tax rate. The bill will also remove the withholding tax exemption for OBUs for interest paid on or after 1 January 2024 and will amend the tax law to remove the ability of the minister to issue determinations or declarations that a person or an entity is an offshore banking unit.
These changes are welcome, but this government has form. They like to talk a big game on multinational tax, but in reality this government allows practices that undermine Australian employees and government service provision. Tax evasion and avoidance by multinational companies threatens Australia's tax base. When tax loopholes are exploited by multinational companies, Australians ultimately have to pay higher taxes or suffer cuts to vital services. Now is not the time for us to be allowing or promoting tax loopholes. Now is the time for us to be making sure that multinational companies are paying their fair share. In spite of the government's posturing on closing down tax loopholes, tax office data in Australia shows that around one in four large companies pay no tax in Australia. The previous Labor government began the task of tightening these loopholes. In opposition, the coalition voted against Labor's measures to reduce multinational tax avoidance, and in government they have failed to take serious action on this very serious problem.
This government likes to talk a big game on multinational tax avoidance but, as with so many areas with this government, it's all talk and no action, all talk and nothing that follows through and actually does the work of a government to look out for all the people in our community, to crack down on those people who are unfairly taking advantage of others. We must curtail the use of tax havens and tax avoidance schemes by multinational corporations. The Morrison government is actually letting down all of us if it doesn't do this work.
I know that sometimes things such as multinational tax havens can sound like they're removed from the lives of everyday Australians, removed from the lives of people in my community who at the moment are experiencing another lockdown, are stressed about their jobs and are trying to deal with remote learning and all the pressures that are immediate there, but the reality is: allowing these types of tax havens and tax avoidance to go ahead harms all of those people. It means that money that government should have to provide extra services to support people through this crisis is not there.
This government is in fact cracking down on recipients of welfare. It's cracking down on people who may have been overpaid by Centrelink and asking for that money back, with threatening letters. It is a government, though, that can't crack down on multinational tax avoidance, that can't crack down on corporations who've been overpaid JobKeeper. This government always chooses to target the vulnerable. This government always chooses to fight the people who want to make this a better community. It doesn't choose to tackle the big problems. It is incapable of doing the work we need to create a more harmonious, fairer society for all of us, one where Australians are supported and where we are not waging a war on charities and supporting multinational tax havens. This is a very important bill and it is important that this government gets on with tackling these issues.
I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, particularly in support of the second reading amendment moved by my friend the shadow assistant minister, the member for Fenner. The bill before the House deals with two issues—firstly, with some changes to the DGR regime and, secondly, with the taxation treatment of offshore banking units. I want to make brief comments on both of these and particularly take up some of the matters that the second reading amendment goes to.
I'll start by talking about the tax changes, which, as previous speakers have noted, are changes that Labor welcomes, in that they are of course a journey back to the future. They effectively take us back to changes put in place under the former Labor government really a decade ago. So we do welcome these changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of offshore banking units, removing the current preferential tax treatment for them. We also note that the changes here follow some significant criticism of the Australian arrangements by the OECD. Certainly I take seriously the work of the OECD, under its new secretary-general, who might have some experience of how Australia came to be the subject of this criticism, in his former capacity.
But the work the OECD has been doing in this regard and indeed its encouragement for us to act on climate are things that this government should pay great attention to. There is a very big challenge here to tackle base erosion and profit-shifting. Australia should be leading the world, not, unfortunately, continuing in its status as a laggard in this debate. We do need to tackle these issues, for all of the reasons set out by the member for Jagajaga briefly. And, while we welcome this contribution, we can't ignore the context within which it takes place. We have lost time. We have lost momentum. We have lost revenue. We have sent the wrong signals to the community. And we are not positioning ourselves as best we can to maximise our capacity to recover from the COVID recession.
The second issue this bill deals with relates to changes to the charities sector. I guess probably all of us in this place have had a greater opportunity to reflect on the contribution of Australia's charitable sector over the last 18 months than otherwise. I want to pay tribute in particular to the contributions that I have seen in my electorate over this period and acknowledge all of those organisations and volunteers and staff who do such an extraordinary job in supporting communities through this. But it is of great concern to me that the government doesn't recognise—in fact, does more than this, is determined to crack down on—civil society and this has been a consistent theme over the life of the Abbott-Turnbull and now Morrison governments. We have seen attempt after attempt to deny our charities the space they need and the space any decent democracy needs to breathe in their advocacy work to government.
The proposal that the commissioner can be granted this extraordinary power to deregister charitable organisations based on the assumption of the commissioning of a summary offence is something that's quite shocking. It is shocking that it would even be contemplated in a democratic society. It is shocking when we think about the world in which we live right now, where we are seeing a very concerning drift in a number of countries from genuinely democratic regimes to regimes increasingly characterised by authoritarian tendencies. As with multinational tax, this is another area where Australia should be leading the world.
We have much in our democratic traditions to be proud of in this country but over the last nearly eight years, the entire time that I've sat in this parliament, the manner in which this government has sought to deal with the charitable sector is deeply concerning. It shows that, frankly, there is nothing liberal about this Liberal Party; it is a profoundly reactionary organisation. As we have seen through the pandemic, whenever an intervention has been made—and we welcomed many of these interventions, such as putting in place a wage subsidy—it only happens too late and generally after it has been dismissed in the first instance by that tone-deaf person who is presently Australia's Prime Minister. The reactionary nature of the current Liberal Party is much deeper than that. Its commitment to the values that Robert Menzies espoused at the founding of the party is nothing more than words on paper these days and that has been exemplified through the mechanisms that those opposite are seeking to be put in place, which I hope those in the other place will move to disallow.
Our democracy is much, much more than an election every three years. Our democracy rests on a vibrant civil society. It also rests, frankly, on accountability and that is something that we have seen very little of in this place, particularly in the stubborn refusal of this government to put in place a national anticorruption commission to hold members of the executive properly to account for decisions. Obviously I think particularly about the extraordinary rorts of the commuter car park program and, indeed potentially, the wider Urban Congestion Fund, as well as the extraordinary behaviour of the Prime Minister, the minister currently responsible and the minister formerly responsible in not fronting up and taking responsibility for their actions.
This underscores why it is more important now than ever that we support the advocacy activities of our charitable sector and our not-for-profits, that we recognise the voices across this sector, a very diverse sector, which has come together for the last seven or eight years to speak with one voice about the need for them to be able to raise their voice and the voice of the community against executive government to make the case on the widest variety of issues. Charitable activity should not be prescribed by this government, as people like the member for Barker seem to think is appropriate, which is quite astonishing. I hope that the minister, in summing up, will at least correct the record on that.
Australia's government should recognise the value of our charitable sector. We should recognise the decency of Australians as they come together in shared interests with a shared concern to make our society better. We shouldn't seek to prescribe how this is done; we should recognise the value this brings to us. A good government should fundamentally recognise that being tested by advocacy organisations is in its interests as well as in the interests of our democracy. I hope that government members will recognise the damage that they are doing to the fabric of our democracy . I hope they will recognise the damage that they are continuing to do to the fabric of our society, too, in seeking to tell Australians how they should come together. They should get a thicker skin. They should think about the principles of liberalism, particularly members of the Liberal Party in this coalition government ; recognise the values that they should be standing up for ; and recognise the full contribution that our charitable sector and the millions of Australians who participate in it make to our community and to our politics.
[by video link] Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate virtually. I am keen to say a few words on the record, particularly in relation to charities and the role that they have played during COVID-19. The issues raised in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 are raised with me frequently, and I will talk about how the two relate. I will also speak to the second reading amendment that has been moved , because it does highlight how contradictory this government can be.
Firstly, I turn to the situation that we're in. We all have spoken at length about the impact of the pandemic on our community and the vital role that our charities have played on the ground, at the grassroots, helping people each and every day. In my own community of Bendigo , we 've been in and out of lockdown for the past two years, we are faced with restrictions, people have work one week and not the other, and small- business owners who have never in their life required support or charity are reaching out.
During the peak of the pandemic last year , Bendigo Foods hare , which is an organisation that helps agents on the ground , and they are a charity , distributed over 6,000 meals to people in need in my community. They did so through innovative means , not just through the traditional means of food banks that might happen at faith based organisations. Those services still coordinated last year and this year , but they also distributed food through hampers at La Trobe University, Bendigo TAFE and cafes. This pandemic and the way in which it impacted work affected people who 'd never before received charity , i nternational students who had lost hours and work , people who were here on temporary work visas and people who didn't qualify for government support. Without the network of our charities on the ground in Bendigo, many of these people would have gone hungry.
I also need to mention the great work that was done at the Eagle h awk Community House cooking meals. It was lucky that they received a Stronger Communities grant to purchase a new freezer , because last year and this year their kitchen has not stopped cooking, freezing and delivering meals to people in need. They've changed the way that they do their regular community lunch. Usually we gather in their space to share a meal. These days , the community lunch is delivered to people's front doors. But, j ust as vital, there is still that social connection and making sure that people don't go hungry.
Another example that I wanted to share about a charity that is doing work in my community that has been hit hard by the pandemic and is finding ways to get around it is Uniting Vic. Tas. During the peak of the pandemic last year , the Forest Street service delivered over 3,000 parcels to peop le in need in a COVID- safe way. Their food relief program, whilst it is funded by another part of government—and they did receive some top-up from government—is cross-subsidised by the money they make through their op shops. These are op shops that were closed for significant chunks of last year, op shops that are staffed largely by volunteers who weren't engaged or who were encouraged to stay at home because they were in the high-risk category for most of last year. As a result, their donations are down and their receipts are down. It has put the service at risk, and they are now seeking ways as to how they can continue to deliver food relief to people in need.
The charity sector is going through unprecedented change, being hit hard by the pandemic. Whilst there was some support from the government last year, it hasn't continued. It also hasn't been enough. While they are going through these radical changes—changes to the donations that they're receiving, changes and interruptions to how they can support people—now, more than ever, they need a government that's on their side. Now, more than ever, they need to have the confidence to speak up publicly about what their clients and volunteers are experiencing, and be part of the public discourse. That is why it is disappointing that, although, in this bill, the government seek to help charities through these minor changes to Treasury law, they also in another area seek to attack our charities through trying to silence them or limit what they can say. Contributions made by government members don't hide that fact.
As previous speakers on my side have said, we should be embracing our charities being part of the discourse. They are helping to share Australia's story, our narrative. Particularly in these difficult times, we need them to be publicly speaking up and telling us what needs to change. You cannot support charities on the one hand and then say that limits you or stops you from being able to speak publicly about the very sector you are trying to support. It is not just our emergency relief and faith based organisations that are feeling this pressure; it's also organisations who are speaking out about family violence—who are speaking out about supporting women and children who are fleeing domestic and family violence. They, too, do vital on-the-ground work and find it hard to divorce that vital work—the work where they need government support, need government funding—from being part of the public discourse about what needs to change to help their clients. The government shouldn't be afraid of this accountability that's been put forward by the charities and not-for-profit sector. They should be embracing it, bringing them into the fold and helping them be part of the conversation for change.
Our charity sector across our country is what is holding us up through these difficult times. Whilst business is under attack, whilst workers are under attack, whilst we are in this health crisis, our charities are filling the gaps—quite often, gaps that have been created by the complexity of the government's social welfare system, where far too many people are falling through the cracks. I urge the government to consider what we've put forward in our second reading amendment and to drop the attacks on the charities sector that they've waged in other areas. Although these reforms are welcomed, they are only minor and do not make up for the huge attacks on our charities sector, particularly in relation to services like emergency relief, over the last few years that the coalition have been in government.
The second set of changes before us is supposed to target multinational tax. It takes me back to one of the first reports we received in parliament—a representation that was made back then by the United Workers Union, who prepared a report to say who was paying for our Commonwealth. Tax avoidance by multinationals and big business has been on the agenda for years now, for decades, yet all we see from this government are these minor amendments before us today. They just don't go far enough to do the reform that we need. There is an opportunity here for the government, at a time when our country needs it, to be really progressive, to be really bold and to ensure that big companies and multinationals are paying their fair share of tax. Our country needs it. We need this for our economic reform. We need this for our post-COVID recovery. It's simple maths: if wages are down, if tax receipts are down and if GST is down because people aren't spending in small businesses because workers aren't earning what they used to earn, let alone getting a pay rise, then we will have less when we need more.
An area where this government has been lagging has been multinational tax reform and ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax. The statistics are alarming. One-third of large companies in this country pay no tax on their profits. They can afford the big accountants. They can afford to work out how to avoid their tax. Some of them are paying tax; some of them are making donations through charities—they're choosing where they want their tax to go. That's a debate for another day about whether we think it's fair that they decide where their gifts—their tax, so to speak—go. Whilst it's welcome that they're being charitable, they're also receiving a tax deduction, which means they are contributing less towards the broader Commonwealth.
The Treasurer talks a big game when he talks about supporting global tax reform, yet we've seen very little come forward. It is another one of those great marketing exercises and a lot of spin. We know the Australian people want to see fairness in our tax system. We know that they agree that big companies should be paying tax. Many of these big companies who've paid no tax have also benefited from JobKeeper rorts in the last year. This, again, is money that could be going back into our Commonwealth and back towards the businesses and the workers that have so desperately needed it this year.
As we get to the end of this pandemic and once we reach the finish line of vaccinations, we are going to need reform to our tax sector to ensure that we have the resources, the dollars, that are required for the recovery. If we don't have them, then we will have a patchy recovery. We will have a recovery that sees many continue to miss out on opportunity. We won't have the resources that we need to boost our TAFE, to boost universities and to make sure we invest in industries that will deliver the jobs of the future. There is such opportunity for us if we can just get our tax system right.
For the average worker, it's about fairness. It's about making sure that that large company pays its fair share of tax. It's pretty alarming when we think that it was a group of cleaners, a group of guards and their union that, back to 2014, put forward a paper that challenged our thinking about who's really paying for the common wealth. We live in a broken system when workers who are on minimum wage are contributing more towards our common wealth than big multinational companies or big companies. Just because you have the means, the capability and the smart people to work out how to avoid paying tax doesn't make it right. It just makes you rich and it just makes you able to use the system.
This isn't the politics of envy, as the Prime Minister would say; it's the politics of common sense and it's making sure that everybody pays their fair share. That's how we ensure that our Commonwealth has the resources for a universal health system, which has really been put to the test this year and last year. It's how we ensure that our Commonwealth has the resources for a well-funded university and TAFE sector that ensures that nobody misses out on a university place.
I strongly urge the government to do more work both on tax avoidance and on support for our charities. Whilst Labor supports the bill that has been put forward, there is a real opportunity here to do more. Our charities sector needs support, our charities sector needs fewer attacks and our workers and our Australian community expect the Australian government to do more when it comes to ensuring large companies pay their fair share of tax.
I begin my contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 by acknowledging all of the different charities around Australia and everything that they've done to support Australians during this very difficult period with the pandemic and the effects it's had on Australians and Australian families around this country. Australian charities have supported and continue to support so many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly those who have become vulnerable because of insecure work or casual work and those who haven't been supported by the government's actions. At the outset I want to address something that was said by the member for Barker, who was scoffing at the idea of Catholics processing on Palm Sunday. He suggested that it was fanciful that people processing could ever lead to a situation where a government that was overly focused on control and silencing dissent could use this legislation against its own citizens, including those of the Catholic faith—my faith—and other Christian faiths. On Palm Sunday in Darwin we have a procession down Smith Street where Anglicans, members of the Uniting Church and members of the Catholic congregation come together and walk down that street with palm fronds. At times during these processions we speak out against injustice because we are led by the message of Jesus.
Another clear example where this legislation could be used unfairly against Christian charities is also in Darwin, where at the moment we have citizens of Iran who fled their country and came to Australia to save their lives. Some of them are Christian and some are not. Many of them have been in detention for around eight years. Members of various churches, including the Catholic bishop Charles Gauci, go to the fence because every day we have a rally at the fence at 5 pm in solidarity with these people who are imprisoned within the Darwin airport. Some of them have been released into community detention. But there is still one family in detention, and we do not know why the minister is not releasing that last family. Their health and wellbeing have been deteriorating steadily in the time that I've been visiting them. This is a blight on our nation. The people that I represent are sick of the injustice, the wilful damaging of human beings whose only crime, in the eyes of those opposite, was to seek asylum. They will be settled overseas, but until then it escapes us why those opposite would not release them into community detention while they await settlement in another nation. My point is that, if someone at one of those 5 pm rallies in Darwin in solidarity with these genuine refugees were to come into contact with a member of law enforcement because they happened to go onto the road during a rally and that person was a member of a charity such as St Vincent de Paul, a fine charity that I'm a member of, under this legislation that charity could have its charity status taken away. I say to the member for Barker: you shouldn't scoff at the traditions in our Christian faith and you shouldn't try to belittle in any way the passion of the members of these charities for human rights and justice.
This bill amounts to a continuance of the federal government's crackdown on charities. All of us in this place should know how important and valuable charities are to our community. But just think about this for a second: at the moment in the Northern Territory our not-for-profit sector is worth more to our community than mining. I hope that changes in the future as we open up more mines in the Northern Territory, but it is significant. That's the point: it is a significant part of our community and a significant part of our economy. So this is about respect. This is about respecting charities, because where do so many billions of dollars of donations to these charities come from? They come from the Australian people, and the Australian people decide to support these charities because they believe in what they're doing, they believe in advocacy and they believe in holding government to account. So you've got to ask yourself: why is this government, after eight years, continuing to try to crack down and silence charities?
More than 10,000 people are employed by Northern Territory charities, with another 11,000 volunteers on top of that. Out of our relatively small population, that's significant. And the charities sector feeds over $615 million back into the local economy each year. As I said, I'm very proud to volunteer with Vinnies and veterans organisations. Veterans organisations with the deductible gift recipient status—are we saying that if a member of one of those veterans organisation, which are fighting for a better deal for veterans, comes foul of this legislation then the RSL are going to get their charity status taken away? Mates4Mates? Soldier On? Think about it. There is a lot, after eight years of this government, that veterans have endured. We had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to announce a royal commission when we had more veterans take their own lives than we've had die in combat over 20 years in Afghanistan. So I again say to the government: think. Think about what this sector does.
There are many charities I could mention in the Northern Territory that do not deserve to be cracked down on. An Aboriginal men's shelter that I'm working with; Foodbank; Variety; PAWS, which is looking after animals; and Aboriginal organisations—one of which, a philanthropic organisation, is putting its hand into its own pocket to help the Northern Territory government implement the Aboriginal Justice Agreement. That is new news; it's happened today. That's the not-for-profit sector joining with the NT government to work through and implement the Aboriginal Justice Agreement. I ask the minister that's sitting here with us at the moment: are those opposite really saying that someone who is advocating, using their voice to speak up—as we know, the Closing the Gap update just happened this week—and protest about deaths in custody, about the shocking rates of Indigenous youth suicide and about human rights abuses? Are we really saying that if any of those individuals use their voice to speak out then the deductible gift recipient status of some of those organisations will be taken away? Let's think about this and think about who we're silencing.
I think that the Morrison government's proposed governance changes in this sector are alarming and unnecessary, and I do believe they will do real damage. Unfortunately, they've got form in that they rarely pay attention to this sector, the charities sector, until they want to slap another gag on the sector's ability to speak up for the Australian people.
In the past four years, just two of almost 60,000 charities have been disqualified for breaking the law. That's 0.003 per cent, so you've got to wonder what is driving this legislation. There is no such thing as a charity crime wave. The changes would merely give the coalition another set of tools to shut down any criticism—they want charities to be seen but not heard. Charities can already be deregistered for breaking the law and their staff members and volunteers can face penalties.
The coalition—those opposite—want to go even further. Their proposed unfair new rules go far beyond anything that applies to political parties, businesses or other organisations, and if this is enacted, a charity could be deregistered for the most minor offences imaginable. The member for Barker scoffed at one such minor incident that might have been caused, willingly or unwillingly, by a religious organisation. It's absurd. What's more, a charity could be shut down if the charities commissioner believes a minor breach could occur in the future. That is absurd. It's wading into Minority Report territory. Do you remember that film with Tom Cruise, Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace? They go around and get people before they've even committed a crime. That's the sort of territory were getting into here. It reminds me of another Tom Cruise movie: Top Gun. I know the assistant shadow minister—
The member for Solomon is drawing a long bow when he starts talking about Top Gun in this regard, unless he's drawing the reference to Minority Report being from Tom Cruise. I'll allow the speaker to go on a bit further, but I'm going to bring him back to his point.
Fair enough too, Deputy Speaker. What I was getting at is that I want those opposite to stop using our charity sector as a shield. They see it as good for a photo op but then say: 'Don't say anything. Don't advocate, because if any of your members do anything wrong, we'll take your DGR status from you.' DGR status is the very thing that citizens of our nation use to make donations to those organisations, because they believe in what they're doing. Stop using these shields.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the final Tom Cruise reference. It goes to another movie: A Few Good Men. We need a few good men, because they're mostly men on the side, to say: 'We can handle the truth! We can hear what members of the charity sector have to say. We're not afraid of criticism, and we're not going to strip away your ability to operate if you step over the lines that we keep drawing in front of you.' Even the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commissioner himself, Gary Johns, has said under questioning during Senate estimates that he has seen no evidence to support the changes to the regulations. The Liberals' own review recommended the existing regulations around unlawful conduct be scrapped. Instead, the Morrison government wants to expand dramatically the scope of the activities the regulations could capture. I believe these changes will be terrible for our democracy.
Freedom of speech is important. We hear that from those opposite all the time, but that belief is inconsistent with what they're doing with this legislation. Deb Di Natale, the CEO of NTCOSS, the Northern Territory Council of Social Service, which is the peak body for our local community sector in Darwin, said 'the regulations are a case of extreme overreach and that it's not clear what problems they are meant to solve'. With only 0.003 per cent of charities having incidents in this area, it is hard to see what problems they are meant to solve.
Commissioner Johns has criticised Beyond Blue and Recognise—the minister at the table, the member for Hasluck, will be well aware of their work—and sees Australian charities as being rife with impure altruism. Scott Morrison should not give him more tools to strip charitable status. We don't want Commissioner Johns to have more tools to strip the charitable status of organisations that only raise their voices to criticise governments, whether it be the current government or a future Labor government.
In summing up, I've worked in the not-for-profit sector, and I stand with faith groups and the community sector, who oppose these very concerning changes. Labor values the contribution that charities and not-for-profits make to civil society, public discourse and the democratic process, and we'll do everything that we can to protect that important role.
Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the tax law, to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a deductible gift recipient, DGR, to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, or to be operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and specifically listed entities will be exempt from this requirement.
The requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of general DGR categories, in subdivision 30-B of the 1997 tax law. This measure will amend the special conditions applying to the remaining general DGR categories requiring non-government entities to maintain charity registration in order to retain their eligibility for DGR endorsement. The amendments include a 12-month transition period, which will provide non-charity DGRs with time to meet the requirements for charity registration without losing their DGR status. Eligible DGRs may also have access to an additional three-year transition period. This measure will improve the consistency of regulation, governance and oversight of DGRs, in turn helping to support continued confidence in the sector and public support for DGR entities.
Schedule 2 of this bill contains amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which remove the preferential tax treatment provision for offshore banking units, or OBUs, and provide transition arrangements for existing OBUs. In October 2018, the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices found that Australia's OBU regime contained harmful features. As a result, the Treasurer announced on 26 October 2018 that the government would seek to address the OECD's concerns. The OBU regime has been closed to new entrants since the Treasurer's announcement. Timely passage of this bill will allow the OECD to confirm that Australia has amended the OBU regime to ensure that it is not a harmful tax practice. This is consistent with the Morrison government's ongoing support for international tax integrity, and will protect Australia from potential reputational damage and other possible consequences. The bill provides for two-year transition arrangements to assist existing OBUs to transition away from the regime.
I commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Fenner be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and I signal I'll be moving a second reading amendment on behalf of the member for Hindmarsh, who will take up the longer slot in this debate, being the shadow minister for health. I think that amendment is being circulated in my name as we speak.
Organ and tissue donation is something that's very dear to my heart. When I was the parliamentary secretary for health, I had responsibility for this area, and it's an area I feel very strongly about. It's a very important issue. It's in fact a life-and-death issue. We don't get to debate those very often in this place, but it's an important one. This bill reforms the governance structure of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, and it's following advice from a well-respected former member of this place, Dr Mal Washer, who is currently the chair of the Organ and Tissue Authority board, to enable the board to have a more strategic and advisory focus.
This bill will transition the role of accountable authority from the board back to the CEO and replace the existing governance board with an advisory board under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2018. It undoes the changes the government brought in in 2017, taking the board back to the model that was introduced by Labor in 2008. We were a bit unclear as to why the government changed the way in which the board functioned. We thought we had it right when we established the authority and the way in which the board operated as an advisory body when we introduced this, but the government obviously thought differently. It now has changed its mind, and we're grateful for that.
Organ and tissue donation is a great Labor legacy, and we're very pleased that it is something that the government has continued with. It was initiated under the leadership of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, someone who also feels very strongly, and continues to contribute to the policy debate, around this issue. As I said, we don't really know why the government changed the governance structures back in 2017, but we welcome the government's now choosing to act on the board's own view about the governance of organ and tissue donation, as represented by advice by the chair.
This advice conforms with Labor's view that non-corporate Commonwealth entities like the Organ and Tissue Authority should have a governance structure that allows for the CEO, who actually runs the organisation and is accountable for its functioning, to be the accountable entity in a legal sense, all the while being guided by an advisory board that focuses on the strategic direction of the authority and can take the time and effort to actually look at what is happening to organ and tissue donation in Australia and look at how there might be improvements in the strategic direction, rather than getting into the minutiae of running the authority.
We did have it right back in 2018, because organ and tissue donation, as I said, is a very proud legacy of the former Labor government. National reforms introduced by Labor in government, and the creation of DonateLife in 2009, saw organ and tissue donation rates increase by almost 40 per cent in less than five years. One organ and tissue donation can transform the lives of 10 or more people. We welcome this change, and we encourage all Australians to consider their eligibility to register as an organ donor and to also, importantly, have that conversation with your family members that it is what you want to do. Tell them that is what you want to do if they are ever in the circumstance where they might be asked whether you wish to donate your organs. That conversation is incredibly important.
While this change is welcome, what it does highlight really strongly is the difference between a progressive Labor government focused on health reform versus a government that is not a reforming government but rather a managing government—and sometimes not managing that well either. It shows what you can have when you have a government that wants to focus on health reform. It also focuses on the failings you have when you have a government that clearly should be doing far more to improve health and to take us through the pandemic.
The crisis we are in at the moment is a health crisis. Our current lockdowns are driven by the government's failure to do the two jobs that it had: rolling out the vaccine and fixing hotel quarantine. It is, to borrow the Treasurer's phrase, 'One of the biggest policy failures in living memory'. That's what we are seeing writ large when it comes to health at the moment. Eighteen months into the pandemic, we should be doing far better than we are. If we remember, right back to the start of the rollout, the coalition promised four million vaccinations by the end of March, six million by 10 May, all aged-care and disability workers vaccinated by Easter, and every Australian vaccinated by October. Not one of those targets has been met. Far from being the envy of the world, the government is now being held up internationally as an example of what not to do. We're an example of how countries like ours, who got complacent about our early success of keeping the virus out, are now struggling because of failed vaccine rollouts and leaders whose hubris led them to believe the vaccine rollout was not a race.
This bill on organ and tissue donation is very welcome, but, again, it shows the contrast between a progressive, reforming government that is interested in trying to address the problems of health reform and a government that can't even manage a vaccine rollout program. That being said, on behalf of the member for Hindmarsh, 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 urges the Government to deliver better health outcomes for all Australians, including through better management of the COVID-19 pandemic".
Is the amendment seconded?
It is, and I reserve my right to speak.
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. If it suits the House I'll state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to.
I rise to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, which seeks to transition the role of accountable authority under the PGPA Act from the board back to the CEO, and replace the existing governance board with an advisory board under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008.
This bill will enable the board to have a more strategic and advisory role. It is an important technical change to ensure improved governance and strategic intent of what is a very important authority. There will be no change to existing roles and functions of the Organ and Tissue Authority, and the advisory board will continue to have access to the responsible minister and be free to focus on strategic activities. The governance changes will align the Organ and Tissue Authority with the governance structures of most other non-corporate Commonwealth entities.
To put aside this amendment, I would like to speak further about the importance of organ donation. Organ donation is a gift. It's a gift of life for thousands of Australians. Indeed, it's a gift of life for millions of people worldwide. Organ donation is a very sensitive topic, and it is very prone to changes in the environment. In 2020 we saw a big drop in organ recipients. It was a disappointing decrease from the previous year and it was due to COVID-19. It was actually a result of a decrease in the number of organ donors.
Hospitals have faced so many challenges through COVID, and we know that the health system has had to pivot significantly through what has been a dreadful pandemic over the last 18 months. Hospitals have faced logistical challenges, including flight reductions and border closures, and we've heard some really devastating stories of patients not being able to travel across borders to capital cities that have been closer to them, and they have had difficult outcomes from a health point of view as a result. This has basically affected the national program of organ donation throughout the year. There have been precautionary steps taken with the transport sector, suspending adult kidney and pancreas transplant programs, and this occurred from March to May in 2020, and there have been difficulties during rolling lockdowns subsequently. Elective surgery, including kidney transplants, was suspended from late March last year. I'd just like to say that Australian doctors and nurses have been working conscientiously to ensure the impact of these events on patients is minimised, and they should be congratulated. It's a very difficult place to be working when you have the gift of a life being shortened by the fact that COVID has had such a significant impact.
One of the bigger issues for Australia is that organ donation and consent for organ donation need to be addressed even further. In Australia, we know that 58 per cent of families consent to donation when asked in a hospital setting. It can be a tragic time when you're beside the bed of a loved one, going through those agonising last few days and hours caring for them, and then after the event having to make an agonising decision about whether the organs of your deceased loved one will be the gift of life for others. Australian families understand that gift and they have given over and over again. But only 34 per cent of Australians are registered on the Australian Organ Donor Register, and we must make organ donation a national priority to increase awareness of the benefits of organ donation for all Australians.
There are different types of consenting processes around the world, and there is a hot debate in the medical research literature about what is the best form of consent. Of course, ethics, culture, a faith based approach—all of those issues play into the culture of a country and the approach a country may take to different forms of consenting processes. There is what is called hard versus soft consent. When we talk about different forms of consenting, we talk about 'opt in' or 'opt out'. In Australia currently we have an opt-in situation. As I said before, when asked whether they would like to have their deceased one's organs donated, Australians over and over again do consent in the vast majority of cases, but that number could be increased. It's very important that everyone in Australia think about having a conversation with a family member. That's because you never know, unfortunately, if you will end up being in that situation. What we do know is that, over and over again, patients' requests for their end of life can be overturned by their family members, who are obviously distressed and in a very difficult situation, having to make decisions. Sometimes the overturning of that decision can mean the loss of a precious donor organ. So there is the option of an opt-in system, which Australia currently has, but there's also the option of a system that is based on opting out. An opt-out system across a nation can have a spectrum of policy. There is a hard consent system, where organs would be removed after death if the individual has not opted out, and most people don't support that form of utilitarian approach. It has an authoritarian concept and it's something that most countries would not agree to. But there is also a soft consent system for opting out, where there is an assumption of favour of donation, a presumption that most people would be willing to give if they were given the opportunity but that the final say rests with the families and loved ones themselves.
I believe that Australia is ready for consideration of an opt-out situation, the presumption that people may like to be considered for organ donation, as long as their loved ones and family are apprised of the situation and their views. We know, unfortunately, that fewer than one in five Australians have had these sorts of discussions with their family. If there is one thing I would urge Australians to do, it is to have that conversation. The one thing about opt-out is it gives Australians an opportunity to put this conversation front and centre.
Spain is a country that has had an opt-out system for many years. In fact, it is the leader in organ donations and has been for the past 26 years. There are arguments about why that is the case. Certainly when it first introduced its opt-out processes they took a while for the organ donation rates to increase but it is now the world leader in organ donation, with 46 organ donors per million people in their country. We've also seen other countries move to an opt-out situation and have the success of Spain. England last year changed to the opt-out system under the newly introduced Max's law. As I said before, Australia currently has an opt-in system whereby an individual must record their consent with the Australian Organ Donor Register. Australia currently sees roughly half the frequency of organ donation that Spain has.
In my former life I was a paediatrician. I trained in a fellowship program in the United States in a liver transplant program, so I've had a lot of professional experience of being involved in liver transplantation. In fact, the University of Chicago, where I trained, was the pre-eminent paediatric liver transplant unit in the world and undertook 65 liver transplants each and every year. In fact, our unit had undertaken the world's youngest liver transplant on a 12-week-old baby who had a neonatal form of liver failure. It was an incredibly young liver transplantation. Subsequently, I have also worked in Australia and I know how awful it is when a family is waiting desperately with their child for a precious organ so that they can help their child to live a more normal life.
Research suggests that opt-out countries see 32 per cent more organ donors. If that was to happen in Australia, a 32 per cent increase would translate to 148 more organ donors saving and transforming the lives of roughly 405 Australians. I believe Australia's ready for a conversation to consider opt-out going forward, with hundreds of Australians privy to the life-saving benefits of such a scheme. Australia is a world leader in successful organ transplant outcomes. We clearly have the skills in our medical industry but we always need more willing donors.
The key to Spain's success may not simply be the opt-out system; it may also lie in the fact that they employ medically-qualified donor coordinators. An essential aspect of the system is that intensive care specialists who are busy working to save lives should not be given the job of obtaining the consent of families for organ donation. It is very, very important that an independent, medically qualified, third party is engaged in the process of obtaining consent. We know that in Spain there have been a large amount of resources directed to ensuring that every hospital has a medically qualified donor coordinator. This has had significant positive effects not only in Spain but in other countries too, such as Italy, Portugal and Croatia, which have also followed suit, with each of these countries privy to larger donor rates than Australia.
There is no doubt that the adeptness of the Australian medical industry has led to a very successful organ transplant program. We know that we have some of the best surgeons in the world but we need Australians to put up their hand as organ donors and speak to their families regarding their wishes. We need Australians to think not just of the prospect of being an organ donor but the prospect of being an organ recipient. An organ transplantation can be needed at any time, even for the healthiest of individuals. With only one in three adult Australians registered to donate organs but 69 per cent believing it is important to do so, now is the time to have the conversation on how we can increase donor rates. Australians are the ones to do it.
In Australia the different states and territories have different forms of legislation and different types of services, and there is a huge range of donor registration rates across Australia. The Northern Territory, unfortunately, sits at the lowest rate at 14 per cent, but I am pleased to say South Australia has the highest rate at 71 per cent. South Australia is the only state where individuals can register to be a donor on their driver's licence. I really welcome this initiative. I think this is a really great way to make sure people think about this form of care and it's likely why South Australia has the highest donation rate. If this initiative is introduced to other states, it has the powerful potential to influence life for so many Australians.
I'd like to tell the story of Jim, a recipient of an organ transplant. He became jaundiced overnight and within a week he'd been flown by air ambulance to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Doctors were confused about how a healthy 49-year-old man suddenly became life-threateningly ill and why his liver was shrinking and dying. Within three days his major organs began to shut down and he was going to pass away if he did not receive a liver soon. Luckily, a liver was available and he pulled through after a massive operation that was life-saving.
This story is just one example out of over a thousand every year in Australia where someone has benefited from the gift of life of an organ transplant. I had many similar experiences in the United States when I was a fellow in the liver transplant unit. A 12-year-old girl who had non-A to non-E hepatitis was waiting desperately for an organ transplantation. She had a number of days to live; she was in intensive care. Her uncle from Texas, who had not spoken to her family for many years, came forward after there was a public request to try to save this young girl's life. He became what is called a 'living organ donor'—he donated part of his liver to his niece. That was an incredible story and an incredible experience, watching a child's life be saved by her uncle who she hadn't seen for many years. It was a reuniting story for that family as well. We can speak about numbers as much as we like, but in the end we are dealing with human beings and every single human is important.
To conclude, this is an incredibly important area of medicine. It is life transforming. It can be a difficult conversation for people to have, but I encourage those listening to understand that the gift of organ donation is an incredible one and that it's treated with the utmost respect and the dignity it deserves by the medical health professionals doing the work and by the families receiving the outcome. As the national advertising campaign slogan goes, 'Become an organ donor—heaven knows we need them.' I commend the bill to the House.
[by video link] It was a great pleasure to listen to the remarks of the member for Higgins on this Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. It is a reasonably technical bill and I'll talk about its provisions in due course, but this is an area of policy about which I am also passionate, having had the great privilege of being the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and having executive responsibility for the introduction of this authority and the general DonateLife program that the member for Higgins talked about and the member for Ballarat before her.
I think it's fair to say that Commonwealth involvement in this area would simply not have happened without the passion of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who himself is a recipient of donor tissue. He listened to the advocacy and campaigning of a range of different groups across Australia—groups like Gift of Life and many others—who for years had been drawing attention to the comparatively low levels of organ donation in Australia, particularly, frankly, in our two largest states. The member for Higgins talked about the state variability in organ donation rates. At the time when our government was introducing the DonateLife program, back in about 2009, the rates were even more variable than they currently are. Literally hundreds of Australians every year were missing out on life-saving transplants, which meant, tragically, that many of them died not having received the transplants that could have saved and then extended their lives.
Back in 2009, when we introduced the DonateLife program—we launched it, I remember, at the Lodge that year—rates in Australia were stuck at a little over 200 donations per year. That was a rate of less than 10 donations per million, which is the way in which we measure organ donation rates around the world. The member for Higgins mentioned that Spain has for many years now been the global leader in organ donation rates. We were running at about 10 per million; Spain is running at about 46 per million. For every organ donor, potentially three, four or even five lives can be saved through different organs being donated to people awaiting transplants. I talked to many of these people at the time, and what that meant was that literally hundreds of Australians were waiting for the phone call with their bags packed. They were ready to travel to hospital at a minute's notice to receive that life-saving transplant, but, frankly, because of our comparatively very low rates of organ donation, for so many that call never came.
Our program, the DonateLife program, which was supported by the then opposition, now the Liberal Party government, was relatively simple. It was evidence based. It was informed by a good understanding about what worked overseas and, frankly, what was working in my state, the state of South Australia, where the organ donation rate, even back then, was more than double the national average. It was substantially more than double the organ donation rate of the larger states of New South Wales and Victoria.
The member for Higgins talked about some of those elements, and I want to go through the key ones as I saw them at the time and as we saw them as a government. The member for Higgins will understand that the most important element is the clinical culture in hospitals. What we found in South Australia was that, over time, a culture had developed in our major hospitals—particularly in the intensive care units, which are really the centre of this question. There was a very clear culture that, whenever there was a tragic passing of a patient, it was part of the process of dealing with that death for any opportunity for organ donation and, consequently, transplants to be actively pursued by the clinicians. I remember talking to clinicians here in South Australia about their experience as younger clinicians, as trainee doctors. If the older supervising clinician came into work of a morning when there had been a tragic death the night before and organ donation had not happened, the younger clinician would be interrogated, and interrogated severely, about whether the opportunity for organ donation had been pursued.
I think all of us understand how delicate that can be and how it is just another responsibility or duty to add onto the very long list of duties our clinicians already have. But what was clear was that the culture of our hospitals was a very key determinant of the different organ donation rates that we saw at that time across Australia. Once we'd identified the cultural issue, though, hospitals needed to have clinical staff whose job it was to deal with this challenge. From memory, the most substantial share of the money—about $151 million, I think—was committed by the Rudd government to one of the central programs. It went into employing donor nurses so that there would be nurses at our major teaching hospitals whose job it would be to pursue these opportunities. Our major tertiary hospitals are where these opportunities for organ donation tend to arise. They were trained in having these very delicate conversations with the grieving families—families who'd only in recent minutes and hours learned of the death of their loved one. Having that conversation, as I think we all can imagine, is an incredibly delicate task, and employing donor nurses so that there were people specifically allocated, specifically trained to do it, was a central element to the DonateLife program that we put in place.
A range of other parts of that program have, I think, stood the test of time. I'm sure it's incredibly gratifying to everyone from groups like Gift of Life and many others who advocated for this type of program for so long to see the really substantial improvement in organ donation rates over the last decade. I will talk, as the member for Higgins did, about the decline in 2020. That was clearly driven by the pressure on our hospital systems imposed by COVID. But, if you look at the 2019 rates, instead of having organ donation pretty steady at around 220 per year across the country—less than 10 per million people—the donor rate has climbed to 550. That is substantially more than double the 2019 rate, which had been stuck at 220.
Given that every organ donor, on average, allows for three or four different organ transplants, that meant hundreds and hundreds of people every year, leading into 2019, were able to receive the gift of life—the extraordinary opportunity to receive a donated organ that would potentially extend their life for years and years or even decades. Organ donation saves hundreds of lives every year.
One of the highlights of my increasingly long career in this parliament was, as the parliamentary secretary for health, being at the opening of the 2009 Transplant Games in the Gold Coast. This is an international sporting event that, not unlike the Paralympics that are underway now, is only open to recipients of organ transplants. Sitting in that hall in the Gold Coast, as representatives of every country across our planet walked in behind their flag to represent their country over the coming weeks of that games, was an extraordinary experience. Every single one of those people, of all ages and backgrounds, had been given the gift of life through an utter tragedy such as a car accident or some other life-ending event.
One of the extraordinary things about those games—and we see this at DonateLife events around the country all the time—was the presence of donor families, the families of those whom they had lost, families who were feeling a small measure of relief to their grief in the knowledge that, through their loved one's death, someone else had gained the opportunity to continue to live and, in some cases, a number of people had gained the opportunity to continue to live. This is an extraordinary gift. Obviously subject to consent and privacy arrangements and such like, the bringing together of grieving donor families with transplant recipients, who are so extraordinary grateful for that gift of life and the opportunity to have some certainty and some opportunity to keep on living, is really one of the most beautiful moments that any of us as members of parliament can get to witness.
I want to commend the work of the authority, of the donor nurses, of clinicians across the country who do this incredibly important work on top of all the other things Australia's world-leading conditions do each and every day in our hospital systems and beyond. It really is a great inspiration to us all. But, as the member for Higgins pointed out, there is still much more we can do. I don't propose to follow the member for Higgins into the debate about an opt-in versus an opt-out system, except to say that I learned early on in my time as the Parliamentary Secretary for Health—not being a clinician myself, obviously—that that debate is not so simple. That debate is not as simple as we would like to believe as we step into it. I was told by many clinicians about their very deep concerns about what would arise with grieving next of kin were an opt-out system in place. The clinicians would then need to deal with next of kin who might have very strong views about organ donation, but a process had simply not been gone through by that family with the person who had lost their life to formally opt out of the system. So I'm not entirely convinced about this. Of course, all of these things should never be closed debates. There's always the opportunity to continue to debate them, but I am not convinced about that question right now.
I do, though, think that the one area where we have not made the progress we would have liked to have seen back in 2009 is on the question of family consent rates. I remember, I think when we launched the DonateLife program, that the rate of consent by next of kin to organ donation was around 57 per cent. That means that, when grieving next of kin were asked by hospital clinicians whether they would consent to their loved one who had just passed away donating organs, about 57 per cent of family members gave their consent. The member for Higgins said that the rate was 58 per cent. I've seen a figure of 62 per cent. Whichever of those two is right, it demonstrates that, after more than a decade of this DonateLife program being in place, that consent rate has not shifted at all substantially. It's important to point out that, when the Australian community is surveyed about general support for organ donation as a concept, the overwhelming bulk of Australians show their support. The overwhelming bulk—85 per cent, 90 per cent or even more—of Australians say that, as a concept, they support organ donation. There is this structural gap of 30 per cent or more of Australians who appear to support organ donation as a general concept but aren't giving consent at the time when the issue really becomes a live issue and consent is being requested, so there is much more work for us to do here.
I think this generally reflects a lack of open discussion about death too often in the Australian community. We are often not comfortable talking about death. You see that reflected in survey work about organ donation. I also remember similar figures arising out of survey work that Palliative Care Australia and other groups like that do about end-of-life planning. Only about half of Australians will have had a discussion with their partner about their wishes for the way in which they spend their last hours or days, the degree to which they want to continue to receive treatment and other end-of-life or palliative care related issues. Only about 25 per cent of Australians will have had that discussion with their children, and similarly low rates will have had that discussion openly with their clinicians, their treating general practitioners and the like. So there is, I think, a general challenge for us to lift the rates of open discussion—difficult discussion, sensitive discussion, no doubt—that Australians have about these end-of-life issues. If people support organ donation as a general concept, at some point it would be good for us all to have discussions with our next of kin about our views, about whether, in the tragic event that we find ourselves in that position, we would like to see our organs donated. The research shows that when grieving next of kin are clear about their loved one's wishes they carry those wishes out. The research also shows—through published research I've read in the Medical Journal of Australia and such like—that when grieving next of kin understand their loved one's wishes, whether they were about organ donation or palliative care and such like, and feel confident that they are able to see those wishes carried out, their levels of grief and distress are substantially reduced and their level of mental distress at the loss of their loved one is substantially reduced. This is important work for us to continue to do.
I reflect and echo the call by the member for Ballarat—and the member for Higgins has made the same call—for people to have that discussion in their families and for people to register as organ donors, whatever the system might be. I renewed my driver's licence in South Australia in the last several days; as the member for Higgins pointed out, we have had that system in place for many, many years in my state. But there are other registers, including the DonateLife register, that we all want to encourage people to consider using, to ensure it's not simply left to your loved ones to try to glean what your wishes might have been, to ensure your wishes are clearly articulated through a register and through an open discussion that you have had with your loved ones.
Coming to this bill, which, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, is a somewhat technocratic bill, I have to admit to not completely understanding why the government has put us all in this position in the first place. When we set this body up, the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, we set it up in the very usual way in which non-corporate Commonwealth entities are set up—that is, with an advisory board that would provide broad strategic guidance to the entity, in this case the authority, and for the accountable entity to be the chief executive officer. This is the way in which non-corporate Commonwealth entities almost exclusively operate. That was, at least as far as I remember, a very successful model. Our first chair, as I recall—the chair I had the privilege of working with—was Sam Chisholm, the very-well-known media identity, who, tragically, we lost a couple of years ago. Sam, himself a double lung transplant recipient, was a passionate chair who understood that the role of the board—and he had some great members on that board, including David Koch, who had long been an advocate for improved organ donation rates in Australia, and many others as well, including clinicians—was to provide broad strategic guidance to the work of the authority, and that it was the role of the chief executive officer to manage the day-to-day work and ensure that the myriad legal obligations that all our authorities have were being carried out. That's why the chief executive officer was the accountable entity under the different pieces of Commonwealth legislation.
In 2017, for reasons I frankly don't understand, the government decided to change that and make the board the accountable entity. I'm not aware of another non-corporate Commonwealth entity that has the advisory board as the accountable entity instead of the chief executive officer, but that was the decision made at the time during Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership. The new chair, who is well known to so many of us in the parliament, is Dr Mal Washer, who was 'the doctor of the House' before his retirement and then the election of the member for Macarthur, the member for Higgins and some others. Mal Washer was a well-loved figure across the aisle of the House. He is now the chair of the advisory board, and, as I understand it, has provided advice to the government to revert to the original position, which was that the chief executive officer be the accountable entity—a position that is seen as pretty standard practice across the range of non-corporate Commonwealth entities that make up part of our government.
The Labor opposition supports this bill—subject to the second reading amendment, which I thank the member for Ballarat for moving in my absence from the chamber over this fortnight. I commend the bill to the House, but I particularly commend the work of the authority and the clinicians who are employed under the DonateLife program, and those clinicians who work elsewhere through the health system who have seen our organ donation rates and, consequently, our transplant rates climb so dramatically over the last 10 years.
There is still much to do; we can see those rates climb even higher and see that gift of life given to more people, but the work over the last 10 years has been a credit to our country.
I will speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak about this bill. I've had a long history with organ donation, going back to my days in state parliament where I was actively involved in an annual cricket match that was played by the Australian organ recipient cricket team. They would travel Australia and raise awareness of this incredible issue. They were a fantastic bunch of men, accompanied by their partners and wives, travelling around Australia and raising awareness of this incredibly important issue.
I think it's true that most Australians would have no idea as to the very small percentage of Australians who are actually able to donate their organs. I don't think Australians realise that you actually have to die in very specific circumstances for your organs to be able to be used. People hear all the time that so-and-so got a new organ or that so-and-so had an organ transplant and is now much healthier than they were, but they don't hear the stories behind the stories. People have spoken to me and said that they have been prepped and taken into hospital two, three or four times for a serious heart-lung transplant or a kidney transplant. These are incredibly important and dangerous procedures, and doctors have to be incredibly choosy and picky as to the efficacy of the donor organ about to be used. That's why we have this situation where it's quite difficult for the organs to match up with the recipient's body.
I think this is an area where the conversation in the chamber is very much about how we move with this type of legislation here, which is predominantly about governance, who is responsible and who will take that accountability within the authority—moving away from the board and over to the CEO. I think that's a really positive move. But, ultimately, what everybody in this chamber and around Australia wants is to see how we can continue this path of increasing numbers of organ donations here in Australia. The old chestnut is: 'Do we continue with the opt-in model, or should we pull everybody into the system and give everyone in Australia the opportunity to opt out?' As the previous speaker said, this debate is not as simple as it sounds. I'm certainly still in favour of changing over to an opt-out process, but I do understand that it's not as simple as it sounds.
In my electorate of Nicholls I've been lucky enough to meet Allan Turner. Allan is the father of Zadee Turner. Of course, people will see a lot of Australians wearing very multicoloured shoelaces once a year as a memento of Zadee's Rainbow Foundation. Zadee died quite a few years ago, in 2004, as a seven-year-old. Her family made that very, very tough decision to donate her organs and she was able to improve the lives or save the lives of seven other Australians. Allan Turner has kept the memory of Zadee very much at the forefront by continuing to raise money and donate that money to a whole range of different foundations and charities. I want to commend Allan for the work that he has done. It's a very, very tough space.
It is also promising to see that whilst we haven't reached the levels that we would like to have reached we are on the increase, and that is something that we should be very, very proud of. Again, once it was explained to me, it was very simple to understand this issue. That is, people who are killed in car accidents, their body is without oxygen, and, once your body is without oxygen for a minute, your organs deteriorate to a stage where they cannot be transplanted—they cannot be donated. If we think about this, we understand the vast majority of us pass away outside of a hospital setting, where we would be able to effectively have our body on life support, donate our organs and then pass away. So it is this very, very rare situation, where we have such low numbers of organs and organs that are donated within Australia.
I think this bill is hoping to see better governance. As a result of the review that was undertaken under the charter of the board, it was indicated that we needed to increase the time and capacity to contribute to the strategic direction if we're going to get these results that we want. You just can't effectively hope and pray that we get something; it's got to have a strategic plan, and certainly this transition in authority is going to help with that strategy of increasing our numbers and getting a better result than what we currently have.
I think, right now, every year, we walk around the lake here—Lake Burley Griffin. We put on our white and pink T-shirts and we pledge our support. But I think it's everybody's role and responsibility to continue to promote the fact that this is critical. We have so many people that are very sick in our society who would be incredible beneficiaries of a donated organ. Like the last speaker, and I'm sure like all speakers, we need to use our positions to encourage people to have that conversation with their loved ones. So: break up the senseless banter around the dinner table and have a serious conversation about dying and about death, about is it okay with everybody around the table to more or less have that conversation about whether we are going to be happy, whether that's our express wish in death, to donate our organs. I think the more of those conversations that Australians can have around the dinner table, or wherever—it doesn't have to be at dinnertime—then the better chance we have of Australia as a nation being able to increase our numbers of donors.
We used to have the sticker on our licence. For whatever reason, that has been taken away. We now have an independent register where we can go online and fill out that registration, which is something that I have done previously. So, whilst my wishes are very, very clear with my children, I just hope that everyone else in Australia has had a similar conversation.
With that, I wish this passage a speedy pathway through the parliament. It seems to have the support of the parliament. I wish everybody out there would step up to the job and make sure that we do create a situation where there are more organs available for transplant, more donors putting their hand up, so that more Australians can live a healthier and more fulfilling life. Thank you.
[by video link] This is my first opportunity to participate in the virtual parliament, so I want to extend my thanks to the staff of the parliament who've made this possible. I couldn't miss the opportunity to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. As has been indicated by previous speakers, it is a fairly technical bill, about the roles of the board and the CEO of the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, in effect going back to those roles that were established at the time the federal Labor government created the authority. So I'm certainly happy to support the bill. But, in the context of the bill, I want to talk about why it is such an important issue and why I feel very passionate and take every opportunity I can to support a more effective national organ donation scheme.
For many, many years in my local area I have been inspired by an amazing young woman called Jessica Sparks. Jessica is a double lung transplant recipient and a simply amazing young woman. She has put so much energy and passion into establishing her own organisation, called Sparking Life, to boost organ and tissue donation in Australia. She just inspires so many people. In 2013 she was the Wollongong Young Citizen of the Year, and in 2016 she received the University of Wollongong's top student prize, known as the Chancellor Robert Hope Medal. Jessica really got the message out. She does such a great job in letting people know what a difference organ donation can make to the lives of people who desperately need it. Jessica is a cystic fibrosis sufferer and her voice really moves people to understand the significance of this issue. I want to pay tribute to the great work Jessica does in promoting the importance of organ donation.
Recently, sadly, I've talked to the House about another great local, Keith Caldwell. I spoke to the House at the time because the community here and Keith's family had lost him. He died suddenly. He was a leading president, participant—I couldn't list all the roles that Keith had with the surf lifesaving movement. He was also a former police officer. I want to talk about Keith today as an organ donor. With the indulgence of the House, I think it couldn't be put any better than in the words of Keith's own family. Many people contributing to this debate have talked about how important it is, at that point of decision, for family members to know what your wishes were. Keith's family spoke to the Sydney Local Health District this year, for DonateLife Week, recognising how important organ donation is. His wife, Maria, is another wonderful champion in our community, and she said to the local health district:
After 45 years of life saving, he is now a lifesaver. He was saving lives right to the end.
Keith, who was 60 at the time, donated his liver, kidneys and musculoskeletal tissue, including heart valves and other heart tissue, bones, tendons, ligaments and skin. As a result, two people on the nation's transplant waiting list received a new kidney, while another received his liver but, sadly, later had to have another transplant. His musculoskeletal tissue was stored with the New South Wales Tissue Bank. His heart and lungs were also suitable for transplantation but, because of his rare blood type, a match wasn't found, sadly. Maria said:
The process to donate organs and tissue is very thorough and, at a time of deep sadness, could be considered very confronting. But, with the possibility of saving other people from the heartache we as a family were going through, it gave us hope and comfort.
Almost 80,000 people die in Australian hospitals each year, but only about two per cent can be considered for organ donation. Some of the previous speakers have made the point that it requires very specific circumstances. However, there are many people waiting to be the recipient of those gifts that people make by organ donation. Last year the Sydney Local Health District reported 463 deceased donors and their families saved the lives of 1,270 recipients. This year, there are 1,650 people waiting for a transplant.
I'm registered with the Australian Organ Donor Register. There are about seven million Australians who have done so, but there are about another 13 million aged over 16 who are eligible to register. As with all other speakers in this debate, I would strongly encourage them to look to do so. Maria Caldwell described Keith's organ donation as the greatest gift of all, and indeed it was. She said this was Keith's last act of selflessness and giving to the community. Please, please, please: have this discussion with your loved ones; let them know your wishes.
The two things I'm going to reiterate, as have other speakers in this debate, are for people to go to the DonateLife website—it doesn't take more than a minute or so to register, and then you will be on that official register—and then have the conversation with your family. Consider the situation they will be in if they have to make this decision, and how much easier it will be for them to have a very clear view of what your wishes are because you had that conversation. From these two inspiring Wollongong people, an organ donation donor and recipient—Keith and Jess—nothing could put it more clearly than their words that this is something that our communities really must do. I know during COVID it's tough, and we are having so many tough conversations as it is, but I really encourage people to have this one and to make sure that their views are known.
In the time left to me, I just want to make some points about the second reading amendment moved by the Labor shadow minister and the need to deliver better health outcomes, particularly during the COVID pandemic. I just want to talk to the House for a few minutes about the fact that, when I have conversations with local health practitioners in all different roles, I'm so conscious of the enormous stress they are under at this point in time. As my colleague the member for Macarthur said yesterday, they don't describe themselves as heroes; they just get on and do the job that they love doing. But we should all remember the enormous strain and pressure that they are under. I know they seek to look after their own on mental health and wellbeing and their colleagues' mental health and wellbeing, but I think it is important, as a community, that we give them that support too.
In that context, I want to endorse the words the member for Macarthur said in the parliament yesterday—that leaders in communities, and in particular those of us who have the enormous privilege to sit in this federal parliament, should not be spreading misinformation or scaremongering. We should be endorsing the national health messages and we should be encouraging our communities to comply with those messages in the interests of everybody.
Our health practitioners, our nurses, our doctors, our specialists, the cleaners, the admin staff and all of those people who do exhausting work, day in, day out, whether it's in our hospitals, GP clinics, testing clinics or vaccination hubs—in all of the places where they are out and about, working for our benefit as a community right now—do not need to have their work undermined by people who should know better who are spreading fear and misinformation and encouraging disobedience in our community. It's very sad today to see stories in the media about health professionals saying that they've even had falling-outs within their own families, with people caught up in these very unhelpful conspiracy theories that are being circulated. Indeed, there's a story today in the local media about a health worker at a clinic being physically attacked by somebody who was not wearing a mask. It's just very distressing.
So, on that broader issue about supporting our health workers during the pandemic, all of us should think very, very carefully about the enormous privilege we have when we open our mouths to speak as community leaders and we should understand that there's a great responsibility that comes with that, and we should be ensuring that we are backing in our amazing health workers across the nation.
I endorse the bill and I endorse the amendment moved by the shadow minister.
[by video link] Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, it's a pleasure to join you virtually to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Organ and tissue donation is a subject that is very close to my heart. In my first speech in Parliament House, I spoke about the importance of organ and tissue donation and the experience of my granddaughter, Emmeline. Emmy was the recipient of a liver transplant at the age of just 14 months. This gift of life is the reason Emmy is still with us today, eight years later. We're also grateful to her donor and their family for her gift of life. Organ donation is an experience of our shared humanity—when, out of terrible loss, hope is delivered through the life it can give. Our Emmy's life was possible through the gift of a grieving family. We hope that the gift will go some way towards helping to comfort them in their grief over the years ahead.
Shane is an inspiring young man in my electorate of Mallee. Shane has experienced two double-lung transplants. I had the privilege of visiting him at the Alfred hospital in Melbourne just prior to his second surgery. Today, he is a healthy life coach and has married his sweetheart. How life-changing is organ and tissue donation? It's why I was inspired to establish and co-chair the Parliamentary Friends of Organ Donation with my colleague the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander. The parliamentary friends group for organ donation was established to raise awareness of organ donation, to communicate the importance and the benefits of donation and to help enlarge Australia's organ donation pool. I'm pleased to say that the group is going strong in its second year.
Australia has one of the world's best records in clinical outcomes for transplantation. The first transplant operation in Australia was a corneal transplant performed in 1941. Our first successful kidney transplant from a living donor occurred in 1965, and the first successful heart transplant in 1984—and I do remember it.
In 2018, the lives of 1,544 people in Australia were saved through organ donation. Just 554 deceased organ donors, with the support of their families, saved the lives of these 1,544 people through their most generous gift of organs and tissue. In fact, in 2018, Australia recorded its highest ever donation rate, at 22.2 organ donors per million population.
Unfortunately, in 2020, Australia's organ and tissue transplantation rates dropped due to the emergence of COVID-19 in Australia. Challenges facing hospitals, and logistics including COVID-19 restrictions, flight reductions and border closures affected the national program throughout the year. Last year, we saw a 12 per cent reduction in the number of people receiving a transplant and a 16 per cent decrease in organ donors, compared to 2019. Most significantly, 18 per cent fewer kidney transplants were performed, resulting in 153 fewer renal patients receiving the kidney transplant they needed.
Despite the obvious impacts, 1,270 Australian lives were saved in 2020 through an organ transplant, thanks to the generosity of 463 deceased organ donors and their families. Families have continued to show their strength and generosity in agreeing to donation, even with the added COVID-19 complexities in intensive care units. Around 1,800 Australians are on the waiting list right now, and more than 12,000 others are on dialysis, many of whom need a kidney transplant. The best chance we have to address the challenge of longer waiting lists is to have more Australians say yes to donation registration.
As a nation, we need to think more, talk more and do more about organ donation. We need to explore opportunities to expand the program, we need to tackle the myths and misconceptions, and we need to identify and break down barriers to organ donation. We know most Australians actually support organ and tissue donation. In fact, a recent poll of 60,000 Australians showed that four out of five say they would be willing to donate their organs when they die. We know that 90 per cent of families say yes to donation when their loved one is a registered donor. However, the actual national consent rate is only 64 per cent. We know that 71 per cent of Australians think it's important to talk with their family or partner about being a donor, but only half of Australians have had that discussion.
So the problem isn't that Australians are against organ and tissue donation. It's that they are not sure if they're eligible to register, they don't know how to or they simply haven't got around to it. This is why initiatives such as DonateLife Week are so important. DonateLife Week is the Organ and Tissue Authority's annual community awareness campaign to promote organ and tissue donation throughout Australia. This year the Organ and Tissue Authority is running the Great Registration Race in DonateLife Week to encourage up to 100,000 more Australians to register as organ and tissue donors. The key message this year is that it takes just one minute to register to be an organ donor. All you need is a phone, a Medicare card and one minute of your time to register. This small action can lead to life-changing outcomes for people across the country.
The bill before the House today is supporting the work of the Organ and Tissue Authority. The bill will transition the role of accountable authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act from the board back to the CEO and will replace the existing governance board with an advisory board under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008. Importantly, stakeholders are expected to support the change, as there will be no change to existing roles and functions of the Organ and Tissue Authority. The advisory board will continue to have access to the responsible minister and will be free to focus on strategic activities. The governance changes will align the Organ and Tissue Authority with the governance structures of most other non-corporate Commonwealth entities. These changes to the governance structure of the Organ and Tissue Authority will allow the board a greater strategic focus to provide expertise and advice to the work of the Organ and Tissue Authority and will be imperative in informing the implementation of two key reviews—the 2018 review of the Australian organ donation, retrieval and transplantation system, and the 2016 review of the Australian eye and tissue sector. This work will be fundamental in setting the priorities for the future to improve organ and tissue donation, retrieval and transplantation outcomes, which will better support the authority to more-effectively achieve its strategic goals, saving lives, like those of my Emmy and Shane, and improving the quality of the lives of more Australians.
As I've said today, the key barrier to more donations is a lack of registrations. There are around 13 million Australians aged 16 years and over who are eligible to register as an organ and tissue donor but haven't. In terms of Australia's organ and tissue donation system, I believe we need to have a conversation about implementing an opt-out scheme, where it is assumed that individuals wish to donate their organs unless when alive they have registered an objection to donating.
It is interesting to note that the five countries with the highest donor-per-million population rates all have opt-out systems. In this respect, I'd like to echo the points made earlier in this debate by the member for Higgins, Dr Katie Allen, by highlighting Spain and its outstanding organ and tissue donation system. Spain is widely acknowledged as a world leader in organ and tissue donation. It has maintained a sustained increase in organ donation over more than 20 years and currently has a donation rate of 46.9 donors per million population, more than double Australia's rate. In 2018 Spain had 2,183 deceased donors, who made 5,260 transplant surgeries possible. These included more than 3,200 kidney transplants, 1,200 liver transplants, 360 lung transplants and 300 heart transplants. Spain has the highest rate of organ donation in the world, which is largely due to its approach to improving organ donation rates throughout the entire healthcare system.
In Australia, the opt-out system has been widely debated but has been rejected on several occasions. I believe that we need to consider how we can improve organ donation rates in this country and that means looking at what has been successful elsewhere. It means gathering evidence to inform our efforts into the future. I'm not proposing that opt-out is the only way forward but it is well worth considering given its success in other parts of the world.
Organ and tissue donation is life-changing. It helps to improve health outcomes for thousands of Australians every year. I'm pleased that our government continues to support the Organ and Tissue Authority with positive changes such as those contained in this bill. All measures to support our fantastic organ and tissue donation system will mean more lives are saved.
I rise to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and to strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow health minister, the member for Hindmarsh: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House urges the Government to deliver better health outcomes for all Australians, including through better management of the COVID-19 pandemic'. I want to start my remarks by thanking the member for Mallee for working as co-chair, alongside the member for Macarthur, in a bipartisan way to support organ donation. This is a critical issue facing literally thousands of Australians. Through her work and that of member for Macarthur, organ donation has not only been highlighted and promoted but, more importantly, brought to the attention of the national parliament, so I'm honoured to follow on from her fine words today.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, as we know, was introduced under a Labor government in 2008 as part of a suite of progressive reforms to our nation's organ and tissue donation system. These reforms were designed to improve health outcomes for all Australians. This is where I want to contrast the opposition against the government. When we come to the table with ideas, with reforms, that we hope will improve outcomes for the Australian public we can clearly see the government not delivering real reforms but tinkering around with reforms that have been introduced before.
The bill, in effect, seems to return the governance structure of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority to what it was under Labor before the changes were made by this coalition government. Based upon advice from Dr Mal Washer, a former member of this place, the chair of the Organ and Tissue Authority board, the bill will enable the board to have a more strategic and advisory focus. That is something we can all agree on in a positive, bipartisan way. Currently the governance structure of this organisation designates the governance board as the accountable entity. This structure was unusual when the government introduced it and it seems it has not delivered the results they hoped for. The changes in this bill, I'm pleased to see, are agreed by the entire board upon recommendation from the chair. They returned the governance structure to a more commonsense and common governance structure, with the CEO being the accountable entity and the board playing a strategic advisory role.
I pose the question to the House: why was this structure chosen in 2017? It's not really in line with the usual governance structure employed by non-corporate Commonwealth entities like the Organ and Tissue Authority. And the decision resulted in the Organ and Tissue Authority becoming the first non-corporate Commonwealth entity to have a governance board as the accountable entity. I am pleased that the government is acting upon the board's view about the governance of the Organ and Tissue Authority. This advice conforms with Labor's view that non-corporate Commonwealth entities, like the Organ and Tissue Authority, should have a governance structure that allows for the CEO—as we know in most organisations, or nearly all organisations—to actually run the show and be accountable for its functioning. I believe that is a sensible, practical way that organisations should run—accountable and making sure that all legal processes are followed, all the while being guided by a critical advisory board that focuses on the strategic direction of the authority. This conforms to the governance structure of almost all other non-corporate Commonwealth entities. It's a sensible change, one that indicates the government has, unusually, recognised that Labor did get it right, and that is a welcome decision. So there will be no opposition to the bill before the House.
I want to place on record a couple of remarks about the issue of organ donation, and then, in my remaining remarks, I'll talk about the health outcomes and some of the pandemic issues. The first thing I want to say is: now is the perfect time to become an organ donor. That's my message to the 13 million Australians aged 16 and over who are eligible to register as organ and tissue donors. So what can be donated? This is a fairly straightforward question. The organs that can be donated are hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys and pancreases. The tissues that can be donated include heart valves, blood veins, bones, veins, tendons, ligaments, skin, and parts of the eye to assist with people's eyesight. Critical donations are needed, with the pandemic obviously having a major impact on our health system. Also, what hasn't really been highlighted is that, with organ donations dropping by 20 per cent, as we heard by the member for Mallee, under 2,000 Australians are now languishing on waiting lists, with around another 12,000 on dialysis.
Recently, from 25 July to 1 August, we saw DonateLife Week, which was a big part of the campaign to raise awareness. I want to give a big shout-out to DonateLife Queensland, which raises awareness about organ and tissue donation, encourages discussion about donation—which I'll come back to in a moment—and educates health professionals about the donation process. There are still a number of misunderstandings and mistruths about organ donation that we need to deal with as a community. That's why I'm so pleased that this parliament is discussing this issue today, so that we can speak freely and frankly to the Australian people about its importance but also recognise the tough decisions and the tough conversations that have to be had, and offer care and support to donor families.
It doesn't really matter how old you are, your medical history, your lifestyle, what country you're from, or how healthy you are; you can register as an organ and tissue donor. And, as we heard, it only takes one minute. So I'm calling on Australians to jump online, go to donatelife.gov.au/register, make that decision, have that conversation and make sure that you become an organ donor. As the decision to donate organs and tissues ultimately comes down to a family decision, I think it's critical that those conversations take place. I think the member for Nicholls said that, whether it be around the kitchen table or in the workplace, you should have the sometimes hard conversation, because many Australians are depending on you.
Approximately 170,000 Australians die each year, with around 80,000 of these deaths occurring in Australian hospitals. Only two per cent of these hospital deaths can be considered for organ donation. In 2020, that meant only about 1,250 people died in a way where organ donation could have been considered. It also comes as research shows that six in 10 people mistakenly believe some people can't become organ donors because of having cancer, smoking, drinking, old age or general unhealthiness. In fact, in 2020, 40 per cent of organ donors were current smokers when they died, 10 per cent had recovered from cancer and more than 10 per cent had diabetes. Age is no barrier. This is another issue that comes up time and time again. In 2020, 70 organ and tissue donors were aged 65 and over. Surprisingly, corneas from older people are often better for eye donation. I didn't know that. So it really doesn't matter what your age or your background is; everyone can register and everyone can do their bit.
A recent poll of around 60,000 Australians showed that four out of five say they'd be willing to donate their organs when they die. So this is not a question of whether Australians want to donate—the evidence is clear that there is a strong willingness to; it's the fact they're probably not sure if they're eligible to sign up. Perhaps they mistakenly thought they had already registered or that they had had a conversation with someone, but they haven't actually taken the formal steps to sign up.
I was consulting with a number of local residents in preparation for my speech today—people who have had this experience or who have had children or loved ones as the beneficiary of the angels out there who have donated their organs—and they simply didn't know how to register. They were unsure if you had to register through your doctor. They said things like: 'It's not on my licence' and, 'I wasn't sure—I didn't have a driver's licence.' When I spoke to parents raising children, or in relation to loved ones, the last thing you think is that you're going to need a kidney, lung or serious organ transplant. But, when it happens, your life changes. It completely turns around. It is about simply having those conversations in the broader community.
One of the things I will be doing following today's debate and when parliament rises is running an awareness campaign in my own electorate, because, as a member of this place, I want to raise awareness for community, for older residents, for people from my non-English-speaking-background community. I represent around 50,000 people from non-English speaking backgrounds. I will look at running a local campaign to raise awareness. I am now in my second term in this place. As a result of consulting and listening and understanding, I've got a role to play as a community leader to raise awareness and to put these issues on the table.
I'm really pleased that these issues have been debated today. It brings me to the conclusion of my remarks, where I want to touch on the second reading amendment, which refers to better management of the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to place on record today my deep concerns about the member for Dawson's comments, which have received a lot of comment. As a member of this place, I believe that what the member for Dawson said in the parliament yesterday was deeply disrespectful to every Australian and every health worker who has done the right thing. We need to call out the dangerous misinformation from members of the government at every opportunity.
My question today is: why is the member for Dawson still a member of the government? This morning I heard weasel words from some ministers from the National Party, saying, 'Yes, we don't agree with him, but he's got the right to say it.' Well that doesn't cut it in my books. We're seeing a pattern now from the member for Dawson and Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick, spouting dangerous mistruths about COVID and the pandemic, and I don't want Australia's public health damaged for their own political chances. The Australian public should be able to trust each and every one of us in this House to use the privilege of a public profile for good, just as we have in this debate today. That is what this place should be about: highlighting, showcasing, standing up for issues for the Australians that need a voice, not the absolutely crazy ideas that we're seeing being infected in this place. It's bad enough that our country is dealing with a pandemic, a virus that is out of control. But now we're seeing National Party members of the government who are out of control. I tell you what: the member for Riverina and the member for Capricornia, two people I deeply respect, have strongly held views, and I know they are honourable people. That's the sort of leadership we need in this country, not the kind of craziness that we're seeing from the member for Dawson.
I sit in front of the member for Macarthur in this place. His contribution to this debate was one of the greatest speeches I have heard in the parliament. He is someone who was speaking from the heart, speaking with authority and also speaking with compassion about the Australians who rely on the 151 people in this chamber to do the right thing by them. I am glad that yesterday this House came together as a unified voice to send a very clear message to those peddling dangerous mistruths. I am delighted that the Prime Minister, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, stood up to the member for Dawson. They're great on the keyboards, great when sitting around sending out vile and revolting comments on social media; well, we in this chamber call them out, and I'm so pleased that members of the National Party, the Liberal Party and every other member condemned those comments. They deserve to be condemned because the Australian people deserve much, much better.
I rise to make my contribution to debate on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Labor agrees to support the reasonable changes set out in this bill as it reforms the governance structure of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority following advice from Dr Mal Washer, chair of the Organ and Tissue Authority board, to enable the board to have a more strategic and advisory focus. The current governance structure was established on 1 July 2017, establishing the board as an accountable authority of the Organ and Tissue Authority under the PGPA Act. This resulted in the OTA becoming the first non-corporate Commonwealth entity to have a governance board as the accountable authority. In July 2020 the Organ and Tissue Authority governance board undertook an internal review, as required under the board's charter, which indicated a clear consensus from board members for the need for increased time and capacity to contribute to the organisation's strategic direction and provide advice and support to the CEO. This bill will transition the role of the accountable authority from the board back to the CEO and replace the existing governance board with an advisory board under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation Transplantation Authority Act 2008. These governance changes will revert to the approach first implemented by Labor in 2008 and align the authority with the governance structures of most other non-corporate Commonwealth entities.
I want to use my remaining time in the debate to encourage and support organ and tissue donation in our country, just as all of the speakers before me have done. Quite simply organ and tissue donations save and transform lives. Even just one donated organ or tissue sample can change the lives of more than 10 people. Our hospitals follow world's best practice, with specialist doctors and nurses supporting donation and transplantation in 95 hospitals across Australia. One in three Australians are registered donors, despite almost 70 per cent of Australians believing that registering for organ donation is important. However, organ donation is a rare event. Only two per cent of people who die in an Australian hospital meet the criteria to be an organ donor—that is, almost 1,300 lives. Since the national program for organ and tissue donation began in 2009, there have been over 14,000 organ transplant recipients from more than 5,000 donors.
Organ and tissue donation can come from a person living or deceased. Deceased individuals can donate their whole body, even if that individual has endured health challenges, such as diabetes, arthritis, heart disease or cancer. Many body parts can be donated, such as lungs, hearts, eyes, kidneys, bladders or livers. The donations are a gift for extending a life. One great advantage of donating an organ is for scientific research and studies so that treatments, medicines and cures for disease can be made. Donating organs or an entire body can promote this offering and give a second chance to save lives throughout the world.
A person's health condition impacts on their daily life. Whether it's your career, hobbies or favourite activities, having poor health can impact on your life substantially. The greater we make access to transplants, the more lives can be improved and saved. Since the first successful organ transplants in the 1950s, after 200 years of transplant history, countless lives have been saved. Many people are able to live longer, healthier lives each year and millions of lives around the world continue to be changed every day.
However, the supply of organs remains significantly below the growing need for organ transplants. At the beginning of June 2021 there were almost 1,800 Australians on the organ donation waiting list at any one time, and if the number of organ donors does not increase dramatically in coming years it will be more and more difficult to keep up with demand. Just last year, over 1,200 Australians lives were saved through organ transplants due to the generosity of more than 450 deceased organ donors and their families. And yet there was a 12 per cent decrease in the number of people receiving a transplant and a 16 per cent decrease in the number of donors compared with 2019.
With almost 1,800 Australians currently waitlisted for a transplant and 12,000 additional people on dialysis—many of whom will need a kidney transplant—more attention needs to be directed to this area to ensure people can have a second chance at life. My husband and I have been organ donors since it became an option to make the decision clear on our drivers licenses. I have registered, as have all of my family, on the Australian Organ Donor Register. But, most importantly, my family have had that conversation with each other. My children and extended family know that it is my wish, should the opportunity arise, to see someone else live a full and happy life with their family by my donation. When my mother-in-law died in 2007 of liver cancer, she was able to give her corneas so that someone else could see. Someone in my extended family has benefited from organ donation. The donation changed their life and has given them the opportunity to see their daughter grow up and also to enjoy all of those family occasions that their health otherwise would not have allowed. There is no more significant gift. We should all spare a moment for those families over the years who, in their darkest time of grief, felt strong enough to save the life of another. You are such special people and we are so grateful for your gift of life.
Now, more than ever, we need to encourage organ and tissue donation, and ensure that the approach to this crucial area is done carefully and sensibly. I commend the bill to the House and I want to thank all those who are already registered as organ and tissue donors, and all those who, because of these speeches, will have the conversations today. And I thank those family members who have allowed their loved ones to be organ donors. Have the conversation today and make sure that you register on the Australian Organ Donation Register.
While I have time, I would also like to take up the words of the member for Oxley about the contribution in this House yesterday from the member for Macarthur. In my part of the world we have been suffering for the last eight weeks because of the outbreak of COVID in our area. I have people contacting my office every day about the fact that they can't work, that there are so many people dying and so many in my community who are suffering. We need vaccinations. We needed COVID not to escape from quarantine. It is really time for the government to step up and start to make a difference in our community.
The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I pay tribute to Lina Cabaero from Asian Women at Work, who recently died. Lina dedicated her professional life to protecting women from being exploited at work. She was based in Campsie and, through Asian Women at Work, changed people's lives every day. Lina was one of the many proud trade unionists who spent her life helping people who had been left behind. We will all miss Lina.
Jean Stewart was a giant of my local community. We lost her last week. At the anniversary dinner for Canterbury Hospital, which she'd supported her entire life, dignitaries—from ministers to former premiers—were present, but Jean was the person we all wanted to be photographed with. It's easy to forget that members of parliament haven't always had offices. When her husband, Kevin, was the member for Canterbury and the health minister, the lounge room was the office, and Jean would look after the local constituents' inquiries. Kevin and Jean were an institution in the community, in the Belmore branch of the Labor Party and at Saint Joseph's parish, Belmore, where I first got to know them. They shared an instinctive generosity and sense of humour. In short, they were loved.
We lost Kevin in 2006 and their son Tony in 2012, and now Jean joins them. My deepest condolences go to their daughters, Anne—who manages my office—Frances, Margaret, Mary and Helen; their surviving son, John; and all their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who won't be able to be at the funeral. In these times of COVID, the funeral will be too small, but the family should know that there are thousands of us sending their sympathy and grieving with them.
We know that poor mental health does not discriminate. The past couple of years have been made all the more difficult with drought, fires, floods and a pandemic that has seen society's fabric change and has created a great deal of uncertainty for many Australians. But one fact has remained, and that is that men are the least likely to reach out for help. According to a recent report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, despite men making up more than 75 per cent of deaths by suicide, a quarter of men said that they would not reach out for mental health. This figure of 75 per cent represents over 2,000 deaths of men a year in Australia. That is double our nation's road toll.
So I say to the blokes out there: it's okay to say you're doing it tough. And I urge men out there to pick up the phone or go and see your mate and say, 'Are you okay?' because there is help out there. Beyond Blue, Lifeline, the Butterfly Foundation and the Medicare subsidised psychological therapy sessions under the Better Access Initiative have been doubled this year. So don't go it alone, men. We owe it to our families and to our friends. But, most of all, we owe it to ourselves.
[by video link] At this morning's interview with the Deputy Prime Minister, the petulance that was on display by the person who holds the second-highest office in this country—demanding that someone else create the plan to tackle climate change—tells you everything that you need to know about the Morrison-Joyce government when it comes to tackling climate change. They have been in power for eight long years. For eight long years they have been in power, and for each and every one of those years Australia has remained a laggard when it comes to tackling climate change, and now the petulance of the Deputy Prime Minister is on full display. He was demanding someone else do the work in order to create the plan to tackle climate change.
This is the person with all of the resources of government available to him. This is the person who literally holds the second-highest office in this country. This is the person who literally needs to be the one responsible for the plan. The IPCC report is stark, but it's not surprising. We know we need to act now. We know we need a target that takes us towards net zero emissions. We know we need strong interim targets. We know we need to transition to renewable energy. We know we need to do more, and we need a government willing to lead our country and be a part of the global efforts to tackle climate change. But all we are getting from the Morrison-Joyce government is excuses, petulance and more and more reasons why Australia is lagging behind when we should be leading. (Time expired)
Right on cue, following the member for Macnamara! I've been listening to the contributions of those opposite, led by the member for Melbourne, the member for Warringah and others, about climate change. I offer the member for Macnamara a visit to the half of New South Wales that I represent, where I can show him thousands of hectares of solar farms and wind farms, the fact that Dubbo has the highest uptake of rooftop solar and where nearly every farmer is using solar to supplement their energy—they're pumping water. On my own farm, the water is pumped to the livestock by solar panels.
I'd like to understand why the members who live in the most altered part of the country seem to think that electorates like mine should be used as carbon offsets. If we're going to reach the emissions level we want, this is an issue for everyone, not just for the regions. I could show you that in my electorate my farmers are producing more kilograms of grain and fibre with less energy, diesel and megalitres of water than ever before.
Regional Australia, with the assistance of this government, is leading the charge for the change of climate change, and I will not sit here and be lectured by those that live in the other parts of the state saying that nothing is happening in this country about addressing climate change, because the people in my electorate are not only leading the country they are leading the world with what they're doing. (Time expired)
[by video link] This morning the residents of Fraser received the news that the current lockdown will be extended by seven days. Just before giving this speech, while at the shops next to my office, I spoke to small business owners who are in despair. This extension is necessary, but what makes all of the social and economic costs that will follow from it all the more frustrating and unfortunate for my community is that it was so avoidable.
The Prime Minister had two jobs: a robust quarantine system and a rapid vaccine rollout. He has failed at both. Let's be clear: Australia has experienced 27 leaks from hotel quarantine. This number is far higher than it should have been. The Prime Minister says that hotel quarantine is working, but that's not what the international health experts say; they say it's not fit for purpose. It's not what the Halton report said in October of last year, and it's not supported by a study which showed that for every 204 infected people in hotel quarantine there was one leak, one risk of an outbreak.
We've had zero breaches from Howard Springs, where so many of our returning Olympians are in quarantine. Why aren't such facilities handling all arrivals? Because the government didn't heed the warnings of the medical experts and because it didn't take notice of the Halton report. Instead, it has waited for state governments to approach it with proposals. The people of Fraser and the people of Australia deserve leadership and hope. They are getting neither from this Prime Minister.
There's a dedicated group of volunteers in my home town of Wagga Wagga committed to the cause of erecting a statue to honour the service and sacrifice of our Light Horsemen. On Sunday they helped commemorate the 105th anniversary of the Battle of Romani, in which 20 locals fought. Of those, three never made it back to Australia. They were, as the Laurence Binyon's For the fallen decrees, 'staunch to the end against odds uncounted'—Offord William Duprez, only 19, a railway employee of Wagga Wagga; Richard Graham, 23, a station hand of Lake Albert; and George Nobbs, 20, a schoolteacher of Hay but originally from Whitton.
Police Inspector William Duprez and his wife, Joanna, sent three boys to the Great War. Lieutenant Arthur won a Military Cross for his bravery with the famed 55th Battalion in 1917. Corporal Hamilton, like Arthur, came home in 1919, but young William, who went to war with the 7th Light Horse Regiment, 5th Reinforcements, died of wounds three agonising days after being shot at the Battle of Bir el Mazar, just a month after the Battle of Romani. We owe a debt of gratitude to those three brave Riverina boys and all others who once wore and still wear a military uniform for and on our behalf, and that is why Dr Anne Flood, Mick Batchelor, Pat Leary, John Ploenges and others are working so hard to erect this statue.
Thirty-eight aviation workers have been stood down without pay at Launceston and Hobart airports because flights have collapsed due to the lockdowns on the mainland—lockdowns that are a direct consequence of this Prime Minister's failure to roll out vaccines and create fit-for-purpose national quarantine. A federal aviation support package has finally been created, but it only assists airlines; not one cent goes to the 38 workers stood down in Tasmania. These are workers who check you in, handle baggage and clean buildings. At Hobart, these workers do 100 per cent of the ground operations; elsewhere, it's 80 per cent. They are essential to aviation. But because their employer is a labour hire company and not the airline, they don't get a cent of the $750 support per week. They are stood down with bills and rent to pay, food to buy and families to support. No wage and no support.
Whether you fly a plane or pack a bag, you deserve to be treated the same. Without support, some of these devastated staff say they have no choice but to seek other work. It takes six months to recruit, train and accredit new aviation staff, and that means Tasmania faces critical shortages when flights resume. We can't afford to lose these essential aviation employees. I've written to Transport Minister Joyce, calling on him to immediately extend aviation support to all aviation workers. No worker should be left behind.
Fortunately, this year's Cairns Show went ahead as planned, following last year's cancellation, in what was a major boost to our city and wider region. It's one event I certainly look forward to every year. The Cairns Show is the biggest regional show in Australia and Cairns's largest event. But the Cairns Show is more than just that. It's a catalyst for smaller towns that inject much needed money into local towns and communities across the region.
This year's Cairns Show saw more than 59,000 people through the gates across the three-day event. There were more than 300 exhibitors from across Cairns and Far North Queensland showcasing their products at this year's show, a number on par with previous years. The main arena hosted events including the Airtime FMX motorbike stunts, celebrity esky scooter racing, equestrian events, woodchop competitions and pole climbing. I would like to take this opportunity to personally acknowledge all the hard work of the Cairns Show Association President, Ian Allen, association employees, committee members and the 300-odd volunteers who ensured that this year's show event went without a glitch during difficult times. This year's Cairns Show is the exact economic and morale boost our city and our region needs in these very difficult and challenging times. Hopefully, come 2022, we will have it open again and celebrating our most magnificent event.
[by video link] Sadly, today, a 30-year-old man from Belrose died, unvaccinated, at Northern Beaches Hospital, from COVID. People in New South Wales aged between 20 and 39 are still not able to get vaccinated if their GP does not recommend AstraZeneca. In June, I asked the Prime Minister about vaccinating 20- to 39-year-olds as a priority. He dismissed the question. Doherty Institute also recommended vaccinating this group, and that call has been dismissed. This group is the most mobile in the community. Vaccinating them is absolutely necessary to have any hope of getting out of this lockdown.
Small businesses in Warringah and Sydney are on their knees, with a lockdown at Christmas and now, seven weeks into another lockdown, and numbers going up. Families and partners are separated due to the draconian and inconsistent travel restrictions and arrival caps. Students are anxious and distressed about their exams. The Premier is talking about vaccination as being the only route out of lockdown, but, at our current rate, the 70 per cent double-dose target would take us to 5 November. That's 12 weeks away—12 more weeks of a crippling lockdown. I genuinely fear for the personal and economic resilience of many in my community, and I call on the government to do better. We need to roll out more support, more financial support and more mental health support, urgently. There are so many calling out for more. It's time to get real.
[by video link] INXS, Midnight Oil, Angus and Julia Stone, Flume and Ocean Alley are just a few of the great bands and artists from the northern beaches. We are Australia's mecca for music—no argument. Strengthening the claim for our electorate are four mates from Barrenjoey High School. Noah Blockley, Tom Partington, Asher Mclean and Harley Wilson make up The Rions. They have been short-listed as one of five finalists, out of 1,400 entries across Australia, in the admired Triple J Unearthed high school competition.
Under the guidance of their music teacher John Stone, who is the father of ARIA award winners Angus and Julia Stone, they have already amassed nearly one million streams on Spotify with singles 'Halfway Out', 'Head Still Hurts' and their new hit, which is my favourite, 'Night Light'. There is a strong commitment to music and the arts on the northern beaches, which is good to see, despite the challenges posed by COVID. Whether or not they win the competition, I congratulate and commend them on their efforts.
Patty Mills—what can I say? Our first Indigenous flag bearer, an NBA champion and a proud Canberran who grew up on Ngunawal-Ngambri land in the Bean electorate. He started his basketball journey at the Shadows Basketball Club, a club formed by his mum and dad in the eighties with a drive to engender a sense of identity and strength in young Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people in Canberra. Patty also spent his early basketball days at Marist College in Canberra, and shooting hoops in his Monash backyard.
History and connections to generations past matter to Patty: through his dad, through his great-uncle Eddy Mabo and, through his mother, the pain of the stolen generations; and, in basketball, through his recognition of the work of generations of players, coaches and support staff on the national men's and women's programs. From trailblazers like Eddie Palubinskas and Patty's uncle Danny Morseu through to the Gazes, the Barneses, the Jacksons and the teams that have gone so close in recent championships.
Patty is a leader on and off the court, establishing Indigenous Basketball Australia, supporting bushfire affected and underprivileged communities and supporting social justice across Australia. On the court, backed by a great team, he led by example. He scored the highest number of points scored by an individual in a game with a medal on the line—42 points—to help the Boomers finally make that podium and to achieve a dream he and Joe Ingles talked about back in their days at the AIS. Thank you Patty and all in the Boomers and Opals family.
Everyone in this place knows local heroes who go above and beyond for our communities, and in the electorate of Boothby, and in fact across South Australia, Pat Rix is one of our leading examples. Back in 1997, Pat founded a small choir for people with intellectual disability. The choir grew into Tutti Arts. Thanks to Pat's vision and tireless work as director and founder, Tutti Arts is now an internationally acclaimed model where artists with disability create visual art, theatre, music, dance, film, digital media and installations for audiences everywhere.
Pat understood the important role creative activities could have in the lives of people with a disability, increasing their confidence and increasing and developing their skills. As the director of Tutti Arts for the past 24 years, Pat has filled so many lives with joy, including the artists, their families and their adoring audiences. Pat has so much to be proud of, including her Australian of the Year 2007 Local Hero award for South Australia, but she deserves special recognition for working with her team and her board to relocate Tutti Arts to their new home at the former Saint Theresa's school site in Brighton with the support of the Brighton Catholic Parish and grants from the state and federal Liberal governments. I was honoured to attend the launch in August last year with Premier Steven Marshall and Mayor Amanda Wilson. Pat will be retiring in September, after 24 years leading her fantastic team at Tutti, leaving behind a tremendous legacy. Pat Rix, from the bottom of our hearts: we congratulate and thank you.
Last month I met with Melanie Marshall, Belinda Groves and Elizabeth Stone from the Micah women's leadership network. Micah Australia is a coalition of churches and Christian non-profits who advocate for Australia to play a more significant role in the fight against extreme poverty and injustice. And in a world grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, that fight has never been more important.
The impact of COVID-19 on efforts to combat poverty has been devastating. The World Bank estimates that 150 million people will be pushed into extreme poverty by the pandemic. In countries across Africa and the Middle East, 34 million people—half of them children—face starvation. Micah Australia has called for a $150 million emergency famine package for countries at high risk of famine, and it is so important that the Australian government step up and make a contribution.
Of course, as we know from our own experience, the best way out of this crisis is by getting vaccinations into arms. Only one per cent of people in low-income countries have received even a single dose of the vaccine. The delta variant we are battling in Australia today continues to run rampant around the world. We are in a race to vaccinate as many people as possible, because, until we do, thousands will continue to die every week.
Australia's responsibilities will not end with the pandemic. Over the eight long years of this government, drastic cuts to the aid budget have seen us become one of the least generous nations in the OECD. Labor is committed to rebuilding our international development program, and in government would increase our aid budget—
Order! I call the member for Moore.
The renewable energy research laboratory based at the School of Engineering, at the Joondalup Campus of Edith Cowan University, conducts cutting-edge research locally into renewable sources of energy. Researchers at the university are finding ways to develop more efficient and cost-effective sources of renewable energy and to commercialise the intellectual property for the market. Last month, I visited the state-of-the-art facility on a tour led by pro vice-chancellor Professor Daryoush Habibi and Dr Asma Aziz to see firsthand the research being conducted on solar systems, inverters, wind turbines and hot-water systems. The level of knowledge and skill sets was highly advanced.
Nationally, the federal government is investing $1.9 billion in future technologies to lower emissions, which will cut costs for households and improve the reliability of our energy supply. The coalition is funding research and development into renewable energy in a sustainable way to ensure that our national transition to lower emissions is cost effective and that the Australian economy remains competitive in the global marketplace. Our approach to lowering emissions is both measured and financially responsible.
[by video link] I'm making this statement from Caroline Springs in my electorate, the hotspot for the most recent COVID outbreak in Melbourne. As I had unwittingly visited a tier 2 site last week, an exposure site, I received a text—very efficiently—to get tested and isolate until I received a result. I'm happy to say and report to the House that that result was negative. Of course, the reason they could contact me so effectively is that I QR-coded the exposure site, as everyone must do to ensure we get out of this pandemic as soon as possible.
I want to thank my constituents for coming out in very large numbers to be tested, and thank the Victorian government for increasing the testing sites in this area, which has reduced the time that people have to wait to get tested. The new testing sites are Caroline Springs Leisure Centre, City Vista Sports Precinct in Fraser Rise and 4Cyte Pathology in Sydenham—new sites for people to attend rather than having a long wait. I'm also pleased that Australia's first drive-through vaccination site is in my electorate, in Melton, on the old Bunnings site on Barries Road.
If you have been to a tier 1 or tier 2 site, get tested. If you have yet to be vaccinated, please make an appointment and get vaccinated. It is through these actions that we'll be moving out of the pandemic as soon as we possibly can, as we must.
Today the Liberal-National coalition announced 40 water infrastructure projects nationwide which will share in over $108 million of federal funding under the National Water Grid Connections pathways. The $3.5 billion National Water Grid Fund is paving the way to national water security, while promoting local economic activity and job creation along the way.
Over the last 10 years, the Goulburn Valley has been the beneficiary of over $2 billion of investment from the federal government in water efficiency projects. This has created an incredibly efficient region that produces so much of Australia's food and fibre. Irrigators across the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District in my electorate of Nicholls will reap the benefit of this government's $4 million contribution to the Goulburn-Murray weir's $14 million upgrade of 50 kilometres of channel and critical headworks infrastructure at the water storages. The channel improvement works will underpin regional agricultural businesses and their productivity and maintain service affordability.
Farmers across the GMID are heading towards what should be an absolute cracker of a season. Goulburn-Murray water storages are currently at the highest levels they have been for some years. Broadacre croppers, livestock producers and fruit growers are benefiting from excellent rainfall over the last few months, producing conditions that should see near-record yields, along with strong commodity prices. Now is the time for calm, well-considered water policy for the future.
This government lie continuously to 2.6 million Australian pensioners. They told pensioners there would be no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to Medicare and they told them that robodebt was entirely legal. We know that this Prime Minister says one thing and does another. And when it comes to the cashless pension card, he has already said that the pension is a 'welfare payment'. Then his minister admitted on Channel 7, 'We are seeking to put all income onto a universal platform—the cashless debit card'. This is a universal platform, a nationwide expansion, and there is broader application for the entire community.
Already in parts of WA, people on pensions like the disability pension are being forced onto the cashless pension card. People in my electorate are very concerned about this government's legislative plans. They put legislation up to do this. Karen from Bayswater says that she likes to buy a wine or two and Kathy from Bayswater says she likes to support local businesses. Matt from Mount Hawthorn was an infantry forward scout; he says that a cashless pension card was 'a direct rejection of everything I've ever stood or fought for'. Heidi from Tuart Hill wrote to me, saying that it would mean she would not be able to buy a beer or have a bet every now and then.
That's what this government wants to do: end the flutter and end any fun for pensioners—lock up their pension, quarantine their payments and take away their dignity. It's disgraceful!
Whether it's getting our blood or body tissue tested, pathology is a service which we have all no doubt relied on for the most important thing in our lives—which is our health. I was recently lucky enough to visit Clinipath Pathology in Osborne Park and speak with their executive and their trainees about the exciting new developments for Clinipath, especially their training initiatives.
Clinipath has partnered successfully with LTT Training Group for over 10 years to provide on-the-job practical training for its trainees. This includes a system of microcredentialling, where trainees are able to complete three units of the 15 needed for a cert III. This includes a COVID-19 collection and testing microcredential, which is increasingly vital to providing frontline testing capacity for surges in COVID-19 cases.
Clinipath currently has 106 active trainees. Of these, 64 are on the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy. The Clinipath executive explained that by lowering employment costs this scheme has given them the confidence to take on new trainees and, even better, to convert some casual staff into permanent positions. It was welcoming to hear that this government's initiative in the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy program is making such an impact to the people in my state and, particularly, in my area.
Today I rise to give voice to veterans from across Australia who are appalled by the failure of the Morrison government to act urgently to protect the Afghan interpreters who served alongside our troops, shoulder to shoulder, from being threatened, hunted or killed by the Taliban now. Many veterans have actually spoken out on this issue, pleading with the Morrison government to speed up the process of bringing these interpreters and other locally engaged civilians who worked with the ADF or other government agencies back to safety.
The former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard got this right when he said that we have an ethical duty to ensure that we provide safe haven to those Afghans who aided Australia's cause. Unlike our allies in the US or the UK, we are not organising special airlifts to bring these people home or, indeed, fast tracking their visa process to ensure that they're here safely. We should not underestimate the toll and moral injury this issue has on and for our veterans. As Pete, a veteran from my community in Newcastle put it, 'Australians don't leave our mates behind; Australian soldiers were not trained to do that.' Pete felt so strongly about this issue that he burned his medals in front of me and asked that they be presented to the Prime Minister in the Australian parliament.
Likewise, Stuart McCarthy asked me to—Prime Minister, you know the significance of these medals, I ask you not to let a— (Time expired)
[by video link] Jim Tilley, who passed away recently, was a warrior for a just cause, the leading light in the British Pensions in Australia organisation, who fought hard for the right for Australia's British pensioners, determined to see them granted the same pay and indexation as British pensioners elsewhere. I first met Jim when I was running the Menzies Research Centre and I hosted the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, as a guest. Jim came to meet Sir Iain and put his case to him, as he had so often done to me and others. While he didn't convince Sir Iain, you could only be impressed by his advocacy. I was pleased to be one of the people who nominated Jim for the Order of Australia award he received at the Queen's birthday this year.
British pensioners in Australia use funds raised by subscriptions to fund an international political and media campaign—
I apologise to the member for Berowra. I have let him go a bit past two o'clock but, under the standing orders, we do now need to go questions without notice. The time for member statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister described the vaccination program like this: 'It doesn't matter how you start the race, it is how you finish the race. It is how you finish the race. And we are going to finish this race as a government when it comes to this issue. We are going to finish this race and we are going to run the race all the way to the finish line.' Why then did the Prime Minister repeatedly say earlier this year that the vaccine rollout was 'not a race'?
I tell you what COVID-19 is not. It is not a political game; it is something affecting the lives of every single Australian, the job of every single Australian. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for repeating what I said in the House yesterday, because that is exactly how the government is approaching this challenge. He makes reference to comments earlier in the year and, indeed, things have changed a great deal since then. But one thing that has not changed is the importance of doing this in a way that is safe and careful. At the time when those comments were made earlier in the year, as they were indeed made by Professor Murphy, he went on to say we want to do it safely and we want to do it carefully. So it is important that we approach this quickly and carefully. It is important that we do this with the utmost urgency, which our government has already and always been doing.
I can tell you, since 10 June, two months ago, the vaccination of the population has gone from 3½ per cent double dose to 23.7 per cent double dose. The single-dose vaccinations have gone from 23.4 per cent to 45.4 per cent over the past two months. And today we get the news of a further record day of doses delivered of over 250,000 doses in one single day and over the past week averaging at more than 200,000 doses a day.
The vaccination program is achieving the vaccination rates today that it needs to achieve to ensure that we can continue to move forward with the national plan that takes us forward, with clear vaccination targets that take us to the next step and the step beyond that, and where the country needs to get to. By the end of this year we will have made great progress against that plan. It is not just about ensuring that we get there. As we make progress every single day, it is important that we continue to suppress the virus in this first phase, because we want to make sure that every member of your family is around that Christmas table at the end of this year. Suppressing that virus now is incredibly important. Yes, we will run this race, but we will not treat COVID-19 like a political game, as the opposition has been doing.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison government is continuing to deliver on its plan to secure Australia's path forward to a stronger and more secure future on the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and for the strong advocacy she has been putting forward for her community, particularly the small businesses in the Gold Coast and the international education providers as well, not just in the tourism sector but in the education sector, which is very important to that community there on the Gold Coast.
The pathway forward is set out in our national plan, agreed by all governments in this country, brought together by the federal government. It sets out clear targets to direct our way as we move into the weeks and months ahead. It builds on the achievements that Australians have been able to achieve in our COVID response over the course of the last 18 months—achievements that have seen Australia avoid the deaths of more than 30,000 Australians when so many other countries have achieved fatality rates that are just completely disheartening, tragic and devastating. But here in this country more than 30,000 lives have been saved—and one million jobs, having come back after last year's COVID-19 recession. Even though we are going through the challenges we are going through now, we know that our economy is resilient and will bounce back.
The national plan was strongly endorsed by Professor Tony Blakely, from the University of Melbourne. He asked:
… what do I make of the national plan announced by the federal government … It is actually pretty good.
… … …
… it both provides targets we can aspire to with collective carrots when we get there, and clearly explains the role of non-vaccine measures during these transitions.
Professor Ivo Mueller, from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, talks about the plan providing:
… an excellent framework for safely guiding Australia from its current state of aggressive suppression of community transmission to a COVID-safe future where we are able to live with few restrictions and be reconnected with the rest of the world.
The national plan that this government has led, that as framed has secured the support of all Australian governments at the state and territory level, does provide the pathway forward. But right now we need to focus on the achievements that are necessary in the first phase—that is, to suppress the virus. The stronger we go into the next phase, the better it will be for all Australians in that next phase as we reach those 70 per cent and 80 per cent targets. But, now, we must keep those cases as low as we possibly can, to ensure we go into the next phase in the strongest possible position.
In response to the last question, the vaccination program is hitting its marks. It is at 14.2 million doses now, an average of more than 200,000 a day—255,964, so more than a quarter of a million Australians vaccinated in one day. That is what we need for that plan to be implemented, and it is being implemented.
[by video link] My question is also to the Prime Minister. Last September the Prime Minister announced that stranded Australians overseas would be home by Christmas, and then last October the Prime Minister announced that Australia would reopen by Christmas. Now the Prime Minister is again announcing that Australians can look forward to 'everybody around the table at Christmas time'. Why does the Prime Minister always focus on announcements and not delivery?
What I said, in answer to the last question and the one before it, was that I want all Australians to be around that table at Christmas. That is something that I would think the government wouldn't be criticised for. That is something that I would think all those in this House would be wanting—for Australian families to have their loved ones protected over the course of this year, so that they can all gather around the table. I don't know why that would be a point on which the government would be attacked by the opposition. I simply don't understand it.
I can tell the member who raised this issue that what I referred to last year was the number of people that were registered at the time, of getting Australians home. As we know, we got not only that number of people home by the end of last year but many, many more. As Australia continued to ensure that people in this country were protected as best as possible from the ravages of COVID, that wasn't the case overseas, and more and more Australians joined those lists to get home. That's why we expanded the national resilience facility in the Northern Territory. It's why we facilitated commercial flights to Australia—and we continue to do that now.
In this phase of the national plan, we have all agreed it is necessary to reduce the amount of arrivals coming to Australia because of the delta strain. The delta strain has changed everything. That is a position understood and agreed by premiers, chief ministers and me. Together we're implementing the national plan. The Labor Party is undermining the national plan.
I seek leave to table the Prime Minister's transcript from 23 October 2020, in which he said he wanted to get Australia open by—
No, you don't need to go through it. Is leave granted?
Leave is not granted.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please remind the House of the Morrison government's enduring commitment to delivering more jobs and a stronger economy so that all Australians can look forward to a brighter future on the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr Gorman interjecting—
The member for Perth will cease interjecting. Before the Treasurer begins, there is a number of members whom I ask to cease interjecting each day. I'll simply eject them from now on, so everyone's got clear warning. The member for Perth has now put himself in that category. The Treasurer has the call.
I thank the member for Boothby for her question and acknowledge her experience as a journalist working for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry before coming to this place. She is a strong advocate for small businesses across her electorate. Indeed, around 70,000 taxpayers in the honourable member's electorate will benefit from tax cuts that we on this side of the House have supported, and around 20,000 businesses across the electorate of Boothby will benefit from and be eligible for the expanded instant asset write-off that we as a government have introduced in order to boost investment and the strength of our economy.
While we in this chamber are sitting here, many in masks, millions of our fellow Australians are in lockdown, businesses are closed, kids are being homeschooled and families are apart. These are really, really difficult times—tough times, very tough times. But we, by sticking together as a nation, will get through this, as we have done before when facing a once-in-a-century pandemic. Our economic support has totalled more than $300 billion in commitments and the delivery of extensive economic support that saw Australia's unemployment rate come down to a decade low of 4.9 per cent. We are providing COVID disaster payments that are tax-free, at $750 for people who've lost 20 or more hours of work per week, and payments of $450 for those who've lost between eight and 20 hours of work. We've entered into partnerships with state governments to provide small business support, like in the honourable member's home state of South Australia where thousands of small businesses are getting $3,000 grants as a result of the partnership between us and the Marshall government. We've entered into similar arrangements across Victoria where a combined $800 million from the federal and the state governments is going to Victorian businesses. Of course in New South Wales, on a fifty-fifty arrangement, businesses can get up to $100,000 a week, depending on their turnover as a result of this pandemic.
In terms of alternative approaches, we know that those opposite continue to talk the economy down. In the face of this pandemic, they continue to talk the economy down. They have policies that will drive the economy down: cash splashes to millions of Australians who've already had the jab; higher taxes that the member for Rankin took to the last election; and they continue to talk down the success of the JobKeeper program, which has helped to save the economy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister told the House he supports the premiers in all the work they do to save lives and livelihoods. Does the Prime Minister support the New South Wales Premier's decision to mandate vaccination for construction workers from eight local government areas affected by COVID?
I have always supported the premiers acting on the urgent medical advice that they need to to address serious situations in their states and territories, whether that's the Premier of New South Wales, the Premier of Western Australia or the Premier of Victoria. I support all of those premiers where they're acting on that medical advice, which they are privy to, to address the very urgent situation in New South Wales. They're the people who have to make the decisions. They're the people in the room who are addressing the very serious situation in New South Wales.
If that is what they're being advised to do to arrest the growth in cases in New South Wales, and if that will suppress those cases, drive them down and enable New South Wales to be in a position to make their lockdown effective and not see that virus spread, and enable the country to move into the next phase in a stronger position—I believe that is what the New South Wales Premier is seeking to do, just like the Victorian Premier, who right now is extending a lockdown. That's difficult. I know it's not popular, but these are the necessary decisions with the delta strain of this virus that must be put in place.
What I'm keen to do as Prime Minister is ensure that we're supporting the actions of our states and territories. The Treasurer himself has just highlighted how we're seeking to do that by taking us through with economic supports, with fifty-fifty support of the business support programs in New South Wales. Directly through the COVID-19 disaster assistance payments, some $1.6 billion has been paid to 732,000 people in New South Wales by the federal government to ensure that people in Sydney in particular, but also across New South Wales, with the support of the state government can get through this. I tell you what: investing in them, supporting them, seeing them through and giving them that confidence is the best support we can give to the New South Wales government to ensure that they can take New South Wales through this very difficult time.
In addition to that, the almost 400,000 additional Pfizer doses that have been brought forward and provided to New South Wales to help them combat this virus are also providing great assistance. So, yes, we are supporting the New South Wales government in every which way we can, including with the provision of COVID support from the Australian defence forces, in there on the ground, working side by side with police officers and other emergency service workers, and with rural fire service workers also being enlisted into this cause. I thank them for their work. I thank everybody in New South Wales for their work. Whether they're delivering the vaccines in those DHL vans—whatever they're doing in New South Wales to get people through this, I thank them and I support them.
[by video link] My question is to the Treasurer. Despite what has been said, small businesses in Sydney and Warringah are struggling desperately. One local business owner has said to me that the worst lockdown since the pandemic started is being met with the worst government support. Another local owner of a hospitality business told me he's getting 65 per cent less in government support than he was last year. Small businesses desperately need increased financial support, a mandatory rental code to assist in their negotiations with landlords, and confirmation of ongoing support for a period post lockdown. Treasurer, last week you failed to provide businesses in my electorate with straight answers. You were flippant, telling them they would bounce back. Will you announce further support for small businesses?
The honourable member may be interested to know that, between the federal and the state governments, there will be about $1 billion a week going into New South Wales, which is equivalent to the amount of money that JobKeeper and the cash flow boost were providing New South Wales at the peak of the pandemic last year.
The initiatives that we announced for New South Wales in terms of economic support are very significant. There's the income support for workers, households and families, where you see payments of $450 a week for those who have lost between eight and 20 hours of work a week. You see payments of $750 to those who have lost 20 hours or more. For people who are already on income support or welfare, they receive a payment of $200 if they've lost eight or more hours of work.
On top of that, we're providing very significant support to businesses across New South Wales, with a program designed with the New South Wales government being delivered by Service NSW. Those payments are between $1,500 and $100,000 a week for businesses that have a turnover between $75,000 and $250 million. Those businesses have to show a turnover decline of 30 per cent or more. If you're a sole trader you get $1,000 a week as a flat payment. But the combination of that income and that business support is very substantial to people in the honourable member's electorate and, indeed, across New South Wales. And we recognise the challenges that are being posed by this pandemic. But that is why from day one we have been there with programs like JobKeeper; the cash flow boost; our multiple payments of $750 to people who are veterans, carers and others on income support; as well as the coronavirus supplement, which effectively doubled the safety net. On top of that, in successive budgets, we have provided other tax relief as well as other investment incentives.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition interjects about $750. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that $750 a week is where JobKeeper was when we first introduced it. We introduced it at $750 and then it tapered down for the second half of that program. So I would say to the honourable member that we understand how difficult it is for businesses across New South Wales, and that is why we continue to put enormous economic support, in partnership with the New South Wales government, into work supporting the people of New South Wales. By sticking together, we will get through this.
[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on how the Q3 ramp-up of the vaccine rollout is helping to protect lives across Australia, including in my home state of New South Wales?
I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and also for the support of his constituents and people in Greater Sydney at this moment in time. We know, as the Prime Minister has said, that over a quarter of a million Australians were vaccinated in 24 hours. This is the first time that that mark has been reached, we believe, in this nation's history and certainly during the course of the pandemic. The figure of 255,900 Australians is approximately the population of Geelong—in one day. It's almost the population of Wollongong—in one day. That gives the House a sense of the number of Australians who are stepping forward, who are being vaccinated. And, over the last week, it is 1.4 million Australians, 200,000 a day as the Prime Minister has said, well more than the population of Adelaide—in one week.
What does it mean? It means that the ramp-up is occurring precisely as we set out to do during Q3, during the third quarter. The reason why is that we have gone from 700,000 vaccines a week in mid-June to 1.4 million vaccines—and this week we have distributed two million vaccinations to the nation. It includes the fact that we have had over 1.2 million Pfizer vaccines arrive—more than we have previously said would be the case, because we have been able to work quietly and successfully to bring those vaccines forward. All of these things are coming forward to save lives and protect lives.
The member, of course, has immense international experience. He would be painfully aware that whether it is in Israel, which is seeing very high case numbers; whether it is in the United States, where they have had over 700,000 cases in a week; whether it is in the UK, which saw over 140 lives lost in the last 24 hours; or around the world, with 600,000 cases and 11,000 lives lost in one day, a global pandemic is raging. And we have our challenges at home—profound and real and significant—but that comparison with what we see abroad reminds us that there is a pandemic across the world which is ravaging lives and having an impact on society unlike anything we have seen in peacetime since the Spanish flu.
This vaccine program continues to ramp up. We now have almost 82 per cent of over-70s, we now have almost 70 per cent of over-50s and, together, 14.2 million vaccinations have been delivered to Australians. So there are great challenges, but these vaccines are saving lives and protecting lives. They are working on the fact that we have contained the virus by comparison with what we have seen around the world. We're not immune, but we have a plan which is saving lives and protecting lives. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. COVID-affected areas from Mount Druitt to Blacktown need walk-in vaccination hubs to boost vaccination rates in vulnerable communities. When the New South Wales Premier was asked about this, this week, she indicated she wanted to set up these hubs but needed more vaccines from the Morrison-Joyce government. If the Prime Minister had just done his job, wouldn't the vaccine hubs in our communities, that we are calling for, be available now?
I thank the member for Chifley. I would note that, to date, 4.6 million vaccines have been delivered in New South Wales. Just in the last 24 hours, off the back of the additional supplies which the government has made available—200,000 additional doses of Pfizer, coupled with the bringing forward of over 180,000 doses—New South Wales has administered a record number of vaccines. There have been 106,000 vaccinations given in New South Wales in the last 24 hours. In particular, that includes 30,000 from the state vaccination clinics and 76,000 from our GPs and our pharmacists. I want to note the role of pharmacies. On Monday there were 7,777 doses delivered by pharmacies, yesterday there were over 9,000 and all up there have been over 56,000. These doses are increasing every day, particularly across New South Wales, particularly across Sydney, particularly across Western Sydney. We have 321 pharmacies delivering vaccines in New South Wales, and that will grow to 584 in New South Wales by the end of this week. So we're seeing a significant increase in vaccines, and that's leading to a significant increase in vaccinations. New South Wales, at this point in time, as I say, has seen 106,000 vaccinations in the last 24 hours.
What we are also doing is making sure that across the country, but in particular in New South Wales, we not only have new GPs coming on board, we not only have the pharmacies coming on board, we also have the over 380,000 additional doses which have gone to New South Wales, which have been driving the state vaccination increase and uptake. That had previously been close to a maximum of 20,000 doses a day, then 25,000 and then, yesterday, 30,000. It was a record day in primary care. Over 163,000 doses were delivered in primary care around Australia, and matched in New South Wales. So, ultimately, I want to thank every Australian for coming forward. But I say to all members of this House that this is our chance to be encouraging all of our constituents to come forward; to be encouraging people, when they're eligible, to take that opportunity. We have almost 82 per cent of our over-70s, but every person who is over 70 years of age has access to a vaccine now. That option is with them. So it's up to each of us to work with our communities, to encourage our parents and our grandparents to encourage them to come forward, to take that opportunity to save their lives and to protect their lives.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister update the house on how the Morrison government's significant investment in the agricultural sector and infrastructure projects, has helped regional Australia lead the way in securing our economic recovery from COVID-19?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He represents a very proud regional area, so he's seen firsthand how regional Australia has faced up to the challenges of COVID-19. Sadly, some industries have had to go into lockdown and shutdown, but agriculture and resources have kept on going. They've kept not just regional economies going but our nation's economy going. On the back of some half-decent seasons we're now seeing that, particularly in the agricultural sector, there is a renaissance right across regional Australia.
Can I say, when you look at ABARES statistics just for the last financial year, that $1,272 per head was received for beef per farmer. This is an astounding result—the fourth-highest on record—and, where the Eastern Young Cattle Indicator is today, you would suggest that that will be broken this year. But it hasn't just been beef; it's been industries where we've also had challenges with trade. When you look at malting barley, it's gone from $200 a tonne to $248 a tonne; canola from $624 a tonne to $688 a tonne; mutton from 581c a kilo to 723c a kilo; and cotton from US69c a pound to US98c per pound. What this translates to is dollars in farmers' pockets. As an old agri manager, let me tell you: when farmers get money in their pockets, they spend it, and they spend it locally in local businesses.
We are seeing a tractor-led recovery right across this country, because they are using the instant asset write-off to upgrade their machinery, creating jobs in regional Australia. But they're not just leaving it at the machinery dealers; they're also going into the local merchants—they're spending it at the local cafes, the butchers and the bakers. The money is flowing not just through regional economies but through our national economy, off the back of the hard work of the men and women in regional Australia and in agriculture and resources. This is the work that we've done around our Ag2030 plan, in making sure that, where we have had market challenges, we've been able to maintain new ones and open up new opportunities, trade opportunities, by modernising our export systems, but also putting boots on ground—agricultural counsellors that have found new markets at premium prices to continue to put money back in farmers' pockets.
We've also made sure that we've looked at the here and now, with over $780 million worth of freight support to maintain our market advantage of not just having the cleanest and greenest but also being one of the most reliable trading partners in the world. We also want to leave a legacy, and we are leaving a legacy with the key infrastructure that will build the roads—billions of dollars in the Roads of Strategic Importance, that will pave the roads to get it from the paddock to the port, to make sure that agriculture and regional Australia are given the environment and infrastructure to thrive, to not just look after regional Australia but to look after the entire country.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to today's report in the Daily Telegraphtitled 'How QAnon became a killer covid conspiracy cult in Oz: Families torn apart by lies'. Prime Minister, what is the Morrison-Joyce government doing to combat the spread of dangerous misinformation by QAnon during this pandemic?
Crazy, rubbish conspiracies have no place when it comes to the public health of this country, and this government will have no association with it, as we demonstrated yesterday in this House. Ensuring that we take all steps we can to deal with misinformation is what this government is doing. It is up to all of us as members to seek to do everything we can to ensure that we are countering that in our own communities.
I have been pleased to be engaging with ethnic community leaders, multicultural community leaders, particularly in New South Wales. I thank those faith leaders across New South Wales, and particularly in south-western Sydney, who have been countering the misinformation that has been occurring in their communities. I particularly thank those of the Pacific community in this country and the faith leaders in their communities who are telling their congregations how important it is to get the vaccine and to not listen to those conspiracy theories that can prevent them from getting the vaccine and supporting their health. We're working with countries in the region, particularly Papua New Guinea. This is an issue that I speak regularly about with Prime Minister Marape, who is very concerned about the misinformation that is being put throughout his country regarding vaccination. And we are working to support him in his efforts in Papua New Guinea as well. But countering misinformation is a task for all of us. It's certainly a task for the government and one that we're acting on. I'll ask the minister for health to add further.
To add to the Prime Minister's answer, the Department of Health engages in a myth-busting process in terms of its public information. We work exactly as he says with communities across the country. There is provision of material in multiple different languages. We work with SBS on that front. In particular, one of the things we have to deal with is medical misinformation. I would refer to the words of the esteemed Professor Greg Dore of the Kirby Institute: 'Anti-AstraZeneca-ism is one of the great blights on Australia's COVID-19 response.' Professor Dore is highly esteemed. Professor John Skerritt yesterday said that, if people hadn't been vaccinated with AstraZeneca in New South Wales, we'd be talking about deaths in their dozens every day. Unfortunately there are those who have spread material and information which does not accord with the highest standards. Quote: 'It feels like Australia is being short-changed with an inferior vaccine.' Quote: 'The issue, though, is that the rest of the country is going to be offered a lower efficacy vaccine, the AstraZeneca.' Quote: 'We're about to unleash 51 million doses of AstraZeneca.' It is the Labor Party's candidate for Higgins. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working with our international partners to advance the next generation of low-emissions technologies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Moore for his question. As someone who had a distinguished business career before coming into this place, like so many on this side of the parliament, he knows the crucial role that technology plays in solving hard problems. When it comes to mitigating climate change, he knows, as we all know, that it's a global problem requiring a global solution. That's why we're absolutely committed to our Technology Investment Roadmap, bringing the next generation of low-emissions technologies to commercial parity with their existing alternatives, and that means technologies like clean hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, healthy soils, soil carbon, low-emissions steel and aluminium.
We know that not only will these technologies reduce emissions in Australia; they will do it around the world. Indeed, the five priority technologies in our Technology Investment Roadmap will either substantially reduce or eliminate emissions in sectors responsible for 90 per cent of the world's emissions. That's why we are entering into low-emissions technology partnerships with countries like Germany, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom to develop those technologies. We have committed $20 billion in the coming years to investment in the development and deployment of those technologies. It will create 160,000 jobs and bring forward a total of $80 billion of public and private sector investment focused on supporting heavy industry, not destroying it; supporting agriculture, not destroying it; supporting manufacturing, not destroying it.
I am asked about alternatives. Those opposite have now voted five times against the technology-led approach to reducing emissions. They've voted five times against clean hydrogen, against carbon capture and storage, against electric vehicle charging infrastructure. As the member for McMahon has said proudly—he's boasted—they're going to keep doing it. Sadly, it's not new to the member for McMahon to be against investment in technology. In his short stint as Treasurer, not only did he oversee their electricity tax rising to record levels; he also oversaw the dragging of $200 million out of their clean technology program. So he is for taxes and against technology. He opposed technology-led solutions as Treasurer. He's doing it again. As the member for Hunter has said so eloquently, that's stupid policy and stupid politics.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the IPCC report which this week warns that, without effective action on climate change, Australia faces an increase in the intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events. Will the Morrison-Joyce government commit to net zero emissions by 2050?
The Leader of the Opposition will be aware that it is the government's policy to achieve net zero as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050. The IPCC report that was released and we commented on yesterday is a very serious report. It's a report that affirms the position that the government has been taking to take action on climate change and to ensure that we continue to reduce emissions. Australia has reduced emissions by 20 per cent on 2005 levels. We have met and we have beaten our Kyoto targets. We will meet and we will beat our Paris commitments for 2030. We will exceed those commitments, and I'll tell you why we will do that. It is because Australian households, Australian businesses, Australian farmers, Australian manufacturers and Australian miners, all of them, are making changes in their businesses, supported by the policies of our government, whether that be to put solar panels on roofs, and we have the highest level of that in the world, or whether that be in rolling out renewable technologies and investments, which are eight times the global average—greater than that of the EU and greater even than that of countries like Germany.
But what we also note—and it is why technology, not taxes, is so important and why commitments without plans are a danger—is that what's important is that technology drive the changes that are needed. It's important that technology drive the changes that are needed because I know that, on this issue of net zero by 2050, the opposition has made an unqualified commitment—a blank cheque commitment with no plan—that will see a policy put in place by those opposite, because they're not supporting technology; they're voting against technology in this parliament. They're voting against it, and if you're not going to back technology, there's only one thing you will back, and that is taxes.
The policy of the Labor Party on this important policy issue has always been to tax their way to these commitments, not invest through technology to achieve these commitments. On our side of the House, we will focus on the climate action that is necessary not only to achieve the results here in Australia but to ensure that the technology that is developed can be made available and supported throughout developing countries of this world, which account for two-thirds of global emissions and rising. China alone accounts for similar emissions and, if fact, more than all OECD countries combined. That's where the solutions need to be applied.
[by video link] My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is transforming Australia's waste and recycling industry, including in my home state of New South Wales, and how this benefits not just our environment but regional economies as well?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question and commend her for her passion and excitement about her local waste industry on the Central Coast. It's a passion and excitement shared by all those on this side of the House.
This week the Australian and New South Wales governments have announced 22 new recycling projects, including 11 in regional New South Wales. That will create over 50 permanent jobs from Narrabri to Taree, Orange and Newcastle. However, I know the honourable member is particularly passionate about a project in Somersby in the Robertson electorate, where Sulo will be upgrading moulding equipment to recycle old kerbside bins and bottle caps back into new recycled garbage bins. We know this works because we've seen this in the member for Mackellar's electorate, where Sulo collected 184,000 old wheelie bins that were washed, chipped and repelletised for use in the manufacture of new bins for the Northern Beaches Council. I know the member for Parkes recently visited Australian Recycled Plastics in Narrabri in his electorate. It was started by local farmers Dale and Helen Smith. They saw an opportunity, through their trucking business, to backload deliveries with used plastic containers and recycle them. This funding will help them expand their operation by investing in new equipment to run two lines to process drink bottles and milk bottles, processing approximately 9,300 tonnes a year.
All of the New South Wales new projects show how the Morrison government's $190 million investment in the Recycling Modernisation Fund is turbocharging this nation's recycling capacity. We need to capture the economic value of waste. We need to create markets for recycled materials. This is the level of investment that will drive jobs in key areas at a critical time, increasing the states' recycling capacity by an estimated 120,000 tonnes every year.
Other projects include $40 million for a new materials recovery facility in Newcastle to recycle waste glass, plastic, tyres, paper and cardboard. In the Shoalhaven, a partnership between the local council and the University of New South Wales's Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology, the SMaRT Centre, will establish a MICROfactorie that turns glass and mattresses into green ceramic tile for kitchen benches and remanufactures plastics into filament for 3D printing.
This is all about easing pressure on our environment by recycling more materials, including plastic, glass, cardboard and even coffee cups. But, most importantly, as we come through and out of COVID, it's about creating jobs, it's about creating economic investment and it's about backing regional Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning on ABC Radio, the Deputy Prime Minister said about net zero emissions, 'We don't actually come up with the plan.' Is the Deputy Prime Minister right?
Our plan for achieving our climate commitments and our goals are being worked through by the cabinet and in the policy processes of the cabinet. We have completed those. We will do exactly as we did before the last election. At the last election we set out our commitments to 2030 and how we would get there. We did that by all sectors and the initiatives that were put in place to ensure that we could reach those commitments.
Others didn't think that we'd be able to make that commitment and meet it, just like they didn't think we'd be able to make the 2020 commitments, which we did. We met those and we beat those. And we are engaged in exactly the same considered and detailed process to ensure that when we make a commitment we can tell people in regional Australia, we can tell them up in Newcastle and in the Hunter, we can tell them over in Whyalla and we can tell them anywhere in this country what it will mean for them, what the costs will be and how this will impact on their livelihoods and on their regions, and how, together, we will be able to reduce emissions and ensure the viability of economies right across this country.
That is our process. That is what we do. We are upfront with the Australian people and the world, because no country reports on their quarterly emissions reduction better than Australia. To the best of our knowledge, Australia is the only country in the world that reports emissions reduction by quarter—every gas, every sector, every quarter. That is something Australia should be very proud of. That is something other countries should be doing. We are very transparent about this, and we will be very transparent about our plans and how we intend to meet the important goals that we are setting out to ensure we address climate change and, at the same time, ensure that we do not take away the industries and jobs that Australians depend on.
Our government is not going to write a blank cheque on this. We're not going to write a blank cheque. We're not going to legislate away a blank cheque, which is what the Leader of the Labor Party and the Labor Party will be doing. They will take an unqualified commitment and they will spend whatever of your money, Mr Speaker, and that of Australians around the country. They will do that unfettered and with an unqualified commitment, and it'll all fall on the people of Australia. What we will do is consider this carefully and have a clear plan which we can take Australians with us on.
But those opposite boast about what they do in this area. I had one of my own members, the Deputy Prime Minister, quoted to me in the question so let me quote another member of this chamber:
After 14 years of trying, the Labor Party has made not one contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in this country—
No, I say to the Prime Minister—
Mr Burke interjecting—
No! I say to the Prime Minister, and to the Manager of Opposition Business, that it's not a question of because one person was quoted that you can quote another. You need to be relevant to the question and it's not a matter of then just adding something else in. Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, that was the member for Hunter.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! I say to the Prime Minister, and I'm going to make this as clear as I can for when a question that asks about a quote. All of his answer was relevant. It didn't ask about any other quotes and the option isn't there to simply decide that you will add another quote in a political attack.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Water. Will the minister update the House on the strength of the resources sector and the plan that Morrison-Joyce government is implementing to streamline and cut red and green tape through reform so we can create more jobs and support regional communities like those across my electorate of O'Connor? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question. They say all that glitters isn't gold—but in the member for O'Connor's electorate a lot of it is, I'd have to say. A lot of gold comes out of the member's electorate and it is, of course, contributing to Australia's record exports in resources—$310 billion and 279,000 direct jobs. The member for O'Connor has a big advantage—the 'super pit'. That's not a moment of self-reflection! It's a mine that's over there—and a very longstanding one.
We want to ensure that we maintain Australia's competitiveness internationally when it comes to the resources sector. To do that, we want to make sure that we are streamlining environmental processes in particular. We have support from states like Western Australia and we are looking to make sure that we can do that. But there are those that have a different view. Green lawfare is not just someone with a can of spray paint and setting a pram on fire. We know that people like the Environmental Defenders Office have been out there actively pursuing things like closures or stoppages of Acland, on the Darling Downs; Adani, in Central Queensland; Whitehaven, near Gunnedah; Tahmoor, in the Southern Highlands; the Bylong Valley; the Burrup gas development; and the Narrabri gas project, in New South Wales.
The Samuel review found that some of these complex projects can take nearly three years to assess and approve. We are looking to streamline those processes. We are working to ensure that we get more projects up that deliver more jobs, particularly in the member for O'Connor's electorate over in Western Australia. This is how we pay for the essential services Australians rely on. This is how we pay for schools and roads and hospitals. In fact, in Western Australia, roughly 25 per cent of the budget comes from the resources sector.
People like the Environmental Defenders Office are not supportive. They are looking to stop these projects through green lawfare. The most recent one of course is activity and action against the plans for the Beetaloo Basin. We want to bring that project forward because it will deliver up to 6,000 jobs for the Northern Territory.
I am asked about alternatives. We know that those opposite will say one thing in Moranbah and a different thing in Melbourne. We had an announcement from the member for Isaacs and the member for Sydney at the last election. And what did they commit to? A $14 million funding package for the Environmental Defenders Office. So they say one thing in Melbourne and another thing in Moranbah, and then they look to fund individuals who are looking to stop projects in this country. We want to streamline processes, we want more projects to get up, we want to deliver more jobs and we want to strengthen our economy right across the country. They also said the coalition cut all Commonwealth funding to the EDO. Well, yes, we did. We are absolutely determined to continue the success of the resources sector. It is helping to carry our country. Congratulations to those hardworking men and women.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Jan, from Frankston, is an age pensioner who works part time as a teacher. She received JobKeeper, and Centrelink is now demanding she repay more than $1,000. She has to repay it at $15 a fortnight out of her pension. Billions of dollars in JobKeeper payments were gifted to firms with rising earnings. Why is the Prime Minister not asking them to repay a single cent?
I'm very happy to take the member for Fenner's question because I can't get a question from the Labor Party's 12th man, the member for Rankin. He can't even get a question up in budget week let alone in a normal week; with only half the members on the front bench, he still can't get a question.
The Treasurer will get on with his answer.
The reality is that people who received JobKeeper knew of their obligations. Welfare recipients in particular had an obligation to report JobKeeper as ordinary income. Because the question went to the importance of JobKeeper and the payments under JobKeeper, let me remind the House what the Governor of the Reserve Bank said:
… the JobKeeper program is really about keeping people in jobs … It's done a remarkably good job at that.
We know from the Reserve Bank that at least 700,000 jobs have been saved by JobKeeper.
I would just say to the Treasurer: I understand the points he's making, but he needs to be relevant to the question that was asked.
Mr Speaker, the relevance to the question is that JobKeeper has been a remarkable program for all who have received it.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Treasurer will just resume his seat for a second. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Yes, on direct relevance. I would put that it is not directly relevant for the Treasurer to be explaining why wage subsidies that we called for are important policy. It is relevant to the question to answer whether or not the billions of dollars of JobKeeper that were gifted to firms that had rising earnings, whether or not they should have been asked to repay a cent.
Before I call the Treasurer, the point I would make—I can see that's the point those on my left want to focus on—is that there was another question there as well about a pensioner from Frankston being asked to repay. The Treasurer needs to bring himself to those points.
With respect to people on welfare, they had to treat it as ordinary income. That is the response to that. Now, in response to the member's interjection there—
The point of order, yes.
the Manager of Opposition Business when he referred to the billions of dollars that were paid under JobKeeper, let me remind the honourable member that when Treasury did a review of JobKeeper it said:
It has been well targeted: the payment went to businesses that experienced an average decline in turnover in April of 37 per cent against the same month a year previous … and it went to businesses at which the job separation rate had doubled following the introduction of operating restrictions just before JobKeeper was introduced…
We put it in place for six months. We extended it at a taper rate for another six months. Those opposite continue to diminish the success of that program which has been part of Australia's remarkable economic recovery.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan to chart Australia out of the COVID-19 pandemic is supporting our manufacturing sector to grow more jobs?
I thank the member, particularly for his support of manufacturing in his electorate. Despite the challenges of COVID, and despite the pandemic and the difficult conditions it has brought about, exports of Australian manufactured goods were up by $800 million in the June quarter of 2021. That is 8.3 per cent on what was before it a very difficult quarter in May 2021. That is a remarkable outcome, showing the resilience of that sector and its importance to Australian employment and to the economy as a whole. Over that same period the operating profits of the manufacturing sector were $38 billion, in the year to March 2021. That's 8.5 cent of the total profits of all Australian industries across the country. That is a remarkable effort, showing remarkable resilience during COVID.
That is why the Morrison government is backing Australian manufacturing through COVID and to achieve on the other side of COVID with the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy. That strategy is particularly focused on six areas of comparative advantage and strategic importance—the six National Manufacturing Priorities—as they have been showing the potential to deliver enormous job growth. Those critical areas of focus show not only the ability to grow jobs domestically but to expand domestic production into global supply chains.
The sector that I want to talk about today is the medical manufacturing sector. That sector already contributes $5.5 billion to the Australian economy; it supports over 46,700 jobs; and, with the growing demand for health care and advances in customised and precision health care—those being coupled with digital technology—it shows enormous potential for growth.
We've just announced five medical product companies that will share in $36 million in funding. One of those amazing companies is Noumed Pharmaceuticals, and they'll use their Modern Manufacturing Initiative grant to fund an $85 million manufacturing facility in South Australia. That will create 250 construction jobs and 180 ongoing positions. Forty million units of tablets, liquids and creams that are all currently manufactured offshore will now be manufactured in Australia. That's everything from cold-and-flu tablets and painkillers to topical creams and prescription and life-saving medications. Noumed will also have a strong focus on research and development. It'll create job opportunities across the workforce for scientists, pharmacy graduates, logistics experts and engineers. And, importantly, what it will do is create manufacture into supply chain fragilities that we saw open up during COVID. So we've had a grant—supply chain fragilities and export leveraging. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Ten per cent of the total funds that he committed as Treasurer for commuter car parks at the last election were allocated to his own electorate. After more than two years, how many of the four car parks the Treasurer promised have been built, how many have started construction and how many are no longer going ahead?
There's a stranger in the House, because I've got a question from the member for Rankin! But the reality is we on this side of the House have supported commuter car parks, including in my own electorate, because we want to reduce congestion on our roads. We want to reduce congestion on our roads. With respect to the car parks in my own electorate, they haven't been built as yet, and we want them built. But I can tell you what, we will deliver more infrastructure to my electorate than those opposite ever will.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin! The Treasurer has the call.
He would trip over his own shoelaces—the member for Rankin. The reality is commuter car parks are a way of reducing congestion in our cities and in electorates such as mine where there is a lack of capacity at local car parks. I note that the Leader of the Opposition supported his own commuter car park—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition! No, cease interjecting.
because he believed, as we do, that providing more commuter car parks—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Treasurer will pause. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I give great tolerance to the leaders and the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House, but it's a never-ending stream of interjections and it needs to stop.
The reality is these investments can help reduce congestion on our roads and enable more people to take public transport, and it's the same principle that those opposite also adopted.
[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's plan for a stronger defence industry is creating jobs and supporting small businesses as we come back from COVID-19, including in my electorate of North Sydney?
I thank the member for North Sydney for his question and note his interest in and passion for defence industry and also his support for the ADF in his electorate. Our government is investing $270 billion over the next decade in our defence capability.
Yesterday the member for North Sydney and I had the great pleasure to announce that our government had awarded a contract to Indigenous company Barpa, which was a $25 million contract, to deliver incredibly important infrastructure upgrades to HMAS Waterhen, which is in the member's electorate. Local businesses in the North Sydney area are set to reap the benefits from this contract, with some 85 per cent of the work to go to local businesses in that area. This means jobs are secured in the North Sydney area, and the wheels of defence industry will continue to turn, especially during these difficult COVID times. Not only that, the member for Nicholls and I yesterday had the great pleasure to announce that we were awarding a $45 million contract to upgrade the Puckapunyal training area in the member's electorate, with 97 per cent of the work to go to local businesses and up to 80 local jobs being created by this contract. We are very proud that Australian businesses which are local to defence bases are getting these opportunities, and it's during these COVID times that we're particularly proud of that.
We're not just delivering first-class infrastructure to our ADF bases. Over the next two years the government is investing $39 million through our Skilling Australia's Defence Industry grants program. We've awarded $380 million to Australian businesses through our Defence Innovation Hub. Importantly, 80 per cent of these contracts have gone to Australian SMEs. Only last week I announced our government's latest round for the sovereign industrial capability grant program. In the last round there was a total of $8 million and it went to 11 different companies. I thought it would be interesting for the House to understand the breadth of that round and how we spread it around. The first one I want to mention is EPE, which is a company based in Queensland. It received a grant of $1.4 million for the development of a world-leading specialised unmanned system. Novafast International, based in South Australia, received a grant for $1.36 million. This is to support the acquisition and installation of new robotics equipment. Varley Rafael Australia, based in Victoria, received a grant of $183,000 with respect to their expansion of the current guided missiles capability. Finally, HTA Group, which is based across New South Wales and Victoria, received a grant for just over a million dollars to support the acquisition and installation of specialised hardening equipment. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that: 10 per cent of the total funds he committed as Treasurer for commuter car parks at the last election were allocated to his own electorate; not one of these car parks has been built; not one of these car parks is under construction; and one of these car parks is for a station which soon won't exist? How's he reducing congestion with car parks that don't get built?
The first thing is the honourable member asked about the commuter car park fund and he talked about how I, as Treasurer, had supported the commuter car park fund. Let me say to the House: the majority of our commitments are either being delivered or expected to be under construction within the next 18 months. Two commuter car parks are currently operational, at Beaconsfield and Hurstbridge. Three commuter car parks are currently under construction, at Craigieburn, Croydon and Maroondah. Around 15 commuter car parks will commence construction this year, and I'm advised a further 16 commuter car parks will commence construction in 2022. So I say to the honourable member, whether it's car parks in those electorates or in mine, we look forward to them being built.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing. Will the minister please update the House on the progress of the 2021 census and how it is fundamental to helping Australia plan for our nation's future?
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and I thank all Australians for making the 2021 census night a huge success. Last night we had 6.4 million surveys provided by Australians, which cover some 16½ million people. We saw no interruptions, we saw no security breaches and we saw a seamless service for the majority of Australians. Our call centres, which were ready and waiting, did not have many customers last night, because the service was so seamless. I was with the ABS last night. I had an opportunity to speak with many of the staff at the ABS and to thank them for their dedication and commitment over a long period of time.
I remind Australians and the House that this is a massive logistical exercise. There are 38,000 temporary jobs around Australia. There are 20,000 field officers, who ensure that the census is completed as seamlessly as it is, and there are 15 million letters sent out over a five-week period. We've received, as I said, 6.4 million surveys to date. The remainder will be hard copies that are in the post and with field officers who will be out in remote communities, Indigenous communities, ensuring that they are able to get a census survey from everybody possible. We in Australia aim for a very high completion rate. We aim for a 95 per cent completion rate. That will be the goal. So whilst last night was a huge success, the ABS and its 20,000 field officers—indeed, the 38,000 staff dedicated to this—will be working on it for a number of weeks.
I again record my congratulations and thanks to the ABS, to the Australian Cyber Security Centre, to the Department of Defence and to the Digital Transformation Agency. I think we all saw that all of those agencies came together to make it an easy experience for Australians, a 15- or 20-minute exercise which provides such crucial information not just to the federal government but state government, local governments, community organisations and businesses throughout our country. It is information that will inform decision-making for many years to come.
My final plea to any Australian who has not completed is: you still have time. You can still get online until Thursday and complete it or get a hard copy and get it in the mail. We want to reach that 95 per cent return rate to make sure that the information we have gives us the best possible information to make those decisions.
The Leader of the Opposition on a brief indulgence?
Yes, Mr Speaker. I join with the minister in encouraging Australians to fill in the census. This is important, and it's important that all Australians participate so that we have accurate information going forward.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I will add to an answer when I referred to the more than a quarter of a million Australians who received a dose yesterday. I'm advised that that is equivalent, on a per capita basis, to the ninth-best day in the United Kingdom over the course of their vaccination program.
A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have a question to you. I refer to page 548 of Practice, 'Rostering of ministers', where it says:
Although there is no rule to this effect, it has been traditionally expected that all Ministers who are Members of the House, unless sick, overseas or otherwise engaged on urgent public business, will be present at Question Time.
I note that the Deputy Prime Minister isn't able to attend question time in person because of the issue of COVID in the New England region, but I do note how many of my team, including my deputy, are here every question time, participating in the parliament. I would have thought that that is appropriate. My question to you is: is it appropriate, just as the Prime Minister took questions virtually and was available, that the Deputy Prime Minister should be available during question time for members of parliament on both sides and on the crossbenches to hold him to account and ask questions? I note that he hasn't turned up but he is on the payroll, and it is expected as a minimum that ministers will be here.
I'll make a couple of points to the Leader of the Opposition. What the ministerial arrangements are obviously have nothing to do with me. That's a matter for the government. In terms of those participating remotely as a result of the agreement, all members have the option to participate remotely if they're unable to be here. I won't go through all the aspects of the agreement, and I don't know all of the circumstances. The requirement is that they're trained—they're trained in their electorate offices—and they participate from their electorate offices, for the reasons I've outlined at great length before: for the best possible connection. They participate in a way that's as similar to parliament as it is, with parliamentary attire and a parliamentary backdrop. But it's not compulsory. That's really all I can say on the matter. But, while I'm at it, I will commend the member for McMahon for having the best backdrop that I've seen. And I think if everyone models themselves on him, that would be good.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Egregiously so.
Please proceed.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister made a personal statement in which he quoted himself, repeating again the fake news that he'd earlier spread during the 2019 election that I wanted to end the weekend. In 2019 I announced Labor's target that electric vehicles would make up 50 per cent of all new car sales in Australia by 2030. Mr Morrison has further said, with trademark slipperiness, and I quote—
No, the Leader of the Opposition will just go to where he's been misrepresented.
Mr Morrison has further said, with trademark inaccuracy:
I mean he reckons that 50 per cent of the cars that we all are driving around in 10 years from now will be electric cars.
That isn't what I said.
This week, in fact, President Biden signed an executive order for the exact same target for the same year that I and Labor proposed. Australia has been recently called the 'automotive third world', with less than one in every 100 vehicles on our roads being electric vehicles. The Prime Minister's hostile, belligerent, ill-informed fake news about what I said explains in no part, and reveals, his attitude in taking real action on climate. In fact, the House can rest assured: I drive an electric vehicle these days, and the weekend is still coming up on Saturday.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Isaacs proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's failure to establish a national anti-corruption commission.
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—
The ever-growing list of scandals surrounding the Morrison government shows why Australia needs a powerful and independent anticorruption commission and why the Prime Minister and his colleagues continue to do everything they can to stop one from being established. Every Australian state and both territories have had an anticorruption commission for years. Only the Commonwealth still does not have one. Why? Why is that? It's because the members of the Morrison government know that, if a national anticorruption commission is established—a real anticorruption commission with the powers, independence and resources to investigate politicians—there's a good chance a significant number of them might appear before it.
The Prime Minister claimed his 2019 election win was a miracle. But what we are now discovering is not so much a miracle as an election bought with vast sums of taxpayers' money, used as the property of the Liberal Party to be sprayed around whenever the Liberal Party thought that it could buy them votes. The Prime Minister's fond of quoting the former Chief of Army's statement that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that the standard that he accepts is not only to walk past any scandal in his government but also to ensure that no-one is ever held accountable for it, least of all him. There's an old saying that the fish rots from the head, and this Liberal government is now rotting from the Prime Minister down. That's why former Liberal Party luminaries and leaders—people who do have standards and are loyal to the standards of Menzies—are appalled at what they see our Commonwealth government becoming under this Prime Minister. Just two weeks ago Dr John Hewson wrote:
Morrison simply doesn't understand leadership. It involves strategic thinking, being proactive, and acceptance of responsibility with integrity and accountability.
On Dr Hewson's test of leadership, the Prime Minister fails most disastrously.
When Australia was burning and Australians were dying, this Prime Minister fled the country for a holiday in Hawaii. When he was shamed into returning to Australia, he shrugged it off with a sentence that will forever define his prime ministership, and you all know it: 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' No words better define this Prime Minister's character and his attitude to personal responsibility than these six words: 'I don't hold a hose, mate.'
When the COVID-19 crisis hit the country, we once again saw this Prime Minister avoid responsibility at every opportunity. The federal government had two key responsibilities in responding to this global pandemic: national quarantine and a vaccine rollout. This Prime Minister's desperate avoidance of responsibility for both has meant our nation is still relying on tourist hotels to provide the medical quarantine that only dedicated quarantine facilities can safely and reliably provide, and we are 35th out of 38 OECD nations in our vaccine rollout. Is it any surprise that half the nation is back in lockdown? And yet this Prime Minister still doesn't have even the sense of personal responsibility, the basic integrity or the willingness to be accountable for his actions to say sorry to the Australian people.
Responsibility, integrity, accountability: these are the basic requirements of character a nation's leader must have for the nation and its people to prosper, and that's why this Prime Minister is so terrified of a national anticorruption commission. As scandal after scandal unfolds, he never takes responsibility and never holds anyone accountable. Scandal after scandal demonstrate what a government without integrity will do, hoping that the public will just accept that corruption is synonymous with the federal government rather than its mortal enemy.
Former Victorian supreme court judge David Harper QC said of the most recent scandal, the car parks rort:
On any appropriate definition of corruption, this is an instance of it; and it should be called out as such.
Eminent law professor Professor Anne Twomey, who's opinions are often relied upon by this government, has pointed out that section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act requires ministers to make sure spending is 'efficient, effective, economical and ethical'. Professor Twomey says of the car parks rort:
It is screamingly obvious, when you look at the Auditor-General's report, that the grants did not fall within the category …
… … …
Ministers were under an obligation to make sufficient inquiries to be able to satisfy themselves of those things and clearly have failed to do so. So there is certainly breaches of the law.
There are so many other rorts and examples of maladministration that are as bad or even more egregious than the Prime Minister's pork-and-ride scheme that I can only mention them now. We've had the sports rorts affair, we've had the Western Sydney Airport land rip-off; we've had the brutal, unlawful and shockingly expensive robodebt fiasco; we've had senior ministers repeatedly breaching the standards of ministerial conduct, knowing that the Prime Minister will not enforce standards of integrity he himself shows contempt for on a daily basis; and we've had the handing out of untold numbers of highly paid taxpayer funded jobs to former Liberal Party members, failed Liberal Party candidates and former Liberal Party staffers.
The ongoing work of parliamentary committees, investigative journalists, whistleblowers, the independent Auditor-General and ordinary citizens has exposed these rorts and corruption scandals. But in the absence of a dedicated national anticorruption commission, we've only been able to scratch the surface of the scandals that have so far come to light, because, using all of the resources of government, from concocted claims of cabinet confidentiality to secret inquiries by political mates that are never concluded, the Prime Minister has done everything he can to stymie any rigorous and independent investigation of these matters and done his best to cover up each and every scandal.
Every state and territory now has a dedicated anticorruption commission. Australians know that these bodies, while not perfect, have proved their worth time and time again. Most notably in the Prime Minister's home state of New South Wales, the ICAC has demonstrated its importance in fighting corruption in government in every party and by any politician. Every single non-government member and senator in this parliament is united against the Morrison government in demanding a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission—an anticorruption commission with teeth. The only politicians preventing a national anticorruption commission from being established are the Prime Minister and the members of his government, and they are doing this because they know what it will uncover and reveal to the Australian people about what this government has secretly been up to these past years.
I am not saying that Labor governments in Australia have been without blemish, but, unlike the Morrison government, we in Labor recognise that corruption in the federal government is a serious problem and that bold and urgent action must now be taken to combat it. After eight long years in office, the Liberals have failed to take any action to tackle corruption, leaving the Commonwealth the only Australian government without a body dedicated to tackling corruption by politicians and government officials.
An Albanese Labor government will put an end to the Morrison government's shameful inaction by establishing a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. I say again: this Prime Minister's conduct has demonstrated the opposite of qualities of character and leadership a Prime Minister must have, the opposite of acceptance of responsibility, the opposite of integrity and the opposite of accountability. These rorts and scandals that have come to light—and who knows what other disgraces we don't yet know about—are why the government has failed to deliver the national anticorruption commission it promised way back in December 2018. We're coming up for a thousand days, on 8 September, from when Mr Morrison and his former Attorney-General promised to deliver that national anticorruption commission, and we haven't seen it yet. These rorts and scandals that we do know about tell us why the Morrison government is so terrified of a national anticorruption commission.
I'm pleased to follow the member for Isaacs and that quite remarkable collection of non sequiturs and understatements. I call the attention of the House to quite an extraordinary understatement: 'I am not saying that Labor governments in Australia have been without blemish.' Well may he say that. That is a very delicate understatement indeed.
The first proposition I want to put before the House this afternoon is that our government has a thorough and comprehensive process in place to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. It will be the lead body in a successful multiagency anticorruption framework. It will enhance accountability across the public sector. We've had a nationwide consultation process on legislation to establish this commission, with 333 written submissions and 46 consultations, meetings and round tables. We're now carefully and methodically considering that feedback.
We've set aside funding for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission of $106.7 million in the 2019-20 budget in addition to $40.7 million of funding for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which will also transfer across to the new commission. There'll be 172 staff. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will receive referrals from all of the existing integrity agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman, and will be able to investigate a matter on its own motion where it discovers suspected criminal conduct in the course of an existing investigation. The law enforcement division will be able to take direct referrals from the public. We have a well-established, well-developed scheme. We are working through a thorough and methodical process to implement and legislate it, and the Attorney-General is leading that work. It is, frankly, disappointing that the shadow Attorney-General failed to make reference to what he well knows to be our comprehensive and well-developed policy in this area.
That brings me to my second proposition, which is that you'd be extremely naive to take the opposition at face value in their high-minded claims in relation to fighting corruption, because this is the same party which is promising to abolish the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission, two organisations which are on the front line in dealing with dishonest conduct. Why are they doing that? Because, as usual, they are dancing to the tune of their union masters.
The Australian Building and Construction Commission has been successful in 78 out of 87 cases decided since December 2016, and more than $26 million in penalties have been awarded. But Labor is root-and-branch opposed to it. Why? Because the CFMMEU is root-and-branch opposed to it—and what a shining beacon of integrity that organisation is! Labor are jumping to its tune and then claiming straight-facedly that they've got a disinterested commitment to reducing corruption in the public sector. They've made a series of inaccurate statements about the carefully designed and developed model that we're advancing through a thorough legislative process. Our Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have jurisdiction across a wide range of persons and entities. It will be able to exercise own motion powers in relation to law enforcement corruption issues. It will be able to conduct public hearings into law enforcement corruption issues. It will be able to look into conduct that occurred prior to its establishment, if the offence existed at the time the conduct occurred. So do not believe the misstatements and inaccuracies perpetuated by the other side of the House in relation to our well-developed plans for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission.
One would be particularly naive to take at face value these claims from the opposition, because of the rich irony in the Labor Party seeking to present itself in some way as a champion of purity and probity in public administration. They jump up and down, for example, in relation to particular programs that the government has on foot to deliver commuter car parks—of course, a policy objective identical to the policy objective that was the purpose of the Park and Ride Fund taken by the Labor Party to the last election. Yet, for some reason which has still not been adequately explained by those opposite, if a commuter car park is committed to by the Labor Party, it's good; if a commuter car park is committed to by the Liberal and National parties, it's bad. There is no explanation at all.
We hear them quoting at length from Auditor-General's report's, and yet it is clear that, for example, the member for Ballarat has been the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Auditor-General. In Auditor-General report No. 9 of 2014-15, Performance audit: the design and conduct of the third and fourth funding rounds of the Regional Development Australia Fund, what did the Auditor-General say:
It is a clear instance of the member, at the time discharging her ministerial responsibilities, systematically overriding the recommendations of an independent panel to prefer funding of projects located in ALP electorates. And they stand up and protest about probity in public administration!
It doesn't stop with the member for Ballarat, I say to the House. Let's look at another performance audit by the Australian National Audit Office, Auditor-General report No. 3 of 2010-11, Performance audit: the establishment, implementation and administration of the strategic projects component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Who was the responsible minister at the time? It was the member for Grayndler, now the Leader of the Opposition. And what did the Australian National Audit Office say:
The awarding of funding to projects also disproportionately favoured ALP held seats …
This is very interesting:
… the Minister's Office provided the department with a list of 137 projects with an aggregate program cost of $549.72 million. … Two additional worksheets had been created after the spreadsheet had been completed by the department … :
… … …
That's the kind of conduct that the member for Grayndler was engaging in and overseeing when he had ministerial responsibility.
We heard the shadow Attorney-General huffing and puffing and grandly quoting statements like 'the standard you walk by is the standard you accept'. I invite the Labor Party to engage in just a moment of self-examination, because what we will see is a very sharp contrast between this purported claim to be disinterested champions of public administration and the actual record. This is from the party of Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald, Joe Tripodi and Craig Thomson. Here they are claiming to be disinterested champions of public administration.
The Labor shadow minister with purported responsibility for government accountability is the former Labor Premier of New South Wales, who presided over the last rotting days of the Obeid-Tripodi-Macdonald era. When she was Premier of New South Wales, Senator Keneally's first action was to return Ian Macdonald, Eddie Obeid and mate No. 1 Joe Tripodi to the ministry; subsequently, of course, he has been charged and convicted. The kind of conduct that we have seen exposed is quite extraordinary, and we have these claims from the Labor Party that they are disinterested champions of public administration.
In particular, we had in comments by the shadow Attorney-General criticisms of the Prime Minister's administration of the vaccine rollout. You could not find a more extraordinary non-sequitur being presented as an argument for an anticorruption commission. We see that the shadow Attorney-General is really seeking to bundle up every politicised complaint or attack on this government and link it to Labor's purported disinterested claim to advance good public administration. The facts are: we have a thorough, well-developed, well-researched plan for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission; we are prosecuting it methodically; and we will bring legislation forward.
I think the minister doth protest too much! There's a bit of sensitivity over this and over the rorts we have seen on his watch particularly as minister but on the Morrison government's watch overall.
It's been almost a thousand days since the Morrison government promised the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Look at some of the legislation they've managed to pass in this place, in my own portfolio, and rushed into the House, like legislation on superyachts. Yet a thousand days, and they cannot legislate a national integrity commission. It's a thousand days of delays, excuses and scandal.
If you've ever wondered why the Prime Minister in particular has been so reluctant to institute a real anticorruption commission, you just have to look at the last few weeks alone to see a clue. Maybe it's because of car park rorts, where the Prime Minister and the minister for urban infrastructure—admittedly not the one we just heard speak, although he's had his own scandals—allocated $660 million of funding according to a list of top 20 marginal seats. Or maybe it's to do with the purchase of the Leppington Triangle, where the Morrison government spent $30 million on land later valued by its department at $3 million—something the minister who was at the table speaking previously thought was a very sensible idea. Maybe it's to do with sports rorts, safer communities rorts or regional rorts—we haven't heard a lot about that one; it is the regional jobs and investment program and the Audit Office's current investigation of the Building Better Regions Fund. Of course there's robodebt. We've had the minister when he was Minister for Home Affairs and au pairs. We've had the energy minister's use of forged documents. We've had the then Minister for Industrial Relations refusing to cooperate with an AFP investigation into how her office made an unlawful tip-off to a police raid.
Opposition members interjecting—
Now she's the first law officer, as members behind me have pointed out. There is a stink in this place, and it comes from the ever-growing list of Morrison government scandals. There is a way of getting rid of this, of cleaning up this mess. The first and most important step is to vote this mob out. The second step is to institute, under a Labor government, a proper anticorruption commission. This government will never do it themselves. We know that, because they're worried about what might be uncovered. They are so terrified of being held to account for those and other scandals that they refuse to even allow the need for a national anticorruption commission to be properly debated in this House. They're so scared of scrutiny over car park rorts and others that they are trying to hide relevant documents for about 20 years, claiming public interest immunity.
They're like a vampire: happy to drink down on taxpayer funds but terrified of a bit of sunlight. There is nothing that scares this government more than transparency. They know it would be the end of many of their ministers on the front bench. They're increasingly out of step with the wider community but also with the parliament. As the member for Isaacs pointed out, every single non-government member and senator in this parliament is united in demanding a powerful independent national anticorruption commission. Every state and territory now has a dedicated anticorruption commission. It was weird hearing the minister talk about scandals in New South Wales which were only uncovered because there was a corruption commission in New South Wales. That's why we know about those and why those people were held to account, as they should have been.
What is this government so afraid of? We know that the proposal they have put forward is not adequate. Everybody in the country who knows anything about the establishment of corruption commissions is telling them that. This is not the model to pursue. Yet this is the model this government is continuing to debate and talk about and somehow try and pretend it has got something when, in fact, it's actually doing nothing. At best, the government can offer some sort of political fix.
We know that only a Labor government would be committed to establishing an anticorruption commission. We know the only way we can get that is to vote this mob out, to ensure that we have an Albanese government. Only then can Australians have the government they deserve, a government they can actually trust.
I really welcome the opportunity to talk about this important issue of the establishment of an integrity commission, anticorruption commission, for the Commonwealth. I do so because members on this side of the chamber were elected on a platform to deliver one in this term of parliament, and unless I'm mistaken we're still in this term of parliament. Critically, what we're seeking to do is develop an anticorruption commission that actually has integrity. This is an important point. One of the reasons we need to make sure we consider it very carefully and make sure the legislation is right is the sponsor of this motion: the member for Isaacs.
The member for Isaacs has many, shall we say, tricks. These tricks can involve making baseless allegations in this parliament in the hope of attracting a headline. They can include tricks like getting out his pad of allegations and making referrals of members in this place to the Australian Federal Police with virtually no evidence whatsoever. In fact, I've previously described the member for Isaacs as addicted to an AFP referral pad like a dodgy doctor is to the issuing of medications to drug addicts. The reality is, the member for Isaacs has consistently sought to abuse referrals to the Australian Federal Police for political gain, wasted the time of the Australian Federal Police, wasted public resources, for naked and pathetic political gain. It's not really surprising, because he is on the last hurrah of his time in this parliament. I understand he has already been advised about the fact that he will be dumped from the shadow ministry in the next term of parliament should he be re-elected because he no longer carries the support of the Victorian right. So I do understand trying to draw attention to his performance matters now because he is applying for his job, even though he has been denied in the next parliament. But let's leave aside the member for Isaacs' failed future to him.
Let's talk about what we want to do with an anticorruption body and an integrity commission. What we want to do is get referrals from proper agencies who have competency and capacity to judge what is in the best interests of Australians and what matters should progress through to being considered by such anticorruption agencies, not simply the political whims of the failed member for Isaacs. That is what we are doing. We have put out a consultation paper that is looking at exactly how we develop an anticorruption framework that will enhance accountability across the public sector.
This consultation process on legislation to establish a commission has recently been completed, with 333 written submissions received and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables occurring during the consultation period. That is the difference between drawing up a post-it note policy like the opposition and a comprehensive consultative legislative reform under a competent Commonwealth Morrison government.
I do realise that this pains members of the opposition because, with respect to the minister who gave the first speech in this debate in response to the MPI, he forgot someone. I notice the member for Ballarat also forgot someone in her rebuke of the minister. Of course, it was the corrupt former Senator Sam Dastyari, caught taking brown paper bags, having debts wiped out by Chinese national interests against the interests of our nation. So that didn't go through an anticorruption commission but, yes, there definitely has been a Labor senator who has been caught red-handed betraying his nation while serving in this parliament. And I notice the silence—
Order! The member for Goldstein is sailing very close to the wind now in terms of the standing orders. I would counsel him not to continue down that track of, in particular, reflecting on a former senator in the way in which he has and in the characterisation he made.
That is noted. I note the silence of the members of the opposition.
We should all be so lucky to find someone who looks at us the way the member for Goldstein regards himself! That would be a wonderful thing—I think an impossibility. What we have seen are two quite extraordinary contributions from the government speakers, both very pleased with their sense of their own debating skills but both making clear the case that this side of politics and, indeed, as the member for Ballarat has made clear, that every member of this place and the other place outside the government knows is unarguable—that Australia needs a real national anticorruption commission and we need it now. We need it now.
In the Prime Minister, we see a national leader who has been slow to act and quick to blame at every turn, a person who has been incapable of distinguishing public funds and public responsibility from the electoral prospects of Liberal and National parties, someone who is incapable of taking responsibility and incapable of accepting accountability. He is utterly shameless and so is the government that he leads. They are contemptuous of democratic institutions and that is demonstrated with their disingenuousness over this issue.
We are nearly at the thousand-day mark since the promise was made for a national integrity commission and we are no closer to seeing action—action on their inadequate terms or action at all. This contempt for our democratic institutions, this contempt for accountability in this place, is really contempt for Australians. This is a government that should be serving the Australian people but it stands and stares down at them. It refuses its responsibilities, even through this time where it has never been more important for the Australian people to have a government on their side and a government they can rely on.
I think that the shadow minister for infrastructure, the member for Ballarat, and the shadow Attorney-General, have gone through the litany of sorrow. Time here does not permit it, but the scandals speak for themselves: change room rorts, robodebt—perhaps the greatest scandal of all, actually—regional rorts, sports rorts and car park rorts most recently. I think the worst thing about the car park rorts scandal is that the government saw sports rorts, where they were caught red-handed, and they made a decision about it. The decision seems to have been this: they got caught out under Senator McKenzie because there was a process. So, somehow, when it came to allocating $660 million of taxpayer funds, turning that $660 million into an LNP slush fund, the decision was made to remove any criteria for project assessment—any criteria, none at all!—and to deny any process for application.
Of course, what we don't know is who came up with this. I'm very interested that the minister for urban infrastructure doesn't seem interested in sharing his views with the Australian people in this place or in the media. I'm very interested that the minister then responsible, the member for Aston, says that he never saw the critical document that was the basis for all this. He never saw it! He was the minister at the time and yet a public interest immunity claim has been advanced in support of it. This is astonishing! The minister is admitting to not reading his own briefs. Well, perhaps that is credible but the defence is not—in particular, the defence of the Prime Minister. We see it in his anger, we see it in how he hides and we see it even in the small things, like him cutting the questions on car park rorts from his Facebook page. And he probably should have done that, because his answers were risible.
I said before that he leads a government that is shameless. That's the characterisation of Katherine Murphy of the Guardian. I think it's a really important one because it cuts to the bone: they are shameless in every respect. We see that every day when he stands at a dispatch box that he is unworthy to stand before. But we see it profoundly in his refusal, and the refusal of every member opposite, to accept their responsibility. It is such a privilege to serve in this place and in the other place. It's hard to imagine a greater privilege than to serve in government, and yet these people are demonstrating themselves, with every action—and, in particular, through this inaction—that they aren't up to it. They aren't up to it when it comes to competence. Australians have seen that through the failure in the rollout and national quarantine. But, more profoundly, they fail on character—no-one more so than the person who should be leading Australia. That's why we need a national anticorruption commission now.
I would like to thank the member for Isaacs for raising the need for a national integrity commission. I completely agree with him, and after listening to the litany of bad behaviour that has been put forward by all of the previous speakers on this motion I don't think that anybody would disagree with the need for a national anticorruption commission. One thing I would say—and this might sound a bit flippant, but I actually think it's true—is that the sooner we get one the sooner we stop having motions like this, which are set up so that people can just attack each other from across each side of the benches; it's not a part of the political world that I particularly favour. I also want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Indi, who, as an Independent, came in on a platform pushing for a national integrity commission and hasn't relented throughout her time here.
The people of Australia rightly expect that our government and all our agencies act in good faith—that they act with transparency and with complete integrity. I actually believe—it is my belief—that the majority of people working in government and for government, and members within this place and senators within this place, do actually try to act with the utmost good faith. But of course there are people who don't. There are people who do not act with the integrity that we would expect—for some reason, they don't. And there are always going to be people who look to exploit the system for their own benefit.
At this point in time we don't actually know the size of fraud against the Commonwealth, but we do know that fraud has serious consequences. It negatively impacts our public resources, which are, after all, Australians' money. It's all of our money. When money is misused, when resources are misused, they could have otherwise been directed to key services such as health, education, welfare, infrastructure. It also impacts upon the integrity of government and its capacity to do things efficiently and effectively, and it impacts upon people's trust in government. We, as servants of the people, must take steps to combat fraud against the government. After all, when it's fraud against the government, it is fraud against each and every Australian.
At the same time, we must ensure that our steps are appropriate and balanced. We do not want innocent, decent and good people caught up in frivolous and vexatious actions or allegations, nor do we want to unnecessarily interfere with efficient and effective operations of government and its agencies. The member for Isaacs noted correctly that each and every state and territory has a dedicated integrity commission and they have proven their worth time and time again, to which I agree, but I agree with some reservations. Each and every one of them has also had their issues. Each and every one of them has had instances where innocent people have been dragged into what can be soul-destroying, life-destroying consequences. And, in conversations I've had with the member for Indi over the last two years on the need for a national integrity commission, this has been the point that I have stressed time and time again. We want an integrity commission and we want one with teeth, but we also want one that has the correct balance, the correct mix, and doesn't drag in innocent people. I'm not talking about people who sit in this place. As the previous member said, we are all privileged to serve here. It's the people who work for us who occasionally get dragged into these things because of the things they do for us, perhaps because we tell them to, perhaps because they believe that that's the expectation. So it's about getting the balance right in a national integrity model, which holds people to account but also has the right threshold so it does not drag innocent people into its wake.
I would like it to have been enacted by now—I'm not going to hide from that. Yes, it has been a long time, but we are going through a consultation process. There have been 333 written submissions received and 46 consultations. Would we like it to be quicker? Yes, we would like it to be quicker. Do we want it to be right? Yes, and we want the right to prevail over the speed. So the process that is being gone through now I am confident will produce something at the end. It may not satisfy everybody. It may not be the model that the member for Indi has been wanting all this time. But we will get a model that we are confident and comfortable will deliver the level of integrity that we need in this country. Thank you.
I call the member for Kingsford Smith. The member for Kingsford Smith may be on mute, because we can't hear him at the moment. I am wondering whether the member for Paterson might speak now whilst the member for Kingsford Smith's technical issues are being sorted out.
Today's MPI is the government's failure to establish a national anticorruption commission. This is generous, as I feel as though the topic could have been truncated at failure. But I fear a thousand MPI speeches wouldn't be enough to cover that broad topic nor shield this government from the fact that on 8 September it will be 1,000 days since the Morrison government promised an integrity commission. That's 1,000 days—about as long as a week feels in lockdown—and it's 1,000 days of thumbing their noses at the Australian people.
This Prime Minister accepts the low standards his ministers have set and is doing nothing about corruption in his own government, despite growing public outrage at the scandal. This Prime Minister, despite promising legislation before the end of 2019, has continued to demonstrate his lack of commitment to integrity. The government's proposed model is weak at best. Although they say they're having consultations and taking written submissions—seriously, how long does it take? As with many other important issues, the Prime Minister ducks, dives and says, 'It's not my responsibility.' I stand in this place today with the support of my community, who so desperately want to see an integrity commission put in place. They want to say to the Prime Minister, through you, Deputy Speaker, that this is his responsibility.
The buck stops with him, but sadly in some cases it seems to start with him, too—the rorts and the rots, it seems, as well. We've had the car park rorts; the sports rorts affair; the Western Sydney airport land rip-off, otherwise known as the Leppington Triangle; the horrendous robodebt; the now first law officer of the land, when she was Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, refusing to cooperate with an Australian Federal Police investigation into an unlawful tip-off of a police raid from within her office; the appointment of dozens of former Liberal Party members, staffers and failed candidates to highly paid government jobs without proper process; forged documents 'Taylor-ed' to do over Clover; the then home affairs minister and the au pairs—look, the list really does go on. The Morrison government is so terrified of being held to account for these and other scandals that it refuses to even allow the need for an anticorruption commission to be debated in this very House.
Why not bring on a debate? Why not flesh out the good, the bad and the ugly ideas? It truly beggars belief. Every single Australian knows why it's being stalled. Every single non-government member and senator in this parliament is united in the call for demanding a powerful, independent national anticorruption commission—everyone here except the government. All of our states and territories have dedicated anticorruption commissions. When all the members of the public see from their government is a lack of transparency and continued delays on a national integrity commission, how can they be expected to have faith in the life-changing decisions that are currently being made by their federal and state governments?
The federal and state governments say every day: 'Stay at home. Get vaccinated. Don't go to work. If you're sick, get tested. Do the right thing.' Australians, by and large, are doing the right thing every day, and they want a government that does the right thing. They want a government that's happy to face the test that they are doing the right thing. My office constantly hears from locals asking with integrity about and seeking the right advice on whether they can go to work and what they should be doing. That's what integrity is. This Prime Minister has to do the right thing and govern with integrity. In Australia we've got this long-held tradition of mateship, from our diggers to our Indigenous brothers and sisters and the migrants who have made it so unique. Yet I hear the member for Dawson whining about his individual freedom. I say to you: COVID is a war. Why are you supporting the enemy? Why is this government not getting on with governing with integrity and honesty for the Australian people at this time?
It's a pleasure to rise today to make my contribution regarding this debate about the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission. I'll start with a brief story from some time ago—in fact, it was a little over 20 years ago—when I was stationed here in Canberra. I'd just left school. I was here at the Australian Defence Force Academy. Over the first couple of years, we were instructed on a great many things, some of which was how to clean things incessantly and bring your room up to standard for inspection. But we were also taught a great deal about leadership, lessons that others who have gone before us have forged, often through incredibly difficult combat situations.
There were a few principles of leadership that we were taught, and we were also taught about the qualities of leadership. Some of those include good, sound, rational decision-making, which is, of course, incredibly important, particularly if you're in a position where you are a leader of Australian men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We were taught about other qualities of leadership, such as courage, and that included physical courage but also moral courage to really stand up for the things that you know to be right.
Unfailingly, one of the other qualities of leadership that was always referred to was integrity, sometimes also referred to as honesty. It was certainly drilled into us quite endlessly. But, for quite some time, it just seemed to blend in with the other qualities until we got to a point in second year, when we were out in the field training range at Majura here, up in the hills of Canberra, on a very, very cold winter's night in the freezing cold air—in fact, it got to minus 12 that night, and I remember because I'd forgotten my wimp mat, so it was incredibly freezing!—and a major came up to us. We were still wide-eyed cadets, so a major was pretty intimidating. He gathered us up and said: 'Righto, guys. Let's have a chat.' This gentleman was what was referred to as the leadership instructor. He said to us, 'Guys, when you hear the word 'integrity', what does it mean?' We faffed around for a while and tried a few different answers, and it was all very clearly unconvincing to this major, who was standing there having a chat with us. He said: 'Guys, it's really, really simple. There are just three things: don't lie, cheat or steal.' That really stuck with me, because it gave me a much easier code to follow than just a single term. I raise that today because it's exactly the sort of thing that, rightly, all Australians expect of their political leaders, and all of us in this House, and in the Senate as well, are absolutely charged with that responsibility to be men and women of integrity as we lead our nation.
The second brief story I'll use is that of what my wife referred to when our children were growing up. When they were very small, if my wife thought they might have told a fib, she would say, 'Stick out your tongue.' I don't know if anyone else in the chamber has come across this before. She would say, 'Stick out your tongue.' They'd stick out their tongue. And she would say, 'Because, if you've told a lie, there will be a little black mark on your tongue, and I will know that you've told a fib.' I hadn't heard that one growing up, but it turns out it's quite effective. If they start blabbering and they don't want to stick their tongue out, it turns out they're probably telling a fib.
So there are different ways in which we can conduct ourselves and different rules and social codes that we try to implement. In this case, I absolutely support the government's firm commitment to do what we said we would do and establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. In fact, Australia's democratic system of representative government, professional and independent judiciary, free media and active civil society all play really important roles in protecting against corruption by enabling and encouraging scrutiny of the public and the private sectors.
This government have committed quite some sizeable funds already—in fact, $106 million of new money in the most recent budget—to establish this commission. We have undertaken a nationwide consultation—because, frankly, we need to get this right—and that included 333 written submissions and 46 consultations, meetings and round tables. This commission will further enhance some of the robust processes which are already in place. We have acknowledged across both sides of this chamber today the need for this commission, and we will see it come to light in quick order.
[by video link] A fundamental principle of democracy is that our elected representatives are accountable to the people who elect them. There have been a large number of decisions involving the expenditure of public money by the Morrison government which have not been based on merit, based on independent assessments or in the interests of the Australian people but have been for purposes which suit the personal and political interests of government members of parliament. These decisions would certainly meet the average Australian's definition of alleged corruption and, in any other place, would be investigated by one of the state independent commissions. Yet, at a federal level, these types of decisions go uninvestigated. They are not investigated by an ICAC because this government refuses to establish one, and, in that respect, it is breaching that fundamental tenet of democracy—accountability to the people for the decisions that are being made.
The Australian people are asking why. Why are the government refusing to deliver their commitment on a federal ICAC? One could only guess that it is because those opposite know that they've been involved in decisions which amount to rorting of taxpayer dollars that they know would amount to alleged corruption under the state regimes, and they know that they potentially could lose their jobs if they were found to be corrupt. They are putting their personal interests ahead of proper accountability to and transparency for the Australian people, and that is unacceptable. The Australian people deserve better. They deserve accountability. They deserve a federal ICAC with proper powers.
What is this government hiding? That's what many Australians are asking. The list is a litany of abuse of taxpayers' funds. First, we've got the car park rorts—$600 million worth of funds that the ANAO said the Morrison government awarded to marginal coalition-held seats, based on a list of the top 20 marginals. Seventy-seven per cent of that funding went to coalition held seats. In one case, funding has gone to a car park next to a train station that's not even going to be a train station anymore. Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very, very proud of a decision like that!
Then we've got sports rorts. Of the $45 million under this fund, 80 per cent went to marginal coalition-held electorates, or seats that were targeted by the Liberal and National parties at the last election. A list was compiled by the sports minister's office that was signed off on by the Prime Minister's office that went completely against the independent assessments that had been made by the Australian Sports Commission.
Then we've got, of course, Western Sydney Airport, where you've got a plot of land that the government paid 10 times the amount it was worth—not exactly value for the taxpayer—to a person who was a donor to the Liberal Party.
We've even got individual circumstances of ministers being involved in inappropriate conduct. The minister for energy and his company that he part-owned with his brother illegally poisoned endangered grasslands, according to the environment department. The minister sought meetings with those department representatives, and the now Treasurer sought advice about whether the laws could be changed so that the minister and his brother would avoid prosecution for their actions.
There is a litany of examples, from this Morrison government, of abuse of taxpayer dollars, of abuse of the privilege of office and of decision-making to benefit individual members and their political interests, and it is using underhanded tactics to avoid scrutiny and to avoid accountability. The Australian people deserve better than that. In a democracy, the people deserve accountability and transparency. They're not getting that from this Morrison government. Only the Labor Party has a fair dinkum proposal for a federal ICAC that has teeth and can get to the bottom of alleged rorting.
Over the past 18 months, amidst a global pandemic, we have seen political leaders and public health officials across the country asking the public to do all kinds of things to obey COVID-19 rules and restrictions in order to keep our community safe. The Australian community has, largely, responded positively by listening to, respecting and complying with these requests.
The pandemic has many lessons for us on why governments at state and federal levels must effectively communicate with communities, and highlights why integrity matters in politics and in public life. It is a matter of trust and confidence. It is so important that the community has trust in elected officials and public servants. In the case of disaster or emergency, it can be the difference between life and death. We, as elected representatives, cannot take this trust for granted, and nor should we ever be above reproach. Generally, I believe there has been a good level of trust shown in governments through this global pandemic; however, we must continue to be accountable and transparent as elected representatives, as there is evidence across the world that there has been a decline in trust in public officials over time.
I've previously said on the record in this place that I believe establishing a robust federal integrity commission is essential to arresting that decline in public trust in institutions and restoring Australians' faith in our democratic system. At that time, draft legislation had been released for consultation and, as we've heard, there has been a significant amount of feedback received, with more than 330 written submissions and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables occurring throughout this consultation period. It is essential for the functioning of Australia's government that we are methodical, consultative and thorough in our approach to developing this legislation, and the government is considering the feedback received through that consultation process to refine the draft legislation before it is introduced to parliament.
I have been researching and consulting very widely on this matter, including with the Centre for Public Integrity, as part of my own commitment to ensuring that we, as a government, get this right. I've also had ongoing discussions with the member for Indi, and I thank her for her ongoing commitment to the establishment of an integrity commission. After all, once established, this will be an agency that will be essential to ensuring the integrity of our public sector, our government and our elected officials. As such, we must have a powerful integrity commission that promotes and educates about principles of integrity and good governance, and that incorporates procedural fairness. I recently met with the new Attorney-General, where I expressed this very view, and also stressed that the establishment of such a commission is needed as a matter of importance. I thank Minister Cash for her positive engagement with me on this matter.
It is my hope that the government and the member for Indi, who has done commendable work in this space, can continue to work together and find the common ground so that the final legislation put before the members of this House is one that will assist in restoring declining public confidence. This is significant legislation that we must get right, and I believe that the establishment of a solid integrity commission is one that requires a bipartisan approach. Anything less is, in my view, counterintuitive to enhancing trust and confidence. Indeed, it is very unfortunate to see and hear the politically charged exchanges in this place today on this issue, because, in my view, that will be the greatest impediment to actually advancing this important issue. I sincerely hope there is a willingness by all sides to put the politics aside and work together on this in the interest of all Australians. I'd like to point out that, as a country, Australia has a solid anticorruption reputation and is consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, including in the most recent Corruption Perceptions Index, where we're ranked equal eleventh with Canada, the UK and Austria.
While anticorruption should of course be a focus of any final legislation, there should also be a focus on actively promoting integrity. Our government has committed to delivering on its promise of an integrity commission, and to doing the work to get it right. I personally feel very strongly that we need to deliver on this commitment, and I'll be working very closely with the government to ensure that this happens, and happens as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Order. This debate has concluded.
This bill, the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, is largely a technical one. It refers basically to the management of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. It would seem, listening to the speakers, that it has broad support across the House. It will enable the authority's management to run more smoothly and divert more of their resources to actually finding organ and tissue donors and making sure that those operations can take place in a safe and prosperous environment. Basically, we're all on the same ticket: we want more people to take up the possibility of organ donation.
This is one of the good things that happen in parliament from time to time, something about which we can all be on the same side and support. But I have to say at the beginning of this speech that I'm both surprised and saddened that the Labor Party has chosen to politicise this by moving an amendment which one could say is nothing more than straight pointscoring. I listened to the member for Oxley, who spoke just before question time on this issue. He gave us a good 10 minutes, I'd have to say, and then went to their amendment and spent five minutes just having a smash-and-grab. I hardly think this is the issue to do that on. Really, where does the bottom of the bucket stop? But I'll move on from that.
When I was thinking about what I was going to contribute to the debate on this bill, I reflected that, if there's anything we could do in this place so that one speech would make a difference and one extra person would sign on as an organ donor or one extra person would actually end up donating organs, we would have done some good work. In that light, I thought I would contribute. To do so, I thought I would go back to the speech that I gave in September 2008, when the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority was established. I will just make the point that my recollection is that, in opposition, we didn't move any amendments on it. We supported the government legislation.
At that time, my speech was largely about two people whom I knew quite well. One was a bloke called Peter Stutley and the other was his wife, Marilyn. I detailed the story of Peter's sad demise. He was a good bloke, Peter—a knockabout kind of chap. He'd done jobs just about anywhere and at any time, and you could rely on him to roll up to work and put in a good day's effort. He'd spent time in the mining industry and in farming. In more recent years he'd been up at Moomba, earning good money in the gas fields. A little later in life he'd come to find Marilyn, a girl whom I went to school with. They got married and had children, boys, and he'd decided it was about time he got back from the gas fields and was around to give a hand raising those boys and be dad.
He took a farm job for a friend of mine. One day they were shifting machinery. He went on ahead with the machinery and was to be picked up later. While he was waiting, like any good workman, he found something to do. We think it was nailing down a few flapping sheets of iron on the shearing shed. Whatever happened, that day he fell. When his boss came along and found him, he was in very poor shape. He was shipped out to Adelaide, and it became pretty clear before long that Peter was going to depart the earth and this life, at least spiritually. He was on life support, of course, so his organs were functioning, but his brain was not.
So it came to that point where people in that situation are asked whether they would be prepared to donate the organs. You wouldn't believe it, but only six weeks before this Marilyn and Peter had had a discussion about what would happen and what they would want to do in the event of such an untimely ending. They had decided strongly—Peter certainly had—that if his organs were no longer any good to him they might be able to help someone else out. So they acted upon those wishes. It was obviously a very emotional time. She was supported by a good friend, and it was a pretty raw moment for the whole district, I'd have to say. This happened on a farm right alongside my own. Pete will always be remembered by the six people he gave life to. As I said:
Peter's corneas, kidneys, heart valves, lungs and long bones went to six separate recipients—gifts of life or huge improvements to life quality in all cases. All this has given Marilyn great comfort that Peter's untimely and unexpected death has brought something good to these people.
I think that story is equally powerful today as it was back then. I've given the abridged version today. We shouldn't forget Pete or a lot of people like him, and we shouldn't forget that you can be as generous in death as you are in life. I think that is a salient point that should be held for all of us.
The second story I told on that day was about a young woman we met in Adelaide. When my children started at university, Teresa and I made a decision that it was about time we bought a unit in Adelaide for our children to live in while they were going to university. We had three children who went to university there, as it turned out. In this block of units, there was a young lady called Nancy Douglas-Irving. Nancy had had a long battle with kidney disease. She'd been on dialysis machines to keep her alive. She'd had a kidney transplant, and it had worked for a while. Then it had failed, and she was back on dialysis. She was a travel agent and a vibrant woman. She had waited many years on dialysis, and it wears you out. I'm sure there wouldn't be a member in this place who doesn't know someone who's been on long-term dialysis. It really saps your energy.
Eventually she made herself quite famous. She told me: 'If I have another five years of this, I'm going to give up on dialysis. I just can't stand it as a permanent solution to my problems.' But she advertised nationally for a donor. That got her on a few television shows, lots of interviews and whatever else. I think she did great work at actually promoting the need for organ donation and what a difference it can make. In the end she did find a kidney. It came from a family member. Boy, you couldn't believe the difference in this woman. I said at the time, she looked 10 years younger virtually overnight. In retrospect, it was more like 15. It was like turning on the starter key. All of a sudden she had all this energy and this pent-up ambition to do something for sufferers of diabetes and others, those who suffer from renal disease, renal failure. Along with some friends, she established a program called Dialysis Escape Line.
As a travel agent, she used to organise a trip, a cruise, every year for people who are on permanent dialysis. She would organise the machines. She would organise the transport from the airport to wherever they had to get on the cruise liner. She would find some volunteers to come along and be dialysis nurses for the trip. They would run fundraisers. My daughter was involved in helping her for some times and they would organise whatever they needed to get this show on the road each year. What a wonderful thing she did for others, and that's the kind of person Nancy was. You're probably guessing from the fact that I used the past tense that this doesn't have the conclusion we want. As I said, she got a kidney and her life was good. As a travel agent she managed to take more than the one week a year when she was accompanying a lot of other people on dialysis and so she travelled the world and did all kinds of things. She said to me, 'I can't get insurance, but how long's a piece of string? I don't care, I'm going anyway.' Then her life got even better. She met the wonderful Wayne Brady, and they got married a few years ago. She was over the moon. It was a wonderful outcome. During that time she was awarded an OAM for her services to people with kidney disease and the dialysis community. She used to say to me, 'I've made these great friends at dialysis, but sadly I keep losing far too many of them.' But then she got sick—I understand it was a different ailment; I don't know the full detail of it—and she died two weeks ago. I don't think it was a kidney failure, but all that time on dialysis over the years can't have strengthened her. She leaves a huge hole in a lot of people's lives—and certainly in Wayne's life. She was a wonderful individual.
The point of telling Nancy's story—once again, in an abridged version—is to point out how much of a difference a decision like Peter Stootley made can make to someone like Nancy. It can change their life. Pete's attitude was: 'I'm not using them anymore, mate; why not give somebody else a hand?' I don't think I could give a higher recommendation for people to become a registered donor. For the interests of the House—and I know we are not allowed to use props—I have certainly got it on my licence. I hope that most other members do, and I hope all of Australians eventually do the same thing.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. As members of the House would probably be aware, I'm the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Organ Donation. I work closely with my co-chair the member for Mallee, Anne Webster, and we have been seeking to promote and raise awareness of organ and tissue donation within the parliament and, indeed, within the wider community. As co-chairs, the member for Mallee and I have the privilege of working with our friends at DonateLife, the Organ and Tissue Authority. The OTA is staffed by a team of dedicated public servants led by the wonderful Lucinda Barry. I thank all of them for the critical role they play in promoting organ donation throughout the country. We've had a couple of functions in Parliament House and we have promulgated a whole range of information for the wider community and for our fellow parliamentarians. We feel this is an extremely important issue, and Australia has been one of the world leaders. Even though we are doing quite well, we have potential to improve our organ donation rate much higher.
A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure—unfortunately mostly online—of supporting our 10th annual DonateLife Week. This has multipartisan support across the cabinet. I would like to mention the minister for health, Greg Hunt; the shadow minister for health, Mark Butler; the previous minister for regional health, who had responsibility for organ donation, Mark Coulton; Chris Bowen; and David Gillespie. They have all had a strong interest in support for DonateLife and organ and tissue donation, as have many other members of the House. The member for Grey has just spoken very eloquently. The member for Indi has a strong interest in this, as does the member for Higgins and other members across the parliament. It has been great to work in such a committed and bipartisan group whose only interest is improving our organ and tissue donation rates across the community.
This is something that affects all communities. In my work as a paediatrician, I have dealt with many patients who have benefited from organ and tissue donation. I have a very good friend—in fact, I'll be going to dinner at their place tomorrow night here in Canberra—who has had a double lung transplant and, I'm pleased to report, is doing very, very well. And one of my favourite patients—and I know I shouldn't say 'favourite patient', but she is!—is one of the first survivors of liver transplant in the paediatric age group in Australia, young Jessica. So I've had a long involvement with this and I've seen how things have changed.
Our goals, however, remain the same: to increase our organ donation rate to make sure that everyone who needs one or who would benefit by organ or tissue donation can get help with a donated organ. Unfortunately, the pandemic has disrupted a lot of our events over the last 18 months. As I mentioned, this year DonateLife Week went digital through the OTA's Great Registration Race for DonateLife Week. I'm pleased to report that many, many thousands of people across Australia did contribute to this and were part of it. The goal is simple, but it is priceless: the gift of life by encouraging as many Australians as we can to sign up to be organ donors.
I'm a proud card-carrying member of the donor registry and I would encourage anyone who is listening to my speech today to sign up and register as a donor. It's very, very simple. I am a computer and digital troglodyte, but even I can do it, and so if I can do it, anyone can do it. It only takes a minute and, if you could do so, it may well be a life-saving act for someone in the future. People sometimes are a little reluctant to talk about it, I know that. But having the conversation with your family is very important. If you can register to be an organ donor you can do it at www.donatelife.gov.au, and you can do it today. It will only take a minute or two.
Many people are still under the assumption that the old state based drivers licence register is active. People now need to register their interest via the DonateLife website. It only takes a minute but the gift that you could give someone will last a lifetime.
Excuse me, I have to finish my speech there—sorry.
I rise today to speak briefly on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and to highlight the important work of organ donation and transplantation, the work of health professionals in this field and the generosity of so many families. I do this because it is an issue that is so close to me.
Many, many years ago, as a young nurse at St Vincent's Hospital, I had the great honour of working in the early days of renal transplantation in that hospital. I saw the sacrifice of some incredible families. I guess what struck me, really, was the intersection of the science and the silence—the science that brought us to the moments of being able to transplant organs and to bring new life to other people, and the extraordinary silence and respect at the point at which that transplantation occurred. I will never forget being in an operating theatre at the time when that happened. So the aim of this bill is to allow the board a greater strategic focus to provide expertise and advice to the work of the Organ and Tissue Authority. As we've heard, there's bipartisan support for this.
Australia leads the world for successful organ and tissue transplantation, and 1,800 Australians are currently waitlisted for an organ transplant. Nine out of 10 families agreed to donation if their family member was registered on the Australian Organ Donor Register. One organ and tissue donor can transform the lives of many people. Our donation rate has more than doubled in recent years, but there's so much more that we can do. As the member before me just said, 2020 was a challenging year for the national program, with COVID-19 having a direct impact on the organ donation and transplant numbers. There are around 1,800 Australians currently waitlisted for a transplant and more than 12,000 additional people on dialysis, many who may need a kidney transplant. In 2020, 1,270 Australian lives were saved through an organ transplant due to the generosity of 463 deceased organ donors and their families. Since the national program began in 2009 there have been 14,352 organ transplant recipients from 5,029 deceased organ donors.
But organ donation is a rare event. Only around two per cent of people who die in Australian hospitals—that's approximately 1,300—meet the required criteria to be an organ donor. Our hospitals follow world's best practice, with specialist doctors and nurses supporting donation and transplantation in 95 hospitals across Australia. One in three Australians are registered donors despite the majority, 69 per cent, believing that registering is important. But in 2020 there was a 12 per cent decrease in the number of people receiving a transplant and a 16 per cent decrease in the number of donors compared to 2019. COVID affects us in ways we don't even think about, and this is one. Now more than ever, we need more Australians to say yes to organ donation.
Just over a week ago it was DonateLife Week. That's a program run by the Australian government's Organ and Tissue Authority that we are speaking about today. DonateLife is supported by agencies in every state and territory. It's a public awareness initiative that encourages Australians to register as organ and tissue donors. It was the 10th annual DonateLife Week. But we don't need a special week to register to be an organ donor; we can do it at any time of night or day. If the moment comes where that registration is called upon, it's often the incredible work of a nurse donation specialist to have that conversation with the families of the person registered at what is a most tragic and terribly difficult time.
I would like to highlight the work of nurse donation specialists, some of whom work in my electorate of Indi. These nurses are funded by DonateLife. Their work starts well before a registered donor ever makes it to the healthcare system. These nurses provide multidisciplinary educational services on organ and tissue donation for all hospital staff that come in contact with the donation process. They promote community awareness and understanding about organ and tissue donation. They improve the identification of potential organ and tissue donors in the hospital through early referral to DonateLife. They work with hospital teams to ensure that 100 per cent of potential donors are identified and that their registration is optimised. They support families considering organ and tissue donation in end-of-life care and they collect data and audit material, and report this back to DonateLife.
At Northeast Health Wangaratta, Nurse Joanne Hymus told me about her former role as a donation specialist nurse. She used to educate clinicians on identifying potential organ and tissue donors in our region. She so often spoke to families and offered information and gained their consent, and she would have done that so sensitively and carefully and scientifically. She worked in the critical care unit to prepare the potential donors for organ surgery which occurred locally at Northeast Health, and she liaised with transplantation teams so that everything ran smoothly. She held community events to highlight the importance of organ and tissue donations and to help people sign up—people who may have had problems getting online and doing so. Joanne told me what a deeply satisfying and important job this was to her. She felt so deeply for the families who, on the worst days of their lives, are asked to make a very important decision. It can make that terrible day just that little bit easier when you know that a loved one's wishes about donation are carefully supported and that their legacy can transform the lives of up to nine other people.
At Albury Wodonga Health, specialist nurses Anna Jagoe and Helen McKee have similar responsibilities for this role. Helen told me that Albury Wodonga Health is one of the leading areas in the state for organ donations and that their work means it is very rare to miss a registered donor should that opportunity occur for a donation. She too spoke of the enormous support they give to family, and described how much of a relief it is that, in rural areas such as ours, families no longer need to travel to a large centre like Melbourne for this surgery to take place. That means families can stay with their loved ones right until that final moment. As I said, COVID has impacted on many of the events that these organ donation nurses undertake, and some of the available funding for their roles, sadly, has been cut. We've lost three organ donation specialist nurses in Victoria alone.
Let me conclude by just going through a few facts and myths. If you've ever considered organ donation and delayed becoming a donor, you have done so probably because you have some uncertainty. So, firstly, it's a myth to think that you may not be healthy enough to donate because of your lifestyle choices. People who smoke, drink or have an unhealthy diet can still register as an organ and tissue donor. You don't have to be in perfect health to save a life. It's a myth to think that being registered just on your drivers licence is all you need to do. Only in South Australia, as the member talked about before, can you register to be a donor via your drivers licence. In every other state and territory you need to register online with donatelife.gov.au/register. If you're unsure if you're already registered, go online and check.
It's also a myth that some people are concerned it's better just to let the family decide at the time. It's absolutely not. If you want to become an organ donor or a tissue donor, please register and tell your family. They're twice as likely, the stats tell us, to help you become a donor if you tell them that you want to. Another myth is that only the young and healthy can be donors. The truth is that age is not a barrier; people over 80 become organ and tissue donors. It's also a myth that organ donation disfigures the body of the person who donates. Organ donation is specialist surgery that is done respectfully and skilfully and does not disfigure the body. A final myth is that religions don't support organ and tissue donation. The truth is that all major religions support organ and tissue donation and see it as the ultimate gift of giving. So, if you're unsure if you're registered, please go to DonateLife online and check.
Finally, I want to thank all the amazing health professionals right across our nation who do this work. I want to thank everyone who's registered to be an organ or tissue donor. Mostly, though, I want to thank the families of the donors. Your generosity is completely incalculable.
I rise to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This bill reforms the governance structure of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. The current governance structure was established on 1 July 2017, establishing the board as an accountable authority of the Organ and Tissue Authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. In July 2020, the Organ and Tissue Authority governance board undertook an internal review, as required under the board's charter. The review indicated a clear consensus from board members on the need for increased time and capacity to contribute to the organisation's strategic direction and provide advice and support to the CEO in this crucial area. So this bill before the chamber transitions the role of accountable authority from the board back to the CEO, and replaces the existing governance board with an advisory board under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008. These changes revert to the approach first implemented by Labor back in 2008 and align the Organ and Tissue Authority with the governance structure of most other non-corporate Commonwealth entities.
I'm reminded of a speech I gave in 2008—in fact, my first speech—in February, after the election. In front of my wife, Lea, and my son, Stanley—it was before you were born, Leo, otherwise I would have mentioned you too—I said the reform of the organ donor system was crucial. A big thankyou to the former member for Griffith, Prime Minister Rudd, an organ recipient himself, for achieving such a significant outcome. Obviously lives have been saved. The grief associated with early deaths has been somewhat assuaged by organs providing that second life for somebody. At the time the Rudd changes were made, organ donation was sitting at around 10 donors per million of the population, which I think everyone on both sides of the chamber would agree was a disgraceful national statistic. The rate then rose, up to 15.6, and was heading north, and that was good news, but sadly that trend has reversed in the past couple of years, obviously affected by COVID.
COVID has caused much suffering across the world in the last 18 months, and the human cost has been immense. In Australia, sadly, we've had 941 deaths from COVID, and there are currently more than 5,000 active cases. But the true human cost of COVID will never be known. Sadly, the figures for organ transplants in 2020 were down by 16 per cent. There is no denying that COVID-19 has had an adverse impact on organ donation and transplantation rates: hospitals face challenges, including COVID-19 restrictions, and there are flight reductions and border closures, so often a big part of organ donation. Sadly, there are currently around 1,800 Australians waitlisted for an organ transplant.
Organ donation is an issue that I've been concerned about for some time. As I said, I spoke about it in my first speech. I did that because, in the lead-up to the 2007 election campaign, my friend Debbie Duddridge passed away. Debbie had been waiting on a set of lungs for more than two years. The lungs had to be the right size. But, on 29 October 2007, Debbie ran out of breath for the final time. How many Debbies are out there waiting now, hoping that it will not be too late for them? How many of those 1,800 Australians could be saved by someone making that commitment to their family and to the authorities?
Organ and tissue transplantation does save and transform the lives of people with a life-threatening illness or disability. Organ and tissue donation involves removing organs and tissues from someone who's died, the donor, and transplanting them into someone who, in many cases, is very ill or dying, the recipient. When we think about an organ transplant, we immediately think of organs like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, intestines and pancreas, but there are other tissues that also can be transplanted to save lives, such as heart valves and other heart tissue and bone, tendons, ligaments and skin. All can help trauma and burn victims in their recovery and help to change people's lives. Eyesight can be restored by corneal graft transplants. Many lives can be saved or transformed by one decision to donate.
It is important to know that the circumstance where there is an opportunity for deceased patients and their families to support organ and tissue donation is uncommon. Sadly, just one per cent of the people who die in hospital under medical supervision are able to be organ donors. This makes it even more important that we have many people registered to donate. Only a small fraction of those registered will actually be able to fulfil their wish to donate.
For a lucky country, Australia's rate of organ donation is still shameful, but we can change this, all of us can. There are two steps. You know them. You've heard them from other speakers. Step 1 is to make sure you tell your family, and the other one is to register to be a donor on the DonateLife website, which takes about one minute. That conversation you have with your family today could save someone's life in the future, or change nine other lives even. You might think it is difficult to start that conversation, but it will be even more difficult for your family if they don't know what your wishes are when they need to. Make sure they know you want to be an organ donor. This was my plea to all Australians in my first speech, and I give it again today.
Have you signed that organ donation form? If not, why not? Have you clearly told your loved ones that you would love your body to keep on working long after you are gone? If not, why not? If you think—I would suggest mistakenly—that your religion prevents you from donating organs, perhaps you should have another talk to your religious leaders or to your God. Whether you're watching, listening to or reading this speech, the question you need to ask yourself is: why not? Please commit today to doing somebody else a favour after you're gone. As they say, caring is doing, and, if you don't do, you really don't care.
Labor supports this bill, and I'd like to finish today by thanking the 58 per cent of families who agree to allow life-saving organ donation when faced with the tragic reality that one of their loved ones is not going to live. I say a big thankyou to them. Let's not leave our relatives wondering what we want. Talk to them today and register on the DonateLife website.
I rise to support the amendment moved and, of course, this bill, the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. It was a Labor government that established the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, or the Organ and Tissue Authority, in 2008. The amendments in the legislation before the House will essentially make the authority revert to the governance model established when the OTA was first implemented by Labor, which begs the question: what's changed? We know that the LNP government, when they came to power, made every effort to overturn reforms implemented by Labor. We have seen that in the NDIS and aged care.
Under the current governance structure, the Organ and Tissue Authority board is the accountable entity, making the OTA the first non-corporate Commonwealth entity to have a governance board as the accountable entity. There does not appear to be any rationale for this very unusual change to the governance structure in 2017. It's clearly not worked, and the board, under the leadership of its chair, Dr Mal Washer—someone for whom I have enormous regard and respect—advised the responsible minister it's time to put this inexplicable experiment to an end. It's time to get back to the model established when the Labor established the authority in 2008. The bill rightly seeks to restore this model. I want to commend the government for recognising what we on this side of the chamber knew on this issue: we were always right in the first place. The bill is a belated admission of failure by this government.
I do want to take the opportunity to commend the work of Dr Mal Washer. He's well-known in this House by many as an entirely reasonable, professional and compassionate man. He assisted me on occasions when I was unwell. I can recall one occasion when he saw me on a daily basis and assisted me—and I'm not necessarily convinced that was in the best interests of the then opposition as I actually cast a vote! He was very gracious towards me on many occasions, on both sides of the chamber. He was a physician first. He provided care and comfort ahead of partisan politics. That professionalism was evident when he resigned his chair of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia in 2014 off the back of the government's decision to axe the council's funding without warning or rationale. Dr Washer, at the time, described that decision as a tragedy. It had not been subject to any review. He said, 'it was dumb advising dumber, and dumb won,' of the decision made by the former assistant minister Senator Nash at the time. It was quite an extraordinary decision, but that's Dr Washer's view and I respect that, and I respect his advice in relation to the bill that is before the chamber, which the government has finally seen fit to bring before this House.
I want to thank the member for Parkes, the former minister, who took the advice of Dr Washer and restored the governance model before the authority went the way of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia. When this government came to power in 2013, they got rid of plenty of organisations, bodies and boards and made a number of changes thinking they were doing the right thing but now have realised, on occasions like this bill before the chamber, that they got it wrong.
Labor has a proud history of promoting organ and tissue donation. Back when the last Labor government was in power, I was the former Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing in a previous Labor government, in what the current government calls the assistant minister role. I had the privilege of working with the OTA and having it within my ministerial remit. I knew if the CEO Ms Yael Cass provided advice, it was reasonable and reliable and well researched, and I had no hesitancy commending this governance model, the subject of this bill, where the CEO is responsible to the minister while the board takes care of the strategic direction.
Labor has always been committed to the establishment of the world's best practice when it comes to organ and tissue donation, and we oversaw a community awareness program when we were last in government that funded great organisations and did projects like the groundswell project through 'Film life' film festival in Western Sydney, which I was pleased to help launch when I was at Nepean Hospital in Penrith one time, I recall, in 2013.
I was proud as part of a Labor government to oversee the introduction of paid leave to support living donors—a $1.3 million commitment over two years. At the time of course, 99 per cent of living donations were of kidneys and partial liver. But, as the member for Oxley correctly pointed out in his speech today, as he went through a list of various parts of the anatomy which could be subject to donation, many people do not think that those parts of our human body are capable of donation, but they really are. I thank the member for Oxley for pointing out to the House and to the public what they are. The paid leave to support living donors was a scheme that provided up to six weeks of salary to support employers and be passed onto the donor as paid leave. This helped to reduce financial stress that surgery and recovery put on people, their families and their employers.
Living organ donors provide a life saving or life transforming gift to another person. I recall that, as at 2013, each year more than 280 living organ donors made this incredibly generous gift of their organs, but there were 1,600 people waiting on the organ donation list. This particular program, giving paid leave to support living donors, was commended strongly by Transplant Australia and Kidney Health Australia. So Labor has a strong record in this space of supporting and promoting organ donation. In fact, in 2012, when we were last in government, 354 deceased organ donors transformed the lives of just over a thousand Australians. There was a five per cent increase in 2012, building on the nine per cent increase in 2011. It represented a 43 per cent increase over 2009, the year the DonateLife network was established. So, when Labor was last in government, we saw a significant increase in organ donation and also the implementation of the paid leave to support living donors initiative. That initiative helps alleviate financial burden on someone who donates an organ, usually to someone they have a strong emotional attachment to, such as a child, a partner or a mate. The process requires significant time, including medical evaluation prior to surgery. We brought this initiative forward because many living donors were forced to take leave without pay from work.
We understand that organ and tissue donation, whether it's from living or deceased people, can be a difficult and emotional decision. We know it's vital. One organ and tissue donor can transform the lives of many. If permitted, I'm happy to give the example of my mother-in-law, Corinne Briese, who's no longer with us. For 25 years, she experienced life after she had a liver transplant, and that liver transplant allowed her to see her grandchildren grow, to see her family expand and to see her great-grandchildren born. She was a beloved figure in our household. Because she suffered illness and was infirm in many ways for much of her life, that liver transplant really gave her the opportunity to experience a quality of life, to develop her recreational activities, to experience relationship development and to become an even more beloved figure not just in her family but in her church and her community. So I have seen the benefit of organ donation in my family. Tragically, Corinne died during the COVID pandemic from dementia. But, for 25 years, that new liver, donated generously by someone, by someone's family, enabled my family to experience their beloved mother, mother-in-law, grandmother and great-grandmother. So I encourage everyone to think about that, because that one donation of that liver made such a difference in my family's life, and it can in the lives of other Australian families.
The rate of donations has increased, but 2020 was a tough year for the program, with COVID-19 directly impacting the number of organ donations and transplantations. I encourage Australians to think about DonateLife. It doesn't take long to register to be a donor. About 1,800 Australians are awaiting a transplant, and another 12,000 or more are on dialysis, many requiring a kidney transplant. I have friends whose son currently needs a kidney transplant. My wife and I, with our friends, are going through that experience of their beloved son waiting for that kidney transplant.
Our donation rates can still improve. We can still do much, much better. Since 2009, there have been 14,352 organ transplant recipients from 5,029 deceased organ donors. About two per cent of the Australian population who die in an Australian hospital will meet the criteria for organ donation—1,300 a year. That's just a couple of hundred more than when Labor was last in power.
The government's got some work to do, and we would encourage them to do it. They'll get bipartisan support from our side of politics the more they act, and this bill is a demonstration of belated action from the government, fixing up the governance structure that they messed up in the first place. I'm pleased they've listened to Dr Mal Washer, and they're going back to a governance structure that we put in place, which was the right one all along.
Organ donation is a precious gift. It makes a difference to the lives of individuals—not just the individual but the family and the community in which it's given. It's a generous gift from a donor and their loved ones. The process needs to be respectful, appropriate and effective. That's why the governance of this authority needs to be suitable, fit for purpose and the world's best practice.
I support this bill, but I also support the amendment. I make this point to this government, as I did in a speech I gave virtually when I was back in my electorate last week: vaccination and quarantine need to be better. The government have failed in relation to that. They don't need an opinion poll to know that. The members on the government's side can go to their electorates and know that would be the feedback they would get. We get it as well. The amendment that the shadow minister has put doesn't decline to give this bill a second reading. But we urge the government to do better.
I looked at the vaccination rates in my electorate. Second dosages of eligible people in Ipswich are about 16 per cent and first dosages of AstraZeneca and Pfizer are just over 30-odd per cent. It's just not good enough. I've had people who don't vote for me contact me about the problems in aged care and the issues in terms of mandatory vaccination. The government promised that they would help people in aged care and the staff. We know that people died from COVID-19 in Victoria because people were working across multiple aged-care sites. The government promised that would be done by Easter this year. They did the same in relation to disability, for people working in disability under the auspices of the NDIS and helping people with disability. I urge the government to do better. Perform better. You've been entrusted with office and with power. Take responsibility. I urge the Prime Minister to take responsibility. It's no good giving us a word salad vocabulary of statistics here. The public knows they need to do better. I urge the government to act. We haven't got enough vaccination in this country. They were too tardy, too slow, and they've not taken responsibility for their failures in this space.
There is a place up near Toowoomba called Wellcamp. It could be a quarantine facility opened in a matter of a couple of months. It's been sitting on the table. Still, the government won't take the necessary steps to expand the quarantine facilities in this country—except in Howard Springs, where they talk about it but they haven't done it yet. In Brisbane, in our home state, in Pinkenba, we're talking about asbestos, we're talking about PFAS and we're talking about disused military hardware there. Do the right thing. Expand Wellcamp. Make it a proper quarantine facility. It will house hundreds and hundreds more. Do the right thing and bring back the Australians who are in countries where COVID is rampant, who want to come back to their loved ones and their family and friends, and get quarantine fixed. That will make a difference. That will restore people's faith not just in this government but in government generally.
I would also like to make a contribution on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. As you've heard, from our side of the House we are supporting the passage of this bill. It introduces very sensible changes to the governance structure of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, the OTA. In saying it's sensible—of course it is. It moves the governance structure back to where it was initially, when Labor first instigated the transplant arrangements back in 2008.
This bill actually follows the recommendation of Dr Mal Washer, the chair of the Organ and Tissue Authority board. For those who've been around a while, we know Dr Washer, the former member for Moore, very, very well. He is a friend to everybody in this place and a person whose advice we would always take, quite frankly. He is a person who always was focused on the best outcomes of most things he was associated with. For me and many here, before the arrival of the member for Macarthur, if we had ailments, Dr Washer was our go-to person. He was the doctor in the House. As I said, he was a very good friend to everybody and a person whose advice we respect. Dr Washer conducted an internal review of the OTA and made recommendations about the government structure, concerned that it wasn't delivering on the effective and efficient governance of the authority. If that's his view, we should all be at least cognisant of it.
I think the appointment of Mal Washer one of the best government appointments that has been made. He is a person of absolute credibility and, as I say, a person who we respect and dearly love on this side of the House. His advice and recommendation was to return the authority to a more common governance structure, with the CEO being the accountable entity, and for the board to take on a strategic advisory role. Despite this, we're glad that the government is now choosing to act on the board's advice and is changing the governance structure of the OTA.
In effect, this bill will transition the accountability of the entity from the board back to the CEO. Furthermore, it will replace the existing governance board with an advisory board under the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008. The advisory board will provide mentoring and leadership to the CEO on organ and tissue donation and on transplantation matters. The advisory board will have a skill based membership, like Dr Washer, and will harness expertise, experience and knowledge from a wide range of members on the board across areas of the organ and tissue donation sector.
Putting aside the technical aspects of the bill, this debate also calls for an important discussion more generally about organ and tissue donation and its ability to transform the lives of many. While there has been a 12 per cent decrease in the number of people receiving transplants and a 16 per cent decrease in the number of donors, in 2020, compared to the year before in 2019, we know that the pressures of COVID-19 certainly played a significant role in this statistic. Putting aside the pandemic and its impact on donation rates, the fact is it is pleasing to know that organ donation rates have almost doubled in recent years.
Since the national program began in 2009, there have been 4,352 organ donation recipients from 5,029 deceased organ donors. That is 4,352 people who have received the gift of life. However, we know that there's much more to be done in this space. There are around 18,000 Australians currently on the waiting list for a transplant and more than 12,000 additional people on dialysis who will need some time in the very near future a kidney transplant. Despite having one of the highest rates of success of transplant operations in the world, Australia, regrettably, has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the developed world. Given that Australians generally acknowledge organ donation as a good thing—I think that if we go to any of our electorates, mobile office meetings or anywhere we talk about the issue of organ donation, people always say that it's a very good thing and that they support it—regrettably, it doesn't translate into a significant increase in our donation rates.
Considering the well-known Australian spirit of lending a hand in times of adversity, it's safe to think that the reason that there isn't a higher incidence of organ donation rates is because there's a lack of awareness about the matter and not enough discussion taking place between families and friends, with people indicating what their attitude is to organ donation. Probably like most people in this House, I know that I have filled out the form, and for those in New South Wales it's actually displayed on our drivers licenses that we are organ donors. But whilst you may consent to being an organ donor that doesn't mean, in respect of sudden loss of life, family aren't consulted about their attitudes in relation to a donation.
In approaching this issue I guess it's really critical to understand that many Australians just don't know what their family members think in this regard. I certainly do for my mother and others who have actually told me on many occasions—and apart from filling the forms in—what their attitudes are. I think that's one of the first things that we have to deal with. When someone dies, an organ donation is not the first thing that comes up with the bereaved. It's certainly not front of mind for grieving families.
Organ donation is the gift of life, yet so many people just don't know how to give it. And so many families in bereavement are probably less inclined to. So, despite an individual deciding to become an organ donor, their family is still asked to give consent to a donation when the situation arises. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense for someone who intends to make an organ donation, to provide the gift of life, to discuss this with their family so they feel comfortable with the decision. The discussion will certainly make saying yes much easier on the family members and will minimise that sense of doubt and possible regret. It's much easier for family members to have a discussion now rather than waiting until a tragic time of loss.
This issue is very close to me. I have a very close friend, Debbie Roberts, who I have spoken about in this House on a number of occasions. Debbie was faced with this very tough decision when she lost her daughter, Rebecca. Her decision was made a lot easier because Rebecca had made her intentions about organ donation very clear. As a result, her family honoured Rebecca's wishes. The result was that two people benefited from receiving Rebecca's kidneys and another two benefited from receiving Rebecca's corneas. Their lives have been profoundly enriched because of Rebecca's wonderful gift. It is the gift of life that all Australians should consider giving.
That said, I support the passage of the bill before the House. I call on Australians to continue to engage with the issue of organ and tissue donation with their families and loved ones. Your decision can mean the difference between life and death for another Australian.
I also acknowledge the great work that is taking place by the member for Mallee and the member for Macarthur in co-chairing the Parliamentary Friends of Organ Donation—what they are doing amongst our parliamentary colleagues in ensuring greater awareness and making sure that organ donation really comes into the general vocabulary of how we engage and deal with our constituents. I think the Parliamentary Friends of Organ Donation are doing a sensational job, and we should all at least support their activities in and about the House.
I support the passage of this legislation. I do acknowledge the second reading amendment and, certainly, I also subscribe to the view that the government's got to be doing better for the health outcomes of all Australians, particularly through the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I also rise to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Like the member for Fowler, I support the passage of the bill and encourage the federal government to do better in its response to the significant health challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic.
But, moving to organ donation, this bill deals of course with a very important issue, an issue that yearly saves the lives of many, many Australians. The bill reforms the governance structure of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, following advice from Dr Mal Washer, chair of the Organ and Tissue Authority board, to enable the board to have a more strategic advisory focus. I note that Dr Washer is a former member of this place. Even though I didn't know him personally, if the member for Fowler, who's a good bloke, says that Mal Washer's a good bloke, then that's good enough for me. This bill undoes the changes that were brought in by those opposite in 2017, taking the board model back to that introduced by Labor in 2008. As the member for Ballarat rightly said earlier today, 'Fancy that! We had it right.' Like so many things that the Labor government, the Gillard government, did, of course, they were the right and proper things to do; they were good policy. Of course, it was a particularly important issue for former prime minister Kevin Rudd, given that he had been a recipient.
As all speakers from both sides of the House have said, there is bipartisan support for organ donation and for those very important conversations with families that can lead to saving lives. I believe in it passionately. Last week—or was it the week before; I can't exactly recall—it was DonateLife Week, and I went out to Royal Darwin Hospital in my electorate and spoke with some of the organ donation and transplant team, those health professionals that do all that incredible work. I thank them for their advice and for being part of a slightly wacky photo shoot—but the idea was to capture people's attention because that's what we need to do to encourage them to make that life-saving commitment and gift of life.
Of course, with the COVID crisis we've seen a drop in the number of donor registrations. We've heard from the Organ and Tissue Authority national medical director, Associate Professor Helen Opdam, that life-saving organ donations were down by around 16 per cent in 2020. With 1,800 Australians on the organ transplant waiting list, as Professor Opdam told the NT News, 'We need more donors.' It's been a tough period. It's likely that people have had other health concerns at this time, also difficulties with employment, whether working from home or losing their jobs; educating kids from home; and navigating the lockdowns.
DonateLife's 2020 Australian Donation and Transplantation Activity Report reveals that donation requests were made to 1,170 families last year, but only 680 families said yes. The associate professor commented that that consent rate of 58 per cent, coupled with the May 2021 YouGov study, showed that just four in 10 Australians understand that someone's intention to become a donor can be overruled by next of kin. That, of course, as the member for Fowler just mentioned, makes a compelling case for families knowing in advance where their loved ones stand on the issue of organ donation.
The NT News also spoke with a DonateLife organ donor specialist, Guy Vanderkelen. He's with the families in that difficult moment of decision. He acknowledged that it is a very sensitive experience, made more challenging by the decision-making process that the families go through happening in the face of acute grief. He went on to say:
We try to share information with them about organ donation—how rare it is, the benefits through organ donation not just for transplant recipients but also the family of the potential organ donor, because we know they receive support from the ICU and organ donation specialists.
Also the benefit to them in supporting the wishes of their loved one …
For the record, Guy Vanderkelen is my brother-in-law, and I'm very, very proud of him and the job that he does. He has a wonderful nature about him. He has worked with all sorts of communities and he's very effective in supporting families, donors and recipients to try and achieve the best possible outcome. There has never been a more urgent time in Australia, with those rates of registrations dropping off, for us to be speaking to this legislation and to be encouraging Australians, because we really need people to register.
I want to share the story of a friend of mine, Robbie Dalton. Robbie is a great bloke up in Darwin. He and his wife, Carly, are good friends of mine. He's had a transplant. It's an incredible story. He went from being fit and healthy to fighting for his life. Robbie's is a remarkable story, in that five strangers each donated an organ to save a stranger, knowing that a stranger, in turn, would save the life of one of their friends. As well as generosity, it was a huge logistical and medical effort that was performed. There were five transplant operations in one day. But, of course, there was a great outcome, in that Robbie is still alive and with us, and it wouldn't have happened if that all-important box hadn't been ticked.
Again, I encourage every one of us to have a discussion with our families about whether we want to donate our organs should we pass away unexpectedly. So that it's in Hansard, for the record, I am registered. To my darling wife, Kate: I am happy for my organs to be used, should they be needed. The facts are very simple for my friend Robbie and Carly. He probably would not be with us anymore if those donors had not come to his assistance on that occasion. They've got three young boys. If not for those generous donors, Robbie and Carly's sons might not have a father today, so it makes a big difference in people's lives.
I want to sum up by saying that if you are not registered it's very easy to do so. Just go to donatelife.gov.au/register. You simply put in your Medicare card number, your name, your date of birth and your postcode and hit 'Submit'. Like the information that so many millions of Australians gave last night with the census, it's important information that will really assist and save lives in the future.
I join other speakers in supporting the changes that are proposed in this legislation, the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I have previously spoken in this place about organ donation, so I won't cover all of the ground that I covered in previous speeches. But, like others, I accept that organ donations can not only change lives but give life. I recall when the first heart transplant was successfully performed in South Africa by Dr Christiaan Barnard, assisted by his bother Marius, in December 1967. At the time it was a major news story around the world. It was a medical breakthrough that gave so much hope to people right around the world, because if heart transplants could successfully be performed then all kinds of other transplants could equally be done. Whilst the recipient of that first heart, I understand, only lived for about 18 days, as time progressed the operations became more and more successful, and millions of people around the world have since benefitted because of that breakthrough. Five decades later, according to figures that have been released, I was able to ascertain that about 145,000 organs are transplanted around the world each year, with kidney and liver transplants being the two most common.
As other speakers have also noted, currently there are about 1,800 Australians on transplant waiting lists here in our own country, and some 12,000 additional people are on dialysis. In 2020, 1,270 lives were saved by an organ transplant through the generosity of some 463 deceased organ donors. That meant 1,270-plus lives were changed, because the lives of all of the family members of those people whose lives were saved were also changed because of those life-saving operations. Organ donation affects not only the recipient but many other people as well. Those figures are encouraging. However, again, as other speakers have highlighted, we can and should do more. In 2020, because of the COVID situation, I understand the figures declined a little, so it's perhaps not the best year to try to analyse the figures. However, the 16 per cent drop in 2020 means that a review of the causes of that decline needs to take place so that we can understand what was happening and why it happened. Was it just simply because of COVID-19? The governance structures proposed in this legislation will hopefully facilitate that review. With Dr Mal Washer as chair of the board—and, like others, I know that Dr Mal Washer has a passion for this issue—I have every confidence in the board's oversight and its encouragement of more people to donate organs.
Regrettably, whilst organ transplants save lives, organ transplants can also take lives. I refer to the black market for human organs and the lives taken in the harvesting of organs for resale at lucrative prices to desperate people, including some from Australia. Over the years, there have been several credible investigations into organ harvesting and organ transplants. I don't intend to name any particular country, because by all accounts it happens in several countries that people's lives are taken for their organs. People disappear without trace. Many years ago, an Australian sportsperson disappeared without trace whilst overseas representing Australia in an international sporting event. To my knowledge, that person was never seen again. One theory about his disappearance was that, being a healthy, fit athlete, he was murdered for his organs. He was never found, and so we will never know. What we do know is that the reports of organ harvesting are credible and that healthy organs are valuable. Indeed, a parliamentary inquiry into organ transplant tourism only three years ago suggested that the value of the trade in those organs ranges somewhere between $840 million and $1.7 billion.
The Australian government, regrettably, does not maintain good records of how many Australians travel overseas for organ transplants. According to one submission made to that parliamentary inquiry into organ transplant tourism, in the 13 years to 2017, 176 Australians had an organ transplant overseas, with half of them allegedly being illegal. The same submission noted that the World Health Organization estimates that around 10 per cent of all transplant procedures involve organs that have been bought on the black market. Australia should join other countries, including the European Union and the USA, in taking a more-proactive approach to stamping out the black market for organ trafficking around the world. That would include trying to establish more-accurate information about all organ transplants on Australians, including those performed overseas.
The report referred to, which was put together by the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, had 12 recommendations within it. Most of the recommendations go to the issue of trying to manage the issue of organ harvesting and organ trafficking much better. There is a lot more we could do here in Australia to be part of a world movement to do just that. The recommendations, which I have read through, although I wasn't a member of that committee, make eminent sense. I draw them to the attention of the minister so that, perhaps, the government can review the recommendations and, in addition to the changes it is making with this particular legislation, look also at the recommendations of the committee.
I join with colleagues in encouraging more organ donation amongst our own people in Australia. I trust that the administrative changes that are proposed in this legislation will ultimately lead to that. That is obviously the intent of the changes. Increasing organ donation rates here in Australia and, indeed, across the world will not only save the lives of recipients but, importantly, by reducing demand in the black market for organs, it may well save the lives of many innocent people around the world who, every year, are killed for their organs.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority manages the implementation of the Australian government's national reform program on organ and tissue donation and transplantation. In July 2020, the Organ and Tissue Authority governance board undertook an internal review as required under the board charter. The results indicated a clear consensus from board members of the need for increased time and capacity to contribute to the organisation's strategic direction and to provide advice and support to the chief executive officer.
The board was established on 1 July 2017 following a review of the implementation of the national reform agenda on organ and tissue donation and transplantation conducted by Ernst & Young in 2016. Following the review, legislative changes established the board as the accountable authority of the Organ and Tissue Authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, known as the PGPA Act. This resulted in the Organ and Tissue Authority becoming the first non-corporate Commonwealth entity to have a governance board as the accountable authority under the PGPA Act. This bill will transition the role of the accountable authority from the board back to the CEO and replace the existing governance board with an advisory board under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008. There are no changes to the existing functions of the Organ and Tissue Authority. These governance changes will align the Organ and Tissue Authority with the governance structures of most other non-corporate Commonwealth entities.
This bill will amend the functions of the CEO to include all functions of the accountable authority under the PGPA Act and establish the advisory board to provide advice and expertise to the CEO on organ and tissue donation and transplantation matters. The advisory board will have a skills based membership harnessing expertise, experience and knowledge from a broad range of areas from within the organ and tissue sector. All advisory board members except the chair will be appointed by the minister responsible for organ and tissue donation and transplantation matters in consultation with the jurisdictions. The chair will be appointed directly by the minister without a requirement to consult.
These changes to the governance structure of the Organ and Tissue Authority will allow the board a greater strategic focus to provide expertise and advice to the work of the Organ and Tissue Authority. This will support the Organ and Tissue Authority to set the priorities for the future, to improve organ and tissue donation, retrieval and transplantation outcomes, which will better support the authority to more effectively achieve its strategic goals, saving lives and improving the quality of the lives of more Australians.
I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021. Despite being the first speaker I will only go for a short period of time, and the member for Hindmarsh, as the shadow minister for health, will follow me in speaking in the debate. This bill amends the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to remove the lower eligibility age restriction of two years to allow eligible children to access the Child Dental Benefits Schedule from zero years of age. It's a good move.
Like the bill we've just debated in this place, the organ and tissue donation authority bill, introduced by this government, these changes build on a very proud Labor legacy. They are shining examples of what good progressive Labor governments do when they are in government. They reform health and they ensure that there is a lasting legacy of reform, of improving and increasing services that are available to the Australian public, which stands in stark contrast to the sort of behaviour we've seen from those opposite—no reform, no agenda, minute improvements in health and this debacle of a crisis we've got before us at the moment.
To remind people: it was the Gillard Labor government that introduced the Child Dental Benefits Schedule in August 2012 as part of the Dental Health Reform Package, comprising three elements. There was a $1.3 billion national partnership agreement about adult public dental services—something this government has absolutely slashed, and we have seen a reduction in Commonwealth funding for public dental. There was a $225 million flexible grants program, which saw improvements in capital to public dental facilities and expansion of access to dental chairs right the way across the country but particularly in areas of vulnerability, of low socio-economic status, and improved access to public dental. Then we had the $2.7 billion Child Dental Benefits Schedule, replacing the former Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, which closed in November 2012, and the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, which closed in 2013. It was a really significant reform—a reform designed to increase the capacity of our health system to look after the oral health of children and to set children up for lifelong good oral health.
It is worth reminding those opposite—there are a lot of new people here in the chamber—that when Minister Ley was the health minister, in those first years of the Abbott government, now the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-Joyce government, the government sought to abolish this scheme. We are very proud of the fact that we managed to stare down their attempts to abolish this scheme and that it has now become entrenched as part of our healthcare system. That is what we always have to do: Labor governments expand access to services across a range of health issues and then try to defend it against Liberal-National party cuts. We desperately tried to do that on public dental. We were not as successful as we would have liked, but we certainly stared them down on this. We then ensure it is entrenched as part of our health system—and it has become something that the government itself is now expanding, which is good to see.
The Report on the fourth review of the Dental Benefits Act 2008, tabled on 23 July 2019, recommended lowering the current eligibility age to one year. By removing the lower eligibility age restriction altogether, which is what this bill is doing, it is estimated that an additional 300,000 children aged between zero and two will become eligible for the program each year, starting from 1 January 2022. It's estimated that each year 15 per cent of children in this newly-eligible age group, presenting with teeth, will access the scheme.
The Child Dental Benefits Schedule literally changed the lives of millions of young Australians and their families, and we're pleased to say that this bill will help. Since Labor introduced the reform it has provided over $2.3 billion in benefits and delivered more than 38 million services to over three million Australian children, changing forever the capacity of those children and setting them up with good oral health from the start. We've all seen this—we've all been in schools in our electorates and in communities across the place where we have seen children as young as five with rotten baby teeth having to go for emergency dental services and having those removed. But the Child Dental Benefits Schedule provides eligible children, particularly from low-income families, with access to dental services. This bill means that they get that access right the way from birth through to when the scheme's eligibility ceases.
Three million Australian children have avoided worsening physical and mental health impacts from untreated dental conditions thanks to this program, with massive flow-on benefits to their families, their communities and to the broader Australian society—including the government's bottom line—from avoided downstream medical costs. This is a fantastic Labor legacy and it is a great demonstration of what a government focused on working to make Australian lives easier can actually achieve. The bill represents a welcome reform to the dental benefit schedule, and Labor supports it as an extension of Labor's legacy. The bill extends coverage of the scheme to children from birth to 17 years, as I said, removing that lower age limit.
It is well known and accepted that parents promoting and practising good oral hygiene with children from a young age will aid in the prevention of more serious dental decay and associated health impacts as they grow up. The bill will help to deliver a positive initial dental experience for more Australian kids and help to curb the unfortunate, sometimes negative, stigma for children heading to the dentist and on oral hygiene. Any parent of small children knows how incredibly hard it is to get them to clean their teeth regularly. It provides a much-needed boost when you take them to the dentist to actually get the dentist to teach them how to do that properly, to actually practice good oral hygiene and to reinforce the messages that you as a parent are making.
As a result of the change the government is making in this bill, as I said, an extra 300,000 children will benefit from the scheme. From 1 January 2022 it's estimated that 15 per cent of children in this new eligible group, 45,000 children per year, will now be able to access the scheme. That is 45,000 children a year with better oral health, and better physical and mental health as a result. It's a good thing. It means up to 45,000 families with fewer worries about being able to pay for the dental care that their kids need. And it means 45,000 children with better relationship experiences with and views of dentists, having been exposed to a dentist early in life, with the benefits flowing through for the rest of their lives. That's why Labor supports the bill and we commend it to the House.
That said, it's not the only area in which the government can improve health outcomes for all Australians. As I said, what we've seen in this bill and the bill previously is what good, progressive Labor governments do. They expand access to services under our healthcare system and they build in lasting reforms and lasting legacies that improve health equity and health outcomes for the Australian population. Too many of the government's bills, frankly, have been about tinkering around the edges when much more substantial reform is needed. This is particularly the case in rural and regional Australia, and I will be moving a second reading amendment on behalf of the member for Hindmarsh, but which is now circulated in my name and seconded by the member for Fenner, that goes to this issue.
Over eight long years we have seen the Morrison-Joyce government failing to improve the very dire situation facing rural and regional communities. In fact, they're contributing to making the GP shortage in those communities worse. A lack of doctors and other medical professionals in regional and rural communities across Australia is not a new problem, but a series of government decisions and the pandemic mean that it's time to highlight this critical issue before people are left with no healthcare options in their communities. More towns are being left without doctors, people needing care are left with longer drives and life expectancy is lower. I see it in my own home town and I see it in the smaller towns that make up my electorate.
On average, Australians living in rural and remote areas have shorter lives and higher level s of disease compared with people living in metropolitan areas. In 2017-18 , potentially preventable hospitalisation rates in very remote areas were 2.5 times higher than in our major cities. That's what has been happening. Part of this equation is, of course, access. This is one reason why Labor recently led the formation of a Senate inquiry into the provision of general practitioner and related primary health services to outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australia. This will be an important forum for the issues to be explored, but the government cannot use this inquiry as an excuse to wait. Improving access, attracting doctors and retaining services is something that should be a priority now. The Morr ison-Joyce government must act.
All that said, and on behalf of the member for Hindmarsh , joining us virtually, I move the following 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:
(1) notes the bill expands access to public dental services; and
(2) urges the Government to do more to address:
(a) access to dental and other health services, including General Practice, in outer-metropolitan, rural and regional Australia; and
(b) out of pocket costs for all Australians accessing these services".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021. Oral health is fundamental to overall health, wellbeing and quality of life. A healthy mouth enables people to eat, speak and socialise without pain, discomfort or embarrassment. The impact of oral disease on people's everyday lives is subtle and pervasive, influencing the way we eat, the way we work, the way we sleep and, indeed, our social interactions. The prevalence and recurrence of these impacts constitutes a sil ent epidemic if left untreated.
Dental diseases lead to pain, discomfort and tooth loss and can lead to difficulties with chewing, swallowing and speech. Poor oral health can lead to problems with nutrition and general health and disruptions to sleep and productivity , and can be a barrier to full participation in society, including the ability to gain employment. Indeed, the national study of adult oral health indicates that, of the Australian population, 24 per cent avoid ed food due to dental problems—that's one in four people—20 pe r cent experienced regular tooth ache, 35 per cent were uncomfortable about their dental appearance and 24 per cent rated their oral health as fair or poor. There are also links between poor oral health ; g eneral diseases, including type 2 diabetes ; and cardiovascular health.
Most importantly, dental health is cumulative in nature, and poor oral health in childhood is a predictor of poor oral health throughout life. It's the great inequity of health care. Therefore, it's critical to ensure that young children have access to preventive dental care from an early age to give them the best possible chance of good oral health for life. That is why I welcome the bill being debated here today.
This bill amends the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to remove the lower eligibility age restriction of two years so that all children under 18 can access the scheme. I know from friends, colleagues and constituents how much they have enjoyed using the dental benefits scheme for their children, and I really welcome this extension to the under-2 age group.
The amendment is based on the Report of the fourth review of the Dental Benefits Act 2008 and has been developed in consultation with stakeholders. The review committee included the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, representatives of the Australian Dental Association, Consumers Health Forum of Australia, private dental practitioners, dental advisers to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Health, as well as Oral Health Services Tasmania. Stakeholders that were consulted, including state and territory dental health services, Services Australia, the federal government Indigenous health division and academic dental professionals, all agreed that, if parents promote and practise good oral hygiene with their children from a young age, this will help in the prevention of more serious dental decay as their children grow up. It's a fact that is widely understood by parents, experts and the community. Any parent who has tried to clean their kids' teeth when they're very young will understand how difficult that can be, pragmatically.
Before the passage of this bill, eligible children aged between two and 17 years are currently entitled to access up to $1,300 in benefits for basic dental services, with benefits capped over two consecutive calendar years. This bill removes the minimum age of eligibility so that children under two years of age can access this scheme. Services that receive a benefit under the program include examinations, X-rays, cleaning, fissure sealing, filling, root canals, extractions and partial dentures where necessary. Services can be provided in a public or private setting, but benefits are not available for orthodontic or cosmetic dental work.
One in three Australian children experience tooth decay by the age of five or six years, and tooth decay is the leading cause of preventable hospitalisation in Australian children. Most people don't realise this. It is actually quite extraordinary. As a paediatrician, I worked with Professor Nicky Kilpatrick on a number of oral health initiatives, particularly for orofacial granulomatosis, which is an oral expression of Crohn's disease. I know how difficult management of oral health is in young children.
There are three key things that parents can do to look after their children's oral health. One of the most important ones is to reduce the amount of added sugar that they consume. They need to help their children to brush their teeth twice daily, with fluoride toothpaste, to clean between the teeth—essentially, to floss—and to attend their dentist for regular dental check-ups. We know that sugar in food and drink is a major contributor to tooth decay today. Children aged two to three years of age, on average, eat nine teaspoons of added sugar per day, and teenagers eat even more. They eat 20 teaspoons of added sugar per day. The World Health Organization recommends reducing added sugar consumption to fewer than six teaspoons per day to minimise the risk of tooth decay but also to avoid obesity and type 2 diabetes. WHO is clear: oral hygiene measures are important in preventing tooth decay and gum disease through the regular removal of plaque bacteria that cause disease.
Guidelines also tell us that fluoride in toothpaste helps to strengthen teeth to prevent tooth decay from starting and also helps to repair the early signs of damage to teeth. This is also why water fluoridation and drinking tap water are important. Don't just drink water from a bottle. Make sure you drink tap water. We are lucky in Australia that most of our water is fluoridated. I'm of the age when, growing up in country Victoria/New South Wales, in Albury-Wodonga, our water was not fluoridated, and we had to take daily fluoride tablets as children.
Because of high-sugar diets, dental disease still does occur—even though we have excellent rates of fluoridation in Australia—particularly for those who use fruit juices early in life. Having worked in developing countries, I can tell you that fruit juice decay is simply awful and incredibly dangerous. Even when I worked in the United States, people in disadvantaged communities would give fruit juice in bottles to their toddlers, and these toddlers would come into hospital with completely black teeth. Unfortunately parents did not know that sugar on the teeth of children is a solvent and can actually rot their teeth. And fruit juice is not what people think. It has a lot of added sugar; it's just not declared in a way that you would think.
Tooth decay in children progresses rapidly from an early lesion that can be reversed to a large cavity that might require extraction or, worse, result in a nasty tooth abscess. Regular dental check-ups, particularly in high-risk children, are important for early detection of disease and to ensure that appropriate prevention strategies and modifications to risky behaviour can be implemented. The Australian Dental Association recommend that a child's first dental visit should occur when the first tooth erupts, which is usually around six months of age, or by one year of age. Tooth decay in Australia has a strong social gradient, with a higher burden of disease amongst children whose parents are from vulnerable population groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, people from a non-English speaking background, people from regional and rural areas and people from a low household income or educational background.
The Medicare Child Dental Benefits Schedule provides vital funding to ensure that these vulnerable children are able to access the necessary health care to help prevent and treat dental disease. However, the current eligibility requirements have until now prevented children under the age of two from accessing the scheme. It is estimated that around 20 per cent of children already experience tooth decay by the age of two years and many of those require irreversible treatment, often under general anaesthetic. This treatment is traumatic for the child and their parents, and can continue to longer-term issues of fear and anxiety, which can impact on future dental visiting patterns and create a risk of ongoing dental problems. I know because, as a child, I had a serious and significant dental phobia, which meant I avoided going to the dentist for many years—until I developed a tooth abscess and quickly got over my dental phobia because the pain was worse than the fear of going to the dentist. So I know how hard it is. But that's because, in the old days, there wasn't fluoridation and we had many more visits to the dentist. And we are now seeing much better dental health care.
If this bill is passed, it will enable vulnerable children to visit the dentist from an early age and avoid more complex treatment and hospitalisation for care and, hopefully, avoid dental phobia in the future. Unfortunately, only 56 per cent of children aged five to six years have visited the dentist before the age of five, and this decreases to 46 per cent for children from low-income families. Financial cost is a major barrier to accessing dental care for many families, and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule provides an important mechanism to address this. As we heard from the previous speaker, this bill will support 45,000 families to access dental services each year. It's something all of us in the House should be proud of, because this is about children's future.
A recent study investigated the impact of COVID-19, however, and we know that dental services have taken a real hit because people have been locked down and unable to access dental health care. This is something I would like to comment on in the last few minutes that I have. In Victoria there were 881,000 fewer dental services provided in 2020 than in 2019—a reduction of 27 per cent. There was also a great decline in preventive and diagnostic services. Dental practices in my home state of Victoria in particular have gone through six periods of restriction of their ability to provide dental services since the pandemic began. For nearly six of the last 18 months, patients were restricted to mostly urgent or emergency dental care only. The COVID pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of dental services—in particular, to children from low socio-economic backgrounds, who already experience higher levels of dental disease and disadvantage in accessing dental care.
To those listening: please don't delay your dental health check-up. Your teeth are some of your most important health assets. That is why I support the amendment and that is why it is so important. I commend the bill to the House.
Before I give the call to the next speaker, I want to flag something that was quite disruptive. I'm not sure if the member for Mackellar can hear me. You are on a very large screen in the Australian parliament. I was trying to pay attention to your colleague the member for Higgins, and you were in the background chatting on the phone and gesticulating. I would suggest that that might be interpreted as being discourteous to your colleagues and should stop.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021. In the early weeks of lockdown in New South Wales, in Greater Sydney, one of my lockdown binges was a TV series called This Way Up. The lead character spends a couple of days with a missing tooth after it was accidentally knocked out. The consequence of avoiding smiling or laughing or even talking normally was of course very dramatically played out, but the point couldn't be missed: for such a small thing, losing a tooth has a really dramatic effect on you.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which does really great research and is chaired by my predecessor, the former member for Macquarie Louise Markus, publishes a lot of information about the consequences of poor oral health and poor dental health. I want to go to some of the things that it identifies as being consequences:
Poor oral health—mainly tooth decay, gum disease and tooth loss—may result in a person experiencing pain, discomfort and feelings of embarrassment. They may also choose to avoid eating some foods and taking part in certain activities. Poor oral health is also associated with a range of diseases and conditions, such as heart and lung diseases, stroke, low birthweight and premature births—
And, it goes on:
Tooth loss can affect both oral function and appearance, and therefore negatively impact on quality of life.
It can actually 'reduce the functionality of the mouth, making chewing and swallowing more challenging', and that 'can compromise nutrition'. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says:
On average, Australians aged 15 years and over are missing 5.7 teeth. The average number of missing teeth increases with age, from 3.2 for people aged 15-34 years up to 13 for people aged 75 years and over.
What they also say is:
Poor adult oral health is strongly predicted by poor childhood oral health.
We know that since the late seventies the oral health of children has improved, likely with the use of fluoride in water and toothpaste, but 'more recent trends suggest that children's oral health may actually be deteriorating'. The institute says:
Around 1 in 4 (27%) children aged 5-10 years and around 1 in 10 (11%) children aged 6-14 years had at least one tooth with untreated decay.
That's what we know about the facts of adult oral health and how it can be determined, in some ways, by what happens with children, which is why what we're talking about here is so important.
In August 2012, I remember the Gillard Labor government introducing the Dental Health Reform Package to help bridge the gap between the need for treatment and people actually receiving it. I remember it, because I was a candidate at that stage; I'd lost an election, and I was running in the next election. I followed very closely the really positive things that were being done, especially in the area of what could be seen as trying to prevent longer-term problems, and this one was one of those.
I know I was really lucky to be a child that had a mother who made me eat horrible tasting fluoride tablets before fluoride was in the water and regularly took us to the dentist, but over the years I've seen many people who hadn't been so lucky. They talk about the cost and the pain of dealing with the consequences of it—the cost, if they could afford it.
A key part of the Gillard government package was the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, delivering means tested financial support for dental services for kids. So families with children from two to 17 years who received benefits, such as family tax benefit A, the parenting payment, the double orphan pension, a carer payment and other benefits, have been eligible for the child dental benefit, which provides around $1,000 over a two-year period to cover dental services like examinations, routine cleaning, fillings and even root canals. In its first two years of operation this scheme provided more than 9.7 million services, which were mainly delivered through private dentists and essentially bulk-billed to families at no extra cost. So it was a really successful scheme. In fact, the department's own evaluation of it was that it was a successful scheme. It will have changed the oral health of children, potentially for the rest of their lives, by getting them familiar with a dentist and hearing messages about teeth cleaning directly from a dentist, not just relying on a TV ad showing the back of a dentist while he's brushing his teeth. Many of us grew up with this ad as the ad that taught kids about brushing their teeth. But when you get to go to a dentist, you get to look a dentist in the eye, and they get to look you in the eye and talk to you about the best way that you, as a five-year-old or seven-year-old or 10-year-old, should be looking after your teeth.
It is exactly the sort of scheme or program that you'd think would have bipartisan support, especially when you see that today we're supporting an extension of this program to remove the barrier for the under-twos so that children of all ages can access it. But in 2016 the then federal health minister, Sussan Ley, revealed that in her view the scheme had failed to live up to expectations and that funds could be better spent elsewhere. This was after the Abbott government deliberately hid the scheme from parents and made it really hard to even know it existed—no promotion of it—so many who would have benefitted from it didn't know it existed. The Prime Minister announced a review. He decided to abolish the dental scheme and proposed a different, cheaper approach that relied on the states and territories to deliver services through public dental services. I think the kindest way to describe those state schemes back then would be as underresourced and overstretched. There were waiting times for the public dental schemes that ranged from 127 days in metropolitan Perth to 933 days in Tasmania; everywhere else had waiting times in between those. That's what the Liberals set out to do, and Labor opposed it.
I want to point out that at the same time there were also cuts to other dental services. This one was just the latest in a series of what I consider to be unforgivable decisions when it comes to dental care. The dental waiting lists were getting longer because $390 million—$390 million—was cut from adult public dental services across the country. On top of that they axed $225 million from Labor's program to build dental clinics in regional Australia and from nursing homes. That was on top of the $125.6 million that had been cut from the Child Dental Benefits Scheme. I had the good fortune at that time, around April 2016, to meet with Leura dentist Dr Rik Sandstrom, who is still practising there today. I talked to him about the work he'd done as a provider of the Child Dental Benefits Scheme. Two days prior to when I caught up with him he had seen four children as part of the scheme—kids who might otherwise not have been able to get to the dentist. When you're a mum and you've got a bunch of kids, sometimes it's kind of all or nothing. Families missed out on going to the dentist unless it was an absolute emergency. Rik's view then was that the scheme should be expanded to allow even more families who struggle to access it.
It wasn't until December 2016—and by that time I was a member of this place—that the minister announced the scheme would not be scrapped. That was a significant victory for Labor and the people who had supported the scheme. I am really pleased that now we are seeing a modest improvement to the scheme. Since Labor introduced the reform, it has provided extraordinary benefits—$2.3 billion in benefits—and delivered more than 38 million services to over three million Australian children. That means three million kids have avoided the worsening physical and mental health impacts from untreated dental conditions, with massive flow-on benefits for their families and their communities, including the government's bottom line avoiding downstream medical costs. It is a terrific Labor legacy. It is the sort of thing we do so well. It's a great example of what a government can do when it genuinely tries to make Australians' lives better—in this case, Australians in that low- to middle-income bracket who have kids.
The bill today is a welcome reform to the schedule, and Labor is supporting it. It extends the coverage to children from birth to 17 and removes that lower age limit on eligibility. The bill will help deliver a positive initial dental experience for more Australian kids now, at a younger age, and you always hope that puts to rest any of the negative feelings people have about dentists and oral hygienists. I'm under no illusions, though, that there are many adults who would wish to have the same access to basic dental services as these kids will. I support the amendment that we have moved, which really urges the government to do more to address access to dental and other health services, including GPs, especially in areas like mine—outer metropolitan areas. It also takes steps to further address out-of-pocket costs—not just for families with kids but for families, individuals and older people—because there are still huge cost barriers to people accessing the dental treatment that they really need.
I recognise that one of the things that often gets missed in the discussion is that there is a really strong argument that addressing poor oral health has multiple benefits on wellbeing and social connectedness, not to mention the links between oral diseases and cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer and lung conditions, as well as the negative effect on pregnancies. My view is that the lack of access to affordable dental care increases the burden of disease, leading to bigger costs down the line. I would like to see more from this government. However, we are almost back where we were in 2012. We're investing in young people in the belief that it will benefit them, that it will instil good practices and that it will potentially reduce the pressures on the system for adults going forward.
As a result of this change, each year an additional 300,000 children between naught and two will become eligible. In practical terms that means, from next year, it's estimated around 15 per cent of the children in this new eligible age group will get access. You're going to hear this figure a lot in this debate: 45,000 children per year will now be able to, and hopefully will, access the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. That's 45,000 kids with better oral health, and better physical and mental health as a result. It means up to 45,000 families with fewer worries about being able to afford the dental care that they know their kids need and they want their kids to have. Hopefully, it means 45,000 kids with a better relationship and view of dentists, having been exposed to a dentist early in life. And hopefully that benefit flows through and we don't get dentist hesitancy. So I'm very pleased to support the amendment and this bill.
I welcome the support from the other side, from the member for Macquarie. The Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021 amends the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to remove the lower age eligibility restriction of two years so that all eligible children under 18 can access the Child Dental Benefits Scheme. This is an important step forward and one that is based on the recommendations of the report of the fourth review of the Dental Benefits Act 2008. The review, which included key stakeholders like the Australian Dental Association, state and territory dental health services, and Services Australia, found that it is important to establish a positive initial dental experience and to instil important oral hygiene practices at an early age to curb the negative stigma around dental practitioners and oral hygiene. This stigma is likely to be reinforced if the initial dental experience requires serious treatment. Good habits can last a lifetime. If parents promote the practice of good oral health hygiene with their children from a young age, this will help prevent more serious dental decay and other health issues as they grow up. I'm pleased to say that the change proposed in this bill will increase access to prevention and treatment services for younger children and help form these good oral hygiene habits in our kids.
It is estimated that the removal of lower age eligibility restrictions, as proposed in this bill, will expand the number of children eligible for the Child Dental Benefits Schedule by around 300,000 per year. The budgeted cost is $5.4 million over four years. To me, this seems a fair price to pay to better fulfil the purpose of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule to ensure eligible Aussie kids will get access to basic dental care in a range of settings and locations. The Child Dental Benefits Schedule has been in operation since 2014 and, since that time, has provided over $2.3 billion in benefits and delivered more than $38 million in services to over three million Australian children. The scheme plays an important role in promoting the oral hygiene of children by providing access to basic dental services up to a capped amount of $1,013 in benefits over two calendar years. To expand this scheme in the proposed manner is a fiscally sensible but impactful change that will support the health of our kids.
Surely there have been many big-ticket health items unveiled by this government in the last few years, including record funding for hospitals, Medicare, mental health and aged care. Since 2013, the coalition government has also listed more than 2,600 medicines on the PBS, an average of one each day. This has put life-changing treatments within the reach of every Australian. All these are important, eye-catching policies and figures. But we have never lost sight of the sort of nuts and bolts, brass tacks reforms that are the stuff of good government. I don't think it will grab any headlines, but the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021 is another example of our commitment to ensuring that Australia's health system works for all Australians.
I've got two children, so I know it can be pretty tough being a parent, but I hope that these changes will make it just a little bit easier, both in their hip pockets and by assisting to form good lifelong oral hygiene habits in their kids. I'm proud to be part of the Morrison government, which is working with public and private providers to improve the delivery of dental services to Australia's children. So I fully support this amendment bill.
Debate adjourned.
[by video link] In continuation, when I first spoke on this issue, I mentioned to the House that First Nations people are still far more likely to be jailed, die by suicide or have their children removed than non-Indigenous Australians. I also paid tribute to the survivors of the stolen generations and welcomed the funding that the federal government have announced for the survivors. I quoted Eileen Cummings from the Northern Territory Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation in my electorate and I'll finish my contribution this afternoon by going back to Eileen.
Going to deaths in custody—something that we still need to fix—so many of these Closing the Gap targets are not met. The rates of Indigenous incarceration and deaths in custody are appalling. In the NT, almost 90 per cent of the adult prison population and about 100 per cent of the juvenile detention population are First Nations people. I've been out to the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, and that is indeed true and stark. The NT government, to its great credit, signed a groundbreaking Aboriginal justice agreement with Aboriginal and community leaders in Darwin this week. That's a first of its kind in the Northern Territory. It's a seven-year agreement to reduce reoffending and imprisonment rates of Aboriginal Territorians, to reduce crime, to engage and support Aboriginal leadership and to improve justice responses and services for Territorians. Federally, Labor also has a plan to turn this sad tide around, building on successful justice reinvestment programs by tackling the root causes of crime and reoffending. The plan includes rehabilitation services, improving family and domestic violence support, offering support for the homeless and developing school retention initiatives. We'll make sure that coronial inquests into deaths in custody are properly resourced and include the voices of family members and First Nations communities. We'll improve funding for legal services and ensure that deaths in custody are nationally reported in real time.
Next, I go directly to what I think is a key aspect of improving the wellbeing of First Nations people, and that's in employment. Labor will close the gap on employment in part by doubling the number of Indigenous rangers by 2030. We've already seen tangible success of the Indigenous rangers program. It provides valuable employment for Indigenous people in regional and rural communities all across the Territory. It also maintains crucial connection to country at the same time as growing local economies, and, of course, it protects and restores the environment.
In my electorate of Solomon we have the Larrakia rangers doing terrific work in our city's coastal reserve, the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, and in other places, protecting nesting turtles and migratory birds. There are also groups all over the Top End caring for country in a variety of ways. For example, the Warddeken rangers are using traditional fire management in Arnhem Land, and the Dhimurru rangers out near Yirrkala are protecting that coastal country in Arnhem Land and fighting sea pollution washing up on our beaches. When it comes to reconciliation, it was Labor, of course, that made the historic apology. And it is Labor which remains the only party to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full: voice, treaty and truth.
As I've said, I warmly welcome the funding committed to the NT and ACT members of the stolen generation. I want to acknowledge everyone who's worked so hard on that for so long. I've spoken with Eileen Cummings since that announcement was made, and I think there's a sense of relief that the day's finally come. But, as Eileen reminded all of us, we're not getting any younger. We're between 70 and 90 years old, and, as the stats tell us, it's quite extraordinary for First Nations elders to be still going strong like Eileen at that age. So we can't delay it any longer. There has been talk about next year, but I encourage the government to bring those compensation payments forward as quickly as possible. Eileen said that there are organisations like hers and the Northern Territory Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation that are ready and willing. They have the list. Let's work together with The Healing Foundation and get it done. It will be a wonderful sense of healing for those survivors of the stolen generations, and that will be a really good thing for our nation to do when we have so much still to do.
I appreciate this opportunity to make some remarks in relation to the Ministerial Statement on Closing the Gap.
I would argue that Indigenous reconciliation remains the greatest piece of unfinished business in our nation today. Sure we have issues right now with the coronavirus, but we'll work our way through the pandemic in months or perhaps a few years time. But Indigenous disadvantage in this nation has taken us decades to confront—to even admit to it—and it has proved to be an incredibly difficult area of public policy to resolve; we just heard from the previous speaker, the member for Solomon, about some of the challenges we continue to face. We're making progress, but there's so much more work to do.
The Closing the Gap Implementation Plan sets a foundation for the Commonwealth's efforts in achieving the targets in the national agreement over the coming decade, and I want to commend the minister, who I regard as a personal friend, for the work he has done and the work that he is doing in this portfolio. He is making a difference on the ground.
The plan does provide an overview of the Commonwealth's existing actions that will contribute to closing the gap, as well as new investment and future areas of work. It is a whole-of-government plan which has been developed across the Commonwealth and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partners—in particular, the Coalition of Peaks. It does show that the Commonwealth is serious about delivering on the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. As I said, there is more work to do to achieve the outcomes and targets in the national agreement and to embed the priority reforms across the Commonwealth. The plan is welcomed. It provides a path and a set of actions to achieve these outcomes and it will allow the Commonwealth to review and improve its approach to achieve these goals over time.
But governments can't achieve the change we need in isolation. This has to be a partnership with our communities and it must include every Australian. I will repeat my comment from the outset: this is the greatest piece of unfinished business in our nation today. I believe, and I hope, that Australia is not an inherently racist country, but there's no question that racism exists in our nation. Whether it's through intolerance, through self-interest, through fear or through a lack of respect or understanding, we know racism does exist and we need to be eternally vigilant. We need to call it out and we need to commit ourselves to educating ourselves and to be better every day. And we need to understand that even comments that were once made in jest and which once may have seemed funny are comments that today would be seen to be ignorant, and that unintended remarks that were never intended to cause offence can cause offence and can cause harm. This is a journey that I think we're all on: we need to understand that the generational damage we've experienced in Australia will need generational change.
Today I was viewing an interview that Australian football champion Eddie Betts had given on one of the television talk shows in relation to a much-publicised case in the last 10 days involving an Adelaide Crows footballer who had racially vilified a teammate. In his comments to the panel, Eddie said, 'You've got to call out racism when you see it; there's no room for racism in Australia.' That's patently self obvious to us, but why is Eddie Betts having to make those comments again today?
Racial vilification has been identified, sadly, through many high-profile sportspeople just in my lifetime. When you think about the AFL, there is the historic moment of Nicky Winmar pulling up his shirt and pointing to his skin, Michael Long and the Long Walk, and Adam Goodes and Michael O'Loughlin from the Sydney Swans. It staggers me that, in this day and age, one of the most gifted, highly respected and inspirational footballers, Eddie Betts, still has to give interviews and still has to talk about racism in a way that clearly was emotionally draining for him. He said he was tired. He said it hurts. It's impossible for us, as whitefellas, to stand in this place and to understand the pain of someone like Eddie Betts.
At its core, it is about respect. It is up to all Australians to commit themselves to being better than this. If a high-profile Aboriginal person like Eddie Betts, who has given so much joy to so many football fans, can find himself in tears trying to rationalise the racism that still exists today, how is it for a young Aboriginal boy or girl growing up without that opportunity and without that advantage yet still feeling racially vilified? It is a challenge for us all. This issue of respect and giving hope to future generations of Aboriginal people is a challenge we must all be prepared to take on.
Eddie Betts today invited us all to go on a journey together. I accept his invitation to go on that journey with people like Eddie and all Aboriginal people in Australia to support them in their efforts towards equality and reconciliation. But it's one thing to stand here and make speeches. Again, I'm reminded of a very famous football scene. I guess, if we're talking about Eddie Betts, we might as well keep talking about football scenes. It is of the late John Kennedy and the 1975 VFL grand final. The Hawthorn football club was being by flogged by North Melbourne and John Kennedy made this famous speech: 'Do something! Don't think! Do! At least you can come off and say, "At least I did something."'
We can't just make speeches; we have to do something. We have to do something every day. I commend again the minister for his work on the implementation plan, but it has to get down to individual Australians doing something every day. I've commented before in this place on the need to find more opportunities in our own daily lives to talk and listen to our Indigenous brothers and sisters. Again, it's about understanding the cultural differences. It's taking the time in our own lives in our civic society and our civil society, not just cheering on footy champions or tennis champions or other sporting greats or just having a professional working relationship with the occasional Aboriginal person we may come across in our professional experiences. It's taking the time to sit down for a cup of coffee or to have a meal.
I would hasten to suggest that most Australians of European background would hardly have an Indigenous friend or have had a meal or a beer or a cup of coffee and taken the time to understand their experiences. When we think about doing something, I challenge Australians to read about the Indigenous experience. Do something like understanding their stories and understanding the challenges that too many still face today. Do something like teaching our kids to recognise and identify racism and to call it out where they see it. It saddens me that the struggle remains real and the challenges remain great. While the commitment in this place is commendable, we need to turn it into better outcomes on the ground. We all need to do something.
[by video link] At the outset, I acknowledge that I am speaking to the chamber from the land of traditional owners the Dharug people. I acknowledge them and pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Importantly, I acknowledge also that the House sits on Ngunawal and Ngambri land, and I pay my respects to the traditional owners of the land on which the parliament sits.
I'm proud of the fact that Chifley is home to the largest urban based Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in the country. We have over 9,000 First Australians living in Chifley. Participating in this debate means something to them. Making sure that we are able to achieve what is set out in the Closing the Gap initiative means something to them on a number of levels, not least of which is in a very deeply day-to-day quality-of-life respect.
Before I go to the Closing the gap report that was brought down this year, I think it's important that we recognise that this year's report represents the failing of a concept that was championed some time ago to deliver for Indigenous people. Back in the early 2000s, when the push was on to say sorry and to spearhead reconciliation, conservatives at that point in time were pointing out very strongly that symbolism didn't matter. Conservatives, mind you, hold symbolism dearly whenever it counts towards or aligns with their political interests or values. Then they have no problem with embracing symbolism, but they were telling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that symbolism was empty. Practical reconciliation was in order, and, by that, other things would be done to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal Australians.
On coming to office Kevin Rudd, as Prime Minister, and the Labor government did two things. They rightly addressed the issue of the stolen generations and said sorry to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders across the country in a landmark statement that was recognised the world over. They also took steps through the Closing the Gap initiative to start the process of practical reconciliation. But for conservatives who believe that this type of symbolism alone didn't matter and that there was only practical reconciliation through a focus on some of these things that are measured in Closing the Gap, it showed that there are a number of things that have to be dealt with in tandem. Some of those things were touched on by previous speakers—notably the impact of racism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country and the impact it has on their sense of self-worth and their right, their absolute right, to have a say in the direction of the nation. These things have to be called out, and they have to be considered more by the nation's parliament. We also have to wonder whether or not that is driving some of the massive underperformance we've seen in this year's Closing the gap report.
To be honest, this is a shameful report. There is no way anyone can sugar-coat what is in this year's report. This report is normally presented in February, but it's been shifted to August and presented to the government then. The targets were largely previous government targets that had been reset. I would argue that the resetting was used essentially to sweep prior failures under the table. The government is still failing. Of 17 targets, only three have been met or are on track—14 are not. After all this time, we have not been able to make headway on the majority of targets. All we've been able to achieve is failure. This has to stand as a massive concern to so many people, particularly the people that I care about in my part of Western Sydney. If you look at the national average for life expectancy and compare it for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women, there is a huge gap, an eight-year difference in life expectancy. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are almost twice as likely not to be assessed as developmentally on track in all five domains of the Australian Early Development Census.
It's so important for kids to meet their development milestones, and it is so hard for them to catch up when they aren't given the opportunity early in life. I do want to acknowledge that there's a lot of great work being done in the Chifley community by organisations from the Western Sydney Local Health District—Greater Western Aboriginal Health Service, Yenu Allowah Aboriginal Child and Family Centre and the Ngallu Wal Aboriginal Child and Family Centre. But their funding, in many instances, is always hanging in the balance and has to be fought for. In education, there's no clear data tracking on year 12 completion rates, tertiary qualification or youth engagement. On housing, the findings have highlighted that one in five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people don't have appropriate housing to live in, which is a massive issue, and it's only set to worsen with waiting times in the area of public housing being five to 10 years as a standard, at a time when the cost of private rentals is simply going through the roof. We're also seeing incarceration rates—after the royal commission into this over 20 years ago—still getting worse. Deaths in custody are still an issue, and there are increasing numbers of children in out-of-home care. Suicide rates are getting worse. We don't have datasets on how the government is performing in terms of reducing family violence.
I have a lot of other great organisations in my area: Butucarbin, run by Aunty Jennifer Beale and Jack Gibson; Baabayn, run by aunties; Marrin Weejali, which is led by Uncle Tony Hunter; and also Link-Up, which is helping the stolen generation, based out of Ropes Crossing. I was devastated, like Link-Up were, that COVID had meant we couldn't hold the COOEE Festival in Mount Druitt this year, but I'm confident this is going to happen very soon. A lot of these organisations do not need other organisations or levels of government coming in and telling them how to get stuff done. We need to have government listening more to locally based solutions around what can help in terms of improving the quality of life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our area. That absolutely has to occur, and we're not getting that. I think, in part, it's still a very paternalistic view that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities don't have the knowledge or wherewithal to be able to chart their own direction with respect to their own quality of life, which I think is an indictment. When you constantly hear Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups saying the design, the concept, the architecture and the way it's all constructed should be done from the ground up, and it's still not being done, it's an issue; and I suspect, in part, it's what's driving these poor outcomes.
But the other thing we do have to acknowledge is that racism is an issue. Every time it has been raised in the public context, people resile from it. I think we need to have difficult conversations around the way in which, over generations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been treated and the way it was done deliberately to prevent them from being able to have a say in the way this country was run. I have to say it is a profound disappointment that what had been promised in terms of advancing the say of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in this country with a voice to parliament and should have been championed very strongly is being held back. It is not being held back by the opposition, I might add. Labor is not standing in the way of this. We believe this is a just and proper step that should be taken. But it is being held back, and Labor is determined, as we have said, to rectify this in the years ahead.
I want to make another point too. When Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples raise the issue of racism, we should not be criticising them or making the point that it's unrealistic, in terms of what's being put forward, or simply doesn't exist. Racism is being felt by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It's clearly the case. The double standards are clear. When they get up to protest Aboriginal deaths in custody, they go out in large numbers in rallies and are told that their super-spreader events are not allowed, but we have a member of this chamber who refuses to follow medical advice and won't even be mentioned or upbraided by his own Prime Minister. You can see those double standards would really hurt. I think we've got to do more. I think we've got to have honest conversations, and I think we've honestly got to improve a lacklustre and shameful performance when it comes to closing the gap.
I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land that we and probably anyone in this country we call Australia are on. I want to acknowledge the First Nations members of this parliament: our own mighty Senator Lidia Thorpe; Senators Malarndirri McCarthy, Pat Dodson and Jacqui Lambie; and members of this place Linda Burney and Ken Wyatt, the member for Barton and the member for Hasluck. I want to acknowledge, as we rise to talk about closing the gap, that we're on stolen land. We're on land in this country that we call Australia that became part of this country because of violence and dispossession. This place that we call Australia is founded on a history of violence and dispossession of the First Nations peoples. It's something that we still haven't fully recognised. It's something we still refuse to tell the truth about. The problem is that, until you recognise this, admit it and tell the truth, we are going to keep on committing versions of that same violence and dispossession day after day after day. It will be our First Nations people who will continue to suffer.
This Closing the Gap report is a shameful documentation of this government's failure not just to meet the targets that it has set for itself but to begin to tell the truth about what lies at the heart of this country so that we can then have a proper process of reconciliation and then march forward, together, with a treaty between all of the peoples of this country and our First Nations. This report that we are talking to is a shameful indictment of the government because it comes at a time when about 500 people have died in custody since the royal commission. Five hundred First Nations people have died in custody since the royal commission, and, shamefully, we can't even know the exact number because the government doesn't even report it correctly or in anywhere close to the sad, real time that it happens. This report comes at a time when so many First Nations people are being locked up that the incarcerations target set out in this report, which acknowledges that we are locking up our First Nations people at an unfair and unjust rate, isn't even on track to be met until 2093, so slow is this government moving.
Why does this happen? Well, a big part of the reason is that in this country we still lock up kids as young as 10. Kids as young as 10 who do something wrong should just be brought back in closer to the family and told how to live life right. They shouldn't be locked up in custody and then in jail. But that is what happens in this country. This country says the age of criminal responsibility in many places is as low as 10. I want people to think about the 10-, 11-, 12- and 13-year-olds they know and ask whether any one of them deserves to be in prison, whatever they've done.
We need to fix that. We need to fix the problem, in part, where it starts. That's why we've got to raise the age of criminal responsibility in this country. But there's nothing in this report about that. That is a big part of the reason why only three out of the 17 targets are on track to be met and why, as I said, the incarceration target in closing the gap there won't be met until 2093. What this report shows us is that this government and the other governments around Australia are on track to keep locking up kids as young as 10—and then we wonder why we're not meeting the targets, why we're not closing the gap and why we still have injustice and racism in this country.
This report tells us that there are more First Nations people dying by suicide and more being imprisoned. There are other elements of this report—and I'll talk about those briefly in a moment—but I've focused on this issue of incarceration and imprisonment because it is a truth that we are just unwilling to address in this country. Our First Nations people are crying out, 'Stop locking up our babies,' and it is time for us to listen. We look across at the racial injustices that are happening in the United States and we applaud the Black Lives Matter movement that is happening there. One of the things that that has done is shone a light on what is happening here too. And, just as we lend our wholehearted support to the Black Lives Matter movement around the world, we must lend our support to that movement here in Australia, and the big thing they are crying out for is justice. And the First Nations people of this country are entitled to justice.
There is one thing that is not in this report, and it is a critical component if we are to ever tell the truth and march together, and that is self-determination. Self-determination means giving First Nations people the right, the resources and the power to be in the driver's seat to determine their own destiny. Instead of continuing oppression and injustice, it's enablement and empowerment, and it's not only a recognition of the past injustices but then giving people the tools and the ability and the say and the right and the power to determine their own destinies.
When we are in a position to fully recognise First Nations people, then we will be in a position to talk about what it means to have a treaty, or treaties, in this country. We've seen some steps being taken towards that around other parts of our nation, but we've got to take the lead here in parliament. We've got to take the lead here in parliament, because the idea of a treaty is that it's a treaty between equals and it recognises that the First Nations people of this country were right and justified to fight to defend this country. It means acknowledging that those who died in the frontier wars are entitled to be acknowledged and recognised as heroes because they were defending their country. It means recognising in this place that this nation of ours that we call Australia was originally a rich and diverse land of many, many nations. When we recognise that, when we're prepared to tell the truth, when we're prepared to go through a proper process of truth-telling, reconciliation and healing, then we can move to the next step of having a treaty. So we must start the treaty process yesterday. We have to start the process of truth-telling and treaty, because only then are we going to be able to heal.
There are a lot of things that we've got to address in this country. We've got a climate crisis looming over us that we've just been told we've only got a few years to rein in or we're going to go over the cliff. We've got an inequality crisis in this country, where many people don't go to the dentist because they can't afford it and then end up sick or in hospital for something that could have prevented if only we had dental under Medicare. We've got a situation in this country where you can be working full-time and still be in poverty, while billionaires have increased their wealth faster than anyone else in any other country during the pandemic. We've got a lot of things that we've got to challenge in this country.
The best way we're going to be able to move forward is in partnership and in a treaty with our First Nations peoples, because then we get to write our own history. We can't change what has happened before, but we can acknowledge it, we can tell the truth about it and then we can write our own history, a history that future generations will be proud of. They will be so proud that we, here, took a moment to say, 'Time to tell the truth about the past; time to acknowledge the injustices and march forward together. We need a treaty now.'
[by video link] I'm honoured to speak tonight on Closing the Gap: Commonwealth Implementation Plan 2021. In doing so, I acknowledge the Ngunawal and Ngambri elders of the Canberra region, where parliament gathers. I acknowledge the traditional custodians of my area here in Warringah, where I speak from this evening. Their names remain contested but they are part of the longest living surviving culture in the world. In acknowledging them, I acknowledge their sorrow and I commit myself to genuine healing. I also recognise that their land was never ceded.
In 2019 a 12-year-old schoolboy, Dujuan, the star of the moving documentary In My Blood It Runs, went to the UN to plead with them to listen to him. He said at the time, 'The Australian government is not listening.' The stories and statistics that define the gap between Indigenous Australians and the general Australian population are appalling. This is a shame on all of us. While the Closing the Gap agreement is a step in the right direction, I reiterate my response to this implementation plan, as I did when the agreement was first announced last year. It does not go far enough. As with so many things this government does, it is simply not ambitious enough.
In parliament last week we heard that even if the targets to reduce Indigenous incarceration by 2031 are achieved, Indigenous adults will be 11 times more likely to be incarcerated and Indigenous youth 12 times more likely to be incarcerated than the rest of the Australian population. These are not acceptable statistics. There are some simple things that we can do to quickly reduce this rate and this inequity. The most obvious is by raising the age of criminality and incarceration from 10 to at least 14 years of age. This was up there on Dujuan's list of wants that he read to the UN in 2019. It's abhorrent that we're still locking up children as young as 10 years of age. The rate of recidivism for those locked up at such an early age is huge. This has a profound impact on their future prospects and outcomes.
This year the Council of Attorneys-General again failed to raise the age of criminal responsibility from just 10 to 14 years of age. In response, 48 organisations publicly released their submissions. Ninety per cent of those submissions highlighted that it is in breach of international human rights law or international standards to keep the age at 10. Ninety-six per cent said the current laws are contributing to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in prison. Priscilla Atkins, the chair of NATSILS, said that no child belongs in prison. Raising the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 is one action the Australian government can take right now that will have an immediate and generational impact to end the incarceration of First Nations kids and give our kids a brighter future.
What is the government waiting for? It's pretty simple: children belong in classrooms and playgrounds, not in handcuffs, courtrooms or prison cells. The $1 billion of funding announced to fund the Closing the Gap agreement is an important step in the right direction. I welcome the cooperation of the states and territories and the Coalition of Peaks. We need a greater voice for Indigenous people and a seat at the table, and the Indigenous Coalition of Peaks is incredibly important. There's a lot of work to do. I don't doubt that more funding and effort will be required. I particularly welcome the $378 million announced for the redress scheme for members of the stolen generation. People in Warringah care deeply about this issue and convey to me on a frequent basis their disappointment that the government has been unable to find the ambition or the bravery to actually move ahead with one of the biggest issues that need to be solved.
I'm so disappointed that a key element which drives the gap is still not addressed—that is, the lack of recognition for Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and the establishment of a voice to parliament, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I accept the invitation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and I so desperately and dearly hope that the government could too. The referendum is not funded in these measures, nor was a national campaign to educate the population about the need for constitutional recognition. We need Indigenous recognition in the Constitution. We need an Indigenous voice in the Parliament of Australia, and only then will we make substantial progress towards closing the gap. While I welcome this renewed commitment to closing the gap and the consultation with the coalition, the peaks and the national cabinet, I reiterate my call to the government for Prime Minister Morrison to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14, devise a question and publicly commit to a referendum on a voice to parliament without delay and put the referendum to the Australian people during what remains of 2021. There is no doubt we are now approaching another election that will be coming up in six to eight months, and this has still not been addressed.
Over recent weeks we've seen incredible feats by our Indigenous athletes: Ash Barty conquering Wimbledon, and Patty Mills carrying our flag and leading our nation in the Olympic opening ceremony, then lifting the Boomers to an historic win on the basketball court and proudly celebrating with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag. We saw the Matildas proudly display the Aboriginal flag before their first match. I wish the chamber would have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag flying as well. As a country, we have to get better at acknowledging our Indigenous heritage and celebrating it. There's no doubt that when we can achieve that, when we can do that and celebrate that heritage, is when we will all grow, because it is the heritage of all of us. As Australia, it will only be then that we can all truly be proud, and we will be the richer for having truly recognised our cultural heritage.
On Monday night, when the Minister for Indigenous Australians made his contribution on this ministerial statement, there were four other coalition members here in the chamber. Two of them were on duty. Everyone can draw their own conclusions and pass their own judgement on the significance of that observation, but it is reminiscent of the walkout from this chamber in 2008 when the national apology was given. It says much about the underlying difficulties for Indigenous Australians. Having said that, I listened carefully to the contribution of the member for Gippsland, and I commend him on his comments.
On 28 August 1963 Martin Luther King Jr, standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, delivered his now famous 'I have a dream' speech to 250,000 people who had joined him in support of a civil rights march. I'll quote from his speech and in particular his opening comments. If I use words that are not parliamentary or appropriate in today's society, I make it clear they are not my words, but they are the words specifically used by Martin Luther King Jr. He said:
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. …
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.
Here in Australia, in the same era as that of Martin Luther King Jr., Australians were campaigning for equality for Indigenous Australians. The 1967 referendum overwhelmingly supported that, with a 90 per cent vote in favour of constitutional change and recognition of Indigenous Australians. Just as in the USA, the 1960s here in Australia were an era of hope that discrimination and injustice would end.
More than half a century later, millions of people in the USA turned out in support of Black Lives Matter marches—again shining a spotlight on racial injustice and discrimination against African-Americans. Here in Australia, Adam Goodes, a proud Adnyamathanha and Narungga man, was chosen as Australian of the Year. Adam Goodes was a champion Australian rules footballer. He was one of the sport's very best: a dual Brownlow medallist, a dual premiership player, a four-time all-Australian player and much, much more. In 2015 his AFL career came to an end. After 372 games, Adam Goodes was hounded into retirement by relentless and widespread bullying and racist vitriol. Adam Goodes was proud of his heritage and proud of his Indigenous culture, and he openly displayed that pride. But not everyone was pleased about that.
Over recent weeks, further examples of racial vilification of sportspeople here in Australia have been reported widely. The member for Gippsland referred to some quotes from Eddie Betts about this very matter. I want to add a further quote to what Eddie said:
We as Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people are sick of fighting because it just keeps happening.
The point I make when referring to both the 1967 referendum and the Martin Luther King Jr. speech is that 50 years after there was hope that things would change, but the reality is that nothing much has changed. The reality is that, despite eloquent and motivating speeches by civic leaders, despite publicly endorsed changes to the Australian Constitution and the introduction of anti-racial vilification laws, despite five decades of targeted programs to bridge the gap and to end disadvantage and despite the national apology, racial, sexual, cultural, religious and social discrimination here in Australia and throughout the world continue.
Discrimination and persecution have existed since time immemorial. They have been constant human traits. Anyone who is in any way different is often shunned and sidelined, or mocked. Whilst laws may control behaviour and restrain people's feelings, they will never change what's in a person's heart and in a person's mind. Only understanding will do that. And only a person who has felt the humiliation of discrimination, who has faced rejection because of their colour or who has walked in the shoes of the oppressed will ever truly understand that.
Only when decisions about Indigenous Australians are made by those who understand will the gaps be closed, which is why a voice to parliament, truth telling and treaty form the foundation of the Uluru statement. But let me also make it clear that truth telling and treaty are a two-way process. To date, bridging the gap has focused on the responsibilities of government; on the expenditures and initiatives of government. Bridging the gap is best achieved when both sides come together in shared responsibility, which is why it is disappointing that the Morrison government has not embraced the Uluru statement in the spirit in which it was given and from the effort and consultation that went into preparing the statement. It was well-considered and it proposed a way forward—a way that would bring all parties together, a way that would overcome disadvantage and a way forward that may one day bring all Australians together. But, instead, this government, the Morrison government, turns to a cashless welfare card as one of its solutions. I ask the government and government members to think about the message that that sends to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, the first Indigenous peoples of this land, about how this government thinks of them if that is its solution to the disadvantage that we talk about here in this chamber on a regular basis. That sends the wrong message to those people, and, understandably, their hurt and pain continues.
I urge government members to think about the way forward, to think about the Uluru statement. Yes, it may not be perfect, but at least get involved in the discussions with the people who went to great lengths to put it together and make it work.
[by video link] I begin tonight by acknowledging that I am speaking from the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I also acknowledge that the chamber where you are is on the land of the Ngunawal and the Ngambri peoples and again pay respects to those owners and custodians of the land.
When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the national Apology to the Stolen Generations in February 2008, he made it clear that saying sorry wasn't enough, and it's still not. There is no more important task in front of this parliament than closing the gap. Even in the middle of a pandemic, this is the greatest challenge facing this nation, and it is one that we must bring a new approach, new ideas and new commitment to.
I want to commend the work done by the Coalition of Peaks, led by Pat Turner, to get us to this point with this refreshed Closing the Gap. We do have to realise that Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities are in the best place to know what's needed to change and how to deliver that change. We have to have an approach that's not just set here in Canberra, and we can't expect one approach to work in communities across the country; we must be prepared to do things differently. That's why I'm very proud to be part of a Labor team that is committed to genuine change, and that must start by acting on the Uluru Statement from the Heart—the statement that First Nations people went to so much effort and took time to put together to tell us what they wanted for themselves: to have a voice to parliament that's recognised in our Constitution.
We do all know that changing Australia's Constitution isn't easy. It shouldn't be undertaken lightly. But this is a process that has been going for many years now, and it has not been undertaken lightly. We are at a turning point, and it will require passion and dedication from all of us in this chamber and outside to succeed, and we must succeed to go through a process of truth-telling and treaty-making so that, on the other side, we emerge as a stronger, fairer country.
I'm proud that a future Labor government is committed to establishing a makarrata commission as a matter of priority. We have to tell a different story about this country. We have to reckon with our past so that we can close the gap for the future. I'm proud that a future Labor government is committed to strengthening economic and job opportunities for First Nations people and communities. Employment outcomes are of course interconnected to other quality-of-life outcomes such as health, education and housing. I'm proud that a future Labor government will recognise that First Nations people have authority, knowledge and experience derived from so many millennia of custodianship over their land and their water, and that we will recognise that through doubling the number of Indigenous rangers to 3,800 jobs by the end of the decade. I've seen firsthand just how powerful that program is in so many communities, and I know what a difference rolling that program out more broadly will make.
For eight years, this coalition government has shifted the responsibility for progress on closing the gaps to the states and territories. It's not good enough. The government has clearly walked away from having a voice to parliament. This is not good enough. We have seen an absolute lack of action from the government. Even though we know there are members on their own side who support having a voice to parliament, they're captured by the voices who say, 'It's too hard.' It is not too hard. It is the job of all of us in this place to act on the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
I welcome the reparations for the stolen generation which were announced by the Prime Minister. I acknowledge that it is too late for too many survivors who have already passed away. We must understand that there are ongoing issues, ongoing problems and intergenerational trauma, and that trauma is felt not just by individual people but by whole families and whole communities. As a nation, we must dedicate ourselves to addressing that.
As I said, there is no more important challenge in front of this community. Knowing that only three out of the 17 targets are on track must commit all of us to doing better. We must take a new approach. We must work together, we must listen to Indigenous people and we must lift the quality of life for all First Nations people and for future generations across our country.
Dowra noona, dowra Ngoonawal Youngu, nula-mun-yin dooni-mun-yin Noonanawal-wari dowra-wari dindi wan-gara-lin-gin-yin. I give this speech on Ngunawal land about important work and challenging work for the nation. Out of the 17 Closing the Gap targets that have been set, only three are on track. Labor, of course, welcomes the government's announcements, but we have to do more—much more. To reduce Indigenous incarceration, we need a focused strategy on justice reinvestment. Over recent decades, crime rates have fallen while incarceration has risen, and Indigenous people have borne the brunt. To boost Indigenous employment we need more investment in the Indigenous Rangers program and large employers publicly reporting their Indigenous workforce. We need to abolish the failed CDP and fix education policy. The government's so-called Job-ready Graduates Package increased fees for Indigenous students by 15 per cent. We need an Indigenous voice to parliament and a makarrata commission with responsibility for truth-telling and treaty. That's what the Uluru Statement from the Heart called for—voice, truth, treaty.
But there are also amazing successes. The Indigenous Marathon Foundation, headed by Rob de Castella and coached by Damian Tuck, has seen over 100 graduates. This year's squad is just as remarkable as the ones that went ahead of it. I want to thank those, including some members of this House, who helped sponsor me for Ironman Cairns and helped to raise $19,606 for the extraordinary work of the Indigenous Marathon Foundation.
In my Indigenous community of the Jervis Bay Territory, I want to acknowledge Lana Read, the principal of Jervis Bay School; Luke Scott, the manager of Jervis Bay administration; and the Wreck Bay volunteer fire brigade, which boasts 35 volunteers out of a community of 150. Beat that, any other volunteer community fire brigade in Australia! I want to acknowledge Jackson Brown, Darren Brown, George Brown and Sherrie Tripp and recognise Anthony Roberts of the Booderee National Park. From the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, I acknowledge the CEO, Anne-Marie Farrugia, and current and recent members of the board, Annette Brown, Beverley Ardler, Erica Ardler, Jeffrey McLeod, Leon Brown, Julie Freeman, Clive Freeman, Kaylene McLeod and Tom. I acknowledge Jeff Williams, the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council caring for country supervisor; and Sarah Ketelhohn, the director of the Gudjahgahmiamia early learning centre, an extraordinary early learning centre in the middle of the Wreck Bay community.
Closing the gap is hard work, but it is important work. The member for Jagajaga was spot on: there is no more important work for this House than the question of Indigenous reconciliation. It is vital that we commit ourselves to this cause and do all that we can to ensure that we close these gaps. I want to come back here next year knowing that more than three of the 17 targets are on track, able to rejoice in the work that we have done together and able to say to Indigenous Australians and to the Coalition of Peaks—led by the remarkable Pat Turner—that we are finally beginning to get that work on track.
Last week, the Prime Minister presented the most recent Closing the gap report to this parliament. I want to begin by acknowledging, at the outset of my comments, the traditional owners, the Awabakal and Warrimay people, on whose country I ordinarily live, play and work in Newcastle. Notwithstanding the government's efforts to rebadge this progress report as a brand new implementation plan, this is the eighth consecutive year in which I have stood in this parliament to draw attention to the ongoing, but no less shocking, rates of disparity and disadvantage that continue to exist for First Nations people across Australia. For eight long years this government has kicked the can down the road, refusing to take responsibility for closing the gap on inequality experienced by First Nations people.
Two years ago the Prime Minister proposed a new approach to closing the gap. While we welcome the government's new-found commitment to a co-design process, what we have in fact seen over the last two years have been ongoing delays, a resetting of targets and an off-loading of responsibilities to states and territories—and, indeed, First Nations organisations and people themselves—to future parliaments and to future generations. Last week we also saw the Prime Minister rule out a First Nations voice to parliament before the next election. That's why Labor are determined to break the Morrison government's policy stagnancy and push forward by empowering First Nations people.
Labor will deliver on a national process for treaty making and truth telling, strengthening economic and job opportunities for First Nations people, and empowering First Nations people in caring for country and water. Listening to and empowering First Nations people will be at the very core of Labor's approach to closing the gap and reconciliation. Labor remains the only political party committed to implementing the Uluru statement in full, a constitutionally enshrined voice in parliament, and a makarrata commission to oversee a national process for treaty making as well as truth telling. This is what First Nations people ask for, and this is what Labor will deliver.
A Labor government will take action to address disparity through policies that strengthen First Nations peoples' economic and job opportunities. Our economic policies include setting targets to increase public and private sector employment of First Nations people, getting on with the Productivity Commission inquiry into the market for First Nations arts and crafts, protecting intellectual property rights and supporting inclusive growth for Indigenous-owned businesses, both domestic and international. Labor's environmental policies include doubling the number of Indigenous rangers, providing an additional $10 million each year for Indigenous protected areas and delivering the $40 million of cultural water promised back in 2018 but not yet delivered by the Morrison government.
Listening to and empowering First Nations people, as I said, are at the core of Labor's approach. Labor took a policy about the stolen generation reparations to the last election, so we therefore welcome this government's belated recognition of this need, this very powerful need, to establish a stolen generations compensation scheme. This is an important initiative, and the government needs to get it right. We hope the government has learnt some very important lessons from its less than ideal administration of the National Redress Scheme. This is a scheme that must be survivor focused, culturally safe and embedded in trauma informed care and practice. The stolen generations deserve nothing less.
In the final moments remaining to me, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the need to really tackle the gross overrepresentation of First Nations people in the criminal justice system. This is one of the most significant social justice issues facing Australia today. That's why Labor has committed more than $90 million over four years to justice reforms to reduce incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to reduce the number of Aboriginal deaths in custody. We want to divert that money into justice reinvestment programs. These are evidence based. The government could do well to take that policy from Labor and implement it today—no need to wait.
I thank the member for Newcastle. I call the member for Forde, but I remind the member for Forde that props are not allowed in the chamber, and that looks suspiciously like one.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it's in celebration of the Australian team's magnificent efforts in the Olympics. On Sunday we celebrated the closure of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. I think the Olympics is something special and something that the Australian people and the Australian sports fraternity are passionate about. The lockdowns were a great opportunity for people to be able to watch the Olympics, probably more than they would ordinarily. Also, being so close to our time zone, it was a great opportunity for Australians to actually see, in much greater detail, the colour, the flavour and the atmosphere of the Olympics, even without the crowds. Athletes not only from Australia but from around the world did an outstanding job of honouring the Olympic mottos and traditions.
The member for Moreton is also going to be speaking about this, as my co-chair on the Parliamentary Friends of the Olympic Movement in Australia. I know how passionate he is about this as well. Equally, we're excited about the fact that the Olympic Games will be coming to Brisbane in 2032.
Sport unites all Australians and helps us to build long-lasting relationships and stronger communities. This year the Forde electorate was lucky enough to have three athletes competing in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. Skye Nicolson made her Olympic debut in the boxing featherweight division, Dina Aspandiyarova completed her fourth Olympic Games in the 10-metre air pistol event, and Tameka Yallop competed alongside her fellow Matildas in her second Olympics. These three athletes have a remarkable history in their individual sports that deserves to be celebrated.
Skye followed in the amazing footsteps of her brother Jamie, who sadly passed away, but did compete in the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. Skye also won boxing gold in the Commonwealth Games in 2018 on the Gold Coast. Skye was focused on a gold medal but fell short, and I know this was heartbreaking for her. Who can forget the media interviews after that? But this is just the start of her Olympic career, and I wish her every success for the future. Dina was selected to compete in the Tokyo Olympics after winning the four lead-up events at the trials in the Australian season, with a season-high qualifying score of 575 to lock in her fourth games appearance. Tameka Yallop has been with the Matildas since 2007, and this was her second Olympic Games, following competing at Rio in 2016. I want to thank all three for their tremendous efforts. But I would like to congratulate all of our Olympians for their outstanding success and achievements. Their hard work and determination paid off, with Australia finishing sixth, with 46 medals, including 17 gold medals, which equals the record in Athens. This year we had our biggest team, and our second-biggest team behind the Sydney 2000 games.
The Olympic creed says:
The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.
I can say very safely that all of our athletes upheld that motto to the highest degree. To the AOC president, John Coates; chef de mission, Ian Chesterman; and CEO, Matt Carroll: thank you for your magnificent work. To all the coaches, all the administrators and all the support staff: thank you for the terrific work you did in very difficult circumstances in this COVID environment. Also, we can't forget the Tokyo organising committee for the tremendous work that they did to ensure the games proceeded.
We get to enjoy this again in a couple of weeks, with the Paralympic Games starting on 24 August. I wish everybody in our Paralympics team every success—in particular, Natalie Smith, who will represent Australia in shooting in Tokyo. Natalie, who lives in the electorate of Forde, has previously competed at Rio in 2016 and London in 2012. To everybody involved, I wish you the best success. Thank you for your efforts in doing our country proud.
I stand here today a little sad, angry and frustrated, like many Australians across the country. I'm sad I won't get to celebrate my niece's 18th birthday with her. Like many families who are missing special occasions at the moment, I'm angry that the Morrison government's failure to understand that this was a race has left us well behind in getting vaccines out to people. That failure to secure enough vaccine deals and secure them early enough has led to continued lockdowns in 2021. It's an anger that is growing in our communities because, even though we are outside the lockdown areas, the flow-on impacts to our businesses and to our communities are just as damaging. I'm frustrated that all the hard work done by Australians last year to keep the virus transmission as low as possible, in following new health orders not seen in our lifetimes, has been squandered by this failure to plan. The government's failures on vaccines and quarantine are costing our economy $300 million each day. The economy is bleeding billions of dollars each week because the Prime Minister hasn't done the two most important jobs he had this year—a national quarantine system and a speedy vaccine rollout.
Put simply, these failures are causing my communities to lose hope. I spoke in the chambers of commerce in Jindabyne, Tathra, Bega, Merimbula, Eden, Pambula, Cobargo and Tumut. Some business owners said they worried about what's going to hit them next, how they can adapt, how they can keep workers on, why JobKeeper hasn't been brought back and, most frustratingly, why the government won't lead. Get the vaccine rollout done, implement a timetable for reopening, and knuckle down and get on with your job! These are communities that have battled through years of drought. They stood united in the face of terrifying bushfires and, once the fires were out, they had to deal with the floods. These are communities that have supported each other. They have shopped local. They have fundraised to help those who are struggling. They have done everything they could to get through this pandemic in the hope that things will get better soon.
People living in the Snowies, on the far South Coast and across the electorate have survived on hope. But hope doesn't pay the bills, hope doesn't put food on the table and hope doesn't keep families in homes. Right now, our communities need more than hope. Last week I was contacted by a business owner in Bungendore named Tim. He said, 'Given the choice between politics or poking myself in the eye, I would gleefully start sharpening a stick!' I'm sure there are lots of people who would agree. The devastating impact the severe lockdown has had on regional New South Wales and in Tim's community compelled him to email many politicians—in particular, those opposite—explaining his struggle. Bungendore is usually bustling at this time of year. People from Sydney are heading to the snow while people from Canberra and surrounding districts chase the sun and a few extra degrees of warmth on the coast. Tim said: 'Bungendore is dead. Some shops have given up and closed until conditions improve. Cafes are running on a skeleton staff.' He opens his shop every day. He lights the fire and he cranks up the music. But every day it's the same thing: there are no people in town; there are no customers. Accessing support from government has been difficult, confusing and drawn out.
Unfortunately, Tim is not alone. Numerous business owners have contacted me wondering how they can keep their previously successful businesses afloat. Businesses in the Snowy Mountains typically make 80 per cent of their annual income during the winter months. Last year, restrictions meant the snowfields were only able to operate at 50 per cent capacity. This year, it is half of that. That's 25 per cent of what they would normally make. The July school holidays was a real gut-punch. One operator said that, in one week alone, he had just under $2 million in accommodation cancellations.
The flow-on effect across the community is enormous. When these lockdowns end and people can travel, the snow will be gone. Lockdowns and border closures may only last months, but in regional communities like mine livelihoods rely on income that they can earn right now. The money is gone, some businesses don't know how they will make it to next winter, and families don't know how they're going to pay their mortgages between now and the next snow season.
The cost of the Morrison government failing to do its job is enormous. This is the cost of a failed vaccine rollout and 27 leaks from hotel quarantine. Right now, businesses on the coast don't know how they'll survive to summer because potentially this will be the third summer where they don't have any traffic. Only 18 per cent of Eden-Monaro is vaccinated, and we have an older population. This vaccine is a race; it's a race to save our communities and it's a race to save our businesses. (Time expired)
Like, I suspect, many people in this place, over the last 18 months I have received countless emails from members of my electorate needing help—and the member for Eden-Monaro has just outlined some of the impacts on people in her community. Their fear, their sadness, their pain and helplessness have been palpable, and I'm very conscious of the fact that while my wonderful staff and I have been able to help some we have not been able to help all. There are many in Australia who have been, and will continue to be, separated from loved ones, or they didn't get to attend funerals or their livelihoods have been impacted. There are young people in their last years of schooling and starting uni whose experience has not been what any of us would want.
Nobody in this place wants this for anybody—our health experts, our bureaucrats or our senior political officers across the land. It's awful and it's devastating. To use an expression which is perhaps the strongest I can use in this place, it absolutely sucks! But I have to say that these decisions are not taken lightly by any government in Australia. Leaving aside the daily criticism which is thrown across this chamber and in political chambers across the country, I dare say that there would be a uniform acknowledgement that even when we don't agree with the decisions being made by a particular government we know that they're doing it in good faith for the interests of the whole. There is no grand conspiracy.
I have also received emails from people expressing their frustration, their anger, their suspicion and their concern. Some of the recent ones include people asking: 'Where have our freedoms gone? Where are our liberties?' They are from those who are anti vaccine passports and anti mandatory vaccination for aged-care workers. They are from those who are against lockdowns and those against border closures. It is true that some of these are petition based and based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. I'll leave those to one side. But there are many people with legitimate concerns. Indeed, I've spoken in this place a couple of times about my own concerns about the range of laws we are enacting quickly which take away rights. My fear is that they will become the new norm. My fear is that in dealing with this challenge we will lose something about ourselves as a nation.
But as I've also said before in this place, it would be the height of conceit to think that we have never faced challenges before and that we've never overcome them before. We often talk about this being unprecedented but, while it is unprecedented for anybody in this country born in the last 50 or 60 years, there are two periods in our nation's history from which we can draw parallels, from which we can learn and from which we can take hope and some comfort. The first of those is when the Spanish flu started ravaging the world in 1918. Australia remained free of the disease throughout 1918 but it did arrive in Melbourne in the early part of 1919. Within 10 days there were 50 to 100 cases.
It moved to New South Wales and soon the New South Wales government was ordering the wearing of masks; the closure of libraries, schools, churches and theatres; and restrictions on travel. Soon different states were doing different things, including—and I say this with a wry smile, looking at my colleague the member for Perth—the WA government, which took an uncompromising approach to its borders, shutting down the transcontinental railway that connected WA with the rest of the country. Other states shut their borders as well and, dare I say it, Queensland was one of them. There were battles between the states and there was criticism of the measures taken about what seemed like inconsistencies. Australia actually did quite well throughout the first wave, but then the second wave came and the states—some of the governments—decided they were just going to let it rip. Forty per cent of the Australian population got the disease and between 12,000 and 15,000 people died.
The other time period we can look at is World War II. When I get concerned about the laws that we have been putting in place in this country, I look at the ones we put in place in World War II—unbelievable! The National Security Act 1939 basically overrode the Constitution, and it overrode parliament as well. There were all sorts of laws passed about the restriction of weekday sporting events, blackouts and brownouts, issuing personal identity cards, regulations allowing strikers to be drafted into the Army—which I'm not opposed to!—and fixing of profit margins in industry. There were all sorts of laws imposed. What I would say is: in both cases, we bounced back as a nation. So, of course, we need to be vigilant about what governments are doing, but let's actually know that we can do this and we will come back.
Tonight I join my co-chair of the parliamentary friends of the Olympics, the member for Forde, in saying a big thank you to the Olympians. I do so with my wonderful Olympic tie and also with the boxing kangaroo—like the member for Forde, as a way to say thank you.
We know that the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympic Games was an Olympic Games like none before. Starting a year late is just the beginning. Every talented athlete who travelled to Tokyo had to endure preparations like no previous Olympic competitor. From the moment our flag bearers, Patty Mills and Cate Campbell, led our Olympic team out, history was being made. Patty Mills is the first Indigenous Australian to carry our flag at the opening ceremony, and Cate Campbell is, unbelievably, the first swimmer to do so.
What amazing moments we were privileged to witness—and there were so many—especially while we were in lockdown. These are some of my favourites. There was the Boomers securing the bronze medal, a historic first Olympic medal for our men's basketball team; Patty Mills, Joe Ingles and many others were incredible. There was Peter Bol being Australia's first athlete to reach an 800-metre final since 1968—what a wonderful story; he fled war-torn Sudan as a youngster, took up running in high school almost accidentally and finished one place away from the podium. I think he will do better in the future. I met Peter at Milpera State High School in my electorate back in 2013. He was an inspiration to young students then, and he has gone on to inspire a nation. There was Sam Kerr and the Matildas; they didn't get the medal, but their never-say-die attitude was worth gold—and beating the Poms was definitely a highlight for me! There was the swim team's incredible record-breaking medal haul in the pool—only surpassed by one of their own, with Emma McKeon's historic seven Olympic medals. No female Olympian has won more at a single Olympic Games.
Of course, I'm delighted to congratulate Moreton's own gold medallists, Ariarne Titmus and Zac Stubblety-Cook—well done!—and every single Olympian from Moreton who did us proud: Charlotte Caslick, in the Rugby Sevens; swimmers Isaac Cooper, Abbey Harkin and Elijah Winnington; Rhys Howden and Gabriella Palm, in water polo; Alice Ingley, in archery; and Felicity White, in rhythmic gymnastics. It's no surprise I love the Olympic Games. Most people know I love sport; a lawyer I used to work with, Duncan Murdoch, is always giving me a hard time about sport in Canberra! But I do find the spectacle of the Olympics all the more thrilling. The 2020 Olympic Games came just at the right time, when we were in the middle of a lockdown that, sadly, many people are still experiencing.
We've now got the Paralympic Games starting in a couple of weeks, and I will be cheering the athletes on just as enthusiastically. Then, if we look even further ahead, we will be in for a real treat when Brisbane gains Olympic city status in 2032. Having the Olympic Games in our own backyard will be nothing short of sensational. South-East Queensland is Australia's fastest-growing region. Those of us lucky enough to live in the region know what a friendly and culturally diverse community South-East Queensland is. It's a community passionate about sport. Sport is a great bonding experience in my community. We've got first-class sporting facilities and great transport. The Nissan Arena is the home of Netball Queensland; hopefully netball will be in the Olympics. It's also the home of the Queensland Firebirds and the Brisbane Bullets, for basketball, and it's right in the heart of Moreton. The QEII running tracks are right next door. The Queensland Tennis Centre, with the Pat Rafter Arena, in my electorate at Tennyson, will hopefully be used as well. These are world-class sporting facilities, and they are ready to host the 2032 Olympics. All our world-class sporting facilities in South-East Queensland will be ready to host the best of the world in 2032.
What I'm really excited about is the young kids now, who will have that goal in front of them, after these Olympics, to compete at the Olympics in their home city. What a great inspiration. Hosting the 2032 Olympics will be great for Australia, great for Brisbane and especially great for sport in Australia. Let's face it: anything that inspires Australians to get off the couch and get active, whether they end up competing at the Olympics or not, is good for our society.
To finish, I want to thank everyone who was involved in getting the 2020 Australian Olympic team to Tokyo to compete. I know it takes much more than athletes, although it definitely wouldn't be possible without their incredible commitment. I want to thank the Australian Olympic Committee and the Queensland government especially, particularly on their successful bid for the 2032 Olympic Games. The decision reflects the confidence of the International Olympic Committee that Australia can deliver the world's greatest sporting event for the third time—unbelievable for a country our size. Bring on 2032 to Brisbane. I can't wait, and I look forward to our athletes competing and inspiring us again.
It gives me great pleasure to speak about the continuous delivery of safer and better roads and infrastructure in my electorate of Chisholm. Nation-building extensive infrastructure projects have been a constant of Liberal-National governments over the last eight years and a hallmark of our vision of a connected Australia that really works. This has continued in the past two budgets through the global COVID-19 pandemic, creating more jobs, boosting aggregate demand and locking in our economic recovery.
From 2020-21, the Australian government will invest $110 billion over 10 years on infrastructure. This pipeline is already supporting 100,000 jobs on worksites across the country today. Projects announced since the start of the crisis and in the recent budget will see $14 billion in new and accelerated projects, and support a further 40,000 jobs. Victorians will be pleased to hear that we have allocated funding to kickstart key public transport projects like the Melbourne Airport rail link and fast rail between Melbourne and Geelong. We are also helping to upgrade highways and address pinch points through projects like the North East Link, south-east and northern Melbourne suburban roads, upgrades to the Monash Freeway and so much more.
Rebuilding our economy includes building more roads, rail and bridges, and in my electorate of Chisholm the story is no different. In Box Hill we are making improvements to the very busy intersection of Station Street and Harrow Street as well as providing better and more efficient street lighting on Whitehorse Road. In Mount Waverley, we are widening Scotchmans Creek Trail and reducing traffic speed to improve safety on Lawrence Road. In Burwood we are making upgrades to Gardiners Creek Trail. In Glen Waverley, we are making major pedestrian safety improvements around Kingsway and the Glen Waverley forecourt. In Blackburn, we are backing Whitehorse City Council with $2 million in funding to replace Main Street Bridge.
All of these local projects are important, but the work on Main Street Bridge is long overdue. A structural assessment found that the current bridge, which has been in place since at least 1945, is beyond maintenance and needs to be replaced. Earlier this year, I met with council representatives, who talked me through their plans, including proposed traffic diversions and efforts to protect native wildlife. So far, I have been impressed with their work, but I note the concerns of some locals that construction will cause significant disruption to their daily lives. There is certainly room for improvement, and I am committed to making sure residents' voices are heard in the months ahead. The bridge will be closed while the works are being completed, so I encourage locals to check alternative routes and plan their trip ahead of time to avoid delays.
Good, safe roads are vital for a community's social and economic wellbeing. I'm proud that the Morrison government is investing in our community and delivering for Blackburn residents and Chisholm as a whole. More than that, our infrastructure spending is creating good local jobs and securing our economic recovery. That's our plan, and it's working. A Liberal government will always ensure that Chisholm gets the roads and infrastructure upgrades it needs.
House adjourned at 20 : 00