[by video link] I am pleased to speak on this motion today. At the outset, Labor commends the 39,000 dedicated members of the Australian Defence Force, along with officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Federal Police and other agencies, for their service in Afghanistan, often in difficult and dangerous conditions. In particular, we honour the supreme sacrifice of 41 ADF personnel who lost their lives in the conflict during the past 20 years and we thank their families also for their ongoing sacrifice. We know it's a very difficult time for ADF members and veterans who served there. There are also those ADF personnel involved in evacuation operations now. Some of them have been involved in working at RAAF bases and Army bases around the country, including Amberley in my electorate. The situation in Afghanistan is fraught and fluid, and those people who are getting people out today and over the last few days, and who will be until the end of August, are doing a fantastic job—extraordinary—in very difficult conditions. We thank them for it.
But many veterans are horrified to see the Taliban sweeping across the country, seizing ground for which they fought, scaring communities and making individuals afraid—people who they sought to help when their service was being executed in Afghanistan on our behalf. Speaking to veterans in my community and from around the country over this past week, I know that many are frustrated, disappointed and heartbroken. Our veterans need to know that they're not alone and that Australia is proud of their service. That is why Labor has called on the government to provide extra support for veterans who may be questioning the value of their service and sacrifice.
I telephoned the Minister for Veterans' Affairs last Monday and told him that the government needed to be proactive in providing assistance for ADF personnel and veterans who may be struggling at this time. I am pleased—and I want to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—for the fact that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been contacting families of ADF members who were killed in Afghanistan, as well as veterans the department is aware of who may be affected by what's happening. I thank the government for that and I thank the minister personally for responding in such a way.
I encourage ADF members and veterans to look after their mates, to make use of the support available through counselling services like Open Arms and ex-service organisations like local RSL sub-branches, Mates4Mates, Wounded Heroes and Soldier On. I know many of these people are angry. Many feel that the government has abandoned them, that it has betrayed the local interpreters and staff—their brothers in arms they call them—who helped keep them safe in Afghanistan.
For many months Labor, along with veterans, retired senior ADF officers and former prime ministers, have been calling for urgent action from the government to honour our moral responsibility and obligation to those who risked everything to support our mission, even if that means processing their visa applications in third countries. I spoke in parliament on this issue back in June and urged the government to act immediately. My voice was just one of many, many voices urging the government to act. Around that time veterans like Glenn Kolomeitz, Jason Scanes and Heston Russell were warning the government that they only had a narrow window of opportunity get people out. From veterans like these there have been numerous reports of hundreds of interpreters being killed by the Taliban in recent years and months.
By July other nations, like the United States of America, were airlifting their Afghan supporters before the Taliban took control of most of the country by early August, but stubbornly the government refused to participate in evacuating our Afghan friends and participating in this mission offered to the government. The government dithered and delayed right up until Kabul itself fell, and so they were left scrambling to send our first evacuation flight on 16 August. Just to show how the government were caught short: they withdrew a motion on Afghanistan from the member for Fisher yesterday. It was due to be debated yesterday, but some of the contents of that motion could have caused embarrassment to the government and they had to withdraw the motion.
The reality is that for many months the government have been sitting on their hands, quibbling about individuals' eligibility for visas. Some have justified the delays by even suggesting the threat of a small number of individuals being linked to the Taliban. The comments by some spokespeople from the government are simply a disgrace. It is not good enough for the government to be treating people in this way. They were suggesting, for example, that some of these people would have shifted alliances and so would be a threat to our national security. No-one is suggesting that identity and security checks shouldn't be carried out in these circumstances. But, make no mistake, our global reputation is at stake here. It's not just a moral obligation. It's in our national interest to get these people out and honour our word. If we neglect these people now we'll only compromise our ability to recruit local staff in future conflicts and peacekeeping operations.
Thanks to the government's red tape and bureaucratic delays, we're now hearing reports of Afghans being overwhelmed by paperwork and process while their safety becomes increasingly precarious. There are Australians today desperate and anxious about their family in Afghanistan. They have been waiting months, and in some cases years, to get partner visas or family reunification visas issued and get their families out. Now there is the prospect of people not being able to get to Kabul airport and having to run the gauntlet of Taliban fighters there.
Like many MPs, my office has received numerous requests from citizens, defence personnel, veterans and Afghan Australians on behalf of family and friends stranded in the country. Many of them are heartfelt, desperate requests and heartbreaking stories. The government's attempts to provide guidance and support to a community that has faced an incredibly difficult time have been woefully inadequate. The shambolic way in which the government has treated Afghan security guards who protected our embassy in Kabul is a case in point. First, years after some had first sought asylum, the guards and their family members were shocked to receive mass-produced form letters from DFAT on Friday saying they had been rejected for the locally engaged employee visa scheme because they were not direct employees of our embassy—not that the Taliban would ever make that distinction. They were told they needed to apply for one of 3,000 general humanitarian places and were encouraged to find a migration agent. Then, late on Sunday, it appears the government backflipped and tried to spin that the guards had been approved for visas in another unspecified humanitarian category, but their lawyer has said that the guards themselves have not been told this and that there is still no clarity as to what specific visa category they're eligible for. Now we're hearing reports this morning that the guards and their families had been directed by DFAT to go to Kabul airport yesterday, only to have been turned away by ADF personnel because they didn't have visas in their passports. Talk about red tape. This is a disgrace. It's utterly chaotic. The government needs to fix this and fix this now. Peoples' lives are at stake.
One ADF member who has been assisting in my office tellingly said last week that he has a very different view of the government he serves and the government in general. He simply couldn't believe that they had no plan to get these people out and was disgusted by the way his former interpreter and his former interpreter's family were being treated. I can assure the House that, on the Labor side, we'll do everything we can to support people in their pleas to have their families evacuated to safety. We understand that every case has to be considered on its merits, including security considerations, but peoples' lives are at stake. The government has been wasting precious time, yet, instead of taking responsibility for its failures, all we get is excuse after excuse. The Prime Minister had to admit last week that events had overtaken us and that Australia won't be able to get out all the Afghans who helped us. He says he wishes things were different. I say to the Prime Minister: that's simply not good enough.
The reality is that, like in so many other areas, whether it be the vaccine rollout, the bushfire response, robodebt or veteran suicide, the government's done too little, too late. TheSydney Morning Herald political and international editor Peter Hartcher wrote on the weekend:
There is no crisis so big or so urgent that the Morrison government cannot find a rationalisation for avoiding it.
I agree with him. The government has been incompetent and out of touch. The Prime Minister and the government have been characterised by inertia. I say to the Prime Minister and the government: please do better for all of us and for our Afghan friends.
As I begin some comments on our drawdown in Afghanistan, I want to acknowledge all of the veterans serving in this place. We've got a few in the room and on the television screen—the member for Braddon, the member for Herbert, and the minister at the table, Stuart Robert, who is also an ADF veteran. In fact, we're approaching something like a platoon strength now between this House and the other, which is wonderful to see.
It's important to start with what is most important, and right now our absolute focus is on the evacuation of Australian citizens, permanent residents and visa holders, including those who have helped us in Afghanistan. That is absolutely our focus. As we speak, approximately 700 Australian personnel—ADF personnel, members from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Home Affairs, and others—are there, alongside our coalition forces, helping with those evacuations. In fact, just last night 650 people were evacuated, with 1,700 during the last week. They are in addition to more than 8½ thousand Afghan nationals who have been resettled in Australia since 2013. This includes 1,900 locally employed Afghan members and their families. This is a mission we have been on for quite some time, albeit that it is certainly ramping up at the moment. We've been committed to doing the right thing and we remain committed to doing the right thing for those who have stood by us. It's also been announced by the Prime Minister that there will be at least 3,000 further Afghans settled as part of our humanitarian program. That is a floor not a ceiling. I would like to commend at this time the relevant ministers in Defence, Home Affairs and Immigration as well as electorate offices right around the country. In my own, Lachlan Parish has been tireless in engaging with our constituents who have families who are also part of those we are seeking to evacuate. So that's the first thing we're focused on.
It is also, though, an opportunity to reflect on our involvement in Afghanistan. We do this just briefly, because we are focused on the evacuation operation and there will be further time for reflection subsequently. But it is worth noting that, back in 2001, our aim was to assist the US, NATO and the international community in Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and those responsible for the September 11 attacks. We achieved that and, in doing so, also eliminated and degraded al-Qaeda's opportunities and capacity to use Afghanistan as a staging area for additional mass terror attacks.
Next month will mark 20 years since the September 11 attacks. Al-Qaeda, using the safe haven provided by the Taliban, attacked our very way of life. I'm sure that everybody here and those listening can vividly remember where they were that day. It was a moment in time for this entire generation as we saw the vivid images of the World Trade Center towers exploding, burning and then collapsing. We saw people jumping from windows and falling to their death. We saw the smoke and the debris. We heard the sirens. I'm sure many of us have had the sombre experience of revisiting New York and seeing the very moving memorial there. I remember being a young platoon commander stationed up in Darwin. I hadn't yet been on my first military operation. I was dressed in my PT kit ready to head into the base and get the day started, and I saw some of those images. And, of course, as things unfolded that day, all of us started to recognise and realise that our way of life had been deeply impacted and would remain touched by this event, as it has for the past 20 years. So, in 2001, we went into Afghanistan, along with allies, to root out those who had challenged our freedoms and to degrade the capacity for more attacks to be staged out of Afghanistan. Indeed, the ability to stage these attacks has been hampered, interrupted and curtailed on many occasions, and those mass casualty attacks have absolutely been prevented. This is testament to all those who have served in the various theatres, including Afghanistan.
We also saw, over the last 20 years, Australians alongside allies working hard to try and improve the status of those living in Afghanistan. We saw some great improvements in terms of education, particularly for young girls, and in terms of health care, power generation and much more. What we had been able to do for the last 20 years was to make a huge difference to a whole generation of those living in Afghanistan. Hope is never wasted. We've absolutely made a difference in those peoples' lives and, for anyone who may question whether our involvement has been worth it, in terms of protecting freedoms—both our own here in Australia and those of the people with whom we share this planet—and the hope that we give, that effort is absolutely never wasted.
Australia today is safer because of those who have served, and today we honour the sacrifice of the 41 Australians who died in Afghanistan. Along with everybody else in this House, we especially extend our condolences and ongoing heartfelt wishes to those families who, of course, continue to suffer those losses. We also acknowledge the role of the 39,000 Australian men and women of the Australian Defence Force who have served in Afghanistan as well as those Defence officials and civilians who have served in Afghanistan over 20 years in the cause of fighting terrorism, promoting freedom and seeking to support the people of Afghanistan.
War is a sobering reminder to us all that freedoms are hard won and easily lost. We see the Australian spirit, more than anything, having been channelled through all of those who have been involved in Afghanistan. I made comments in my first speech that I had come to this place seeking to simply do as much good as I can, and that was certainly what drove me to sign up at the ripe old age of 17 to the Australian Defence Force and to give, as I was discussing with the member for Braddon, the very best 20 years of my life across full-time and then part-time service. It's a thing that I know all veterans reflect on. It is absolutely a sacrifice. But I want to make some comments here on behalf of many veterans. I don't seek to comment on behalf of all veterans, because there are different sentiments, but the last thing I think we need in this place is to try and paint veterans as victims. I want to say on my own behalf that I'm extremely proud of the operations I participated in in my career, and I know my wife, also as a defence veteran, is extremely proud of what she has been able to achieve. I just want to reinforce, here in this House and for those listening: please don't feel sorry for our veterans. Whilst some of them absolutely need our help from time to time, they also bring back to society a range of skills, experiences and attitudes that are of massive value to our society, to our businesses, to our families, to our community groups and to our nation.
Today, not only do we honour the sacrifices of those who have served, those who have fought and those who have died in Afghanistan, but I say to all veterans and to all partners and families of veterans: thank you deeply for your service, for protecting the freedoms that we are all so very passionate about. With that, I commend this motion to the House.
I call the honourable member for Lingiari.
[by video link] Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's great to see you behind those petitions. I'm sorry I'm not close to you. But it is what it is. Can I acknowledge the previous speaker for his contribution and say to him and to all veterans: thank you for what you've done for this country and continue to do. I also want to acknowledge contributions made by others in this debate. It provides me with an opportunity to reinforce the statements of support we've just seen of our defence personnel who were engaged on our behalf for over 20 years in Afghanistan. Of course, I particularly want to express my sorrow at the loss of 41 brave Australians who gave their lives for us in Afghanistan. We should honour them, and will honour them, forever.
Over the last day or so, I've reflected on our decision to support the international effort in Afghanistan post 9/11. Of course, as others have said, it was the right thing to do, it was a mission we should have been involved in, and I'm glad we were. It is important that, despite the chaotic and depressing events evolving currently, we see that our contribution in Afghanistan has actually made a material difference and had a significant impact, despite what we now see. Because of the length of time I've been in the parliament, I've been involved in debates about war and Australians going overseas in uniform, but it's worth pointing out, I think, that we were distracted from our mission in Afghanistan by the Howard government's folly in supporting the Bush presidency's invasion of Iraq in 2003.
As I observed in a speech to this parliament in August 2006—and at this stage, of course, things were progressing:
Things may well be different in Afghanistan now had the commitment the Australian government had shown to putting troops in in the first place been retained and if we had pressured the United States government not to enter the folly of Iraq but to maintain the focus on Afghanistan, rooting out those terrorist elements working with al-Qaeda and others involved in the region.
There is a valid discussion to be had about whether the outcome in Afghanistan would be different had we not been diverted in our mission by misguided support, devoting our scarce resources in the quagmire of regime change in Iraq, based as it was on the lie of weapons of mass destruction. It's worth having that discussion, but not today.
We know that our defence personnel, whether it was in Afghanistan or Iraq, were required to go to war on our behalf, and we in this country need to fully comprehend what that means. When ADF personnel sign up, they are agreeing to fight for this country and possibly die for this country. So, when we reflect on Afghanistan, on the sacrifices made, we need to acknowledge that our ADF personnel were doing precisely as they were required to do as a result of decisions taken by governments, by us, by the politicians. But they made a huge difference. In October 2010 I said in this chamber, in relation to Afghanistan:
We are creating a situation where the ordinary Afghan citizen can be confident that the International Security Assistance Force and the Afghan national security forces are making headway. We know that the Taliban suppressed free speech. There are now 400 print media publications, 150 radio stations and 26 television stations in Afghanistan. In the past nine years we have seen more than two million girls enrolled in schools. We have seen basic health care being extended from 10 per cent to 85 per cent of the population.
Our sadness today is that these gains have now been undermined by the Taliban takeover.
We must feel for the Afghan community here in Australia, for all those wonderful people who took advantage of the gains which were made as a result of our presence to better themselves and get an education—particularly young women. But it points to our obligation to do all that is humanly possible now to get our Australian citizens and any visa holders out of Kabul as well as our Afghan friends who worked with us in a variety of roles, whether they were interpreters, security guards or the like. I cannot imagine the despair, the sorrow and the hurt being felt by so many Afghan Australians. I know that so many of our veterans are frustrated and concerned, even angry, at what they are seeing unfold.
I want to reinforce the message given yesterday in this chamber by the shadow minister for defence, the member for Gorton:
If you want to do more to support the veterans' community in this hour, get our friends out of Afghanistan now.
Australians know the sacrifices that have been made for them by their ADF members. We must do all that we possibly can to get this done. I want to again express my gratitude to and admiration for our ADF personnel and our veterans who are no longer in uniform but who have in the past given so much.
I had the privilege, as the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, of visiting the Middle East area of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on a number of occasions. I can personally testify to the professionalism, the dedication and the loyalty of so many Australians. I want to thank them for what they achieved and for their service to this country. We need to record our sincere appreciation, as the member for Gorton said yesterday:
… for the efforts and sacrifices of our defence personnel, our aid workers, our Federal Police and our embassy staff. Right now we need to help those who helped us. We need the government to focus on doing what it can …
Therefore, I really want to reinforce the message from the member for Blair in his speech about the obligation that this government has to make sure we get those people who helped us out of Afghanistan and to support those who need to leave that country because of the situation they find themselves in. I say to the Afghan community in Australia: we are with you in this. We are glad you are here. We want to see more of you.
I'm very proud of my job, in representing the good electorate of Braddon, but I'm also very proud of my service as a digger, and it's from that perspective, the digger's perspective, that I want to speak today. Having spoken to the digger veteran community that I have close contact with, I know they're frustrated with the way in which certain spheres of our media and our politics are turning the current operation into something that is beyond belief. The way this is being whipped up, when we still have boots on the ground, disgusts me, and I know it disgusts my fellow veterans.
I'm a former radio operator. The call sign 'Contact! Wait out' is an important one for us. When we hear that on a radio net, our concentration goes to what is happening. It means that a particular team has engaged the enemy. From that point on, only the commander on the ground or the supporting elements will talk on the radio net. That's for a very good reason. It's to allow the focus to be where it needs to be—that is, on the boots on the ground in the firefight. It's to allow the commander on the ground to have his head to manoeuvre his troops and to call for support when necessary. It's absolutely vital. It's life and death. As far as I'm concerned, the stage we're at at the moment is: 'Contact! Wait out.' We have boots on the ground.
When I talk about 'the ground', I don't mean just any old ground. This ground is the most dangerous on the planet. The dangers that those soldiers, air crew and former field personnel face is second to none. The threat is ever present with every step they take. As we close in towards the final stages of this mission, the threat increases commensurately. I encourage everybody in the place, the media and all those who are forming their opinions from the comfort of their lounge chairs to consider the ones on the ground, the ones in the firefight, the ones extracting valuable personnel from the most dangerous part of the earth.
On 11 September 2001, at 22.46 kilo, I was called into the operations room at 7th Signal Regiment, electronic warfare. Two aircraft had just hit a building in New York. The subsequent 2,996 deaths sent that operations room into turmoil. I would ask all those out there today who are considering the current position to cast their minds back to that time 20 years ago. I remember it very distinctly. I remember the looks on the faces of the diggers in that operating environment. I remember them with their cans on—their headphones on—listening to the traffic that was coming in. We didn't know whether it was World War III or whether it was an isolated incident. We were looking for intelligence everywhere to try to support the mission and tell our commanders where they were situationally, tactically—to do our job. I still remember the look in the eyes of those diggers, the state of confusion, disbelief and shock. But as those diggers maintained that look they immediately fell into their job, their mission. That is exactly what they were trained to do and that's what diggers do—they do their job.
The job that we have at the moment in Afghanistan, at Kabul, is one of the most important missions we've seen for some time. I can guarantee you that every single one of the soldiers involved in that operation is not thinking of politics. I can guarantee you that they're not thinking of the next headline in the paper. I can guarantee you that they're not thinking about social media, in relation to sensationalising the mission that they're on. They're thinking about their mission: what they have to do, keeping their mates on their left and their right alive and protecting the life of the asset that they're exfiltrating—protecting the people that they're charged with protecting. That's what their job is. And I'll tell you what, Mr Speaker: the families of those soldiers involved don't think about politics either. They don't think about headlines. They don't think about social media. They think about their loved ones.
When I hear the term '41 brave Australian soldiers', it has a different connotation for me. I see each and every one of them. I see them as a fellow brother. I see their families. I see their wives. I see their kids, who will never see their fathers again. I see mothers. I see fathers. I see human life. So, to me, it has a very different connotation.
It's also time for our nation to reflect on the sacrifice that our defence families make in supporting their loved ones. They didn't sign up for this; they never raised their hand, but they're along for the ride anyway and they bear a lot of the burden that our defence personnel incur during their service. Often, when the discharge happens and that particular digger gets out, the families are the ones who suffer. So today I think it behoves us all to think of the loved ones—the families, the kids, the mothers, the fathers—because, in some cases, all those loved ones have is a flag. I've been on the wrong side of delivering that to a particular mother, and it'll never leave me—the look in her eyes when we gave her that flag to replace her son. I know that the tears that fell on her flag were real, and I know that she would treasure that flag because that is the only connection that she has. Families do it tough, as well as our veterans.
When our veterans consider and contemplate, when they do get time to consider what they've done, what has occurred and what they've had to do as part of executing their mission, then that becomes confronting as well. Sometimes—particularly given the situation with the current exfiltration at Kabul in Afghanistan—veterans may become bewildered and disappointed: 'Why were we there? Why did we bother?' But, for us as a parliament and a country, I, as a bloke, want to talk to every single last veteran out there today and tell you very sincerely, very honestly, to raise your head high, because of the difference that you made in defending your country, in maintaining and carrying out your mission and in looking after your mates. You have protected a complete generation of Afghanis. You've given them hope. And that's what the Australian flag gives, when locals that we're protecting in-country look up and see that. They see a very special soldier—they see a digger. An Australian digger is renowned for being not only one of the most lethal, deadly soldiers on the planet but also, as lethal as they are, one who can turn around and pick a little kid out of a piece of razor wire, or take a lolly out of their basic pouch, or give a little child a drink or help it with its first day. That's what diggers are renowned for. They've got compassion. They've got the care. They've got a heart. So these conflicting qualities of lethality and care are, I think, very much something to be proud of. I, together with all my colleagues here and with the nation, want to assure all our veterans and all our veterans' families, and all those who have suffered and continue to suffer, that we're immensely proud of you. Lest we forget.
I join with the Prime Minister, the Labor leader, the deputy leaders, the defence and shadow defence ministers and all speakers so far in speaking about the situation in Afghanistan. I want to acknowledge all the speakers and, in particular, those who have served in that country.
I won't be going back into history and offering my judgements on our time there. This isn't a time for that. We all know why we went there; we all remember September 11. I want to pay tribute to all the Australians who worked or served in Afghanistan, whether that was with the ADF, the AFP, other agencies, diplomatic corps, NGOs or in any other organisation or capacity that was there in that country to do good. And I want to pay tribute to their families.
To the families of the 41 fallen: I send my love to you. It was right of the defence minister to read out a roll call yesterday of the 41. There's just one thing to follow-up—I know mistakes happen: it's Robbie, not Richard, Poate. I acknowledge that it has now been fixed in Hansard, but he should give Hugh and Jenny Poate a quick call to see how they're travelling.
To the families of those who fell when their loved ones returned home: I send my love to you as well. To those struggling today I send my solidarity. The feelings of pain will pass, but please, please reach out to a mate. Talk to your loved ones. Open Arms is there and ex-service organisations are there. Hold your head up high and know that we made a difference over there—those who were there doing good.
I pay tribute to all those working to evacuate Australians and those Afghans who we're rescuing right now—those ADF members, those aviators and those soldiers. I pay tribute to them—godspeed to you all. And to the Afghan people enduring this upheaval and to the Australian Afghan community in distress I say that we're here with you. I want to assure Australians that we're getting Aussies out of Kabul. Efforts are underway, belatedly, to rescue some former interpreters and embassy staff, and also families, orphan girls and women, including those who have been human rights advocates, journalists and lawmakers. It's difficult work, but it is happening. It's dangerous work, but it is happening.
I worked in Afghanistan a few times—not in ADF uniform, but in security roles as a contracted adviser to provide security. I worked in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan and in Kabul. I worked with Afghan elders and I worked with the UN mission, NGOs and the coalition forces. So I think I can be most helpful in giving Australians an idea of part of the current situation in relation to the evacuation of loyal Afghan staff who served Australia.
On 28 May, the Australian embassy in Kabul was closed. Over two months later the embassy was sanitised by Australian embassy staff—and other agencies, obviously. Two weeks later, Kabul fell to the Taliban. The Australian government had a duty of care to its former staff. They were about to be plunged into immense risk and there was time to be able to extend that duty of care. Why did the Australian government not brief the embassy contractors? It could have enabled them time to get themselves and their families to safety—the paperwork done and the evacuations conducted in safety, rather than this belated rush of evacuation that we're seeing now. That is a question for the federal government to answer.
Let me provide some context of the embassy staff—contracted security guards, for example. They're on the bottom of the pack, the most poorly paid. I note that some commentators are doing the work of the government by suggesting that these guards got hundreds of dollars a day and therefore should just have accepted the risk of the danger that would befall them when the Taliban took Afghanistan. But this is untrue. They weren't on hundreds of US dollars a day. They're the ones who were on the front lines, like our ADF soldiers were, checking vehicles and people for bombs. We know that some of them took bullets in defence of Australia. They've been subject to harassing fire while doing their job. They stopped suicide bombers. They have taken the hit and they've been visible to the public, including the Taliban, so they're obviously now in great danger. When all the prime ministers—the current one, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, John Howard—visited Kabul, it was the ADF personnel and these people that kept our prime ministers safe.
We want to have a foreign presence and influence in the world, so we need to have a physical presence, and that requires security. From my observations on the ground in Kandahar and Kabul over the years and from talking to Australians who have worked for these organisations, I understand that some of the security companies have been actively engaged in supporting these staff, and that is good. They are mostly ex-military people; they know those guards well. They often said the guards believe in Australia, but they've been screwed over on this occasion. The situation in Kabul, as difficult as it has been, has seen these guards learn a bit of the Aussie Anzac spirit. That is what veterans who have worked for the companies say.
Now, how are they treated? After Kabul fell, they received a letter saying, 'Sorry, you're not getting a visa.' Then, 24 hours later, they were told, 'You are getting a visa,' and they were told to go to the airport. Then they went to the airport with their families, but they weren't allowed through. So my question to the Prime Minister and to the government is: what the hell is going on here? Confusion reigns as tens of thousands of Taliban fighters own the city of Kabul, placing our ADF personnel in danger. The Minister for Home Affairs says that the government moved quickly to get the embassy staff visas. No—quickly would have been June; quickly would have been July or even early August. To honour those Afghans who protected Australians, this must be said. The government were much too slow and neglected their responsibilities and, as a result, they will also have made us less safe the next time we deploy to a country and want to work with the local population.
I want to acknowledge the dedicated work of all the advocates out there, including the veterans who are trying to get their interpreters to safety. I want to acknowledge the work of Kay and Kerry Danes, and Patrick Ryan and the GAP legal team for all their tireless work in supporting the Australian embassy staff. They've been at it for so long and continue, through sleepless nights, to provide support to the people who obviously, because of the service they provided Australia—at the Australian embassy and the DFAT accommodation compounds—are known and are in danger, and they are trying to protect their loved ones. The world is watching; the veterans community is watching. Let it be known that we are a good people and we don't abandon our mates.
I want to join with the Labor leader, as a member of the alternative executive, to call on the Taliban to live up to their commitments. More broadly, there needs to be an in-depth conversation in our nation about Australia's place in the world and the challenges we face in the future, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. We do great work in the world, and that reputation has taken a hit. I urge the ministers to coordinate our response to keep our people safe, get all the Australians out that want to go and as many loyal Afghans as possible.
[by video link] I want to start by acknowledging everyone who's contributed to this debate yesterday and today, but, more so, I want to acknowledge the many soldiers and their families who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service of this nation in Afghanistan, who, no doubt, have been doing it extremely tough today and through these past few weeks. I reach out to and acknowledge all the veterans and communities around the country, the many that have been wounded, injured or become ill from their service, and those many who have succumbed to their war within after their service in Afghanistan. And I acknowledge their families, who, rightly so, will be doing it tough.
Afghanistan has been a complex place for such a long time. I, myself, served there in 2009. I was injured there by an improvised explosive device that detonated. I was 21. It blew my eardrum. I still can't hear out of my ear. It was a traumatic injury, and I was then diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. It was a really rough time. That's my story, but there are thousands and thousands more like it. What we're seeing now in Afghanistan is heart-breaking. It does feel like a kick in the guts to see places where we have fought, where we've spilt blood, where we've had soldiers wounded, killed and taken by the Taliban. To then see the Taliban sitting in the presidential palace brings up a lot of mixed feelings. I want to say to the veteran community, the people that have been there and their families: reach out to each other and talk to your mates.
Your service is honourable. What we did there was fantastic and it helped a nation. We built schools for girls and wells for communities. We fought the Taliban. We fought bad people in a nation so we didn't have to fight them here. We kept these people on the run and hiding in the mountains. We saved locals and children from standing on IEDs and becoming injured or dying. It's a very tough space that we find ourselves in right now. But I want to echo what the member for Braddon said. We have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We have Australian soldiers in Kabul, who are doing this nation's work and who are trying to help as many people as they can, and they're doing such a great job. We don't want to be putting them in danger. We don't want to be exposing them to any more undue risk, and I think that the communication, whether it's in this place or throughout the media, needs to remember that. Because whilst we take our political pot shots at each other we have the potential to put our people in more risk, and we should not be doing that. We have many soldiers from 1st Battalion, based here in Townsville, on the ground right now. These are friends of mine, people who come to my house for a barbecue, people who I call mates, people who I've served with and, now, people who I represent in federal parliament. Their communication back to me from on the ground is that they don't like seeing the headlines saying that Australian soldiers should be doing more. They're doing everything they can to help the people of Afghanistan and to help people get out of harm's way.
There are many veterans who have asked or may be asking themselves: was it worth it? We've seen this on TV or in the papers: journalists wanting to ask people, 'Do you think it was worth it?' The answer is yes. I'll read something that Curtis McGrath said in the newspaper. He was asked if it was worth it. Curtis McGrath lost both of his legs in Afghanistan, and he is now a gold medallist Paralympian. He said:
I thought of the man that exposed himself to the Taliban to tell us where the insurgents had buried IEDs. With insurgents watching on, he walked from his village and to our checkpoint to help us. It was his courage that allowed us to remove a series of IEDs. And I am sure by doing that we saved lives. So I am not ashamed. I know what we achieved personally. I saw the terrors of insurgency on the ground. Witnessed first-hand the cruelty of the Taliban. We went there and tried to make it a better place. We had to.
As for the IED that took Curtis's legs, he said:
It could have been a school bus that drove over it if I hadn't stepped on it.
So I wouldn't change a thing. And that is why I can justify my sacrifice. Regardless of what happens now, I know I made a difference.
Still my thoughts are with both the people of Afghanistan and the veterans who may be struggling to deal with what has happened.
That is from Curtis McGrath, a great Australian, who lost both of his legs. He states that his contribution to Afghanistan was important and he wouldn't change a thing.
I can't imagine what he must go through every day, putting on his prosthetic legs to get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom or to walk down the road. To do all the things that he used to do before must now be so much more challenging. The many soldiers, veterans, who have been wounded from an IED or in Afghanistan have to change their lives and their family element. There are many people who have had severe mental health issues post their service. These are all challenges that our people face on a day-to-day basis. But their service in Afghanistan was remarkable. We went to a place and we did great work. We helped so many people. Just like Curtis said: 'We went there to do the right thing.' And the people there now are there to do the right thing.
I know we that will do everything we can to bring more people back to Australia. Those Afghans who helped us through times of great despair, who fought alongside us and who interpreted for us, now fight against terror. I truly believe that we as a parliament should work together to ensure that we are helping not just the Afghans and their families coming to Australia but also the many veterans who are sitting back watching us squabble. We shouldn't be doing that. There is a time when we will be reporting on and debating what's happening or what's happened in Afghanistan, but it's not the time now. We have troops on the ground. Don't put them at risk. Let's look after them. Look after your mates and, if you're doing it tough, reach out to each other. Thanks so much. God bless.
It's clearly been heartbreaking to watch the distressing scenes coming out of Afghanistan, not only for the Afghan people but also for the international community as a whole. We must reflect on what this means for Australians who are stranded in Afghanistan; Australians who have relatives in their homeland; Afghans who have worked with the Australian and allied military personnel during the conflict; the officials who have been caught up through, for example, humanitarian agencies; and, most of all, our veterans, who are no doubt feeling the absolute brutal cost of this 20-year-long mission.
While this is not how we envisaged that the conflict would end, we must now come to terms with the reality and the urgency of the humanitarian disaster now unfolding. Although many veterans will, no doubt, be questioning whether the Afghan war was worth it, on behalf of our community and certainly I think on behalf of all Australians, I want to reaffirm our gratitude for the service that they have given for their country in a fight against terrorism to secure freedom and a better future for Afghans and particularly for women and girls. This was not for nothing. Clearly this conflict will raise many emotions within the community, but we must also think of the gains that have been made through the efforts of our participation in the Afghan conflict, particularly through education, health, human rights, trade and, to an extent, the opening up of diplomatic connections throughout the region.
While there is no doubt that miscalculations and misgivings were made throughout this mission, as I gather would occur in any tense situation of conflict, let us recall the reason why the allied intervention occurred in Afghanistan in the first place: it was a fight against terrorism, terrorism espoused by extremist groups, including al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the tragic September 11 attack and who colluded with the Taliban to attack our very way of life. To our veterans, our service men and women, we are indeed in your debt for your service. As a nation we are safer today from the threat of terrorism because of your courage and your sacrifice.
While these have been certainly testing times with the situation in Kabul and across Afghanistan rapidly evolving our priority must be to ensure the safety and orderly departure of Australian citizens, permanent residents, visa holders and those in Afghanistan who have supported Australia and our allies on the ground. This is not just a moral obligation; it's certainly a matter of some considerable importance when it comes to our national security. I believe the government could have, and should have, done more as soon as it had decided to announce its intention to leave Afghanistan nearly three months ago.
I know many members have been contacted by constituents concerned about the plight of relatives in Afghanistan, but I would like to refer to one. I was recently contacted by a constituent expressing grave concern with regard to his father and brother in Afghanistan due to the support that they had provided to allied forces throughout the conflict. The situation is so grave that I'm informed a formal directive has been issued by the Taliban ordering the death of these men and their families. While they have documentation that substantiates the nature of their work with allied forces, they don't have a visa. The consequence is that they cannot enter the airport because they don't have their visas. They risk being caught by the Taliban with the incriminating documents which define the work they were doing with allied forces throughout the conflict. This is but one example of the real and pressing dangers facing many individuals in Afghanistan who have supported our mission, and we must be prepared to take further action to secure the safety of these people and these families.
We must not forget the humanitarian obligations to the Afghan people, with the United Nations estimating 250,000 internally displaced Afghan people since May of this year. Just in my electorate alone, I've received over 200 emails from concerned family members about the current plight of Afghanistan. Constituents from a vast range of backgrounds, professions and ages are coming to advocate for the protection of the human rights, the security and the dignity of all Afghans, and this is something occurring within our communities that we should be proud of. We are talking about the women, the children, the human rights activists and the many members of the various minority groups in Afghanistan. While we welcome the government's announcement of 3,000 places for Afghan resettlement in the year 2021-22, more can be done to resettle Afghans throughout our humanitarian program.
The sheer desperation of Afghan people has been captured in a very moving way in the images that we have seen over the past week. There was the image of the teenage boy gripping to the undercarriage of a moving aircraft and tragically falling from the plane after take-off and the image of a parent offering up their child to a military officer over a fence at Kabul airport. You've got to wonder, Deputy Speaker, what was going through the mind of that boy or that parent taking such drastic action. That can only be described as sheer desperation and fear of what is to come under the Taliban leadership.
With that said, we must take an active role as part of the international community to secure the safety of Afghanistan and its people and to restore hope of a better life for those who suffered and endured so long under the harsh leadership of the Taliban. We owe it to the Australian Afghan community and to our veterans to ensure that this hope becomes a reality.
Last Monday, like many Australians, I woke to the news that Kabul had fallen to the Taliban. Whilst many of us weren't shocked that Kabul had fallen, most of us were surprised at the speed at which the Taliban had advanced across the country and the speed at which they took control of the capital, without firing a shot, in essence. After 20 years of conflict, the war in Afghanistan was over. No matter how you spin it, the Taliban had won.
Like the many invading forces that had come before them, like the Russians and the Brits, the Western forces were defeated in what has become known as the graveyard of empires. The West—the US, NATO, Australia and New Zealand, among many other countries—and their forces, with all of their modern military might, having spent billions and billions of dollars, had lost to a much less resourced and capable fighting force. Western forces were not vanquished by some single major military loss but through a war of attrition and of patience. The Taliban simply waited us out. They waited until the resolve of the West had declined to such a point that the West and indeed the Afghan National Army had simply lost the political will to fight. That is the sad reality. But, like in most wars, it was the civilian population which bore the brunt of this war's pain and suffering. Whilst we don't have any true exact figures, it's reported that around 40,000 civilian lives were lost and countless others were wounded.
This was a war which cost the lives of 41 Australian service personnel. Many more were wounded physically, emotionally and mentally. We must never, ever forget their sacrifice and that of their families, and the sacrifices their comrades and their families continue to make in our name in many parts of the world, both here and abroad. As a nation, we throw our collective arms around our diggers and our ADF personnel and their families. We are proud of you. We thank you for your service.
I've never served in the ADF, but over the past five years in this job I've worked closely with many that have and still do. I've been to Afghanistan twice, most recently almost two years ago to the day. In my dealings with members of the ADF, particularly those on deployment in Afghanistan and in Iraq, they had an immense pride in the work that they were doing. They felt that they were making a difference, not just in the lives of the Afghan soldiers that they were training over the past eight years or so but in the lives of all the civilians that they touched on deployment.
We must never fall into the trap of joining the popular commentators' chorus in extolling that the cost did not justify the end. That cost is measured in both blood and billions of dollars, but to suggest that the end did not justify the means does not accurately reflect the impact Australians had on the local Afghan population. I can just hear certain segments of the media yelling: 'What about the war crimes?' How can you talk of the good works that were done when the IGADF report held that there was credible evidence of the existence of war crimes having been committed by Australian special forces whilst on deployment in Afghanistan?' We must never join in that chorus, because it belittles the work of the 39,000 ADF members who deployed to Afghanistan and the outstanding contributions that they made in combat, in reconstruction and in training the ANA. In any event, the allegations made against a very small number of special forces operators are just that: they are allegations. Just like every other Australian, they deserve the right to the presumption of innocence.
Like many Australians, my heart is breaking for the civilian population of Afghanistan, who are now left to the mercy of the Taliban. We've seen over the past week the spin doctors of the Taliban trying to convince the world that the Taliban 2.0 is not like the murderous regime of the late nineties and early-2000s. They have changed, we've been assured. Well, time will tell. But, if recent reports of the murder and torture of those connected with the West can be trusted, I fear for those left behind, especially the women, children, minorities and civil servants. Even artists are apparently the subject of brutal reprisals. Much of the world's media is confined to Kabul airport, not able to venture out beyond the confines of its high concrete walls. I've received reports that the Taliban 2.0 are acting just like the Taliban of old in provincial Afghanistan, away from the glare of the world's media. I fear that that will be repeated and in fact amplified when the last door of the last mercy flight leaves Hamid Karzai International Airport.
It would be remiss of me not to recognise our hardworking diplomatic corps in Afghanistan over the past 20 years in particular. They've worked in extremely difficult conditions, under constant threat of attack. Away from friends and family for months on end, just like our ADF personnel, they went at the request of their government to further the interests of the Australian people. I want to acknowledge their professionalism under the leadership of Geoff Tooth, who was the ambassador I stayed with in Kabul just two years ago. I also want to acknowledge the work of the most recent Australian ambassador, Paul Wojciechowski, and his team, who, in what now seems like a stroke of genius, withdrew from Kabul in May of this year, enabling them to concentrate on getting Australians out of Afghanistan without having to deal with the immediacy of having to leave their post in emergency conditions, as many other countries' diplomats have had to do.
There are so many learnings to be gleaned from our military involvement in Afghanistan, not just for us but for the entire West. Now is not the time for reprisals or finger-pointing between us and any other nation. Now is the time to get as many people out of Afghanistan that want to and are able to leave as possible. We have all seen those harrowing pictures, and we are seeing them today, of people and of families queuing up, of babies being lifted over razor wire. Now is not the time for reprisals; now is the time for pulling together as a nation and the West working together to get as many souls out of Afghanistan as possible.
But make no mistake: difficult discussions should be had between friends about what went wrong. As a sovereign nation, we should not repeat the mistakes that have been made in Afghanistan. A friend is not someone who just blindly does whatever is asked of them. A true friend will ask questions and pressure test ideas, and a true friend will listen to those questions and concerns, and a true friend will respect the other for having asked them.
About once a decade this parliament debates questions around Australia's international engagement. We did so in 1991, in 2002, in 2010 and now again in 2021. Such debates are important not only for what they say about a particular international engagement but also for what they say about when Australia makes that decision of committing troops to an international engagement. This is symbolic of the positioning of the Australian War Memorial, designed to be along the parliamentary axis so when considering whether or not to send troops to war the parliamentarians would look out and see the cost of war embodied in the War Memorial. It has been argued by some that parliamentary approval should be required before committing troops. I believe that at least we should have a parliamentary debate.
I participated in such a parliamentary debate on 26 October 2010, discussing Australia's continued engagement in Afghanistan. In doing so, I noted that, when Bob Hawke spoke to parliament about committing Australian troops to Iraq, he reminded this House of Neville Chamberlain's words of 1938: 'Why should we be concerned with a faraway country of which we know little?' As Hawke reminded the parliament, the answer to Chamberlain's words came only too swiftly, and, as Hawke said, the great lesson of the 20th century was that 'peace is bought at too high a price if that price is the appeasement of aggression'. I'm not an isolationist, but just because it is right to intervene in some circumstances it doesn't follow that all international engagements are justified. We stayed in Vietnam for too long. We didn't get into Rwanda quickly enough. Australia's engagements in the Solomons and East Timor are engagements of which we should be proud. Every engagement needs to be measured based on the costs and benefits going forward. We can't be blinded by past costs; we have to make a decision anew and sometimes that will involve saying that we were wrong in the past.
There are no clear lessons from the past, and I disagree with those who point to the lessons of the British and the Russians in Afghanistan and say, 'See, there you go: that answers it.' We also need to make sure we're not blinded by technology. I was looking over my own 2010 remarks and I noticed I referred to the ability of us to engage 'with rocket systems that are accurate to within a metre'. That might have been so, but it didn't ensure that we built up the capacity of the Afghan military forces.
I argued back in 2010 that there were four reasons why we should have stayed in Afghanistan, and I want to submit my own reasoning back then to a little scrutiny now. I said that we should do so because of our alliance commitments, and I think that holds. I said we should do so because of international law, pointing to UN Security Council Resolution 1386. I think that is important. I argued that we should do so because it would reduce the threat of terrorism, pointing out that, as Anthony Bubalo and Michael Fullilove have written, Afghanistan helped form the mind of Noordin Top, a terrorist who masterminded a string of bombings directed towards Australians in Indonesia. And it is true that the West's 20-year engagement in Afghanistan did stop that country from becoming the breeding ground of terrorists that it had been beforehand.
But I think I was wrong to argue that we could make an ongoing difference to the humanitarian position of the Afghan people. We did so temporarily: millions of Afghans got an education they would not otherwise have gotten, particularly millions of girls. In 2010 there were 68 women in the parliament of Afghanistan—unthinkable under the Taliban and probably now unthinkable in the future. But we failed to do what David Kilcullen has referred to as 'armed social work'—a counterinsurgency which won the hearts and minds, and transformed the country.
I believe that Australia would be well served if we engaged in the kind of deep reflection that many in Britain have called for in urging a full inquiry into Britain's involvement in Afghanistan. It hasn't just been Labour members who have criticised the British involvement in Afghanistan but it has included Conservatives, such as Tom Tugendhat and the former British Prime Minister, Theresa May—who dubbed Britain's involvement as being a 'major setback' in their foreign policy and asked, rhetorically, 'Where is global Britain on the streets of Kabul?' We need to engage in this sort of analysis, not only because of what it will say about the future for Afghanistan but also for how it will inform this House's decision to send Australian troops to war in the future. Only by reflecting on the lessons of Afghanistan can Australia ensure that when the next question comes upon us we don't have a sudden rush of blood to the head—that we have clear eyed principles to guide our decision.
As with other speakers, I want to emphasise that those who have served Australia should be proud of their involvement in this conflict. I spoke in parliament about Private Robert Poate, a graduate of Canberra Grammar School, described by the principal of that school as, 'an open and purposeful young man, and an all-rounder in the academic, sporting and co-curricular life of the school'. His service in Afghanistan and his death as one of 41 Australians to have died in Afghanistan is a reminder of the tragic costs that we ask young men and women to take on when they don the Australian uniform. Pericles put it best 2,500 years ago when he said:
… for the Athens that I have celebrated is only what the heroism of these and their like have made her, …
… … …
… none of these allowed either wealth with its prospect of future enjoyment to unnerve his spirit, or poverty with its hope of a day of freedom and riches to tempt him to shrink from danger.
He said:
So died these men as became Athenians. You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field, though you may pray that it may have a happier issue.
The issues which we are discussing today matter to Australia but, of course, they matter most to those in Afghanistan—to the 33 million men, women and children in Afghanistan. And now the question is: what can we do to help?
Labor has called for more humanitarian places to be made available, noting the decisions of Prime Minister Hawke to allow 42,000 Chinese nationals to stay in Australia after the Tiananmen Square massacre and Prime Minister Abbott's decision to take in 12,000 refugees from Syria and Iraq. Australia didn't fill our quota of humanitarian places last year. The government cut the humanitarian intake in the last budget, in contradiction to the policy they took to the previous election. Humanitarian places are being squeezed down at a time in which Australia should be more generous. The shadow home affairs minister, Senator Kristina Kenneally, has written to the government, proposing a program being established between the UNHCR and international partners to support those who don't fit within Australia's humanitarian program. She has asked for an urgent briefing to refugee legal organisations and for funding to support these legal organisations and their work. I have just come from a Zoom hook-up with members of the Afghan Hazara community here in Canberra. They have been speaking to their friends and family members in Afghanistan, and they have apprised me of the desperate situation for so many of those people: members of the special forces, those in the air force and those who have helped Australian work on the ground. I recognise the work that they are doing, and I say to those in the Australian Afghan community: we will do everything we can to help you.
Labor believes that those who have come from Afghanistan who have only temporary visa status should be granted permanency. We would never send back a Hazara refugee to Afghanistan, so why not give them permanent residency and the path to citizenship that they so deserve? I spoke yesterday in the House about Zaki Haidari, but he's just one of the many temporary visa holders who, if granted the opportunity, would make great Australian citizens.
[by video link] I remember the feeling of horror and sadness. I'd just finished dinner with friends, washed up and turned on the television, hoping to catch The West Wing, but instead a different drama in America was on my television screen. The north tower of the World Trade Center, which I'd visited only nine months earlier, had been pierced by a hijacked passenger plane. Footage of a burning World Trade Center tower was on my television screen, and minutes later I watched in horror as a second plane was driven into the south tower.
When the World Trade Center opened it was the world's tallest building. A symbol of American confidence and the triumph of Western values and global free trade was now in rubble and ruins. I stayed up and saw both towers collapse. A plane was flown into the Pentagon, and another, heroically diverted by passengers who took on the hijackers, crashed into a field. I sent messages to friends in New York and Washington to see if they were safe. I kept watching until about 4.30 in the morning. As Tony Blair has written:
We forget this now, but the world was spinning on its axis. We feared further attacks, possibly worse.
Nearly 3,000 people, including 10 Australians, died that day. Prime Minister Howard was in the United States. He invoked the ANZUS Treaty and Australia stood shoulder to shoulder with America.
The terrorist group al-Qaeda and their leader Osama bin Laden eventually admitted responsibility for the attacks. al-Qaeda had been given support and a safe haven by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Australia was part of the international coalition which helped liberate Afghanistan in 2001. We went in to stop Afghanistan being a haven for terrorist attacks on the West. We also liberated the Afghan people from a regime that oppressed women and girls. Since 2001, more than 39,000 members of the Australian Defence Force have served in Afghanistan, and 41 made the supreme sacrifice.
Today, I want to speak about Trooper Jason Brown from my electorate. Jason Brown, or Browny, was five when he decided he wanted to be a soldier. His dad, Graham, was a Vietnam vet, and he remembers playing drills with Jason in their backyard at Westleigh. Service runs in the family. Jason's sister is a police officer. Jason went to Oakhill College, graduating in 1999. His classmates, including the comedian Daniel Ilic, remembered him as something of a prankster. He played 14 seasons for the Penno Stags rugby league club, where he played centre and wing. He played five grand finals, winning two of them. His coach Ross Ruhan said he never saw him take a backwards step, and he played with a steely determination, uncompromising yet with a spirit of fairness and respect for the opposition. Former club president Darryl Beitsch remembers he gave a hundred per cent on the field. At footy, his coaches remember him as being a well-liked, quiet, polite and respectful boy, and his mates recalled his sense of humour. He was a South Sydney Rabbitohs fan. He loved a cold Coopers pale ale on a hot day. His mum remembered that he was always smiling like the sun.
Jason only ever wanted to be a soldier. His work experience in Year 10 was with the Army. Before he joined the Army his dad asked what corps he wanted to join, and when he said infantry his dad said he should try for one of the corps where he could get a trade so when he came out of the Army he'd have something to turn back to. But Jason told him: 'I don't intend on coming out of the Army. I'm in for good.'
Jason signed up to the Army as soon as he finished school. Like his dad, he became an infantryman. Like his dad, he joined the 1st Battalion and did three tours of East Timor in 2001, 2003 and 2006. After his second tour of Timor, he decided to join special forces. In 2004, Jason passed the initial entry course and was posted to the 4th Battalion, RAR (Commando). Over the next year, he was kept busy with courses to qualify as a commando. Jason was promoted to lance corporal during his final deployment to East Timor. In 2007, Jason passed the gruelling SAS selection course and was trained to fight on land and water and in the air.
Order! The debate must be interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
[by video link] This week, my constituents can drive to a local state-run vaccination centre to protect themselves from COVID-19. I and the Mayor of Hume, Joseph Haweil, joined to make representations to the Victorian government, which subsequently announced the establishment of Australia's largest drive-through mass vaccination centre at the former Ford site in Campbellfield.
We know that the road out of repeated lockdowns is vaccination. Unfortunately, there are some who have tried to blame communities in my electorate and culturally and linguistically diverse communities generally for being vaccine shy. The fact is that the majority of my constituents are very keen to do their bit to make themselves and their communities safer, but accessibility to vaccines has up to now been a real problem. Services in the north-western suburbs have been limited and difficult to navigate. GPs play an important role in providing trusted information about vaccines, but there are currently fewer than 10 GPs in Hume that can administer both Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines.
We know that, in an environment where misinformation can run rife, accessibility and availability are key to delivering on the momentum to get vaccinated. The new facility in Campbellfield will make a great difference, and I'm very pleased that the Victorian government has recognised that and responded accordingly. I also welcome Premier Daniel Andrews's announcement today that some 500,000 appointments will be available to the very critical 16- to 39-year-old age group for vaccination.
Over the past week, I have spoken to Afghan families and individuals in Reid. They have told me their stories. They have spoken of the fear they have for loved ones in Afghanistan, those family members desperately trying to find a way out of Kabul. Their stories are of young female relatives, sisters, spouses and children. We know that there will be harder days ahead and harder scenes to witness. Sadly, we are at the start of a great humanitarian crisis, and Australia cannot shirk its responsibilities in this regard. After 20 years, we cannot turn our back on Afghan people. We must be generous. We owe it to those who worked alongside Australia to build a better Afghanistan.
I want to thank and acknowledge Minister Payne, Minister Andrews and Minister Hawke for their work, and I especially want to thank the ADF on the ground in Kabul, the diplomats and the immigration staff for their courage, their professionalism and their compassion. They are working under extreme circumstances and they are continuing to do everything they can to get as many people as possible out of Kabul. I also want to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of our ADF personnel. We will never forget the 41 Australians who lost their lives in service of our country. For our veterans, this is a very, very difficult time. The task ahead for all of us is to ensure we do all we can where we can.
[by video link] Two weeks ago, I stood in this place to report that 38 aviation workers in Tasmania had been stood down due to mainland lockdowns and cancelled flights. Today, I sadly report to the House that the number of aviation workers stood down at Hobart and Launceston airports is now more than 100 and not one of them is eligible for the government's aviation support package. An aviation support package that fails to support aviation workers is a sick joke to play on people.
Flights have dropped in Tasmania because of lockdowns on the mainland. Lockdowns have occurred because of the Prime Minister's failure to secure vaccines and create national quarantine. Tasmanian aviation workers and businesses like Par Avion are suffering as a direct result of the Prime Minister's failure. This is the Prime Minister's mess and he needs to fix it.
Swissport, whose employees conduct all ground operations in Tasmania, warns: 'We are likely to see many flights grounded in November, December, January and February.' Swissport fears its stood-down workers will find other jobs, and it takes at least six months to recruit, train and accredit new staff. Grounded flights will be a disaster for the recovery of Tasmania's struggling tourism sector. The Prime Minister must fix it and extend aviation support to all aviation workers, and do it today.
[by video link] I rise today to acknowledge the life of a great man, Bert Brownlie. He was a courageous World War II veteran and a valued member of the Northern Beaches community.
Bert moved from Glasgow to Australia at the age of one. He always considered himself a real Aussie. Inspired by the service of his father, George Brownlie, in World War I, Bert highly valued service to his country and has been praised for his own efforts on our behalf. He has also been praised for his respect for others who have served for Australia to keep us both free and alive.
Mr Brownlie first worked as a motor mechanic in Crows Nest before volunteering for the RAAF in 1943 at the age of 18. He was posted to Tocumwal, in New South Wales. He served as a flight mechanic, where his main responsibility was working on B-24 Liberators. After being discharged in 1946 Mr Brownlie continued to contribute through his service within the local community. Residing in Warriewood Valley, he was a valued member of Pittwater RSL and the wider community. Vale Bert Brownlie.
[by video link] Getting the details right or being on top of your brief is not a core strength of the Morrison-Joyce government. It's not something we see a lot of from the minister for education either. In the last sitting week he had to move amendments to his own bill because it was incorrect. And after weeks of pleading by families, educators and early education services, he's finally announced some support after Sydney has been in lockdown for over two months—two months of families paying the price for this minister's lack of attention.
Unfortunately, his lack of attention to early education and care continues. Yesterday, the minister was asked if he knew how many early educators were vaccinated. The minister's response:
No, I don't know that figure. I mean, I would hope that all of those child care workers would go and get vaccinated. You know, ring up, go and speak to your GP today.
There's a lot to unpack in this. The federal government has no idea how many educators there are or how many have been vaccinated, and it hectors them to go and get a vaccine. This is something early educators had been begging for since the rollout began. It's not like early educators haven't been trying to get vaccinated, Minister, but many of them have not had access until very recently.
I think we have all had enough of reading report after report about the ABC's failed complaints handling processes. Today the Australian newspaper's Sophie Elsworth revealed yet another highly questionable handling of a complaint. The complaint alleged a serious breach of confidence by reporter Louise Milligan that was investigated not by the ABC's allegedly independent audience and consumer affairs department but by Milligan's executive producer, Sally Neighbour. The same Louise Milligan has now cost Australian taxpayers and the ABC approximately $1 million in legal fees, costs and settlements this year alone through defamation matters brought by the minister for industry and the member for Bowman.
Unfortunately, I have also experienced the vagaries of the ABC's allegedly independent complaints system, with five complaints handled by three different people in two different departments and one complaint that may or may not have been handled by the managing director himself; his letter to me said he could not comment on the details of the outcome of my complaint about ABC Radio's Jonathan Green over a series of extremely rude, disparaging and sexist tweets targeting the Prime Minister's wife, Mrs Jenny Morrison. I would be fascinated to learn of the outcomes of complaints by former senator Cory Bernardi and former Labor Treasurer John Dawkins, who were the subject of serious allegations in Annabel Crabb's recent TV show Ms Represented which were not put to them before they were broadcast so that they could utterly refute the allegations made.
I welcome the statements by those opposite that the ABC should have independent complaints handling. Let's work together to make this happen.
I rise to acknowledge the life of a wonderful Territorian, Beverley Joan Hale, known as Bev, one half of the amazing duo, Bev and Bob Hale. Bev is the mum of the former member for Solomon, Damian Hale, so I know that honourable members will join me in sending the condolences of this House to the Hale family. Damian was so proud to serve in this place, and his mum, Bev, was rightly so proud of him. Bev is one of the Territory's true gems. She believed in Territorians. She was a great teacher. She embraced multiculturalism and she honoured First Nations people. Bev believed all Australians deserve a fair go, regardless of where they live, their skin colour or what their religion might be. Bev Hale was of course a true believer and a life member of the Australian Labor Party. Bev was passionate about the rights of all children to get an education, get proper health services and get the safety that they need to grow well. She did so much volunteer work. We send our deepest condolences to Bob, Damian, Maria, Jacintha, Tim, Fabian, and all the grandchildren and great-grandchildren that she loved so much. There will be a service this Friday at the Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Wanguri. Vale Bev Hale— (Time expired)
I rise today to speak about the Mt Gravatt Show, the best little country show in the city of Brisbane. It was a weekend-long show of more than just rides, fireworks, show bags and farm animals; it was a show that showcased the very best of the Mt Gravatt community. This year, the show celebrated the huge milestone of 105 years. Those who came along as children are now bringing their children or their children's children. It's a tradition which gets bigger and better every year. I had the privilege of opening the show and was joined on stage by an alpaca who complete stole the show. What has seen the show go from strength to strength are the people behind it. The show president, Kim Goss, Loretta Smith from the Mt Gravatt show society, and the entire committee all work tirelessly to make the show a calendar moment for people across Brisbane. Thank you for your hard work.
It was no easy feat this year. Unfortunately, last year's show was cancelled because of the pandemic. I know how much the show means to our community and that is why I fought for its return. Over $43,000 in federal funding was delivered this year and enabled the show to get back on its feet. It was funding that saw stall holders and small business breathe a sigh of relief after last year. I want to thank the Morrison government for the opportunity to see our community come together. Our government is securing our recovery by supporting the local community and giving confidence back to businesses.
Newcastle has been left without a replacement judge in the federal Circuit Court. Last month, Judge Janet Terry was compelled to retire after reaching the mandatory age of retirement, leaving our region with just two Federal Court judges. This is the fourth time in eight years that Newcastle's been left short of judges by this Liberal government. The last time this happened, Novocastrians were forced to wait 19 months to have their cases heard in court. When I became aware of Judge Terry's pending retirement, I wrote to the Attorney-General to find out when we could expect our replacement judge this time. It's been nearly a month and I've not heard one word from the Attorney-General. I've had a gutful of this government's inability to plan. We know that judges are compelled to retire at the age of 70. It almost beggars belief that you can't look at a calendar and plan ahead. The Morrison government has a responsibility to provide efficient and appropriate judicial and Federal Court services to Newcastle and our region. Given that so many of these cases involve the trauma of marital breakdown, domestic violence, drug abuse and child custody disputes, lives may be put at risk because of the Morrison government's sheer incompetence. With reports that retired Family Court judges are being asked to return to the bench— (Time expired)
Textile recycling is a matter close to my heart. One of the benefits of having three sisters—or should I say one of the few benefits of having three sisters—is the shared wardrobe. Indeed, this very jacket I'm wearing today is a hand-me-down from my beautiful mum. With the recent growth in the fast fashion trend and the volume of clothing and landfill increasing all the time, the government has made clothing and textile recycling a priority. That is why I was so excited to meet Bernadette Olivier, a Curtin constituent who, after recognising that the trend towards fast fashion was pushing consumers to constantly purchase the newest item, used her amazing entrepreneurial skills to create an innovative solution for the fashion industry. Her company, The Volte, is a fashion technology website that connects garment owners with potential renters, allowing consumers to loan the newest piece for 25 per cent of the retail price. They are also looking to partner with stores and designers, opening up new opportunities for them to reach new markets. The Volte estimates that every rental offsets two kilograms of textile waste, 19 kilograms of CO2 emissions and 95 litres of water pollution, ensuring that fashion can be sustainable and affordable. Bernadette has been recognised for her tireless innovative work and entrepreneurial zeal, winning WA startup founder of the year in 2018, among other well-deserved accolades.
Lockdowns increase isolation by their very design. Regular routines are broken, and family and friendship networks are disrupted. As the weeks drag on, the risk to mental health becomes immense. Lifeline Australia has recently seen an increase in calls of more than 30 per cent across the nation, recording the highest number of calls in their 58-year history. In my region alone, Lifeline Macarthur and Western Sydney answered over 11,000 calls in July. Prior to the pandemic, suicide was the leading cause of death in young people aged 15 to 24 years in south-west Sydney. Despite this, South Western Sydney Local Health District had the least number of specialist mental health staff in Sydney.
Unsurprisingly the lockdown has led to high levels of distress in my community. We are shaken by COVID deaths and suicides. I have no doubt that we'll put the outbreak behind us, but when the cases come down and the testing clinics close and the media moves on, we need to make sure that the effects on our mental health do not linger for months and years to come. We need sustained funding for mental health, especially for vulnerable, multicultural and youth communities. Let's not let a viral pandemic lead to a mental health epidemic as well.
I call the member for Bowman.
[by video link] Thank you, Deputy Speaker Andrews. To all of you in the nation's capital, thank you for going above and beyond, many of you surrendering to 14 days home quarantine for being there. From Cleveland, Queensland, I want to speak out for all states that are battling this very much impervious delta outbreak and note that all jurisdictions are effectively penguins on an icefloe of elimination, surrounded by a sea of suppression. Particularly in New South Wales, what we're learning is that eventually all states will face a level of COVID endemicity, and ultimately we do have to be able to trade away these economic shutdowns, which come at a huge price. Today I am just recognising those who work in major events, tourism, travel, hospitality, accommodation, restaurants, hotels, catering—mostly under 35 and, in many cases, a majority of whom are women. They're paying a huge economic price while the rest of us have never had it so good, with ongoing employment and, in many cases, working from home.
This is predominantly now, with monoclonal antibodies and vaccine distribution, an economic challenge more so than a health one. For that reason we need to focus very, very clearly, including Doherty and Treasury, on exactly what price we're prepared to pay in economic shutdowns, which are indirect hits on business and on income, in order to avert a single death to COVID.
One point I'd also make in response to the previous speaker is that suicide rates are not up across all eastern seaboard death analyses as we concurrently see them, mindful that many are, in coronial cases, still being evaluated.
My electorate of Oxley is proudly served by countless community organisations. Throughout my time as a local representative, I've been continually amazed by the passion and commitment of the volunteers and staff who dedicate their time to service of their local community and to the broader international community. This year, one such organisation will close its doors for the final time.
I want to take this opportunity to recognise the many achievements of Ipswich Cares, which was founded by the then councillor David Morrison in 2007. This organisation rallied the Ipswich community around important international causes, challenging every resident in Ipswich to donate $1 in the month of September. Since the very start, it has raised over $300,000 for projects and initiatives, which is used to support and implement sustainable projects right around the world.
Although Ipswich Cares won't be operating post 2021, the legacy will live on right throughout the world in places such as Bali, Rwanda, Vietnam, Egypt, the Philippines and India, to name just a few. It will also live on in the hearts of those who have participated in fundraising and physically worked on each and every project they've travelled to. Whether it's an Ipswich Cares park, a school, water tank or a project installed with the help of the Ipswich community, Ipswich Cares will continue to make a difference in the lives of many. A big thank you to Tracy Bold and the entire team at Ipswich Cares for everything you've done in our community and across the globe. You'll be sorely missed, but I know the spirit of the community will live on for Ipswich for many years to come.
[by video link] Just before lockdown, I had the privilege of launching Ann Leslie, her son Charley and Jackie Walford on the Berowra community's half-marathon to raise money for the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter. Ann, who owns Ann Leslie's Music Studio, and Steve Cross, the founder of Bugs About, felt moved to do something to support the vital work of the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter, including hosting a fundraising event for the women's shelter in May. Local business and community groups have thrown their support behind the fundraising effort. These organisations include St Mark's Anglican Church of Berowra, Berowra Baptist Church, Cafe Laurella, Berowra Christian School, Berowra Apex, Magical Meg, Mars Wrigley in Asquith, Berowra Fire and Rescue and Senior Constable Malcolm Baker, a DV officer from the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai police unit, attending as a VIP on the day. The fundraising event raised $4,453. Congratulations to the local community on that massive effort.
The Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter, established in 2015, provides a safe place for women experiencing domestic violence or homelessness. The shelter, which is led by Louise McCann and Lucy Garnier and is supported by Jacqui Landis, provides residential accommodation and professional care management to support up to 58 women a year. All the money raised for the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter will be used to provide support to women currently in shelters and increase the number of places for women who need support. Jack Abadee in my own office joined the effort, raising money by running a half-marathon around his block, given it was during lockdown. Jack raised $1,890, beating his goal of $1,500.
I rise today to talk about a hero who has emerged as my Canberra community have battled this COVID-19 outbreak. I'm speaking, of course, about Ken Behrens. While Ken Behrens has only come to our attention in the last week or so, I think we've always known Canberrans had it in them—looking out for one another, caring and sensible. I'm very proud to represent Ken Behrens in this place.
Ken Behrens, if you have COVID-19 at the moment, I want to let you know I'm thinking of you and wish you the swiftest recovery. I want to thank Ken Behrens for your essential work in health, in all the testing, in essential retail, in running public transport, as well as our teachers, our early childhood educators and our cleaners. You're supporting us all to keep going at the moment. Thank you to Ken Behrens for supporting the most vulnerable in our community—those in business who have had a horror two years and continue to adapt. We're all in this together. We're all Ken Behrens. And, on behalf of Ken Behrens, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to our Chief Minister, Andrew Barr, Rachel Stephen-Smith and our Chief Health Officer, Dr Kerryn Coleman, your staff and all the public servants for everything you are doing to keep us safe. We couldn't do it without you.
Today I would like to acknowledge an exceptional member of the Chisholm community, Rex Kuo, and the business he co-founded, Orbitkey. Orbitkey produces organisers that prevent your keys from cluttering your pockets and scratching your belongings. In 2013, Rex introduced his idea to the world, not with any big business backing but on the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter. There, he and his business partners were able to secure more than 5,000 backers to their campaign in under 30 days. Following this, they spent the next four months building the business that became Orbitkey. Now Orbitkey organisers can be found in stores across Australia, and Orbitkey has also expanded into selling desk organisers and mats. Rex's story catches that of the Australian spirit—someone who, through hard work and ingenuity, has been able to take a business from an idea to reality. I'm delighted to say that his business is creating good local jobs in Chisholm. Rex, I commend you and all that you and your businesses have achieved.
Watching Eddie Betts on the football field brought me and so many others such joy, but throughout his wonderful career he was subjected to awful racism on the field and off it, and to watch him speaking of this in recent weeks was as compelling as any of his goals of the year. Those words and how they were spoken demand action—for all of us to recognise the persistence of the scourge that is racism and all of its impacts. Eddie Betts has spoken of his exhaustion at explaining what had been done to him and why this matters. Those of us who haven't been subjected to racism ourselves must respond to this—stand up and be counted.
Racism in football isn't just a matter for the AFL; it's a reflection of racism in our society more broadly. While I know the vast majority of Australians reject its destructive ugliness, this itself isn't enough. People today are being hurt. People feel exhausted. And we are all diminished. We need to do more: as individuals, to no longer walk past or pretend not to notice; and collectively, as a society, to set the standard we demand of each and every one of us; to end this, together; to share in the responsibility to end racism; and in particular, for all of us elected to this place, to make the difference we have the power to make—to deliver a national antiracism strategy, with zero tolerance at its core. Surely this is something we can all commit to?
I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the amazing health professionals who are getting on with the job of ensuring that those living in Cape York communities are receiving their COVID-19 vaccines. So far, residents living in Bamaga, Coen, Kowanyama, Lockhart River, Aurukun, Pormpuraaw and Weipa have had access to their first Pfizer dose. Over the coming weeks, residents in Napranum, Mapoon, Cooktown, Lakeland, Laura, Hope Vale and Wujal Wujal will also receive access to their first dose. It's great to see community leaders such as Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council Mayor Robbie Sands and Lockhart River Aboriginal Shire Council Mayor Wayne Butcher roll up their sleeves and lead by example. This type of leadership has sent a strong and positive message to the residents living in their respective communities. I'll also say I was a little jealous when I saw the wallaby stew on offer for lunch on the day at Kowanyama vaccine hub!
The news is also great across the Torres Strait, with more than 70 per cent of our residents now having been vaccinated. While there may be some who, as always, take delight in criticising the rollout, Far North Queenslanders have rolled up their sleeves in record numbers. Once again I'd like to thank the health and medical professionals, particularly those administering the vaccine in Cape York and the Torres Strait, for the wonderful work that they're doing on a daily basis.
I'd also like to just call out those in the Cairns region. I believe we've just hit just over 50 per cent vaccinated—
Order! The honourable member for Bruce.
How long will the Prime Minister last in question time today? Yesterday, under pressure, he got tetchy, he got grumpy and he shut down question time—he had a little tanty! And he was first out the door. He ran away. When this Prime Minister is under pressure, when the going gets tough, the Prime Minister gets going.
But today it's his special day: it's his third anniversary of knifing his mate Malcolm Turnbull. He's a cunning politician. He climbed to the top of this eight-year-old government. 'I'm ambitious for him,' he said, with his arm around his mate; 'I've got no ambition to lead.' Well, that turned out to be true, didn't it!
Three years, we've had, to see the character of this bloke over there: his blame-shifting, his incompetence, his refusal to take responsibility—always too little, too late. We've seen it with the pandemic. The first line of defence is quarantine; he failed on that. The second line of defence is enough vaccines; he's failed on that. And so Australians are locked down, they're locked in and they're locked out, because of this bloke over there. But the pattern is clear. We saw it on bushfires—Hawaii; he doesn't hold a hose—and now on Afghanistan, with tragic consequences.
It's not a shiny new government. This bloke brought you robodebt; the aged-care cuts; a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, with nothing to show for it; falling wages; the COVIDSafe app; corruption, rorts and waste. We've had eight years of this, and we can't risk another three of this nasty, shallow, superficial bully. He's a fake.
It being almost 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Half of Australia's population is in lockdown and we are all sick of it. Would there be fewer lockdowns and fewer restrictions across the nation right now if vaccination rates were higher? Isn't the reason vaccination rates are not higher because the Prime Minister failed to order enough vaccines when it counted, and failed also to fix national quarantine?
More than half of Australians aged over 16 have had their first dose of the vaccine. More than half—that's one in two. Six million doses of that vaccine have now been delivered in New South Wales and two-thirds of those have been delivered by the magnificent GPs and pharmacists who are doing this all around the country. There are more points of presence where you can get the vaccine in Australia today than you can get a Big Mac around this country because of the excellent work that is being done by Lieutenant General Frewen, by the GPs and by the pharmacists, working together—states and territories together—to get this job done.
It's an important job to get done, because under the national plan that would see 70 and 80 per cent of the population vaccinated. That means Australia will be able to move forward; Australia will be able to move forward and live with this virus. That's why it's so important that people stand up for the plan rather than standing in the way of the plan, like those in the Labor Party seem intent on doing. They come in here, day after day, running down the vaccination program, running down those who are seeking to implement it—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. The question went to—
No, you just need to state the point of order.
Well, on relevance. The question went to too few vaccines, not too many—too few. That's the problem we're in at the moment. That's where the question went to.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
Mr Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, who quite often gets up to make these gratuitous statements which aren't points of order—they're political pointscoring—
Well, the—
This is political pointscoring, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister couldn't have been any more relevant to the question asked—
I ask the Leader of the House to resume his seat. I will just say to the Leader of the House that I'm not taking closing arguments on relevance. I'm simply going to rule on the matter and we don't have jury decisions on my rulings, thank heavens! I will just say to the Prime Minister that the question obviously went to two policy matters. He certainly started to make some accusations with respect to the opposition. I do think that what he has done so far is okay because this question, as I've said before, had at its heart—at the beginning—an accusation, but he can't spend the rest of the answer on that subject matter. Prime Minister, I am listening—
The national plan, which will see our vaccination levels rise to 70 and 80 per cent, will enable Australians to move forward, not stay shut in. That will be achieved by continuing to get on with the job. It won't be achieved by the negativity of those opposite; it will be achieved by the positivity of the government and all those they're working with.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please provide an update to the House on how the national plan is providing safety and confidence to Australians as they arm themselves with COVID-19 vaccines, ensuring that we make it through the pandemic?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question and I thank him for his service to our country. Just by way of referring to the member for Braddon, he will be very pleased to know, as we were able to advise earlier today, that last night our defence forces, working together with New Zealand defence forces, brought over 650 people out of Kabul. That was a tremendous effort by our people in Kabul. They're returning safely and will soon be on their way back to Australia.
The national plan provides the certainty and the safety for Australians to move forward, out of the lockdowns that we see before us now, which are necessary for this time. It enables them to see past the lockdowns. It enables them to see their ability to live with the virus in the future. I commend Qantas, because Qantas have, I think, encapsulated what that hope is about and what the national plan can achieve—because that's what the national plan is designed to realise. And I call on all Australians to continue, as they have been doing, turning up each and every day and getting their jabs in the arm and bringing us closer and closer to that day. The plan gives Australians the certainty and it gives Australians the safety that is necessary to move forward.
And it's not about a day; it's about the science and it's about the protection that Australians will have by achieving those important vaccination rates of 70 per cent and 80 per cent, supported by preparing our health systems and ensuring there is care and caution for our most vulnerable, which is part of the plan. It is achieved by continuing to vaccinate—including children aged 12 to 15, who will be vaccinated alongside the adult population. We expect that final advice from ATAGI later this week. I was updated today by General Frewen, who says the plans working with the states and territories to initiate that program are proceeding well—and we will discuss those further later in the week. There were almost 300,000 vaccinations yesterday. There have been some six million jabs in arms in New South Wales, with two-thirds of those delivered by GPs and pharmacists, who have been doing such a magnificent job—60 per cent first dose in New South Wales and the ACT, and 75 per cent first dose for the over-50s.
This plan does give that hope and confidence that Australians are looking for. It is underwriting the confidence, particularly of small businesses who want to look past these lockdowns. Small businesses don't want to have to survive on government cheques; they want their customers back. That's what the plan achieves. Australians want to return to their hours and their jobs because they want to be getting wages, not COVID disaster payments. Those COVID disaster payments have been a great support to get Australians through, but the national plan means we will get out of this and we will move forward. Our plan is to get there and we need to support and stick to that plan, not stand in the way of it like those opposite.
Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I will ask everyone to return to their seats, if they can, for a second. I want everyone in their seat to look up at David Foote. It is a bit hard doing the official photograph at the moment, and he is taking a few photos before question time gets too far away. That was the quietest it's been; I might get you to stay there, David, and we might do that a few times! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Would Australia be closer to reopening if the Prime Minister had not failed his two jobs on vaccine and quarantine?
I thank the member for his question, because he's made this reference once more, implying that the Prime Minister of this country only has two jobs. As I said before, anyone who thinks a prime minister of this country only has two jobs isn't up to the job. I can say that because those of us who have been dealing with one of the most serious situations that we have had to address during our time of government—that is, to seek the evacuation of what has almost been 1,700 people out of Kabul right now—would understand that a prime minister at any given time has more than two jobs. That matter is the one that we have been particularly applied on in this most recent week. And I want to thank again those Australians on the ground in Kabul right now doing that very important job at one of most sensitive times of the mission that they have.
But, as we continue to move forward and deal with those issues, as we have continued to have done that over these many months—with 430 individuals, Afghans and their families, brought to this country well before this crisis even hit in the most recent iteration and now we have moved into that evacuation mode—we have continued to reduce taxes on those working in this country and we have continued with the many jobs. It is inferred by those opposite—
I just say to the Prime Minister: I know the point he made at the start of the answer, but it can't be rest of the answer. He needs to bring himself back to the two policy issues in the question. The Prime Minister has the call.
The government have dealt with the many responsibilities that we have, from national security to ensuring we're dealing with COVID—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Ms Collins interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As I said to the Prime Minister, he needs to bring himself back to the subject matter of the question. I don't need the member for Franklin to be interjecting at all. The Prime Minister has the call.
As I was saying, we are dealing with these many responsibilities. In relation to the COVID response, our government has worked with governments around this country to achieve two very significant things for the Australian people: saving over 30,000 lives—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I note the gasp by the Leader of the Opposition with his interjection. This is a Leader of the Opposition who always hopes for the worst, right?
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I can't see the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order, but I will hear him. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question wasn't about his capacity. It was about vaccines and quarantine.
I've asked the Prime Minister to come back, and he was doing that. What I'd suggest is—
Honourable members interjecting—
If people didn't interject and try and—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will come back to the question and be relevant to it and not worry about any commentary that he has in his mind. The Prime Minister will be relevant to the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government have continued to implement our plans and our response to the COVID pandemic, which has seen us save 30,000 lives, with the help of Australians and their sacrifices all around the country, and has ensured that a million Australians have been able to get back to work and be supported in those jobs. Even as we've gone through these lockdowns, we've been able to continue to support them with support payments, over $3 billion, which have been paid out to support people to get through these lockdowns. These are the important tasks as we continue through the COVID pandemic—and, importantly, the national plan that ensures that at 70 per cent and 80 per cent we will be able to live with this virus. That means we need to adjust our mindset, and all of us need to support Australians to adjust their mindset, as we go into these additional phases of this plan.
These are the challenges that we've been overcoming. These are the results we are getting. The vaccination program is now running at levels that, on a seven-day average per capita, is better—
The Prime Minister's time has concluded.
[by video link] My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is guaranteeing that essential products and services are being delivered across the country as we continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the honourable member for Mallee for her question. I note her hard work in fighting for the Murray Basin rail project, the South West Loddon Mallee rural supply line and also her dramatic and incredible work with the ag visa. The member for Mallee has not only been fighting for those; there's also the $75 million for the Calder Highway, the $4 million for the Sea Lake-to-Robinvale road, a notorious road in the north of her electorate, and even the new Ouyen to Mildura overtaking lane. From the small to the big, the member for Mallee has been fighting hard for the services that keep the product moving.
The services are absolutely vital. They're vital. We have, in the last week, completed the update of the national freight code. The national freight code is vitally important because it's about the movement of the product, the movement of groceries, the movement of your meat, the movement of your milk—the movement of the product that's required for you to make dinner. One of the greatest ways to keep people safe and secure is to keep them fed. This nation and this government have been working to make sure that we don't disrupt peoples' lives more than the least amount required. We are doing that by making sure that we are not only keeping people fed in Australia; we are moving product to keep them fed around the world. We are moving them to keep them fed around the world by the support for so many aviation packages, so that we have the capacity to move product around the world by airlines, still. We are moving product around the world to help feed our neighbours. What's important for that is that the terms of trade are what ultimately underpins this nation. Every person in this building can look at their lives and see product that's imported, product that comes off a boat. For product to come off a boat someone has to put product on the boat and that's done by the people of the hinterland. Now we are seeing record prices in beef, record prices in sheep, record prices in lamb, record prices in goat—the most consumed meat in the world. We're seeing very good prices for canola and wheat—earning well for our nation so we can support the budget to support our nation.
But, of course, it is not just that; right now one of the greatest services is health services. In the last seven days, per capita, we have rolled out more vaccines—so I believe, Mr Prime Minister—than the US or the UK. That is an incredible outcome and shows the diligence of this government—the diligence of this government to get pharmacies vaccinating people, the diligence of this government to get GPs vaccinating people, the diligence of this government to have over half our nation with one inoculation. We want people to get their liberties and the freedoms of their lives back. We acknowledge the frustrations they have. We want to make sure that we get back to the lives that we have lived as quickly as possible and this government will do that.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister support the vaccination incentives of cash payments of $200 to Telstra employees and bonuses to Qantas customers? Wouldn't we get to reopen more quickly if the Prime Minister adopted Labor's plan of a $300 incentive payment for vaccinations?
What commercial companies do is a matter for them. But, no, I don't agree that for the 50 per cent of those aged over 16 we should have paid a payment to them, because they understood, they knew Australians were coming forward every single day in record numbers—as we've seen the vaccination rate continue to climb each and every week. Some 1.8 million vaccine doses were administered last week. Per capita that is, over a seven-day period, a stronger rate of vaccination than both the UK or the United States achieved at their peak. That is the rate at which our vaccination program is now performing.
The Leader of the Opposition might want to engage in a cash splash for whatever reason. He would have just written a cheque for $3 billion for things that people were already going to do. That says a lot about how Labor would've managed this COVID pandemic. It says a lot about their judgement. It says a lot about how they managed the nation's finances. They would actually make a payment for things that people were already going to do. But worse than that, as I said a few weeks ago, it is a vote of no confidence in Australians. That's what it is. I have confidence that Australians will continue to come forward, as indeed they are. I'll tell you why they are coming forward. It's because they know, because of the national plan that we've set out, that 70 per cent and 80 per cent vaccination rates will mean they will be able to go forward and live with this virus and not have to live with lockdowns. That's what they know. That's why they're coming forward every week, every day, to all of those points of presence around the country to get their vaccinations. I say thank you to them and that's all they're seeking, and possibly not even that because they know that it's the right thing to do for themselves, for their families, for their communities to get Australia where they want to go.
They're not coming forward for the cash; they're coming forward because it's in their public health interest to do so. They are doing it because they know it's the right thing to do by their communities. It is a cynical position of the Leader of the Opposition to want to use taxpayers' money to issue a vote of no confidence in Australians. They are the values of Labor. The values of the Liberals and the Nationals are to believe in the Australian people, that they want to do the right things in the national interest. They are the policies of our government. I will leave the Labor leader to his policy folly. I will leave him to his policy folly and we will stay with the proven policies and the proven faith in the Australian people. We are standing up for the national plan. Labor seems to be standing in the way. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Morrison government's significant economic support combined with real momentum of the vaccine rollout will ensure greater business certainty in the future as restrictions are eased and lockdowns become more unlikely, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and acknowledge her experience in small business before coming to this place. Indeed, there are lots of businesses in the honourable member's electorate that are doing it very tough right now, particularly in the tourism sector. That is why the Morrison government joined with the Queensland state government in a $600 million support package for small businesses across her electorate and indeed across the wider state of Queensland.
The last 18 months have been very difficult for Australians. Businesses have closed, people have been working from home, and kids haven't been able to join their classmates in the classroom. We have responded to this crisis with an unprecedented amount of economic and health support. Most recently, that economic support has taken the form of a COVID disaster payment of up to $750 a week for people who have lost hours of work—$4 billion out the door to 1.6 million Australians. With every state and territory, we have reached an agreement to provide business support on a fifty-fifty funding split. That economic support is absolutely vital in the immediate short term in enabling those businesses to survive and those families to get through the crisis.
But government support is not a sustainable long-term solution. The only sustainable long-term solution to this crisis is that we stick to the plan agreed at national cabinet. That means 70 and 80 per cent vaccination rates, which are now in sight. The Australian people are keeping their end of the bargain. They are rolling up their sleeves in record numbers to get the jabs—215 jabs a minute across the country. It's up to the state premiers and chief ministers, together with the Prime Minister, to stick to the plan that was agreed at national cabinet, because that plan is a pathway out of this crisis.
We heard today from the world-leading Doherty institute that, whether you start with 30 cases or 800 cases, you can open up safely. That is what the Doherty institute said today. The Doherty institute also said that zero-COVID forever is unrealistic. That's the conversation that the Australian people need to hear: it's a fallacy that you can eliminate COVID; you must learn to live with it, just as other countries are doing right now and just as we in Australia have done so with other infectious diseases.
[by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. The governments of Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton and McMahon were responsible for the Vietnam disaster. John Howard took us to war in Iraq on a lie. The Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull governments and your government own the Afghanistan tragedy. In other words, history shows decisions to go to war are not something any government nor PM can be trusted with. Yes, it is important they have authority to deploy the ADF in a crisis, but surely it should be parliament alone with authority to declare and continue war. So, Prime Minister, will you follow the lead of other democracies, reform war powers and ensure it's parliament calling the shots in future?
I, with respect, thank the member for his question. I know he's held this view for a long time and advocated it in this place, but the government believes in what is set out in the Australian Constitution, and that is that the power to make war, deploy troops and declare peace is part of the executive powers of the Commonwealth, an executive power as recognised in section 61 of the Constitution.
I believe that all those who have served—and I have no doubt the member would believe this also—in whatever conflict we've been engaged in have fallen in the name of Australia, in the name of freedom and in the name of our values, and have fallen seeking to pursue the national interests of Australia and to keep Australians safe. Whether that is in Afghanistan, Vietnam or the many other conflicts referred to by the member, all of their sacrifice has been great and has made Australia stronger. I'll ask the Minister for Defence to add to the answer.
I thank the honourable member for his question. The only thing that I'd add to the Prime Minister's comments is, firstly, obviously, the government of the day takes the advice of the Chief of the Defence Force and all of those experts that form part of the National Security Committee, looking at our domestic and our international equities, and makes decisions based on the best advice.
I think the best message at the moment, frankly, if I can say with respect, for our troops to hear—the 39,000 that went to Afghanistan and those that have served in Iraq or in Middle Eastern campaigns in recent years—is that their country is incredibly proud of their service. I don't think those troops, their families or their loved ones want to hear political pointscoring at this point in time. They want to hear that this country has their back, and this government does. They want to hear that their service in our country's name is in our national interest, and it is.
We will continue to provide the resources to those troops, both those that are serving and those that have served, and we will make sure that we make the future investment decisions to give them the best capability to defend our nation. We live in an uncertain time and we do need to take tough decisions from time to time, to make sure that we protect and keep safe the Australian population. The Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet on the National Security Committee will always make those decisions based on those criteria—to keep our country safe and to make sure that we can protect and defend ourselves—as you would expect an elected government would do.
We are well and truly served and greatly honoured by the service of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and our other security and national intelligence agencies. I am extremely proud of the work that we're doing in Afghanistan at the moment, in harm's way, and I wish godspeed to all of those there. I want them back home safely as soon as possible.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Less than half of residential aged-care workers nationwide have been fully vaccinated against COVID. The Prime Minister said these people would be vaccinated by Easter, four months ago. Isn't this abject failure by the Prime Minister putting vulnerable Australians at risk?
In response to the member's question, at this point in time, 71.2 per cent of residential aged-care workers across Australia have received a first vaccination. All up, that's over 196,000 vaccinations which have occurred. In addition to that, 49.3 per cent of those have received a second vaccination, or 136,000.
What we are finding in particular is the combination with vaccination of residents, which is the first line of protection. Over 88 per cent of residents have had vaccinations, and all residents have had not just one but two visits at a minimum. And, indeed, we continue to encourage families to vaccinate residents and to provide support.
In addition to that, we have multiple channels for vaccination of workers, and we have worked with the sector, with unions, with others and with the states to mandate it, so as to ensure that all of these workers do take up the opportunity. At this point in time, for the workers, we have primary-care sites, state and territory vaccination centres, onsite clinics at residential aged-care facilities, onsite clinics organised by residential aged-care providers themselves, onsite clinics delivered by GPs or Commonwealth vaccine clinics and dedicated vaccination clinics—of which there are 39 around the country—or hubs, as they are known. All these elements come together, and it is something where we are encouraging workers who have had access right through the course of the vaccination program to take up these options. We're using a mixture of inreach and outreach options. We have seen that, as the decision of the national cabinet has been put into effect through state public health orders, progressively around the country, there has been a significant increase in uptake and acceptance from these workers. These workers are doing a magnificent job, and I want to thank them and encourage them and continue to push forward.
One of the things we notice is that there has been a dramatic difference between what occurred in Victoria last year and what is occurring in New South Wales now, with comparable rates of infection. There are almost unimaginable differences in outcomes in our residential aged-care facilities. Lives are being saved in their hundreds through the vaccination program of both workers and residents. We thank all the families and all the workers. For those who haven't come forward, we continue to encourage that vaccination to proceed.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on Australia's national plan on keeping Australians safe and healthy, vaccinating the population and reopening the economy through sound, scientific and health advice?
I particularly want to acknowledge the member for Reid and her work in supporting the mental health of children, young adolescents and people of all ages, but particularly at the paediatric level.
We know that the pandemic continues to rage around the world—almost 690,000 cases. Sometimes that fact is lost on some—that there is a global pandemic, the likes of which we haven't seen in 100 years. There were almost 10,000 lives lost in the last 24 hours. We are blessed that no lives were lost in Australia to COVID in that time, but we will see more lives lost; we know that.
Having said that, we have also seen 289,000 vaccinations in the last 24 hours. We have seen over 1.8 million vaccinations in the last week. In August, with 23 days or just over three weeks gone, we have seen over five million vaccinations delivered—the population of Melbourne or Sydney—in just over three weeks. That is Australians stepping forward to be vaccinated. That is Australians doing something to protect each of themselves under the national plan, to bring us closer to those critical thresholds which were reaffirmed overnight by the Doherty institute both by the press release of Professor McVernon and the words the Treasurer quoted of Sharon Lewin, who heads the Doherty institute.
We have also seen that we are now at a point where 11 million Australians have had their first dose. Eleven million Australians have stepped forward to be vaccinated. Significantly, a very important milestone is that we have had 2½ million of our older Australians step forward. For our over-50s, 75 per cent have had vaccinations. For our over-60s, over 80 per cent have had vaccinations. For our over-70s, significantly, 85 per cent have had vaccinations. These are the things that are saving lives and protecting lives.
We see that, in a world with catastrophic human tragedy, we are not immune, but we have been largely protected against these global ravages. Right now there are people who are doing it hard. Right now we are facing the challenges that other parts of the world are facing. But right now we are vaccinating on a grand scale, in addition to what we've done with borders, testing, tracing and distancing and those rings of containment—which, as the Doherty institute has set out under the national plan, will progressively replace the need for those earlier containment rings.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that just over a quarter of eligible NDIS participants have been fully vaccinated and less than 40 per cent of the disability care workforce has been fully vaccinated? Given these people were meant to be prioritised for vaccination, why did this happen?
In response to the member's question: one of our important achievements as a nation has been protecting people with disability. The rate of cases in disability and the rate of lives lost in disability is approximately half, on the advice that I have, that of the national average. To think that we as a nation have been able to provide that protection is, I think, a very significant national achievement, but we're going to continue to fight for every life. That's what matters. In terms of our disability residents' vaccinations, we've now vaccinated 67.9 per cent of disability residents with a first dose and 52.8 per cent of residents with a second dose. In terms of NDIS participants, 46.1 per cent of all participants have had a first dose and 28.1 per cent have had a second dose. In terms of the disability workforce, this is growing very significantly and is now at 58 per cent for first doses and 39.1 per cent for second doses.
I would also repeat my message in relation to the previous question asked by the opposition, and that is: we need your help. We need your help and everybody's help to encourage those with disability to take up the opportunity, to have confidence in the vaccines and to continue to come forward, because it's both about access and about confidence. These are really important messages. Take these opportunities for families to provide consent. These are such critical steps forward. Each family, each person, can help save a life. We thank our workers, we thank our families and we thank the people who are making their own decisions in coming forward. We want to say to each and every person: this vaccine can save your life. Do not hesitate; please take up the opportunity because, as we provide these opportunities, we know that we can do better still than we've already achieved in the disability sector, where the rate of cases and the rate of loss are significantly and dramatically below the national average. That's an enormous achievement, but we're going to fight for every life.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister outline to the House how the Australian Defence Force is continuing to bring back Australians and Australian visa holders from Afghanistan?
I thank the honourable member for his question and really highlight the fact that not only has he served his country in uniform but he is one of the greatest advocates in this place for men and women who serve in uniform today. He is on the backbench committee for defence and veterans affairs, and I work very closely with him and I'm very grateful for his advice.
We are all incredibly proud, of course, of the work of the Australian Defence Force personnel, our intelligence agencies, the Home Affairs staff and the DFAT personnel who are in Kabul right now. They are saving lives, as we know, but it is important to recognise that they are working in perilous circumstances. As we know, there are credible threats in relation to the prospects of terrorist attacks. We know that ISKP and others have the intent to cause harm not only to our people but to the Afghan nationals and to the Taliban itself. It is a very, very dangerous situation.
We have over 250 personnel across the different agencies who are supporting this effort. Since last Wednesday, in less than a week, we've been able to shift 1,700 people to safety, and that has only been possible because of the brave actions of many of those who serve our country this very day. I want to recognise the family members and the mates who are here watching anxiously, with their loved ones and their friends serving in Kabul at the moment. We want them to return home as quickly and as safely as possible. I was speaking, again, with the Chief of the Defence Force this morning, talking about our evacuation plans and ways in which we can move our equipment, our assets and, most importantly, our people out safely and in a timely way. But we are, obviously, in the back end of this campaign now and the situation does continue to deteriorate, over the coming hours and in the next couple of days.
I want to make sure that we do everything we can to recognise, as a government, the efforts that have been made, particularly by the home affairs department, DFAT and Defence in recent months as well. It has been quite remarkable, the number of people that we've been able to bring out of Afghanistan since April and, indeed, over the last eight years. I think that most Australians recognise this and realise this fact, that Australia is second only to Canada on a per capita basis in the numbers of people we settle permanently under our refugee and humanitarian program in this country. Eight and a half thousand people have come out of Afghanistan over the course of the last eight years and, of course, that is supplemented now by our current efforts.
There is, and always will be, more to do and we commit ourselves to that task.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, the Life Without Barriers vaccine hub for NDIS participants and disability workers in my electorate was shut with just one day's notice. This sudden closure caused immense distress, given local outbreaks in the disability sector and the appalling rates of vaccination among Australians with a disability. Would this be happening if the Prime Minister had done his job and fully vaccinated this vulnerable cohort by Easter, like he said he would?
I want to thank the member for her question, although I respectfully disagree with the presumption contained within it.
We know the Life Without Barriers hub well; it was one of a series of pop-up clinics to service certain parts before they would then move on to other areas once a high vaccination rate had been achieved as a result. They actually did their job—they did their job magnificently. I want to thank everybody involved with the Life Without Barriers hub, which, as the member well knows, has served the Newcastle community well.
I am surprised, however, that either the member was not aware or neglected to mention in her question that a new hub opened on 23 August in Wallsend, Newcastle. Anyone with an existing booking has been advised of the new hub location. This was done to make sure, precisely on the advice of the disability community, that there was additional access in another area within the same region on a more proximate basis. It is unfortunate that that was neglected, either consciously or through other reasons, from the presumption in the question.
I would also add that an additional Newcastle hub will be opening on 30 August—a hub further down, with Coastlink in Woy Woy, will open on 3 September and a hub in Tuggerah will open on 6 September, showing the nature of these hubs. The Life Without Barriers hub in Newcastle operated from 22 June to 20 August. During this time, the provider administered over 5,000 doses. The Commonwealth provider is Aspen Medical. On their advice, and on the basis of the assessment, it was then moved to another point in Newcastle, precisely in line with the intention, the plan and the process to ensure that as many people as possible have the best access as possible, in addition to state clinics and Commonwealth clinics, and in addition to GPs and pharmacies.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's continuing delivery of assistance to help resettle Afghan nationals? Can the minister outline how the government is also ensuring the security of our borders and the safety of all Australians?
I thank the member for his question. As we've recognised over the last few days, in particular, here in this place, the situation in Afghanistan is deeply concerning. It's concerning for us here in this place, and it is concerning for people right across this nation. Our government has been very focused on the safe departure of Australian citizens, permanent residents and visa holders, including local Afghan former locally engaged employees. We have worked very swiftly across various departments and agencies; this has been a whole-of-government response to the situation in Afghanistan. We have had many people on the ground and here in Australia, quite frankly, working around the clock, 24/7, to provide the support that is needed to assist those individuals in Afghanistan.
Since 18 August, Australia has evacuated more than 1,600 people from Afghanistan over some 17 flights and we've achieved this by working very closely with the United States and the United Kingdom, amongst other nations. Here, in Australia, we are also working very closely with the Afghan community. We're working with them so that we can identify, particularly, some suitable applicants for the humanitarian program. We are looking to support those people who come from persecuted minorities, who have links to Australia and who have shown a commitment to Australia, sometimes over many, many years. We do have a very strong Afghan community in Australia. We've had that community here for many, many years, back from the days when people from that region came to Australia and settled in outback Australia. More recently, we've provided resettlement opportunities to about 8½ thousand Afghan nationals, and that does include 1,900 locally engaged employees and their families who have supported our mission.
One of the things that we've been very focused on with the processing of applications, particularly on the ground in Kabul, is making sure that as many checks are done as possibly can be. I think it's fair to say that this government has always taken national security particularly seriously, and we have been doing all that we can to make sure that the appropriate checks are being put in place to assist with the timely uplift of people from Afghanistan to Australia. We will continue to do that; we will continue to work around the clock in Australia to support that mission, to support the evacuation, so that we can safely bring as many people out of Afghanistan and on their way to Australia. What I can say to the Australian people is that they can have confidence in the Morrison government, that we will be doing all we can to make sure that we repatriate people and bring them here as soon as we possibly can in a safe manner.
[by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Just 15 per cent of First Nations Australians are fully vaccinated, about half the rate of the general population. With outbreaks in First Nations communities in New South Wales, will the Prime Minister acknowledge his failure to do his job on vaccines and quarantine has left these vulnerable Australians at risk?
I thank the member for her question and for her keen interest in this area, and for her support working with the government, wherever we can, to try and boost the uptake of vaccines amongst our Indigenous population. The first dose vaccination rate of our Indigenous population is 33.31 per cent and the second dose is 17.83 per cent. That is, indeed, lower than the overall level of vaccinations of our adult population—over the age of 16. This has been a very keen area of concern for the government right from the outset, and the Indigenous communities have been one of our most vulnerable communities. For the work that is being done in western New South Wales in particular, I want to commend all of those, from the ADF to the clinicians and others who are working there, and I know the member would also be positively assisting in those efforts. I will ask the Minister for Indigenous Australians to update further on our progress.
Our work is focused on where we have significant gaps. There have been plenty of supplies provided to the Aboriginal community controlled health organisations across the nation. In particular, in the western regions of New South Wales and the western suburbs of Sydney, there are coordinating groups that are working together to ensure that we increase the rates of vaccination. To date, we've seen the hesitancy slip away and people are becoming much more concerned. We are also looking at the movement of people. As the member for Barton would know, people living in Western Sydney often have family connections back at their home places in Brewarrina and along the river towns. They have gone back to those regions and, inadvertently, there's a possibility that that COVID spread has been extended further.
But I also wanted to say that the work that we're doing is significant in the way in which we are working with community on the ground and making sure that the information flow is going through to community. What we're also seeing is community coming together and working with the two health systems, both the Commonwealth and state. Pat Turner is leading a coordinating committee under the auspices of the health minister, and there is a targeted plan to ensure that we reach as many people across New South Wales as possible, and that plan is focusing on targeting those areas where there are low vaccination rates. What's good is that people are now coming forward. Listening to Jamie Newman from Orange this morning, he also outlined the need for additional people on the ground to help increase those vaccination rates. So government is working very closely across both jurisdictions with community to ensure a better outcome than what we've seen in the past.
[by video link] My question is to the . Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting veterans and their families impacted by the situation in Afghanistan?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question, for his service to Australia in uniform and also for his subsequent advocacy work for veterans in his area and around Australia. Over the last week, the world has been watching the terrible humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Afghanistan. This has been a distressing time for many of our Defence Force personnel and veterans who served in Afghanistan with courage, dignity and honour. We will never forget the 41 Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice, including Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, who lost his life while helping a mate during a firefight with the Taliban on this day 11 years ago. Known as Crash to his mates, Jared was a husband and a father. He was just 28. Our hearts go out to Beckie and Jared's family. Our nation needs to acknowledge the men and women of the ADF and their veterans, but also their families, because their families have sacrificed and continue to sacrifice so much to support their loved ones and their country. We owe those family members an enormous debt of gratitude as well.
Last week I held round tables with ex-service organisations and also with our younger veterans, including many who served in Afghanistan. We discussed veteran support and also how our younger veterans viewed their time in Afghanistan. The consensus from those who were there was clear: our ADF members made a real difference in Afghanistan, and they know that their time was successful and that it meant something. They went to stamp out terrorism and fight for freedom, and they acquitted themselves in the finest tradition of the Australian armed services. We will never know how many horrific terrorist attacks around the world were prevented by their efforts and those of our allies. They made life better for the people of Afghanistan. As one veteran said last week, 'Every single one of us that went knows the difference we made on the ground when we were over there.'
Last week, I directed the Department of Veterans' Affairs to contact the family members of ADF members who'd lost their loved ones in Afghanistan and all veterans who could be suffering adversely from what has happened there. Thirty-three thousand Open Arms counselling clients and 287,000 veterans and family members were messaged, providing them with the support numbers of 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week counselling. I would encourage any veteran or family member, no matter where they served, to reach out for support if they need it. In these times of lockdown and isolation, there is something that we can all do: pick up the phone and say g'day to a veteran. A friendly voice over the phone can make all the difference. We want our veterans to know that our country is proud of them and that we will always be there for them.
Firstly, I just associate the opposition with the comments of the minister with regard to the need to provide support for our veterans at what must be a very difficult time for them.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In April, Labor wrote to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, concerned about staff shortages at the Dubbo Aboriginal Medical Service and the vaccine rollout to local First Nations people. The health minister's office inexplicably replied that international medical graduates could be recruited, despite the international borders being closed. Given the significant outbreak amongst First Nations people around Dubbo right now, does the Prime Minister regret not doing more to protect this community?
This is and has been one of our priorities. The achievements in protecting Indigenous Australia through the course of the pandemic have been one of the signatures of the Australian result.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
As the Prime Minister says, acknowledged by Pat Turner and acknowledged by Indigenous communities. It's a considerable and ongoing task. In relation to the Western New South Wales outbreak, and in Dubbo in particular, we have established five ADF teams. Those ADF teams are being based in Dubbo and over the coming days the teams will rotate between Bourke and Warren, Dubbo West and Parkes, Dubbo West, Narromine and Parkes, Dubbo West and Parkes, Trangie, Grawin, Nyngan, Coolah, Mudgee, Forbes, Lightning Ridge and across the region. That ADF work is also supported by 50 ADF members who have moved to be Dubbo based and working out of western New South Wales to focus in particular on compliance and assistance within the region.
Further, an AUSMAT team has landed. That is the first of five teams. That AUSMAT team is ensuring that we have clinical governance, and they will vaccinate and they will work on testing. But, above all else, they are there to ensure that any support which is needed for any of the health services in the area is put in place. In addition to that, the Royal Flying Doctor Service is also providing assistance and vaccination across the area. Over the course of this week, their forward schedule includes Menindee, Hungerford, Yunta, Ivanhoe, Louth, Wanaaring, Euston and Tibooburra. That's over the course of the coming week.
So we are seeing that there are resources in place and they are adding to that which is already there. We have the ADF, the Royal Flying Doctor Service and AUSMAT, and all of that supports the existing clinics that are on the ground. There are 118 Commonwealth clinics in western New South Wales. That includes nine Commonwealth vaccination clinics and nine Aboriginal community controlled health services as well as 100 pharmacies and general practice clinics that are providing vaccination support on the ground. All of these things are coming together to save lives and to protect lives.
The Leader of the Opposition.
I seek leave to table the correspondence from Senator Deb O'Neill, the duty Labor senator for the area, asking that the minister fully staff the Dubbo Aboriginal Medical Service and the response saying: 'As such, practices can recruit doctors subject to location restrictions, such as international medical graduates and Australian bonded colleges.'
The Leader of the Opposition has had his question.
I am seeking leave to table the document.
That's right; you're seeking leave to table documents. You need to briefly describe what they are, not read them in their entirety into Hansardwhich begs the question why you then want them tabled. Leader of the House?
Leave is not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Health. Will the minister update the House on what action the Morrison-Joyce government is taking to protect regional, rural and remote Australians in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic?
First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Cowper for his question and compliment him on the sterling job he is doing looking after the good constituents in Cowper. Whether it's the far east at Norfolk Island, or the far west at Cocos Keeling Islands, up in Wilcannia, down the Darling River or down in the seat of Nicholls, there is Commonwealth support rolling out around Australia, delivering the vaccines that everyone knows are the quickest way to get back to our normal way of life, or near normal, and get rid of lockdowns.
Of the 1.8 million vaccines delivered in the last week 502,000 were delivered in regional Australia—outside the big cities. There are 4.6 million doses that have already gone into regional Australians, like in your electorate, member for Cowper. We have had a coordinated plan involving regional and remote Australia from the very beginning, since the early planning sessions of the COVID pandemic. Currently there are 2,541 community or primary care sites in regional Australia. The Aboriginal community controlled health organisations have been front and centre of that. In fact, there are 127 of them fighting COVID with vaccine rollout. We have 73 Commonwealth vaccination centres in regional Australia. The workhorse of vaccine delivery has been 1,518 general practices, including in your electorate, in my electorate, in the far west, north, south—around the country. We now have 823 community pharmacies who have joined the fight to get that vaccine rolled out. I compliment the minister for health's comments about the ADF and AUSMAT teams. They are out there on the ground in the seat of Nicholls and in the seat of Parkes helping everyone else. We have been coordinating with state agencies so that everything is coordinated.
I'd like to give a particular shout-out to the people of Dubbo, in particular, Kaail Bohm, who works at the TerryWhite Chemmart in Delroy Park in west Dubbo. He's been vaccinating day in, day out for a couple of weeks now, delivering AstraZeneca. On the weekend he got a bus out to the Apollo Estate in East Dubbo, where he knows a lot of people, and went door to door. He acknowledges there has been vaccine hesitancy, but they are coming out now. People in country Australia band together. They are rolling up their sleeves. There are big queues. They know that the quickest way to get COVID back in the box and get our normal way of life back together is to get mass vaccination rolled out, and it's certainly happening in regional, rural and remote Australia.
[by video link] My question is to the minister for health. On 24 June the minister told the House that having no Australian ICU due to COVID was the real measure of the government's success. So is having over 110 Australians in ICU today a measure of the government's failure?
The world has faced a pandemic the likes of which we haven't seen in 100 years. Australia's achievements have been extraordinary, but we've not been immune. Last year we faced a devastating outbreak in Victoria. Last year we faced a devastating outbreak in Victoria where lives were lost on a significant basis. With almost 690,000 cases worldwide yesterday, and almost 10,000 lives, 10,000 souls, lost yesterday, we are also not immune. But every life saved—the 30,000 lives saved compared with the OECD average, the 45,000 lives saved compared with the United States and the UK average—is a profound gift of life, and that is something that we should be acknowledging. Every life lost is a tragedy. There is an outbreak. We know that. It's not a game. It's life and death for people, and what that means is, yes, there are at this point in time 119 Australians in ICUs. There are 44 Australians on ventilation, 670 Australians in hospital. It's important to acknowledge the challenge that each one of them and their families face, but it's important to acknowledge what we've done as a nation in the midst of a pandemic.
Sometimes it does appear and feel as if there are those that would airbrush a global pandemic and pretend this is an Australian phenomenon. It's not. What we see is a pandemic which has ravaged and ripped apart so much of the world, which has been present in Australia but on a vastly different basis. Those things that we've done—the rings of containment, the borders, the testing, the tracing, the distancing—yes, they have made those differences. Is it different with Delta? Yes, it is, as we see with the United States having over 130,000 cases a day, as we see with the UK having over 30,000 cases a day and as we see with almost 100 lives lost daily in the UK now. This pandemic evolves and it throws new challenges, but do I think we're up for it as a nation? I do. Do I think what we are doing will protect Australians? Absolutely. Do I think the national plan is fundamental? Absolutely. As Pat McGorry was saying, in terms of mental health, in the last two days, these things give Australians hope, and hope is what is fundamental to helping people through these difficult times. That's what we're doing—hope and safety.
[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting the childcare sector by keeping services open for essential care, keeping staff employed and easing financial pressure on families?
I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. He's a former diplomat, and now the member for Wentworth is an incredible advocate for the childcare centres in his electorate. As the member knows and as everybody in this House knows, child care is a critical part of our economy and our society. There are almost a million families who rely on the childcare system, and it's particularly important at the moment for those essential workers. There are 200,000 people that work in the childcare system, and many centres are owned by small family businesses. I want to say at the outset: thank you to all of those providers for continuing the work that you are doing. It's essential work that you are doing, providing valuable services for all of us.
During the pandemic, we've been constantly monitoring the financial situation with childcare providers to ensure that they can remain strong, viable and open. Up until just yesterday, we'd already provided $3 billion of additional support since the beginning of this pandemic. But, even over the last few weeks, we've been noticing attendance levels, particularly in greater Sydney, continuing to fall as the lockdown has gone on. And then, over the weekend, both New South Wales and Victoria gave additional health directives that children should not be attending childcare centres unless they were children of essential workers, which of course has a further impact on those childcare centres. Consequently, we stepped up yesterday and announced new additional support for those childcare services. That's an additional 25 per cent of revenue going to the childcare centres, and it's an additional 40 per cent of revenue which goes to the out-of-school-hours care providers as well. Of course, this is on top of the childcare subsidy, which will continue to flow even if the children aren't attending. That keeps those childcare centres open, that keeps them viable and that means that they can continue to be open for those essential workers who need those services in order to go to the hospitals to do their work—in order to be out in the community, serving us and keeping us safe.
I finally want to come back to my thanks to the childcare workers. They are very important workers. We've made this funding conditional upon headcounts being maintained. And we've also made the funding conditional upon gap fee waivers being put into place—that is, you only access the funding if parents aren't charged. Parents won't be charged, but we'll continue the flow of funding. This is a good package. It's good for the childcare operators, it's good for the families and it's good for the workers. (Time expired)
[by video link] My question again is to the Minister for Health. Will the government include children between the ages of 12 and 15 in vaccination targets before the country reopens? I put the question that is being asked by parents in lockdown zones across Australia: will parents be asked to send their secondary school children back to school before they're vaccinated?
I want to thank the member Hindmarsh. We'll be guided by the scientific advice in relation to the assessment of the national plan. That plan has been reaffirmed overnight by the Doherty institute, both by the head of the Doherty institute, Professor Sharon Lewin, and by Professor Jodie McVernon, the chief modeller, in her release which was put out. In terms of the allocation for the 70 and 80 per cent targets, the advice to us remains very clear—it having been put to the Doherty institute on a number of occasions—as to whether part of that should include children under 16. The advice is that the correct target for Australia, the appropriate and necessary target, should be the 16-plus adult population, on the basis of transmissibility. That's the scientific advice to Australians. In addition to that, we will continue with the program in relation to 12- to 15-year-olds.
There are two stages. Firstly, at this point in time, we've vaccinated approximately 8,000 of those that were opened up only recently, following the medical advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation to provide vaccinations for children with disability, children with underlying medical conditions, children in Indigenous communities and children in remote communities. They will, of course, be recorded and done in addition to the national program. Right now, we are awaiting the advice, which we hope will be with us in the course of the week, from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation for general 12- to 15-year-old vaccinations. If they advise, we will do it. I would hope that nobody is advocating that we should be vaccinating people for whom there's no medical advice. I would hope nobody is advocating that, because there was an implication in the question. In relation to students aged 12 to 15, they are a secondary cohort. Those aged 16 and above are also a secondary cohort. In relation to those aged 16 and above, bookings open as at 30 August. That was already foreshadowed last week by the Prime Minister. The secondary ages go from 12 through to 18, so there are two cohorts within that group.
Then, perhaps, as we look at all of this, one of the things is that we purchased vaccines for the whole of the population. The point about whole of population is to cover all possible contingencies of all age groups, and we are in that situation with the age of 16-plus opening up next week. Matters of school attendance are a matter for the relevant state governments, but we hope, if there is ATAGI advice, that all states and territories will join with us in the national rollout for 12- to 15-year-olds.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is addressing the scourge of domestic and family violence, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for Higgins for her question and thank her for the work she does in her electorate across so many fronts. She's well known for her Go Girls! Forums, which support women's pathways into leadership, and her Superstars of STEM forums, where she showcases the achievements of women in STEM. More importantly perhaps, as a public health professor and paediatrician for over 25 years, the member for Higgins has been a champion for children. Children are often the silent victims of domestic and family violence.
People who previously considered that their lives were in perfect equilibrium are struggling with the circumstances of this global pandemic. So, now more than ever, we must be aware of the situation for those for whom home is no longer a safe place to be. COVID has continued to put pressure on our families and our living situations. Despite ongoing lockdowns, there is never an excuse for violence. Everyone deserves to be safe in their home, their workplace and their community. We want to make sure that a lockdown should never be a reason that women and children can't find the help they need.
Acting quickly, the Morrison government provided $150 million to our frontline services at the start of the pandemic. That included a first tranche of $130 million to the states and territories to help them with their frontline services, and $20 million to our Commonwealth services, including 1800RESPECT. I do want to take the opportunity to thank those frontline workers—the social workers, the crisis accommodation providers, the 1800RESPECT counsellors—for their ongoing efforts to truly change the trajectory of women and children escaping violence. We know, too, that victims-survivors of domestic and family violence need support throughout their journey, not just at the moment of crisis. Children deserve to be safe and supported through their pursuit of justice and family law processes. Services such as the Women's Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service in New South Wales works with frontline crisis workers to ensure safe and sustainable outcomes for the victims-survivors, and we really want to thank them.
We are continuing on so many fronts with our determination that, as we develop the next national plan, we don't leave anyone behind. I know that everyone in this parliament would want to urge those who feel unsafe in their homes to reach out for support. Your safety and your wellbeing matter. Lockdowns, curfews, rules and regulations should never prevent you leaving your home if you need to, escaping from harm, seeking help. The Morrison government will continue on all our efforts and fronts to end the scourge of domestic and family violence.
Mr Speaker, I ask further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would join me in wishing the 179 members of the Australian Paralympics team all the very best in Tokyo. We also congratulate, again, the people of Japan, Tokyo in particular, for the great job they did with the Olympic Games and now with the Paralympics. It is a great statement of what we can be achieving at this point of the pandemic.
Can I also particularly congratulate seven-time Paralympian Danni Di Toro, who will be joining dual wheelchair rugby gold medallist Ryley Batt as our flag-bearers tonight. Congratulations to them, and to all of our Paralympians: you go!
I join with the Prime Minister in wishing all our Paralympians all the best when they compete in Tokyo. Our Paralympians are indeed inspirational. They're great Australians. In particular, I congratulate Danni Di Toro and Ryley Batt, who will be our flag-bearers in Tokyo this evening.
Australia punches way above our weight in the Paralympics. We are very, very successful as a nation, and I look forward to watching that success. I think they will rate extremely well, as Australians at home need a bit of lifting up in these difficult times, and watching these inspirational Paralympians overcome hardship and difficulties in their life—not ask for anything, just give something back. They'll be giving something back over coming days, and we wish them well. We thank, as well, the Japanese government and the people of Japan for hosting the Paralympics. It is a difficult time for them, but they're continuing to do a fantastic job, I'm sure, as they did with the Olympic Games.
In relation to the Dubbo Regional Aboriginal Medical Service, I wish to add that the Dubbo Regional Aboriginal Medical Service has been allocated $12.8 million over three years in IAHP primary healthcare funding, in accordance with the funding model, not including indexation, which will also be applied annually. This funding is further supplemented with the self-generated Medicare revenue that Dubbo Regional Aboriginal Medical Service can claim through its arrangement with Coonamble Aboriginal Health Services. Those elements were excluded from the references put forward by the opposition but were included in my advice to the opposition.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, by the minister just then.
Please proceed.
I sought leave to table the letter from the minister from which he just read. It was denied by the government; it was the government which didn't want that information. But the information also went on to say that the practice could recruit doctors from the international medical graduates. The fact is that they can't at the moment.
And the Leader of the Opposition indicated to me earlier that he wished to seek the call?
Yes, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, Mr Speaker, repeatedly, by the Prime Minister.
You may proceed.
Once again, the Prime Minister suggested—the offensive suggestion—that the opposition was hoping for the worst with regard to the pandemic. The worst in this pandemic is the loss of life. Five of my constituents, including two people who are known to me, have lost their lives during the pandemic. The comment is offensive and wrong. We were hoping for the best, which is why we called for the effective rollout of the vaccine and for purpose-built quarantine—
The Leader of the Opposition won't debate the matter—
which is what the question went to—
The Leader of the Opposition won't debate the matter.
Mr Speaker, three weeks ago I stood to ask you to write to the Treasurer about why he hadn't answered questions 512 and 516 within the required time frame. Those questions relate to the government's mismanagement of the JobKeeper scheme and their waste of some $13 billion. Given that the Treasurer has continued his secretive approach, refusing to respond to your letter, I would ask that you write to him again.
( No; I'll just say to the member that I'll certainly do that, if the member for Fenner can return to the dispatch box and confirm that the numbers on the questions—hang on, I'm not saying I'll do that. The questions he's referring to are the ones from three weeks ago?
They are indeed: 512 and 516.
That's good; I'm glad you can recall that. I think I said at the time that the letters were being prepared as you spoke. I signed them when I returned to my office and, no, I'm actually not going to keep writing each time. It's been a reasonable period of time and there's a time limit for which you can do that. I have already written to the Treasurer, and they're there in his office. You raised it after a certain period of time, and I'm just not sure, once you've done that, that I should be writing to him constantly at this point in time.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Speaker, can I just ask you to reflect on that?
Sure.
The reason for those letters being sent is that it is believed by the House, in the standing orders, to be important that questions can be put on the Notice Paper and receive a reply.
I'm well aware of that.
Yes. The only way the House can pressure a minister, when a minister is failing to respect the House by replying, is to ask again. Otherwise, the whole purpose—
I know, but the point I'm making—and I'm just going to cut to the chase very quickly—is that I think we've all dealt with questions on notice. You, as a minister, would have had all of that. Unless you're going to stand at the dispatch box and say you never had one that you hadn't answered within the required time—
Mr Burke interjecting—
Yes, okay—well, there you go. I have written to—
Perfect!
No, not perfect, member for Bruce—that's very dangerous! That's very dangerous ground; it's very rarely perfect, if I can just give you some guidance. The point I'm making is that I wrote three weeks ago and I'm not going to get into the habit of writing every day, or every two days or whatever at this point in time. I think the member for Fenner has made his point. I'm not saying that I won't write again, but, certainly, in the whole time that I have been Speaker, I haven't had anyone say, 'I asked you to write three weeks ago and I still haven't got a reply. Can you do it again?' That's where the member for Fenner is trying to break new ground, but he's not going to at this point.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
I couldn't understand what you said, but don't take your mask off to clarify, please!
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's continued misuse of taxpayers' money and basic failures of public administration.
I call upon all those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Around Australia right now and around our world, there is a lot going on. We have the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. We're perhaps looking, here in Australia, at a double-dip recession. We have a pandemic raging. We have half the country in lockdown. And, behind it all, we have climate change continuing at pace. The role of government has perhaps never been more important. But, instead of having a government capable of doing its job, we have a government that is simply not up to the job.
It's perhaps fitting today that the Prime Minister revealed that he's getting his COVID lessons from the children's film The Croods. For those who don't have the joy of small children, The Croods is the story of a group of cave-dwellers who get swept from one chaotic disaster to another—often of their own making—and never quite come to grips with what's going on. It's hard to think of a better metaphor for this government, because, when you look over the course of this government and this prime ministership, all you see is one disaster after another, one crisis after another—often of their own making—and somehow them being surprised that: 'Oh, we're in government and we're responsible for trying to do something about it.'
First came the bushfires. As communities across Australia burnt, the Prime Minister relaxed on a Hawaiian beach. When fire chiefs warned of unprecedented conditions, he told them not to worry. When Australians were rescued off the beach at Mallacoota, he was knocking down pina coladas. When Australians wanted leadership, he told us he didn't hold a hose. While firefighters desperately called for help, he claimed that they wanted to be there. The only thing he offered them was a forced handshake.
Then, when the pandemic began, he went to the Rugby League. He told us it wasn't a race. He told us quarantine was someone else's problem. He told us not to lock down.
When Australian women cried out for respect and safety, the Prime Minister told us we were lucky we weren't being shot. He could only relate to the alleged rape of a young woman when he was told to view it through the context of his own family. Then, instead of supporting the survivor, his office briefed against her loved ones.
He failed to heed the warnings of veterans to evacuate our allies from Afghanistan in time. Instead, he abandoned those who'd served beside our troops.
Under this Prime Minister, we've had robodebt; we've had the dud NBN; we've had jobs for mates, rising childcare costs, stagnant wages, cuts to Medicare and plummeting numbers of trainees and apprentices. We've had whatever the minister for energy's latest scandal is—something to do with a charter flight and Liberal donors in the Beetaloo; it's hard to keep up with his mishaps. Because of the failed vaccine rollout and failures in quarantine, we've got kids stuck at home, missing out on the education they deserve, and small businesses going to the wall. We're all tired of it; we're despairing of when we're going to get out of it, because this Prime Minister failed to do his job. There's a lot wrong with this Prime Minister, but there's always a pretty consistent theme. It's always someone else's problem, always someone else's fault. It's always about him. He's slow to act, but he's really quick to blame.
Having failed so badly at rolling out the vaccine in time and fixing the problems with national quarantine, there is one thing where he's at the head of the pack, where he's winning the race, and that is rorts. We've had sports rorts, where $100 million was used to target marginal seats. The minister went to the back bench for a little time. But of course she's back, because, according to the Prime Minister, she did absolutely nothing wrong.
We've had the Safer Communities Fund rorts. There were communities which were worried about crime rates and looked to local councils, who looked for cameras and lighting in their communities to try to prevent crime in their areas. We had 91 per cent of the $30 million third round ending up in government-held, Independent or marginal seats. That's what happened. Apparently, community safety is only needed in marginal seats, not anywhere else!
We've had, of course, regional rorts, where hundreds of projects were funded by a panel of ministers, despite not having been recommended by the Public Service, and the coalition-held target seats received 94 per cent of 94 per cent of the funds. We've of course had the Leppington Triangle. The minister here at the desk was responsible for paying $30 million for a piece of land that was valued by the department of infrastructure at only $3 million—something that the minister at the desk thinks was perfectly sensible. And, of course, we had car park rorts, where $660 million was allocated, based on a top 20 marginal electorate spreadsheet shared with the Prime Minister's office. That's what this government has been doing with its time. We had the Prime Minister's office hand-picking projects for car park rorts. He cannot deny his own personal involvement in that, because the Audit Office pointed to him directly and to his role and his responsibility in it.
The Prime Minister has never seen a taxpayer fund that he hasn't wanted to use for his own political purposes. His one guiding interest in every single thing that he does, in everything that he does, whether it's the use of taxpayer money or whether it's his failures in the vaccine rollout and quarantine, is his own political interest, not the national interest. He cares nothing for protecting taxpayers' money or good public governance. It is all about his political interest.
What we saw happen with car park rorts was a massive failure of public administration. We have seen what the government learnt from sports rorts. It was not that you don't have a process. They called for community members across the country to put in applications and they had a process where they'd be assessed by the department—and then, of course, they were obviously ignored. What this government seems to have learnt from sports rorts and its other rorts is to just not have a process at all, to basically just say: let's pick 20 seats that are all marginal that we want to win in this campaign; let's allocate the funding according to that, between the Prime Minister's office and the minister's office.
To be fair to the minister at the desk, he wasn't the minister at the time. He's trying to clean up this mess and, unfortunately, as a result, has had to cancel some of these projects because he knows that this has been an absolute disaster. The reality is that they've have been unable to deliver the car parks because they were actually in the wrong spot. They were where there were no actual train stations, or where train stations were going to be cancelled. They are where there was no land available for them to be put in the first place. They are unable to deliver them because of this administration. This is not just a small amount of money we are talking about. It's not just a one-off. It is $660 million out of a $4.7 billion Urban Congestion Fund.
We know that what the government have learnt by this rorting is that they will do it again. They've got over $2 billion in unspent Urban Congestion Fund money that is sitting there. Have they learnt their lesson? Have they said: 'We had better actually call for projects out of this Urban Congestion Fund'? Have they gone out to local councils and said: 'Here is a process. You can apply for this funding to deal with urban congestion'? No. They haven't done any of that. We know that they are going to do exactly the same thing in the lead-up to the next election. They are going to pick projects. They're already doing it now. They're talking to marginal seats, they're talking to candidates, they're talking to their patron senators in their duty electorates, saying, 'Where do we want to spend this money in order to further rort taxpayer funds for election purposes?'
This government cares nothing about protecting taxpayers' money or good public governance. It is all about them. Their policies, their statements and their beliefs change by the day, depending on what will help them win the news package or get a good headline. Even as they are wracking up trillions of dollars in debt they're doubling down. We know, as a result of the good work of our senators, that they have multiple slush funds for the run-up to the next political campaign. This is no way to run a country. You can't run a country like that in good times, let alone when we are in the trouble we are in today.
Australians deserve much better than a government that sees taxpayer funds as Liberal Party funds. They deserve much better than a government that does not believe we should have an Independent Commission Against Corruption. They deserve much better than a government that sees the sole purpose of being in government as staying in power, not helping people across this community. Australians deserve a government much better than this. They deserve an Albanese government.
Politics is full of rich ironies, but there is no richer irony than the member for Ballarat pontificating on the subject of public administration. She's right to ask what the Auditor-General has said about particular matters, and let me quote one thing the Auditor-General had to say:
Under the third and fourth rounds, which are the subject of this performance audit report, more than $226 million in grant funding was awarded to 121 capital infrastructure projects by the then Minister for Regional Services …
… … …
… … …
… … …
That is the Auditor-General's assessment of the conduct of the member for Ballarat. Is there a more ludicrous spectacle than somebody who has been so roundly, appropriately and justifiably criticised by the Auditor-General coming in here and pontificating about standards in government?
Of course, it goes well beyond the member for Ballarat. Here's another report from the Auditor-General that I'd like to direct the attention of the House to. It spoke about a particular regional local community infrastructure program. It said that, in one instance, the relevant minister 'made an explicit decision to approve an application that was known to be otherwise ineligible under the Guidelines'. It went on to say that the relevant minister 'explicitly decided to waive the project eligibility criteria for an application they wished to fund'. In another example of what seems to be a track record or a consistent pattern of behaviour from the other side of the House, the report states that 'the awarding of funding to projects also disproportionately favoured ALP held seats'.
Who was this Auditor-General's report about? It was about the then minister for infrastructure, the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition. And the member for Ballarat has just come in here and advanced the ludicrous proposition that somehow the Labor Party are going to be the bringers of some new high standard of public administration—a claim which is frankly delusional and utterly at odds with the clear documentary evidence from a series of Auditor-General's reports.
When we talk about delusional, we can go to many of the things that the shadow minister ran through in her speech that we've just heard. But there's a charge that's more serious than 'delusional'. It is the frankly disgusting characterisation by the member for Ballarat, and by the opposition, of the vaccine rollout. Our nation faces the biggest public health challenge in a hundred years, and the opposition is desperately talking it down. They are willing the vaccine rollout to fail. They need to have a good look at themselves, because it is hard to find a more depressing instance of political behaviour when we and all fair-minded Australians—all Australians of goodwill, including, I might say, Labor governments around the country—are working in a determined fashion to get Australia through this challenge and to build on the growing success of the vaccine rollout with 17.4 million doses now having gone into arms around Australia. All Australians of goodwill want this to succeed, they're willing it on, but there's one group of Australians who want to see it fail, and we've heard that again today. That's a clear inference that can be drawn from the very disappointing comments of the member for Ballarat.
We hear a clear and consistent pattern of misstatement of fact from the shadow minister when she refers to particular matters of public administration under this government. Once again, we heard a tired, factually incorrect claim about the Leppington Triangle. It seems that the opposition think you can buy 13.62 hectares of land in Western Sydney, on the outer fringes of that growing metropolitan area, just near the Western Sydney airport, for $3 million. It seems that's what they believe. Well I say to them: good luck with that! Go out to Western Sydney and offer to buy 13.62 hectares for $3 million. That is the substance of their indignant claim—that there was some problem that the land was bought for $30 million rather than $3 million.
Don't take my opinion on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer you to an independent audit provided by the respected consultancy Sententia, commissioned by department of infrastructure, which had this to say:
The determination of the amount to pay for a property is a judgement. Officers exercised that judgement in the case of the Leppington Triangle, and paid a price per square metre that is not inconsistent with numerous recent transactions in the region. This land will be a part of a multibillion dollar airport precinct with significant long-term benefit to the Australian people and the Australian economy.
Sententia also had this to say:
There is no question that there were process weaknesses in how the acquisition was completed … However, addressing those process weaknesses would not have allowed the Commonwealth to acquire the land for $3 million.
That is the view from an independent audit of this set of circumstances, which the shadow minister continues to wilfully misrepresent.
Let's turn to the question of commuter car parks. The shadow minister, as well as the member for Scullin, in his brief escape from the obscurity within which he has previously dwelled for many years, has been seeking to mount the argument that there is somehow a distinction to be drawn between the desirability of Commonwealth funding for commuter car parks at Mango Hill, at Gosford, at Woy Woy, at Panania, at Hurstville, at Mandurah, at Riverwood, at Frankston, at Campbelltown and at St Marys. The proposition that we have, as best as can be discerned from the confusing garble from the member for Scullin, appears to be that when funding is committed to those commuter car parks by the Labor Party, as it unquestionably was in the 2019 election, that's a good thing, but when it's done by the coalition it automatically becomes, through some mysterious alchemy, a bad thing. That is the argument. That is what the member for Scullin is pleased to describe as an argument.
He went on to say this: 'Oh, we all understand that congestion is a major problem in Australia. We all understand the pressures on commuters and the importance of enabling people to have more efficient trips to work, and commuter car parks provide a vital role.' So they do. That indeed goes to the underlying policy rationale which, as the member for Scullin found very difficult to deny, is the rationale for the policy advanced by Labor and the policy advanced by the coalition. He seeks desperately to distinguish. He says, 'But they need to be determined on need and evidence, not the whim of political parties.' That apparently is the basis on which a distinction is to be drawn between the conduct of the Labor Party and the conduct of the coalition. How is he to explain, against that high-minded test he has set, the fact that the member for Maribyrnong, the then Leader of the Opposition, announced the park-and-ride fund—Labor's version, worth $300 million—on one day and then the very next day turned up in Gosford saying, 'We should have a commuter car park here'? Where is the need and evidence? Where is the deep scientific basis that is apparently the distinction between two sides of parliament? There is none. The fact is that Labor's claims that they offer some high-minded new spirit of public administration are rightly laughed at by anybody who has even the barest understanding of what they did in their chaotic years in government. (Time expired)
The minister spoke of desperation, and that was 10 minutes of pure undiluted desperation. He set a test at the end, but it's a test that he and the government of which he is a part failed. We on this side of the House are resolute in our commitment to putting in place a national anticorruption commission. If he had any bona fides, if his Prime Minister had any, he would join us and subject himself to that standard instead of walking away in a very generous and appropriate homage to the Prime Minister, who likes to walk away from any questioning.
Of course you'd be aware that three years ago today the member for Cook, the Prime Minister, having said just before that he had no leadership ambitions, became this country's leader. To be fair to him—and Malcolm Turnbull may rankle a little bit at this—he has been true to his word. He has demonstrated no leadership ambitions, none whatsoever, and this MPI really draws that out. We see a government that can't tell the difference between its political interest and Australia's national interest, nor, fundamentally, despite what Mr Perfectly Sensible seems to suggest, between LNP slush funds and public money that should be accountable to the public through this parliament.
This has been a hallmark of the government, because, actually, they aren't terribly interested in governing. We see that day in, day out, and this really reflects the leader of the government, because he hasn't got interest in government. He shows us that day in, day out at this dispatch box and in all his public utterances, where his first inclination is to avoid, his second is to blame and his third is to pass the buck, time and time again. When it comes to the work of government, there's no interest in public administration. In fact, as the minister demonstrated earlier, there's not even a pretence of interest. I will say this to the minister: he obviously fancies himself as a university debater, and he should go back to that if he enjoys it so much, because he is bringing very little to this chamber and less to his role. But what the Prime Minister is bringing to his role is politicising everything in the cheapest possible way. He will govern by spreadsheet, not by deliberative process. He's up to his neck in the car park rorts scandal. He was up to his neck in the sports rorts scandal, because this is how he sees government: it's all about naked political interest, not about the national interest. And Australians are on to him.
The member for Ballarat went through a litany of scandal which only scratched the surface of the dismal record of this government, a dismal record betraying the trust and confidence of the Australian people. How telling it was that the minister before, the university debater, could simply, head down, read out the Auditor-General reports from the past and mischaracterise positions in the future. What a nonsense that was to suggest that being in favour of commuter car parks or, indeed, infrastructure more broadly is the same as being up for the sorts of rorts that have been so brutally exposed by the Auditor-General, that have been so brutally condemned by the Auditor-General's report and for which this government must be made accountable. We are talking about $660 million of public money invested not on the basis of evidence and need. Interestingly, the minister walked away from his previous suggestions that that was the basis. If you look at any of the reports he referred to, his arguments fall away, because the evidence is simply not there.
I have some sympathy for the minister, because none of this was his doing. We know this was the business of the now minister for education, the member for Aston, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, who was also involved with the member of Aston with these secret spreadsheets, the spreadsheets that are apparently cabinet documents even though the cabinet minister then responsible claims he never saw them. What a joke that is. It's another example of how contemptuous this government is for the very concept of public administration, the very concept of good governance. Once again we see they're unable to come to the dispatch box and account for their actions because they are true to the Prime Minister—the first reaction, to blame; the second, to deflect; the third, to simply deny that there's a problem here at all. But there is a problem here. It's a problem that will only be solved by changing the government and putting in place a national anticorruption commission. (Time expired)
It's not often I get the opportunity to say thank you to the member for Ballarat for opening up a debate like this and, in particular, mentioning something within my portfolio, which is the Beetaloo basin. We know those opposite will go to any lengths to look for mud. They'll turn over every rock, open every cupboard, go to every dark space. I can say to those opposite: you are barking up the wrong tree. You are barking mad if you think there is an issue in terms of the Beetaloo basin and the support that we are providing. So I say to the member of Ballarat, and I say it here and say it publicly: if you have an allegation to make, step up. There's a press gallery just over there looking for a story. Step up to them, make the allegation, and say what it is you are trying to intimate.
Here are some facts: the Beetaloo Strategic Basin Plan, in terms of the $50 million grant program, was announced by me. I am the responsible minister. I am the decision-maker in terms of those grants and who they go to. That announcement was made on 17 December 2020—the availability of the grant program and that it would be made available for those individuals and companies who are out there, the ones who have access to the exploration permits around the Beetaloo, to bring forward that investment. Why is that important? Because we think that the Beetaloo sub-basin could increase economic activity by between $18 billion and $36 billion. That is a significant amount of money, and in this matter of public importance discussion those opposite are suggesting that this is not a worthwhile spend. It can drive up to 6,000 jobs in the Northern Territory by 2040. Why have we put $50 million on the table for exploration grants? It is a very practical, commonsense reason. We want to bring forward that exploration because it brings forward the development of the basin. It brings forward the economic activity and it brings those jobs into the Territory, where they're desperately needed.
I will come back to what those opposite are intimating when they make these claims and statements, and it's pretty straightforward. There is a proponent to which we have offered grant support. That decision was made by me, as the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, based on the advice and recommendations of an independent panel, who made an assessment against the guidelines for the Beetaloo grants program, which I accepted. That is how it works. That is how these decisions are made. These are the right decisions, because it is good for the Northern Territory if we can bring forward those jobs, that economic development. We think the Beetaloo gas could be some 200,000 petajoules. This is a significant basin. It is a significant investment and a significant opportunity for our country. Those opposite want to disparage what we're doing for the people of the Northern Territory and the people of Australia. It's just wrong.
What else is it they're suggesting they might not support? Is it the Exploring for the Future program, which has already identified more than a trillion dollars worth of resources in Australia that into the future we can develop to build our wealth and provide more opportunities? Is it the $100 million extension of the junior minerals exploration incentive, which we know, particularly in Western Australia, has resulted in an absolute increase, a boom, in exploration? Down the track, that will mean more resource projects, more mines, more employment and more opportunities for Australians; not only for Australians who are already out there but for apprentices and trainees to be engaged, to learn those skills, to pick up a trade in the resources sector.
I congratulate the sector on what they've done. Some $310 billion in exports is the estimate for the last financial year. They broke all records. In the midst of the COVID pandemic, in the midst of what is effectively a worldwide meltdown around the economies of other nations, this country has broken all records for its exports. The sector have managed the pandemic in an incredibly good way. Up until recently, there hadn't been a single outbreak, not one case. We still have people who are on FIFO, who must cross borders because they have particular skills that can't be found. The industry has managed to support those cases and to keep those businesses operational.
And yet, what we have in those opposite is the member for Ballarat, who wants to come in and intimate something about a program for which I'm responsible and try to lay it at the feet of the minister for energy. The minister for energy is not the decision-maker; I am. And I stand by those decisions. They are the right decisions for this country, because they will bring forward investment, they will bring forward jobs and they will bring forward opportunities. As we come out of the COVID pandemic, and as we see the light at the end of the tunnel, it is jobs like these and resource projects like these that will make a real difference to our country into the future. I continue to stand by the sector and what we are doing, and I will always do that.
The biggest fraud in Australian politics is the Prime Minister, and the biggest lie is the Liberal Party claiming to be good at managing money!
The member for Whitlam will resume his seat.
Reflecting on the member.
I ask the member to withdraw the reference to fraud.
I withdraw the reference to fraud. I'm simply making the point that the Prime Minister has tripled the debt. They have fiddled the books; they have driven wages backwards; they have driven jobseekers and small businesses to despair; they have written checks to the value of $20 billion to boost the bonuses and dividends of their mates. It's all on the record. They don't deny it. Their greatest hope is that people are going to forget. We had the minister just now describe it as some kind of 'mysterious alchemy'. The people of Australia have got another word for it: rorting. It's using taxpayers' money as if it were their own money. And taxpayers will not forget. They remember the land deal that gave hope to every dodgy second-hand car dealer in the country. If you can get $30 million for a $3 million package of land then your dad's bashed up Datsun down the back of the garage has got to be worth a royal fortune.
The sports rorts of $100 million were a real special. They set up a program to build women's change rooms. Lord knows it's needed, but, for God's sake, don't give it to any of those sporting clubs with women's sporting teams! They ploughed it into clubs that didn't have women's sporting teams. The big daddy of them all was 'pork 'n' ride'. It's big by any standard—$4 billion dollars—supposedly for urban infrastructure, but its real purpose is not to save the jobs of Australians doing it tough but to save the Prime Minister's job. We already know that $660 million has been spent on dodgy car parks. The member for Scullin has gone through it in great detail. There were four car parks in the Victorian seat of Kooyong, five in the Victorian seat of Deakin and six in the seat of Goldstein. Let's have a look at who holds these seats, shall we? When you look at them, there are three rogues: they're all blokes, they're all blue-suit wearers, and they're all liberals, but the thing that struck me is that they're all key figures. We've got the member for Goldstein, a bloke who guzzles his own bathwater and was appointed by the Liberals as the chair of the economics committee; the member for Deakin, another interesting character, who, when he's not stacking branches in an attempt to get rid of the member for Goldstein, is the Assistant Treasurer—that's his side hustle; and then, of course, the member for Kooyong, the federal Treasurer, the bloke who says yes to every pork barrel that rolls past his office but no to JobKeeper. These are the people who are making key economic decisions for this country, and they are the key architects of one of the biggest rorts that this parliament has ever seen. These guys have $4 billion all lined up—your money, taxpayers' money—and they want to use it as if it's Liberal Party money to secure their next federal election.
The people of Australia will not cop it. The Audit Office ran a key comb all over this dodgy program, and they found that 75 per cent of the grants went to Liberal Party seats. It's not surprising, because only Liberal Party MPs were entitled to apply for the money. They're not even good at rorting, because the auditor found they spent 400 per cent more on these dodgy car parks than they would have if they had gone to an open tender. Four hundred per cent more. And how does the minister describe it? Mysterious alchemy! The Australian people have got another name for it. It's not mysterious alchemy; it's rorting.
It's time we called BS on this mob who try to make themselves out as good at managing money—but they are good at managing taxpayers' money into Liberal Party rorts. The people of Australia are not going to buy it. It's not Liberal Party money; it's the Australian taxpayers' money. And, yes, we have a problem with urban congestion and, yes, we need some car parks. But this money should be distributed on the basis of merit and need, not this mysterious alchemy, which ordinary Australians know is nothing more than corruption and rorting—and we will not have it!
Order! I'm going to ask the member to withdraw the reference to 'corruption'. Corruption is a criminal offence.
I withdraw.
Thank you. The member for Sturt has the call.
I'd like to thank the member for Ballarat for the opportunity that she's given me to confirm two things. The first is the Labor Party's opposition to investing in reducing urban congestion, particularly in my electorate of Sturt—and I will outline in a moment some of the important projects that are being funded through the program that Labor are attacking. It's a fact of great delight to me that I get to report back to my community that Labor don't support the investments that we are making in these vital projects in my electorate. Secondly, I appreciate them giving me the opportunity to outline more broadly the vital investments that we are undertaking in infrastructure across my home state of South Australia.
There are three intersections in my electorate that are being funded through the Urban Congestion Fund that Labor evidently don't support: the Portrush-Magill intersection, $96 million; the Fullarton Crossroad intersection, $61 million; and the Glen Osmond-Fullarton intersection, $35 million—jointly funded from the Urban Congestion Fund with the South Australian state government under fifty-fifty partnerships. These are three excellent projects that are merit based and are focused on helping families and businesses be more productive and to get home quicker and safer, and unclogging congestion in some of the busiest intersections in the city of Adelaide.
The Magill-Portrush intersection alone carries around 65,000 vehicle movements a day. In fact it sits on Highway 1, because of course Portrush Road, running through Adelaide, is part of the national highway network. This project and the other two that I outlined have enormous local community support, and they are an example of a government with the right priorities in infrastructure expenditure investing in the most at-need projects that are made on a merit base. These are three in my electorate, and there are many more throughout the metropolitan Adelaide area and of course other investments throughout South Australia.
The fact that Labor don't support this program, the fact that they attack it and the fact that they don't believe that the people of Sturt deserve to have these sorts of investments in our local infrastructure goes to show why Labor lost the last election. They can rail about the purported lack of support for any of these projects, but I make the simple point that these were all policies that were announced before the election, were taken to the people, and that the people overwhelmingly endorsed.
More broadly in South Australia we have record infrastructure funding coming from the state and federal governments. My good friend here, the member for Grey, unfortunately, because of parliamentary commitments hasn't been able to be at the excellent two milestones in the last few weeks in Port Augusta and Port Wakefield—two excellent projects that are investments in his electorate of Grey but which will also yield enormous productivity benefits and general benefits for the entire state of South Australia. They are exactly the sorts of infrastructure examples that I would point to that show we have the right priorities when it comes to investing in communities throughout South Australia and throughout Australia.
We have record infrastructure in the defence sector, particularly out at the Osborne shipyards. The shipyard investment there, which will underpin the Attack class and Hunter class frigate programs, is the kind of investment that will support thousands and thousands of jobs in the shipbuilding industry, both in my home city of Adelaide and across the nation, for decades and decades to come, whilst also underpinning vital sovereign capability in national security and sovereign naval shipbuilding. This is part of a $270 billion acquisition program over the next 10 years just within the defence portfolio, which goes to show that we are making the important necessary decisions for the long term that are not only about value for money for taxpayers but also underpinning future productive infrastructure—in the case of defence, the sovereign capability for our national security in Australia—as well as making sure that we are making decisions that are in the best long-term interests of the Australian economy.
Very recently, again in my home city of Adelaide, the Prime Minister made an announcement about sovereign missile capability being developed in this country. Of course, I hope the lion's share of that happens in my home state, but, regardless, it's a very sensible example of the kinds of prudent and necessary decisions that we are making with taxpayers' funds, not only underpinning our national security but also ensuring our economic security into the future. I commend all these important decisions that have been made by our government. I'm proud to serve in a government that has our priorities right and is investing in the infrastructure we need for our future. (Time expired)
[by video link] This government's continued misuse of taxpayers' money is nothing short of astonishing. Like the repetitive moments in the movie Groundhog Day, it's another day and another rorting scandal. There were the sports rorts, with the biased distribution of funds and a conflict of interest prompting the resignation of a minister; airport rorts, where the government paid $30 million for a piece of land that was only worth $3 million; car parks, where the Auditor-General reported a $389 million car park construction fund had been administered ineffectively. I quote:
… the Minister had distributed the grants with 'inadequate assessment' for eligibility ...
Also, the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, was accused of reducing funding to the highest ranked community safety projects and redirecting the funding to projects of his choice, including those not recommended by his department.
The difference between Labor and the Liberals is clear: Labor's policy to establish, for the first time in Australia, a national anticorruption commission will ensure a much needed change to standards of integrity and accountability in the federal government. The powerful and independent national anticorruption commission that Labor will establish stands in stark contrast to the universally condemned model for an integrity commission put forward by the Morrison government. Indeed, Mr Morrison's proposed integrity commission has been described by legal experts as a body designed not to stamp out corruption but to help cover it up. A remedy to the basic failures of public administration by this government is a long time overdue.
Within my electorate of Gilmore, there was the devastation from the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20. The government had previously established the significant $4 billion Emergency Response Fund, providing investment for natural disaster relief and mitigation. Four billion dollars is a huge amount. I have a couple of other important numbers. Firstly: 28. It is exactly 28 months since the $4 billion Emergency Response Fund was announced in April 2019—28 months! The other number is zero. Care to hazard a guess at the total amount that has been drawn down from the fund to improve resilience and to help repair the damage that was created during those devastating bushfires? Correct: zero. It is tragic that money allocated for disaster mitigation is not being used. The most recent Senate estimates found that Emergency Response Fund projects were yet to see funding hit the ground. This fund is earning more in interest than it is using to protect and assist Australians with natural disasters.
All the while, west of Moruya, on the New South Wales South Coast, atop Mount Wandera, sits the main telecommunications infrastructure for the whole of the Eurobodalla. It transmits police, ambulance and fire radio communications, as well as ABC and commercial radio and television, and mobile phone services—critical infrastructure. Extensive damage to the facility in the Black Summer bushfires resulted in the loss of emergency services radio networks and other telecommunications, significantly contributing to the community's fear during the event and, worse still, placing our first responders at higher risk. The asset remains vulnerable. Burnt poles leading to the site were replaced with timber and a tower is surrounded by prolific regrowth as well as dead, dying and fallen trees.
I support Eurobodalla council's efforts there, along with the Eurobodalla Local Emergency Management Committee and the far South Coast bushfire management committee, when calling for urgent funding to replace the timber power poles with more resilient composite poles. Any reasonable Australian would understand that being proactive through regional and remote areas, investing in resilient telecommunications infrastructure, is fundamentally important. Such failures of public administration by this government are just breathtaking— (Time expired)
[by video link] It's a pleasure to join you virtually today. I want to say that I wholeheartedly reject the statement by the opposition which is before the House. I wish to speak on the coalition government's outstanding track record of investment and public administration. Australia is fighting through a once-in-a-century global pandemic. This government led the country through the worst of the impacts on our economy. In fact, Australia was the first advanced economy in the world to return to pre-COVID employment and activity levels. In July 2021 Australia recorded an unemployment rate of 4.6 per cent, which is the lowest level in over a decade. This demonstrates that our government's economic recovery plan is working. We are supporting jobs across the country and have done so throughout the pandemic.
The JobKeeper program was a vital economic lifeline for millions of Australians. It supported more than 3.8 million Australians in one million businesses. In my electorate of Mallee 5,200 businesses and over 20,000 employees were supported throughout the life of the JobKeeper payment. The support has put our nation in a strong position for recovery. Small to medium businesses represent 98 per cent of all JobKeeper recipients across the nation. According to the RBA JobKeeper saved at least 700,000 jobs over the period of April to July last year. But JobKeeper is not the only way this government has supported businesses in my electorate throughout the pandemic. In Mallee the tax-free cash flow boosts helped around 6,400 small and medium businesses with cash payments totalling $236 million. These payments helped small businesses keep up with the bills and in some cases reinvest in their business.
On this side of the House we believe that every individual knows how to spend their money best. That's why we are putting money back into people's pockets, through the extension of the low- and middle-income tax offset. Around 59,500 taxpayers in Mallee will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. If those opposite wish to claim that putting money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians is a misuse of taxpayers' money then they have a lot to answer for. These are questions that should rightly be asked of them at the election.
When it comes to the vital infrastructure investments that are driving our economy forward the coalition government's track record is world class. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, originally announced at the height of the pandemic last year, has injected billions of dollars into local communities across the country. In Mallee our 12 council shires have shared in $73.5 million over the last 12 months. This money has already delivered fantastic projects across Mallee, including: town hall refurbishments in the Central Goldfields shire; essential drainage works in the township of Murrabit, which Tom O'Reilly, the CEO of the Gannawarra shire, was very excited about; reconstruction and widening of the Echuca-Serpentine Road in Loddon shire; reconstruction of Wargan Road near Merbein in the state electorate of Mallee; streetscape improvements for Napier Street in St Arnaud in the Northern Grampians shire; and Horsham council is getting through their backlog of over 800 footpath repairs. Safer roads foster economic activity and recovery, and our government is committed to making country roads safer for families.
In Mallee the most important road that runs from the top to the bottom of the vast electorate is the Calder Highway. The Liberal-Nationals government has invested $75 million in this road through the Roads of Strategic Importance program. This money is leading to much-needed upgrades of this vital highway, including new overtaking lanes between Ouyen and Mildura, which have been desperately needed on this dangerous stretch of road, as well as the redevelopment of the Bailey Road intersection leading to the iconic Lake Tyrrell, at Sea Lake.
Our government has recently committed a further $10.2 million to safer roads throughout Mallee, thanks to the Road Safety Program. We have recently announced $4.28 million for one of the most notorious roads in Mallee, the Robinvale-Sea Lake Road. Locals and transport drivers alike have been very happy about this investment. If you speak to the people of Mallee they will tell you they want safe roads to get to work and take their kids to school safely.
Perhaps Abraham Lincoln's most famous line was:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Perhaps the Prime Minister should heed Abraham Lincoln's advice, because his own credibility has taken a dive. Confidence in his government is rapidly eroding and trust in his government has all but vanished.
The Prime Minister leads a government characterised by dishonesty, rorts, spin and incompetence. It is a government that believes public funds—that is, taxpayers' hard-earned money—are there for the Liberal and Nationals parties to use as slush funds come election time, to use to win marginal seats. The list of rorts and abuses of office, and the incompetence of this government, grows each day and is there for all to see. And what has been the government's and the Prime Minister's response to all of this? To cut funding to the Auditor-General so that fewer audits can be carried out and less scrutiny can be applied to this government, and to prevaricate over the establishment of a national integrity commission that it has now had eight years to install. And why does it do this? Because it doesn't want independent and credible scrutiny. It doesn't want the spotlight shone on it. It doesn't want its own ministers, including the Prime Minister, to have to answer questions that each and every day they refuse to answer here in this parliament, and during Senate question times, or that they simply don't answer when people put in freedom-of-information requests; they hide behind the rules and the guidelines of that process. At times, as we know, they also hide behind the 'cabinet-in-confidence' line, which we see on a regular basis.
This is a government where the rorts speak for themselves. We had the Safer Communities Fund rorts, where 91 per cent of the $30 million for round 3 of the Safer Communities Fund ended up in government held, independent or marginal seats. We had the car parks rorts, where $660 million was allocated based on the top 20 marginal electorates list which was indeed shared with the Prime Minister's office. We had the sports rorts, a $100 million fund, where Minister Bridget McKenzie had to resign. We had the regional rorts, another $220 million, which incurred a scathing report from the Auditor-General. Ministers overturned departmental advice and 17 per cent of the projects were not even recommended, and ministers overturned departmental advice and gave $5 million to a meat processing business which donated to the coalition.
We then had the road rorts, where 83 per cent of the $3 billion in the Urban Congestion Fund went to coalition and marginal seats. We had the pool rorts, which other speakers have talked about, relating to female facilities and water safety, where two Liberal held seats received half of the $120 million promised. We then had the Leppington Triangle airport land deal, where the government paid $30 million for land valued at $3 million. I heard the minister's response in respect of this matter earlier on today. If the minister is right, then why was the land then in turn released back to the people who sold it to the government for less than $1 million, if it was worth the money he says it was?
It simply doesn't make sense and it doesn't stack up. Of course, we then had the Great Barrier Reef Foundation given $444 million, which I understand they didn't even ask for. I could then turn to the member for Hume, the minister for energy, and we could do a whole MPI on his own efforts in respect to all of this.
We then turn to the government's stacking of government boards, statutory authorities, judicial appointments and heads of departments with Liberal Party and National Party mates and supporters—all to ensure that their agenda is carried through and that there is no scrutiny of what they do. It is little wonder that public trust in government has never been lower. This is a government that treats people with contempt. This is a government with only one agenda, and that is to stay in office and to do whatever it takes to do that. I say to the Prime Minister: the Australian people are not fools—as Abraham Lincoln quite properly alluded to in his own comments—and their patience is fast running out.
It's a great privilege to be able to speak on this motion. In fact, it's welcome that we have the opportunity to talk about these important issues around government expenditure. All Australian money that the government raises comes from the taxpayer, so it should be spent judiciously and prudently in the best interests of the advancement of Australians. The comparison between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber is that we always think about how it is we can enlarge the best interests of the whole of the Australian population.
You just need to take the federal electorate of Goldstein as but one example. Under Labor governments, we get resources and commitments and financial support for our community at levels that are—I won't use the expression because it would be unparliamentary—virtually non-existent. But all members in this chamber get financial support to support their communities, including in this difficult time.
In fact, members may recall that, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a community-wide program was allocated to just about every single council across the country to enable investment in local infrastructure at a critical time when councils needed assistance and support and local projects needed to be produced, to ensure that local communities got the financial support that they needed. I presume that's what the members on the other side of the chamber are arguing against. They don't want a fair and equitable distribution of resources for community infrastructure in their electorates. Of course, they'll never mention that because, if they did, it would not be consistent with the farcical narrative they bring into this chamber.
I will say this: I was out of the chamber, but a number of members have mentioned to me that the member for Whitlam took particular opportunity to refer to the wonderful electorate of Goldstein during his address, in particular using an expression 'drinking one's own bathwater'. I concede that I had never heard that expression before. I raced to look it up as fast as the press gallery had to race to look up what Kim Beazley meant when he uttered the expression 'boondoggle'. It seems to allege that, as a member in this place, I believe my own fantasies.
Leaving aside those allegations, they seem very familiar to me. I recall that, at the last election, similar sentiments were conveyed by members opposite when I was arguing and campaigning very aggressively against their retiree tax. They kept arguing that my position was a fantasy, despite our constantly putting up Australians all across the country and giving them a platform to voice their own concerns. While they were busy seeking to push 80-year-olds down the financial stairs, we were standing up and giving them a voice. If that's what they mean by 'drinking one's own bathwater', I humbly accept the criticism. Some of us are unafraid to stand up for our communities. Some of us are unafraid to stand up for our country and its best interests.
I note that some of the members previously were talking about the wonderful electorate of Goldstein and the allocation of funding under the Urban Congestion Fund to the City of Glen Eira. In fact, recently, this did become a mild point of controversy, as the City of Glen Eira argued that the investment in the upgrades of commuter car parking at the Bentleigh and Elsternwick stations was unwelcome, despite the fact it was the largest grant ever allocated to the City of Glen Eira. We had Councillor Li Zhang argue against this funding. Is it any surprise that she happens to be a Labor councillor? Councillor Dr David Zyngier, who is a Greens councillor, argued the same. And there was Councillor Tony Athanasopoulos, who is also a Labor councillor.
But my favourite one was the deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Magee, who was reported in the Nine press as saying:
Councillor Jim Magee said the council didn't ask for the money nor did it have to compete for it "like we always have to do to get government funding" with detailed submissions and heavy lobbying.
"We will gratefully accept money as long as it’s upfront, legitimate and it's for a worthy cause that council has identified as a priority. This council didn't note any of those two car parks as a priority. And this council didn't actually ask for that money."
So what did I do? I went back and flicked through my files before the last election and asked, 'Where did we come up with this ingenious idea that was not received by proposal or by priority?' It just so happens that we had a proposal from the City of Glen Eira, saying that this was a priority project as part of their urban congestion-busting strategy. That's the approach this government takes: priorities, community, outcomes. (Time expired)
The discussion has now concluded.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present Report 486: Regulatory activities: Inquiry into Auditor-General's reports 33, 47 and 48 (2019-20) and 5 and 8 (2020-21)—report, August 2021, incorporating not a dissenting report, but some additional comments.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I know this is the highlight of the House's afternoon: a Public Accounts and Audit Committee report! I'll just say at the outset—I'll reassure you—that I'm not going to cover all five Auditor-General's reports that this relates to in my remarks. But I do commend the report to the House. It continues the bipartisan tradition where, overwhelmingly, government and opposition members agree on the reports. I thank the chair in particular for her collegiate work on the committee.
This report looks at a number of Auditor-General's inquiry reports into regulation. It turns the blowtorch, if you like, on the regulatory activities of departments. I would like to remark on three aspects of our report—firstly, with regard to the EPBC Act and environmental protection. That was a damning audit report. I read most of the audit reports that the Auditor-General issues—it's a fun life!—and he does terrific work on behalf of the parliament. But this is a damning audit report that calls out the government's maladministration in environmental laws. The committee's report is an unusually strong, unanimous and bipartisan condemnation of the department's performance. It is unacceptable to the committee—words that are not often used in these kinds of reports—that the audit found deficiencies in proper arrangements for conflict-of-interest risks, appropriate performance management practices and good quality assurance.
There are numerous failures. Indeed, the department—and, therefore, the government—had no idea if hundreds of permits were even being followed. They had no ability to explain to the Audit Office, and therefore to the parliament, whether approvals given for development and works in protection in some of Australia's most significant environmental places were even followed. It's also very concerning that the committee found there's a lack of records for so much of the department's work. This creates numerous risks, with the inability to deal with probity and conflict-of-interest matters and the inability to substantiate decisions.
This has gone on for years and there have been years of similarly critical reports. But I would note particularly that 95 per cent of decisions made under this government were outside statutory time frames. It's no coincidence, as came out in the public hearings, that when Tony Abbott was elected and cut 40 per cent of staff from the environment department approval times went up. The Public Service is not a magic pudding and there's a direct correlation here, as we saw when the government finally, under pressure, tipped in a bit of extra bandaid money a year ago—funnily enough, approval times started going down. So it's an important report, and I commend the committee on the thoroughness of its work.
The second thing I'd just remark on briefly is: there's an audit on TEQSA, the tertiary education quality assurance regulator. Overall, it was a reasonable audit, with mixed findings. But I'd just record the committee's particular concerns regarding TEQSA's treatment of private higher education providers. There was a clear disparity in the stakeholder surveys between the views of the public higher education providers and private higher education providers. This wasn't a major focus of the inquiry, unfortunately, because of the reluctance of private providers to be able to give evidence to the committee, because, frankly, as they told me privately, they were scared of TEQSA's random vengeance and their anti-private-provider culture.
So the committee has made unanimous recommendations, and the committee made clear that we expect, on behalf of the parliament, positive relationships by TEQSA with all types of providers, whether universities, other public higher education providers, TAFEs in some instances, or private providers, who have a legitimate place in the spectrum. We've asked to be kept up to date on the results of the next annual stakeholder survey and obviously reserve the right to turn further attention to the matter. We've made recommendations regarding changes so that TEQSA has the ability to give a bit more time to providers to comply with conditions, to avoid seemingly unnecessary appeals to the AAT, where TEQSA just about always seems to lose, and also recommendations in relation to cybersecurity.
The third and final matter I just want to note relates to the Lobbying Code of Conduct. This regulates the activity of lobbying across the Australian government. In my time as deputy chair of the committee, it's only the second time in five years that I recall that we've made additional comments, but we felt, on this matter, we needed to. The Lobbying Code of Conduct, which regulates lobbyist activity, comprises a register and the code. Overall, the Auditor-General—this is the second audit he's done—found that a more proactive approach was needed. It used to be in the Prime Minister's department; that got a little bit red-hot, so they passed it over to the Attorney-General's Department—not very well, as the audit found.
The view of Labor members is that it's now time to legislate. We need legislation to provide a stronger statutory basis for this code. We've seen numerous problems with transparency, honesty and integrity in this government that have been frequently and prominently aired in the media over recent years, and a great deal more needs to be done to restore and improve the faith and trust of the Australian public in the integrity of their national government. Now, this is no magic fix—no silver bullet—but Labor members do think that this would be a small but tangible step to helping to restore public trust, and that a legislative basis for the lobbyist code would improve compliance and indeed could provide penalties for serious or deliberate breaches of the code. Currently, there are no penalties; it's just an 'Oh well, you know, she'll be right' approach. The department says they're going to do some more stuff, but there's really no certainty.
Lobbying, of course, I'll just say, is a legitimate activity, but it has to be undertaken transparently to enhance integrity and prevent corruption. The government's refusal, so far, to legislate a basis for the lobbyist code is accompanied by their failure to introduce a national anticorruption commission, allowing their rorts—as we just heard for an hour in the debate on the MPI preceding this tabling—their waste and their corruption to go unchecked. Now, this government has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to govern with respect for long-established conventions and standards; hence, in our view, a legislative approach is required. The stacking of the AAT, the breaching of all conventions and norms—they're a debate for another time. But Labor members consider that an all-out effort is now required to improve integrity in national public administration and arrest this decline in public trust in democracy and institutions. So legislating a lobbyist code would complement our commitment to a national anticorruption commission.
We know, from the Auditor-General's work and indeed the inquiry and the responses from the department, that the former, the previous, Attorney-General was actually asked for advice on this very matter, legislating the lobbyist code, by the Prime Minister, some years ago. It disappeared into the mysterious black box that is the Morrison government's work on integrity. We've still no anticorruption commission, and, it seems, still no agreement to legislate for the lobbyist code.
So thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do commend the report to the House and again thank the chair and the committee for our constructive work on this report—if I do say so myself!
[by video link] by leave—I thank the deputy chair for tabling the report this afternoon. I also thank him and all members for their work on this report and the work on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
One of the primary roles of this committee is to examine all the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in parliament, and the committee then periodically selects several of these reports for a further detailed review. This inquiry focused on five Auditor-General reports that examined various aspects of regulatory activity. They include the regulation of environmental approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment; the management of the Register of Lobbyists by the Attorney-General's Department; the Australian Electoral Commission's regulation of financial disclosure requirements; the regulation of the Australian energy market by the Australian Energy Regulator; and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency's regulation of higher education. One of the key functions of regulatory agencies is to establish the rules and guidelines in a defined sector, industry or area. Agencies receive their regulatory powers and responsibilities through acts of the parliament, and therefore the parliament needs to be assured that they are exercising those powers and undertaking those responsibilities appropriately.
This report highlights the fact that, although the field managed by each regulator is unique, there are practices and procedures that every regulator should follow in order to be effective. First, regulators should have good systems for gathering and managing information. Relevant, timely and accessible information assists in decision-making and should be used to inform strategic planning and risk-assessment processes. Secondly, compliance and enforcement activity undertaken by regulators should be risk based and proportionate to the risk being managed. Regulators should not impose a burden on entities that is either too heavy or too light. This balance can be difficult to achieve, especially in more complex markets. Finally, the inquiry highlighted that regulators, like all government entities, need to ensure that their own performance and internal governance processes meet the standards set out in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act.
A number of recommendations are set out in the report, targeting these key areas. Recommendation 1 suggests that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment update the committee on projects launched in response to the ANAO's findings, including regarding ICT systems; record-keeping practices, as the deputy chair referred to; compliance risks; performance measurement frameworks; quality assurance frameworks; and the efficiency of its environmental regulation. This reflects the committee's view that the department had previously initiated projects in response to report recommendations that either remained incomplete or were ineffective. As such, the committee believes that the department will benefit from this additional oversight. Further, recommendation 2 suggests that the Auditor-General consider conducting a follow-up audit of the department in 2023 to assess the department's progress in implementing the audit report recommendations. The committee also intends to list this program in its future audit priorities to the parliament to advocate for a further audit and continued oversight of the department until substantial change is demonstrated.
Recommendation 3 suggests that the Attorney-General's Department provide a written update on the implementation of recommendations from past audit reports. This includes improvements to the post-transfer IT system, the Lobbying Code of Conduct's communication and stakeholder engagement strategy, risk management processes and an evaluation framework. The committee requests that the department provide this update within six months of the report. Again, this provides an additional level of oversight to ensure that recommendations are implemented and improvements are made to the current code of conduct. I also note the deputy chair's comments in relation to some additional comments made and would just note that some of the discussions included the fact that there wasn't sufficient evidence taken during the inquiry to include any further recommendations or views in relation to that in this report.
Recommendation 4 suggests that the Australian Public Service Commission update its guidance to government entities on machinery of government changes regarding responsibility for the implementation of parliamentary committee or ANAO recommendations. This aims to provide greater clarity and accountability throughout machinery of government changes.
Recommendation 5 suggests that TEQSA update the committee on the progress of its efforts to ensure timely reregistration and reaccreditation of low-risk providers. This recommendation is in response to a finding that TEQSA had not met its targets in this area. The agency has since advised that it's working on a number of projects to address this finding, and, given regulatory approvals form an important part of TEQSA's responsibilities, the committee is interested in the progress and outcome of these initiatives.
Recommendation 6 suggests that TEQSA identify cybersecurity as a specific risk indicator. The committee is of the strong view that Commonwealth entities should take steps to develop cyber-resilience. Assigning risk ratings to cyberthreats will assist TEQSA to more closely understand the challenges posed and work to improve the security of the entity's data and information.
Recommendation 7 suggests that the Australian government provide TEQSA with the ability to extend a deadline by mutual consent to allow providers time to submit further evidence in the interests of reducing the necessity of appeals to the AAT. This is in response to TEQSA's advice that it's required to meet legislative time frames and is therefore unable to provide additional time in these cases. This amendment, if it were to be adopted, will assist in reducing the high percentage of matters that are either resolved after an appeal is lodged or successfully appealed to the AAT, improving efficiency and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.
In relation to the report outlining the administration of financial disclosure requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the committee acknowledges the difference in understanding between the ANAO and the Australian Electoral Commission and acknowledges the AEC's explanation of its longstanding approach to achieve transparency through disclosure. The committee also acknowledges the AEC's explanation of its educative approach and its evidence that this is appropriate in many instances, including for major political parties, candidates and donors, given the serious reputational risks of noncompliance. The AEC's response to the ANAO's report acknowledges that there is room for continuous improvement in their approach to compliance, and the committee considers that this should occur in the context of the Regulator Performance Framework.
The committee agrees with the ANAO's recommendations with respect to information management, data matching and analytics, risk management and performance measurement and considers that the administration of the scheme would be improved by their implementation. I note that the committee's comments are in the report but also note that no recommendations were made with respect to either the AEC or the ANAO with regard to the audit report's findings.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the ANAO and five audited entities for their participation in the inquiry. I would like to thank the committee secretariat for their continued and very professional assistance. I would like to thank all members of the committee for their participation in this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I present executive minutes on reports Nos 472, 482, 483 and 485 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I'm sure you will all be pleased to know that I am not seeking leave to make a statement on them.
I rise to speak on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 will amend the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, the Crimes Act 1914 and associated legislation to introduce new law enforcement powers to enhance the ability of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to combat cyber-enabled serious and organised crime enabled by the dark web and other anonymising technologies. I want to be very clear that this is a bill which Labor supports. The cybercapabilities of criminal networks have expanded, and we know that they are using the dark web and anonymising technology to facilitate serious crime, which is creating significant challenges for law enforcement, in respect of which the parliament must respond. It is evident that Australia's laws at present are not suitably adapted to identifying and disrupting criminals who are actively seeking to obscure their identity and the scope of their activities, so these laws must be made fit for purpose, after due deliberation and consideration and with appropriate safeguards set in place given the novel and broad scope of the provisions contained in this bill.
The bill is aimed at modernising our law enforcement and intelligence legal framework to better equip the AFP and the ACIC to deal with serious cyber-enabled crime and it will do so through three substantive changes in the form of three new warrants: firstly, a data disruption warrant which enables the AFP and the ACIC to access data on one or more computers and perform disruption activities for the purpose of frustrating the commission of criminal activity; secondly, a network activity warrant to enable the AFP and ACIC to collect intelligence on criminal networks operating online; and, thirdly, an account takeover warrant to allow the agencies to take over a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence of criminal activity. The bill also provides for minor amendments to the controlled operations regime so as to ensure controlled operations can be conducted effectively in the online environment.
The powers in the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill are extraordinary. The question before us therefore is whether, in all the circumstances, these are warranted, and, if so, are there sufficient safeguards in place? That's why the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security carefully examined the government's bill and why we should pay very careful regard to its findings and how they have been responded to by the government in the bill before us and more broadly.
Labor has always sought to engage constructively when it comes to these very difficult, very important questions of keeping the community safe in a changing environment. I acknowledge the thoughtful and critical work of my Labor colleagues on this committee—and, indeed, all the members of that important committee. The committee heard concerns in respect of the initial bill that relate to a number of issues: the issuing authority for warrants; the necessity and proportionality of the powers, particularly with regard to rights of privacy and civil liberties; whether safeguards accompanying these new powers are sufficient; the breadth of crimes that could be the focus of new powers; and the protection of the work of journalists and lawyers from these provisions.
The committee tabled its report on 5 August and made 33 substantive recommendations, including that the bill be passed subject to amendments recommended by the committee. It's obviously a critical finding by this critical bipartisan committee and one that I and Labor pay very careful regard to. I note that 23 of these recommendations have been implemented wholly or substantially, and these include strengthening the issuing criteria for warrants, reviews by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the PJCIS, sunset of the powers in five years and good faith immunity provisions for assistance orders.
Having noted these substantial amendments, I want to touch on the remaining recommendations of the committee and how these have been dealt with, many of which have been advanced even though they have not been directly incorporated in the bill before the House. Four of them have been accepted by the government and are to be incorporated at the Richardson review. These deal with broadening the remit of the ombudsman, looking to issuing authorities being superior courts or issuing judges, reviewing what is a serious offence and seeking some consistency in this regard across other legislation, and constraining post-warrant concealment powers. Recommendation 19, which is effectively that a public interest advocate be appointed where warrants are sought in relation to journalists or media organisations, has also been accepted by the government, as have recommendations expanding the PJCIS's oversight of the intelligence functions of the AFP and ACIC. One recommendation in this space has been rejected, which relates to the oversight of AFP intelligence functions, on the basis of inconsistency with an accepted recommendation of the Richardson review. I note also that recommendation 5 of the committee does not require legislative enactment going, as it does, to the form of submissions by the Department of Home Affairs. Lastly, I note that two additional amendments have been proposed by the government which are intended to secure conformity with other legislation and reporting periods.
The Labor members on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security noted, in the additional comments, that they would have preferred the recommendations to go further to ensure that these new powers would be used only in regard to the most serious of crimes. The government has implemented a committee recommendation that improves the bill in this regard, but I do note that it does not go quite as far as the Labor members propose. This recommendation, which is recommendation 10, states:
6.60 The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to provide additional requirements on the considerations of the issuing authority to ensure the offences are reasonably serious and proportionality is maintained. The effect of any changes should be to strengthen the issuing criteria and ensure the powers are being used for the most serious of offending.
Labor members stated:
We … believe that Recommendation 10 can and should go further.
All members of the Committee have acknowledged that the powers in the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 are extraordinary.
… … …
However, in recognition of the extraordinary nature of these new powers and the way in which the Government and agencies sought to justify their introduction, Labor members think the Committee should have gone further by recommending that the references to "relevant offence" in the bill be replaced by a new concept of "serious offence".
This is a point worth touching on. The need for these powers has been justified by reference to the most serious types of offences. In the explanatory memorandum, for example, the government said:
This Bill addresses gaps in the legislative framework to better enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence, conduct investigations, disrupt and prosecute the most serious of crimes, including child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations, and the distribution of weapons.
I am concerned that this might be seen as mischaracterising the breadth of the new powers. As all members of the PJCIS have acknowledged, the new powers will enable the agencies to collect intelligence, conduct investigations, and disrupt and prosecute all relevant offences. This definition presently includes all offences against the law of the Commonwealth punishable by a maximum term of three years or more, which includes all of those crimes listed in the EM but also tax offences, trademark infringements and a range of other offences which do not fall within the categories I just outlined. I am not suggesting for a moment that these other types of offences are not serious; rather that the government and agencies have failed to fully make the case for why these powers are needed beyond those categories. It is obviously much easier to justify the introduction of such powers by focusing on the most serious types of crime. No-one would argue with that in respect of crimes like child abuse and exploitation, and terrorism. But it is important that we engage in the more difficult task of justifying the introduction of extraordinary powers by reference to how the powers could actually be used.
Labor members on the committee considered that recommendation 10, together with other recommendations that have been incorporated, go a long way to ensuring that these powers will be used only for the most serious offending. Having said that, we do note that there are presently a number of different definitions of serious offence in Commonwealth legislation. The preference of Labor members would have been to adopt a definition broadly consistent with that contained in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. This is a matter that we should have some ongoing consideration towards, in the interests of the efficacy of this bill, its intended purpose, and balancing all the interests that are at play in this very new, concerning and important area of lawmaking.
On that, I want to briefly note some stakeholder concerns which are there, and the safeguards within the bill. The Human Rights Law Centre have stated that Australia lacks a robust human rights framework that would provide adequate protection against the use of powers contained in the bill. They've expressed broader concern about what they regard as the disproportionate scope of the proposed powers, as did the Law Council. I want to be very clear in saying that I don't take these concerns lightly. It is vitally important that the safeguards are implemented effectively and monitored by this parliament and all members of it, independent agencies, the media and human rights organisations.
The bill proposes that the Ombudsman will have oversight over data disruption warrants and account takeover warrants, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have oversight over the use of network activity warrants. The bill provides for the oversight of the AFP's and the ACIC's activities in relation to network activity warrants. The amendments that have been introduced will enable the inspector-general to review the activities of the agencies in relation to network activity warrants for legality, proprietary and consistency with human rights. The inspector-general may carry out his or her oversight functions through a combination of inspections, inquiries and investigations into complaints. The Ombudsman will provide oversight also of the AFP's and the ACIC's use of the account takeover powers, which is consistent with the general oversight arrangements for the activities of these agencies. The Ombudsman is also required to inspect agency records and report to the Minister for Home Affairs every six months. This is a report that must be tabled in the parliament. Respective agencies will also be required to provide statistics of the use of data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and account takeover warrants in annual reports to the minister.
Labor supports this bill. It's an important bill which addresses very significant and worrying gaps in the legislative framework so as to better enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence, conduct investigations, and disrupt and prosecute the most serious of crimes in an evolving environment. Labor always works constructively with the government and all members of this place to ensure the safety of the community. The process of the parliament here has produced a bill that meets the very serious challenges required to respond to, with appropriate safeguards in place, some of which will require all of us to maintain our attention on their operation and their adequacy. On this basis, I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. Some of the current events in Afghanistan really bring into sharp focus the reality in this life that there are those who would seek actively to do us harm, both to our freedoms and to our way of life. We entered Afghanistan 20 years ago, and that was in response to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Our aim was to work alongside the US, NATO and our other partners to find Osama bin Laden and those responsible for the September 11 attacks, and also to prevent their freedom of action in being able to plan and execute operations of mass destruction on those sorts of scales. Sadly, in 2002, we saw what have now become known as the Bali bombings. We saw the death of 202 people, including 88 Australians.
However, it's not the case that all attacks on our persons and on our freedom necessarily occur in the physical realm. There are certainly attacks and crimes which occur in digital spaces. As I lead into this bill, I'll make some brief commentary about what those spaces look like. We hear about the dark web and anonymising technologies. To give a brief description of what this actually means, the dark web refers to areas of the internet which are intentionally hidden. These cannot be accessed without using specialised browsers. These are not the Google, Chrome or Mozilla Firefox browsers that we might normally use; these are absolutely and intentionally hidden. Many of the sites on the dark web which are of concern to law enforcement include forums and marketplaces which are dedicated to criminal activity, and they are hosted anonymously. In conjunction with the specialised browsers that I mentioned, the dark web uses other anonymising technologies, such as virtual private networks and cryptocurrencies for any transactions that may occur. These approaches help to ensure that the true identities and locations of criminals remain unknown and unseeable.
I talked about anonymising technology. I'll touch briefly on what we mean when we use this term. Anonymising technology refers to technologies which can be used to disguise a person's activities, location or true identity. These include dedicated closed encryption communications platforms, some of which are operated and designed specifically for use by the criminal market, such as bespoke encrypted handsets. Some of these are EncroChat and Cipher, for example. They are used by criminals as devices that operate on a closed network without the normal applications and connectivity that our mobile phones and normal handsets have. Also, virtual currencies, such as bitcoin, allow purchases and funds transfer to be made with a minimum degree of traceability. Virtual private networks help to conceal the location of devices using the internet or incorrectly report a person's IP address, making it appear as if they are in another jurisdiction—for example, even completely offshore. So that's a description of what some of these technologies and activities look like.
Since the Liberal Party came to government in 2013, our successive administrations have enacted legislation that continued to safeguard the laws that protect Australians. The Morrison government, of which I'm an extremely proud member, continue to demonstrate our resolve in combatting all of those who would seek to do us harm. Whether those challenges relate to national security, to defence or to criminal behaviour, we never shy away from tasks despite, at times, their great difficulty.
It is a desperately saddening and deeply troubling fact that some individuals, even within our own communities, seek to exploit and to harm our nation's most vulnerable and, in particular, our children. Like many others in this place, I am a parent, and I will always fight to strengthen laws that provide protection to our children. That's why I fought last year, along with members on this side of the House, when unfortunately Labor and the Greens teamed up and joined forced on Monday 15 June 2020 to oppose what was a really important component of the Morrison government's proposed legislation to keep our children safe from paedophiles. The Attorney-General made the case that, in the previous financial year, there were 39 per cent of federally convicted child-sex offenders who spent no time behind bars. I will just repeat that important statistic: the Attorney-General made the case that, in the previous financial year, 39 per cent of federally convicted child-sex offenders spent zero days behind bars. Thank God that, along with others, we were successful in our advocacy and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill has now passed and been introduced.
That bill sees minimum mandatory sentences and toughened-up sentencing. It's yet another example of the Morrison government's commitment to protect children in Australia and overseas from the dangers of sexual exploitation and abuse and to improve justice outcomes for survivors of child-sex offenders. Some of the measures contained in that bill included minimum mandatory sentences for the most serious child-sex offences, including for repeat offenders, and increased maximum penalties right across the spectrum, including up to life imprisonment.
I will now reflect on the current bill and other new ways that the Morrison government is seeking to protect those most vulnerable, including children, who are online. The agencies that operate in this space are, namely, the Australian Federal Police, or AFP, and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. We cannot and should not underestimate the complexity and the challenges that these agencies need to deal with. The tools that are proposed in this legislation will enable them to do their job properly, because advancements in anonymising technologies have made it very much harder and more time consuming for law enforcement agencies to take action against dark web users—a group that includes drug and firearm traffickers, terrorists and child-sex offenders. For example, currently over 90 per cent of content being intercepted lawfully uses some form of encryption, with expectations that soon nearly all of this content will be encrypted.
I've mentioned VPNs, cryptocurrency and closed encrypted communications platforms, and these types of anonymity really allow transnational, serious and organised crime groups to operate in a fashion that is borderless and is also significant in scale. It makes it difficult for those law enforcement agencies to identify individual people, organisations, premises or devices.
The AFP-led ACCCE identified a 163 per cent increase in the amount of child abuse material downloaded on the dark web between April and June 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. This, again, is part of the reason why we need to drive forward with these enhanced operational capabilities for our law enforcement agencies. But, even having said that, the true picture is difficult to ascertain because we haven't got that full visibility, and law enforcement estimate that that increase may represent only 50 per cent of the files that are available for download on the dark web.
The scale of organised criminal activity which was uncovered by Operation Ironside in recent times is quite vast. In fact, I have some statistics here. As of 23:30 hours on Saturday 1 August 2021 the domestic Australian statistics were as follows: 696 search warrants were issued, 290 offenders were charged, 728 charges were laid and 139 weapons or other types of firearms were seized—some quite frightening statistics indeed.
This power will enable law enforcement to modify or delete exploitation material to prevent its further distribution. As I mentioned, there are some quite significant and important changes. Firstly, one of those introduces network activity warrants. These enable the AFP or ACIC to collect intelligence on the most harmful criminal networks who are operating online. This includes those who are on the dark web and using some of those anonymising technologies I mentioned earlier. A practical example of the need for this power can be found in the operation against Phantom Secure, an encrypted platform. When Phantom Secure was shut down in 2018, the AFP was aware of 10,000 Phantom Secure handsets being used in Australia. But, back then, without network security warrants, law enforcement would likely needed to have obtained warrants for every individual handset of those 10,000, which would have been unfeasible given the sheer number of devices in use.
Secondly, this bill introduces data disruption warrants. These will enable the AFP and the ACIC to disrupt serious criminal activity online, authorising those agencies to modify data belonging to individuals who are suspected of criminal activity. This will frustrate the commission of serious offences, such as the distribution of child exploitation material.
Thirdly, the bill introduces account takeover power. This will enable law enforcement agencies to take control of a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence about criminal activity, to be used in conjunction with other investigatory powers. This could be used, for example, to prevent a suspect from accessing online forums that might be used to spread child exploitation material.
It does go without saying that these powers, whilst necessary, do require appropriate safeguards. This bill provides strict oversight mechanisms that will take into account whether the power is necessary and proportionate to the types of offences being investigated or targeted. The robust oversight will take the form such that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will provide oversight of network activity warrants, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman will provide oversight for the data disruption warrants and the account takeover warrants. These robust reporting requirements balance those operational sensitivities with important accountabilities.
In summary, this bill will appropriately empower our law enforcement agencies to identify and investigate perpetrators, both at home and abroad, of some of the very worst types of online criminal activity. I therefore commend this bill to the House.
[by video link] I speak today on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify And Disrupt) Bill, and I do so from my electorate office in Sunnybank on Turrbal and Jagera lands—people you know very well, Deputy Speaker Vasta. This bill introduces new law enforcement powers to enhance the ability of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or the ACIC, to combat serious online crime. The bill introduces three new warrants: the data disruption warrants will allow the AFP or the ACIC to modify, add, copy or delete data in order to frustrate the commission of serious offences online; the network activity warrants will allow agencies to collect intelligence on serious criminal activity being conducted by criminal networks; and the account takeover warrants will provide the AFP and the ACIC with the ability to take control of a person's online account for the purpose of gathering evidence to further a criminal investigation.
Obviously, these are extraordinary powers, and it was proper that this bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security late last year. That very powerful committee, and very well-credentialed committee, has now tabled its report on this bill and has made 34 important recommendations, including that this bill be passed subject to the amendments recommended being implemented by the Morrison-Joyce government. Currently, it is the coalition government that is responsible for any national security legislation that is introduced to the people's parliament. However, Labor has always worked constructively to improve legislation where that is appropriate. The bipartisan intelligence and security committee works cooperatively to keep Australians safe, and I particularly acknowledge the great work of the Labor members of the committee: the deputy chair, the member for Holt; the member for Cowan; my good friend the member for Isaacs; Senator Keneally; and Senator McAllister.
The power this bill implements is extraordinary, but so too are the many and varied threats that modern Australia faces. Fortunately, the only experience many of us have of the dark web is from movie plots—something coming out of Hollywood. But, sadly, the dark web is a very real place with some very dark characters inhabiting it. While technological advances have improved our lives, they have also brought some unwelcome elements, like the dark web. Increasingly, criminals are using the dark web and anonymising technology to facilitate cyberenabled crime. This has created significant challenges for law enforcement in identifying and locating offenders and gathering admissible evidence. The current powers available to our law enforcement agencies are insufficient and outdated—analogue solutions that won't solve a digital problem. As the cybercapabilities of criminal networks have expanded, Australia's laws are not suitably adapted to both identifying and disrupting criminals who are actively seeking to obscure their identity and the scope of their criminal activities. Identifying potential offenders is the first step to progressing with the criminal investigation. The highly sophisticated cybertools being used by criminals have resulted in many investigations failing because offenders cannot be identified. Prosecutions are impossible if law enforcement does not have the ability to understand the networks and how criminals are actually conducting their crimes.
This bill will address current gaps in the legislative framework. It will enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence, to conduct investigations, to disrupt—very importantly—and also to prosecute the most serious of crimes, including child abuse and child exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations and the distribution of weapons.
The 34 recommendations made by the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security should be accepted by the Morrison-Joyce government, and this bill should be amended accordingly. The committee made these recommendations after considering the evidence put before it, including: concerns about the issuing authority for the warrants; the necessity and proportionality of the powers, particularly as regards the rights to privacy and civil liberties; whether safeguards accompanying the new powers were sufficient; the breadth of crimes that could be the focus of new powers; and, importantly, in a healthy democracy like Australia, that the work of journalists and lawyers should be specifically protected from the proposed warrants.
As deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I, along with my colleagues, have had the opportunity to scrutinise this bill through the human rights lens. The human rights committee tabled its preliminary views on this bill in Report 1 of 2021. As with every bill scrutinised by the human rights committee it requires that balancing of rights, that collective safety versus individual freedoms and individual rights. The new powers that will be implemented by this bill will facilitate the investigation, disruption and prevention of serious crimes against persons, including protecting children from harm. To that end the bill may promote multiple rights, including the right to life and the rights of the child. I particularly note with respect to the rights of the child that states have special obligations to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, and maltreatment or exploitation including sexual exploitation and abuse—and when I say 'states', I mean sovereign states.
The bill may also limit the right to privacy that citizens of Australia have. This bill gives wide powers to the AFP and ACIC to take actions including:
So they are very serious powers.
The right to privacy prohibits arbitrary and unlawful interferences with an individual's privacy, family, correspondence or home; that's a bedrock of Australian society. There are permissible limitations to the right of privacy, if the limitation is to pursue a legitimate objective, is rationally connected to the objective and—this is important—is a proportionate means of achieving that objective.
As pointed out in the preliminary report of the human rights committee:
The key question is whether the measure is proportionate to achieving the stated objective. Of particular relevance in assessing proportionality is whether the limitation is only as extensive as is strictly necessary to achieve its legitimate objective; whether the measure is accompanied by sufficient safeguards—
always important in a healthy democracy—
whether any less rights restrictive alternatives could achieve the same stated objective; and whether there is the possibility of oversight and the availability of review.
That is, for those times when the state gets it wrong. Many of the 34 recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security go directly to strengthening that proportionality concept.
I have some particular concerns—and it was noted in the human rights report—that have been reflected in the recommendations made by the PJCIS, particularly their recommendation 9:
The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that the issuing authority for all of the new powers introduced by the Bill, including emergency authorisations, must be a superior court judge—
I stress that again: must be a superior court judge—
(either of the Federal Court or a State or Territory Supreme Court), except for Account Takeover Warrants which may be granted by an Eligible Judge per Section 12 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth).
That's the recommendation.
During my scrutiny of the bill, this was one aspect that caused a lot of discomfort for me. This bill, as it currently stands, provides that an application for a warrant, or data disruption or network activity may be made to an eligible judge or to a nominated AAT member, and that an application for an account takeover warrant may be made to a magistrate. I don't want to badmouth our magistrates, but an AAT member does not have the security of tenure or generally the same level of expertise as judges. It is considered to be best practice at international law for judicial authorisation of surveillance methods—and I stress that: judicial authorisation. The European Court of Human Rights has said in relation to interception:
In a field where abuse is potentially so easy in individual cases and could have such harmful consequences for democratic society as a whole, it is in principle desirable to entrust supervisory control to a judge, judicial control offering the best guarantees of independence, impartiality and a proper procedure …
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy included in the 2018 draft general principles of the right to privacy that where domestic law provides for the use of surveillance systems, that law shall:
… provide that the individual concerned is likely to have committed a serious crime or is likely to be about to commit a serious crime and in all such cases such domestic law shall establish that an independent authority, having all the attributes of permanent independent judicial standing, and operating from outside the law enforcement agency or security or intelligence agency concerned, shall have the competence to authorise targeted surveillance using specified means for a period of time limited to what may be appropriate to the case.
It is clear that AAT members do not have all of the attributes of permanent independent judicial standing. I think they're appointed for three or five years or so.
There is another reason that I'm concerned about AAT members being given such extraordinary powers right now in this parliament. Since 2013, the Liberals have appointed at least 79 of their mates to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Earlier this year, in one of her first acts as Attorney-General, Senator Cash continued the tradition of her predecessor, the member for Pearce, of stacking the tribunal with failed Liberal candidates, dumped Liberal MPs, former Liberal advisers and other Liberal mates. The appointment of Liberal mates to the tribunal is so out of hand that the former High Court judge Ian Callinan QC had to recommend that all further appointments be based on merit. To put that in context, Ian Callinan's first novel was launched by the former member for Moreton, the Hon. James Killen, and he was recommended to the High Court by Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, so I don't think I could exactly call Ian Callinan a Labor stalwart!
By contrast, in six years of the Labor government, from 2007 to 2013, there were just two Labor linked appointments to the AAT, both experienced and highly skilled lawyers who were welcomed by the Liberals. So I'm particularly concerned that recommendation 9 of the PJCIS report on this bill be adopted by the government and I reiterate that all 34 recommendations should be incorporated into this bill.
The PJCIS is a bipartisan committee. It has made recommendations that will ensure that these extraordinary powers include the safeguards necessary in a liberal democracy. It is always important that Australia's two parties of government work constructively together—sorry, I should say three parties of government, I guess, with respect to the Nationals: the Liberals, Nationals and Labor—to ensure that our national security laws are right, fit and proper. Labor will always work constructively to keep our nation safe. Labor supports this bill, but I implore the Morrison-Joyce government to ensure that all 34 recommendations are incorporated into this bill.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. This bill introduces three new powers for the AFP and the ACIC. They are the data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and account takeover warrants. The goal of these new powers is to enhance the ability of the AFP and the ACIC to combat online serious crime. These are new and extensive powers, and they were subject to a public inquiry and detailed review and consideration by the PJCIS to determine whether they are necessary and proportionate in the current threat environment. I note at the outset that in its final report tabled earlier this month the PJCIS made 33 substantive recommendations to the government with respect to the legislation. The government has accepted in full, part or principle 25 of the recommendations and noted the remaining eight. Before addressing these recommendations and the government's response, it's necessary to understand the scope of the powers and the current threat environment.
In brief terms, the new powers are as follows. The data disruption warrant will allow the AFP and the ACIC to add, copy, delete or alter data to allow access to and disruption of relevant data in the course of an investigation for the purposes of frustrating the commission of an offence. This will be a covert power, also permitting the concealment of those activities. Whilst this power will not be sought for the purposes of evidence gathering, information collected in the course of executing a DDW will be available to be used in evidence in prosecution. The intended purpose of the DDW is to offer an alternative action to the AFP and the ACIC where the usual circumstances of investigation leading to prosecution are not necessarily the option guaranteeing the most effective outcome. For example, removing content or altering access to content such as child exploitation material could prevent the continuation of criminal activity by participants and be the safest and most expedient option where those participants are in unknown locations or acting under anonymous or false identities.
The second of these warrants, the network activity warrant, will allow the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence on criminal networks operating online by permitting access to the devices and networks used to facilitate criminal activity. These warrants will be used to target criminal networks about which very little is known. For example, where the AFP or the ACIC know that there is a group of persons using a particular online service or other electronic platform to carry out criminal activity, but the details of that activity are unknown, NAWs will allow agencies to target the activities of criminal networks to discover the scope of criminal offending and the identities of the people involved. For example, a group of people accessing a website hosting child exploitation material and making that material available for downloading or streaming will be able to be targeted under a network activity warrant. Intelligence collection under an NAW will allow the AFP and the ACIC to more easily identify those hiding behind anonymising technologies. This will support more targeted investigative powers being deployed, such as computer access warrants, interception warrants or search warrants. The AFP and the ACIC will be authorised to add, copy, delete or alter data if necessary to access the relevant data to overcome security features like encryption. Data that is subject to some form of electronic protection may need to be copied and analysed before its relevancy or irrelevancy can be determined.
The third type of warrant is the account takeover warrant. These warrants will allow the AFP and the ACIC to take control of a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence about serious offences. It also enables the AFP or the ACIC to lock the person out of their account. Currently, agencies can only take over a person's account with the person's consent. An account takeover warrant will facilitate covert and forced takeovers to add to the investigative powers the AFP and the ACIC have. It's important to note that any other activities, such as accessing data on the account, gathering evidence or performing other activities such as taking on a false identity, must be performed under a separate warrant or authorisation. Those actions are not authorised by an account takeover warrant. The ATW is designed to support existing powers, such as computer access and controlled operations, and is not designed to be used in isolation.
It's very clear that these are very serious and extensive powers and more extensive than any that currently exist, and, as the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, said, it is necessary that we analyse to see whether these powers, given the seriousness of them, are reasonable and proportionate. It's one of the roles of the PJCIS. In its inquiry and review into this bill the PJCIS was given detailed information on the background and context to these powers. It's worth noting some of the input and the context that was provided to the committee. Home Affairs highlighted, in particular, the role of anonymising technologies and the dark web. I quote:
New and emerging technology continues to change the landscape in which criminals operate by providing new opportunities for countering law enforcement efforts, in particular by disguising activity and hiding identities. Technology that enables people to be anonymous online, whilst having legitimate uses, is increasingly used by criminals so that they can remain invisible to law enforcement. Often these technologies are cheap, commercially available and require little technical expertise, allowing the scale and sophistication of cyber-enabled crime to grow. The use of the dark web and anonymising technologies…has made it easier than ever before for criminals to commit serious crimes at volume and across multiple jurisdictions. This has significantly degraded law enforcement agencies' ability to access communications, gather evidence, prevent crimes and conduct investigations.
The AFP provided an in-depth description of the threat environment which accorded with that of Home Affairs. Helpfully, it clearly articulated and explained the threats that we are facing and the terminology. The AFP was at pains to point out that the terms 'dark web' and 'anonymising technology', while sometimes thought of as the same thing, are not in fact the same thing. I quote:
'Anonymising technology' refers to those technologies which can disguise a person's activities, location and true identity, while the 'dark web' refers to areas of the internet which cannot be accessed without specialised browsers or other software. These concepts are often linked, because anonymising technology is required to access the dark web. From the AFP perspective, both issues present significant challenges for law enforcement, as they both facilitate a wide variety of criminal activity, while providing offenders with the cloak of anonymity. The intersection of these issues is particularly concerning when investigating offences involving child abuse material.
The ACIC broadly concurred with the AFP articulation of the threat environment and noted that the types of serious crimes being facilitated by these technologies include money laundering, illicit drugs and firearms smuggling and the production and dissemination of child exploitation material. The ACIC was very clear in stating:
…more is needed to provide the ACIC and AFP with effective powers to combat the rising tide of cyberenabled crime.
The Carly Ryan Foundation also made a submission to the committee and set out the threat environment. I quote:
The investigation of alleged crimes is not immune to technological creep, and law enforcement are increasingly dealing with digital aspects of criminality amongst many crime types: terrorism, domestic violence, stalking and harassment, and importantly for the Foundation, child exploitation.
The Carly Ryan Foundation said that the current amount of child exploitation was absolutely extraordinary and had risen with COVID-19. They described the issue as a 'pandemic' and said the proposed bill would help prevent the further victimisation of children.
By way of concluding, it is vital that we give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need to work in environments in which new and emerging technologies are posing greater opportunities for criminal networks to operate and evade detention. The evidence is clear that the use of the dark web and anonymising technologies is increasingly inhibiting agencies' ability to protect the Australian community. At the same time, it is vital that we ensure that the powers are used sparingly and that there is appropriate level of oversight and accountability for their use.
It was with this lens that the 33 substantive recommendations of the PJCIS were made to government. As noted at the outset, the government has adopted 25 of those recommendations. As a member of that committee, while I stand by each of the 33 substantive recommendations that we made—including those eight which have not been adopted by the government—I accept the rationale provided by the government and its statement that, as a number of these recommendations go beyond the scope of the bill, they are better considered as part of the holistic reform to Australia's electronic surveillance network which is currently underway. On the basis of the above, I am happy to provide my support to the bill which gives our security agencies important capabilities to address serious problems.
In rising to speak on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, I can't help but reflect on the circumstances in which we find ourselves in debating this bill. This bill is an important piece of national security legislation, which amends the Surveillance Devices Act 2004. It also amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, the Crimes Act and associated legislation to give the AFP and the ACIC the tools to combat cyber-enabled crime. It was first introduced into the House on 3 December 2020 and referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS tabled its report on 5 August 2021, nearly three weeks ago, but we're yet to see the government's response to the report. We do, however, have the bill in front of us today.
It is pleasing to be advised that the government has agreed to 23 of the 33 PJCIS recommendations wholly or in part and has made amendments to the bill and explanatory memorandum in response to the recommendations of the PJCIS. But it's indicative of this government's record in this place to rush through legislation on national security matters with little regard for process, particularly with national security legislation or even with minor technical legislation. We have seen it countless times before, including just yesterday, with the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021.
To be clear, Labor supports this bill that the government has brought before the House with the amendments that we have worked constructively with the government to develop through the PJCIS. But it must be said that the way this government approaches critical legislation like this bill from a process perspective leaves much to be desired. I've said that before in this House. Labor has always sought to work constructively with the government on matters of national security, and we will continue to do so. We recognise the need for the powers in this bill to combat the use of the dark web and encryption technology by criminals and organised criminal groups to perpetuate serious crimes like terrorism, child abuse and exploitation, and the sale of illicit drugs.
The dark web is simply a part of the internet comprising sites that you can't search for on typical search engines like Google. To access it you need to download a program that enables access to the dark web, The Onion Router, or Tor. Sites on the dark web were designed with privacy in mind—anonymising. Privacy is a neutral value. There are absolutely legitimate uses for encryption technologies and the dark web. Political activists and dissidents, for example, have used it to allude the eye of autocratic states. But, at the same time, abhorrent things are sold on the dark web. Drug dealers, hackers and child abusers try to use it to traffic in their illegal, destructive and repulsive goods. It does need to be policed.
The powers in this bill are new from what we've seen in Australia to date, as the PJCIS has acknowledged, but they are necessary to combat a growing sophistication of technology by criminals that enables them to commit serious crimes anonymously. While we support the bill, Labor members of the PJCIS do think, however, safeguards in this bill could go further, particularly in relation to the offences this bill applies to in relation to recommendation 10 of the PJCIS report, which Labor thinks should have been strengthened.
Technology has evolved significantly since our original surveillance laws were passed, and it is really beyond time for a review and an updating—indeed, even since before the Crimes Act, which this bill amends. Even in 2004, when the Surveillance Devices Act was passed, some three years before the first iPhone was launched, it would have been difficult to imagine the pervasive use of the internet to conduct serious criminal activity, let alone the use of the dark web to do it anonymously. The Silk Road, for instance, which was the eBay of criminals for some time before its spectacular implosion, is probably the first and most ubiquitous example of a dark website being used to facilitate serious criminal activity, such as the sale of illicit drugs. That wasn't launched until 2011.
Since then the dark web has really become a haven for some of the most evil crimes, with a pernicious effect on our society, like child exploitation, conducted largely anonymously. We have seen this most recently on an incredibly large scale with Operation Ironside, which exposed the widespread use of dedicated encrypted communications devices by organised criminals in Australia. We have seen, courtesy of the reporting of Nick McKenzie and Joel Tozer on 60 Minutes and in the Nine newspapers over the last fortnight, how these technologies have been used by far Right extremist organisations who would seek to commit violent acts against Australians in pursuit of their agenda.
Despite these technological advances, our laws haven't been updated to reflect this new world we live in. Our law enforcement agencies lack similar powers to their overseas counterparts to be able to unmask these criminals and disrupt ongoing cyber-enabled criminal activity. This is an increasing problem for our law enforcement and criminal intelligence agencies. The cyber capabilities of criminal networks have grown in recent years and too often investigations are not able to be pursued to conclusion because our agencies did not have the necessary power to identify offenders. This bill will change that by giving the AFP and the ACIC the power to collect intelligence on criminal networks operating behind anonymising technologies, like the TOR network or a dedicated encrypted communication device.
There are three warrant powers set out in this bill. The first is a data disruption warrant to allow the AFP and the ACIC to disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying or deleting data to frustrate the commission of offences online. The intended purpose of this is that it is to be used where investigations leading to prosecution is not necessarily the most effective outcome. This is an important tool in circumstances where law enforcement discover, for example, a child abuse network that's actively sharing child sexual abuse material, continuing the trauma of child abuse victims through every reproduction and every dissemination of these vile images. But, despite discovering the networks, law enforcement agencies are unable to identify who is sharing child exploitation material. In these circumstances, these powers enable Australian law enforcement agencies to delete the content and disrupt its ongoing distribution through the networks. The bill also includes a new order which will require an individual to provide information or assistance which is reasonably necessary to effect a disruption warrant.
Secondly, the bill creates a network activity warrant which allows our law enforcement agencies to collect intelligence on serious criminal activity being conducted by a criminal network, to reveal the scope of criminal operations and unmask the identities of those involved in these activities. Finally, the bill creates an account takeover warrant to give the AFP and the ACIC the ability to take control of an individual's account to gather evidence for a criminal investigation without their consent or knowledge.
It is important to be clear that these new warrant powers aren't unfettered powers being gifted to our law enforcement agencies. To use these powers, our law enforcement agencies must first go through an independent process seeking approval from an eligible judge, an Administrative Appeals Tribunal member or a magistrate in the case of account takeover warrants. Labor concurs with the recommendation of the PJCIS report into this bill that the exercise of these powers should be authorised by a Supreme Court judge, and we note the government's response that this will be incorporated in its response to the very significant Richardson review.
These powers are new for us, but these kinds of network investigative techniques are not unique around the world. These practices might be somewhat novel in their use by Australian law enforcement agencies, but powers of this kind are already being used by law enforcement and criminal intelligence agencies in other democratic nations around the world. Other jurisdictions have recognised, as we do here, that the threats we face today call for powers that match the seriousness of these threats. Similar powers are already in use in the US, the UK and some European jurisdictions.
Network investigative techniques are an important part of modern law enforcement and criminal intelligence. These techniques are an alternative to regulation that requires blanket lawful access to encrypted devices or software. These techniques allow agencies like the AFP and the ACIC to exploit existing vulnerabilities to circumvent encryption or anonymisation under the authorisation of a warrant. They are commonly and effectively used by the United States FBI, for instance. In 2011, the FBI used a Flash exploit, Metasploit, in Operation Torpedo to compromise a dark web service boasting child abuse material. The FBI gained control of the service and employed an NIT, which revealed the identity of persons who visited the compromised child abuse websites, who ordinarily would have been protected by the TOR network. In 2015, the FBI, in Operation Pacifier, took down Playpen, one of the largest child exploitation sites posted on a server in North Carolina. The FBI operated the server for a limited two-week period and exploited a vulnerability in the TOR browser to unmask 13,000 IP addresses of individuals accessing material.
In 2016, French and Dutch police carried out an operation not dissimilar to Operation Ironside, targeting EncroChat. Like ANOM, EncroChat was a dedicated encryption communication device. This encrypted communication device was operated solely for serious criminal users and it was compromised by French and Dutch police, allowing the gathering of messages in real time by a European joint investigative task force. In Britain alone, 746 people were arrested as a result of the operation, and 80 million pounds worth of illicit drugs and 54 million pounds in cash were seized.
Our agencies do excellent work with existing electronic surveillance laws, and we commend them for it. However, as the cybercapabilities of criminal networks have expanded, Australia's laws are not suitably adapted to both identify and disrupt criminals who are actively seeking to obscure their identity and the scope of their activities. As criminal networks increasingly organise and transact online, these new powers allow our law enforcement agencies to adapt their undercover craft to infiltrate this cyberenabled crime.
For instance, the account takeover provisions in this bill could allow law enforcement to take over the account of someone already established as trustworthy inside these online networks, which often require some proof of criminal bona fides. This could allow them to gather intelligence and further infiltrate other criminal networks. For example, US law enforcement covertly took over the account of a staff member of Silk Road prior to the government's takedown of the site. Through this, law enforcement officers operating that account were able to then infiltrate Silk Road 2.0 and take it down too.
Clearly, you can see from these examples that these kinds of network investigative techniques are not out of step with other comparable jurisdictions. The bill would give our agencies the powers they need to keep pace with technology and those criminals who use it to cause immense harm to Australians. It's important our laws continue to keep pace with constantly evolving technology. Otherwise, we'll be constantly playing catch-up with criminals and terrorists who are increasingly sophisticated in their use of these technologies to disguise their activities. We can't let that happen.
It's the responsibility of everyone in this place, particularly parties of government, to keep Australians safe, and that's why we work together to ensure national security bills like these operate in the best way they can. Labor has strengthened the safeguards in this bill through our work on the PJCIS. While the government is ultimately responsible for national security legislation that they introduce, Labor has always worked constructively to improve legislation as much as we can through the parliament. One of the ways the parliament has worked to keep Australians safe is by cooperating in a bipartisan manner through the PJCIS. This is such an important part of the parliamentary accountability and oversight process, and one which can't be ignored in this bill.
As I said, the powers in this bill are necessary for agencies to continue the vital work they do keeping Australians safe, but no-one is suggesting they be given these powers without appropriate legal safeguards, accountability and oversight. The PJCIS has made 33 recommendations to improve oversight and safeguards in this bill. The government has chosen to accept, wholly or in part, 23 of them.
The explanatory memorandum sets out that these powers apply to the most serious of crimes, including child abuse, child exploitation, terrorism, sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations and distribution of weapons. Labor is concerned, though, and Labor members of the PJCIS noted that the definition of 'relevant offences' under the Surveillance Devices Act includes all offences against the law of the Commonwealth that are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of three years or more. This includes the types of crimes I mentioned, but also includes tax offences, trademark infringement and a range of other offences which don't have the gravity of the other crimes I discussed earlier.
Labor considers that recommendation 10 and other recommendations in the committee's report go a long way to ensuring that these new powers will only be used for the most serious offences. However, in recognition of the nature of these new powers, Labor members think that the PJCIS should have gone further by recommending that references to 'relevant offences' in the bill be replaced by a definition consistent with the serious offence provisions in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. This would be an important constraint on the use of these new warrant powers and would limit their application to offences that carry at least a maximum of seven years jail and other specified offences. While these powers do have international precedent, they also carry inherent risks. Lifting the threshold at which these warrants apply would ensure that they were only used to combat the most serious of offences. As currently drafted, the substance of this bill does not match the government's rhetoric. Adopting a definition consistent with that in the telecommunications interception act would ensure that these warrants are reserved for the most serious of crimes, consistent with the standards set by the government itself in its explanatory memorandum.
That said, there are important protections which would have not been included had the Morrison government rushed this legislation or absent the PJCIS. The protections which have been achieved through the PJCIS include an obligation for the issuer of these warrants to specifically consider whether information is privileged or journalistic in nature, the effect on privacy, the financial impacts and the effect of a warrant on a person's ability to give or receive care. These protections are safeguards which will improve the proportionality of these new powers. They recognise that these powers require independent consideration of the substantial effect they may have on an affected person. The PJCIS has also recommended protections for individuals subject to the new assistance order regime, including good-faith immunity provisions for assistance orders. This will require decision-makers to consider whether orders for assistance are reasonably necessary, justifiable and proportionate. These protections would appear to be a baseline for the government doing due diligence on this bill.
I'm pleased that PJCIS has achieved important protections specifically for members of the press. These protections require the warrant issuer to consider the public interest in facilitating the exchange of information between journalists and members of the public and the confidentiality of their sources. These are important bulwarks against cyberenabled assaults on press freedom, a concern that's still fresh in my mind following the 2019 raids on Australian journalists by the AFP. I echo the PJCIS's recommendation that the government introduce legislation to address this.
I rise to support the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. Australians use the internet every day. What was once a novelty that required the painstaking task of using dial-up has, with each passing year, become more and more intertwined with our daily lives. While most of us use the internet for work or to watch Netflix, chat with friends and loved ones, shop online, listen to music or for online work-outs—something I admit to doing during lockdown!—we know that there is a nefarious side to the internet, an underbelly out of sight to most of us. The dark web is not something many of us would know how to access. It refers to areas of the internet which are intentionally hidden and cannot be accessed without using specialised browsers, primarily the Onion Router. Like the deep web, these areas are not indexed by ordinary search engines. Many of the sites on the dark web which are of concern to law enforcement, including forums and marketplaces dedicated to criminal activity, are hosted anonymously. In conjunction with specialised browsers, people often access the dark web using anonymising technologies such as virtual private networks, or VPNs, and use cryptocurrencies for transactions to ensure their true identities and locations remain obscured.
We know the dark web and the use of anonymising technologies is widespread among the transnational serious and organised crime groups. We saw, through Operation Ironside, that organised crime groups actively used the encrypted chat rooms Anom. To date, as at 1 August 2021, Operation Ironside in Australia has resulted in 696 search warrants being executed, 290 offenders charged, 728 charges laid, 139 weapons or firearms seized, 4,784 kilograms of drugs seized and $49 million in cash seized. We know that law enforcement's continuing challenge, post Ironside, will be combatting serious crime facilitated using anonymising and encrypted technologies, where the identities of those involved in criminal activity are increasingly hidden. We must remember that it was only through a unique set of circumstances that law enforcement had access to those Anom encrypted chats.
This bill introduces three powers that will substantially boost the capacity of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or ACIC, to fight cyberenabled serious crime. Network activity warrants will enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence on the most harmful criminal networks operating online, including on the dark web and when using anonymising technologies. Data disruption warrants will enable the AFP and the ACIC to disrupt serious criminality online, authorising the AFP and the ACIC to modify data belonging to individuals suspected of criminal activity to frustrate the commission of serious offences, such as the distribution of child exploitation material. And account takeover power will enable the AFP and the ACIC to take control of a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence about criminal activity, to be used in conjunction with other investigative powers.
I recognise that these powers are extraordinary, and the government has amended this bill to strengthen the conditions, oversight and transparency for when and how these important new powers can be used. The amendments in this bill address recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, in line with their advisory report into the bill. These balance the need for safeguards and proportionality whilst preserving the operational effectiveness of the new powers. In particular, the amendments introduce statutory review and sunsetting requirements for the powers contained in the bill; require that additional matters such as privacy and the seriousness of offences be more explicitly considered by an issuing authority before a warrant may be issued; ensure certain warrants are only able to be applied for following approval by a sufficiently senior officer within the AFP and the ACIC; and change key definitions in the bill to restrict the circumstances in which the warrants could be issued.
Whilst we must ensure there are appropriate safeguards and that there is proportionality, we must not lose sight of why the government has introduced this bill. As the PJCIS noted in their advisory report:
… the threat environment from serious cyber-enabled crime is severe and Australian authorities do not currently have the tools to address the threat. It is international, complex, and technologically advanced.
We know that the dark web increasingly hosts large-scale, complex and anonymous platforms and services frequently used to facilitate the most serious of crimes, including child sexual abuse, drugs and firearms trafficking, extremist content and sale of stolen identification documents. In particular, the hosting, sharing and distributing of child abuse material is increasingly occurring on dark web hidden services where the true IP addresses, location and jurisdiction of both users and services are hidden. Online child exploitation is vile. From working with victims of child sexual abuse and seeing the lifelong trauma it has on individuals, I can tell you that it leaves a lifelong effect on people.
We also know just how difficult it is to investigate in this online environment, as secure technologies such as streaming services and pay-per-view, the anonymity of the dark web and less traceable payment systems such as cryptocurrencies all make it increasingly difficult to track offenders. That is why powers like the account takeover warrant and the data disruption warrant, which would authorise the AFP and the ACIC to disrupt activities such as the sharing of child abuse images, are so necessary. As it stands, law enforcement agencies rely on a combination of powers that each provide a partial picture of online criminality by permitting electronic surveillance of aspects of communications traffic, content data and telecommunications data.
We know that more must be done to provide law enforcement with effective powers of response in the fight against cyberenabled crime. In the fast-evolving space of cybercrime, where criminals continue to find new and advanced ways to avoid detection, this bill is about further providing our law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to keep us safe, to keep children safe, to disrupt drug dealers, to identify extremists and to put an end to organised crime. I commend this bill to the House.
It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, because sitting at the heart of it is the constant tension between freedom and security of the people of Australia, not just in the physical realm but of course online as well. We reviewed this legislation in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on which I am privileged to serve, because of the very nuanced parts in which it operates around Australia's electronic records and data and the implications it has.
The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 is quite an innovative, modern and worrying piece of legislation. I don't say that as any point of criticism of the legislation or its intent, but, in the end, it raises serious questions about the bounds of the state and the capacity of police forces and our agencies to investigate certain operations and the means by which they can do so.
I support the bill wholeheartedly, but I have reservations about it. I am glad that there are constant review mechanisms around how we look at this legislation, through the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the IGIS and, of course, the PJCIS, as well as this parliament—and we reviewed legislation around specific and extraordinary powers only in recent days—because we must always make sure that, when legislation of this sort is put before the parliament and imposed upon the people, it has proper accountability and scrutiny and continues to meet the need to keep Australians free and safe.
The legislation itself is quite complicated, but it goes to the heart of one of the emerging challenges that exists around disrupting, significantly, online activity which is done with malicious intent or to undermine Australians' health, welfare and security. The bill introduces, essentially, three new powers that will substantially boost the capacity of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to fight cyber-enabled serious crime. Of course, in many cases, this work—or what is ordinarily completed by these agencies—is done with existing powers in a physical realm, but this is about updating the legislation to enable them to do similar work, recognising the complexity and the emerging challenges of the online world.
There are three essential new powers. One is for network activity warrants, which will enable the Australian Federal Police and the ACIC to collect intelligence on the most harmful criminal networks operating online, including on the dark web, and when using anonymising technologies. We need to realise how common these anonymising technologies are, particularly amongst criminal networks. We are all very familiar with using encryption with our own communications in the modern era—and, in many cases, we are very thankful for it—to maintain and preserve our privacy and security. However, we are seeing, increasingly, a large amount of activity being done through technology where it is almost impossible to identify the end user and without at least some capacity to utilise the technology to identify them, often having to go beyond the superficial nature of the technology and of course in the realm of the dark web where nefarious intent lies.
Now, the overwhelming majority of Australians have no real interest in the dark web—and I include myself; the only time I've been there is when somebody has demonstrated to me how it is that one gets there, and it's more complicated, frankly, than I'm probably interested in entertaining in an ordinary context. I know that there are many people who have used the dark web, and sometimes for legal or legitimate reasons. But the overwhelming majority of people who use the dark web are doing it because they're trying to conceal something and there's a reason why they're trying to conceal it—and I don't mean in terms of morality, though that can be a part of it, but simply because they know that what they're engaging in is a form of criminal conduct that, if it came to the attention of responsible agencies, would be justifiably suppressed because it would cause harm to others, either to their physical health or wellbeing or to protection of their property.
So the network activity warrants provide a pathway to investigate intelligence on criminal networks that operate online, particularly through the use of new technologies. One of the reasons we need this legislation is that technology—as it should; I just need to be clear—moves faster than the rate of legislation. It moves fast. We are always responding. That's what happens in a free society. In a free society, people are able to go out, to innovate, to push the boundaries, to see where we can take humanity and its progress, and we should be excited by that. But every good technology that comes along with a legitimate purpose can be used, abused and manipulated by those who wish to achieve ill in society or for their own personal gain, with nefarious intent. So we're always responding, and this bill provides for a pathway which is broad enough to enable us to continue to adapt with technology, but narrow enough that it has the safeguards, obligations and restrictions that operate on our agencies so they cannot abuse it and it needn't become a justification for people to be concerned about their lawful privacy or activity simply because they choose to go into the electronic or online realm.
The second significant power is for the data disruption warrants that enable the AFP and ACIC to disrupt serious criminality online, authorising the AFP and the ACIC to modify data belonging to individuals suspected of criminal activity, to frustrate the commission of serious offences such as the distribution of child exploitation material. If we had the capacity to fulfil this function, it would be very hard for most members to argue against the spirit and intent of what this power is designed to do. We all know that, tragically, information and content is shared online that is often sourced explicitly through the abuse of minors and children—normally not in this country, but we need to acknowledge that, tragically, sometimes it does occur in this country. But it doesn't stop there; the exploitation and the distribution of that material, either live or through some sort of stored mechanism online, goes to other parts of the world. If anybody thinks that this parliament would not take the hardest and firmest view against such conduct, not just because of its criminality but also because of its immorality and the abuse of children, they are deluding themselves. I would hope none of us would be prepared to tolerate such conduct when we know that we can take measures to stomp it out, even if it doesn't occur in our country. If Australians, sadly and tragically, are consumers of such behaviour or conduct, we should seek to hold the people engaged in it to account and stomp it out. The role of our agencies, as much as anything else, is to help do that, not just in the interests of Australians and their health and wellbeing but also for children overseas. We make no apologies in standing up against child exploitation, because it is the fundamentally moral position to take and the right one for all of us. I'm sure you would agree with that, Deputy Speaker Vasta.
The third power is an account takeover warrant enabling the AFP and the ACIC to take control of a person's online account for the purpose of gathering evidence about criminal activity, to be used in conjunction with other investigatory powers. This power is actually extraordinary, and I think we need to acknowledge that. It would enable agencies to take over people's accounts and, for want of a better phrase, present themselves as somebody else, in pursuit of investigation and establishment. This raises serious questions about entrapment, whether there's justification for police doing so, and the consequences that then flow. I don't think we should hide away from that.
There were recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security about the threshold tests that apply around warrants that have not been fully adopted. I'll be frank—and I acknowledge the minister in the room—and say that my preference would be more consistent with that of the committee. That's why we made those recommendations. I will not die in a ditch over them, because the purpose of the legislation is more important than the threshold, but I think the threshold test around warrants and their application, particularly with the new powers, is something that we as a parliament need to review. This is an ongoing piece of work that we as a parliament will need to address some time in the future—maybe the next parliament, depending on who is here, of course—to decide on the warrant powers that would exist against new types of online platforms.
The principle remains the same: we need to make sure there is independent oversight and approval associated with the exercise of these powers, because they are serious and they're a departure, particularly when we're introducing world-leading legislation. This is world-leading legislation that seeks to push the boundaries of what can be done online. For a number of reasons, we need to make sure that there are proper accountability mechanisms and safeguards, but firstly because it's about public confidence. One of the things we always face in the space of national security and the tension with civil liberties is making sure that governments don't overstep the mark and aren't given a free hand. Public confidence comes not just from members in this place, although they're a critical part of the conversation. It also comes from the public when they don't feel that these powers will be abused, even by well-meaning agencies, in most circumstances, against otherwise law-abiding citizens going about their normal life.
One of the most significant and dramatic trends that have occurred within my lifetime—and there are a number of them—concerns the privacy people have in an online setting. Some people are completely indifferent and share everything; others take it very seriously. But we should always start from the basic proposition that we respect citizens' rights and their freedom to keep things private. If they don't seek to put something in the public domain, then ultimately their intention is to keep it private, and we don't want agencies or the police to somehow have powers that needlessly compromise not just that principle but the confidence that underpins so much of our national security legislation and framework. We need to be clear: the Australian community does hold a very high degree of confidence in it for that exact reason. So we want to maintain public confidence, but also, as members of parliament, we shouldn't want the abuse of state power, even when we're seeking to achieve something for legitimate purposes, because in the end we all operate in a free society that's based on the idea that we restrain government power, democratise it to the people, and respect their right to live their lives without constant fear of an egregious Canberra monopoly overseeing their daily lives.
I think we have, broadly, the legislation we need. It has gone through the PJCIS process, which, as I have said previously, is a very collegiate one. I know as a committee member that for every piece of legislation we go through, including this one, we get substantial briefings from agencies as well as feedback and public hearings that reflect questioning to challenge and test the assumptions behind the legislation and the justification and need for it. With this particular legislation we were taken through some aspects of the application of it. Some of those briefings were, as always, done confidentially, but they provided committee members with insights into how the agencies work successfully to do the job they need to do on behalf of us.
When you get a report from the PJCIS making a recommendation to pass legislation, it's a reflection of the House's confidence not just in the position the committee had adopted but in the degree of rigour that we apply. It is very rigorous, often with members—including me, I'm proud to say—having quite diverse views and sometimes with a member taking a bent that directly challenges not just the assumptions behind the power of the agencies but the position of government. That includes government members, as well. That should breed confidence. As somebody once remarked, we have the full philosophical spectrum of our parliament represented on that committee, and that is one of the reasons it does good work. And it's one of the reasons it should continue to do good work so this House can make decisions with confidence.
This legislation is important. It gives a very good basis for the updating of appropriate surveillance of online behaviour when people engage in criminal or nefarious activity. The three new powers included in it provide a clear basis on which we can ensure that our agencies have the powers they need to do the job that we the people, as well as this parliament, want them to do. None of them are in contexts where people are engaged in behaviour that would normally pass the test of social acceptability. These powers and the thresholds and safeguards that operate around them are designed so that each time they are used they are cracking down on criminal behaviour, whether it's the drug trade or types of exploitation. I refer in particular to the data disruption warrants around child exploitation material. Technology, though it can be used to empower the individual for good purposes, needs to be constrained when it is used for nefarious ones, and we will need to continue to review and update legislation—not just this bill but many other bills—to follow and respond to the evolution of technology. It is one of the most critical challenges we face in this parliament and one we must take up and master.
Not just is this legislation, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, important; it is absolutely necessary. The world we live in today is so very different to the world we lived in two years ago or three years ago. The difficulties enforcement agencies face because of technology continue to increase and to get more difficult. To the people who question the need for this type of legislation I'll say two things. If you do not want this legislation because you are blissfully ignorant of what is happening around you in your communities—in schools and on the streets—then you need to educate yourself. Or if you are against this type of legislation, then you're using it for nefarious purposes and you are the type of person that the enforcement agencies are looking at.
The member for Goldstein is always very eloquent and very well prepared, but I'm at odds with one thing that he said—that the production of child exploitation material more often comes from overseas than from here. I apologise if I have misquoted him. All you need to do is go to any courthouse, in any state, on any day of the week, and you will find people charged with the production of child exploitation material in Australia. This isn't unique to overseas. We saw that recently. In my backyard a childcare school was caught up in Operation Arkstone, where two men were charged with sexual assault of 12 minors as well as producing child exploitation material. That is in our own backyard—my own backyard. So I would urge anybody listening to or reading this to not think that this is something out of a movie and to not think that this is only in the realms of the underworld. This is in your backyard.
This is exactly why we need legislation like this, despite the delicate balance with civil liberties. Your civil liberties are not impinged if you're doing the right thing. Do we say, 'I don't want legislation such as this tightened because of something that I hold precious, even though I'll never use it,' over protecting a 12-month-old baby from being sexually assaulted and exploited? I think the answer is fairly clear.
The dark web increasingly frequently hosts large-scale, complex, anonymous platforms and services to facilitate serious crimes. We all know that. It's not only sexual abuse of children but drugs, firearms and extremist content. Of particular concern is the hosting, sharing and distribution of child abuse material that is increasingly occurring on the dark web, where the true IP address, location and jurisdiction of both users and service are hidden or encrypted.
Currently, the powers afforded to law enforcement are focused on gathering evidence from criminal offences and prosecuting offences, and they're targeted at the individual crime through the investigation of particular people or a computer connected with that specific offence. The problem herein is that this restriction to the individual act or the individual device becomes increasingly insufficient to respond to the threat posed by the cyberenabled crime. Without the support of powers to enable the identification of potential offenders and understand the scope of their offending, investigations are often constrained from the outset. It's trite to say that criminals operating online are almost always unknown, inaccessible or too numerous to reasonably pursue for prosecution. That's why these offences generally go unnoticed and unpunished, and it is exactly why these measures put before the parliament today are absolutely necessary.
The assistance and access act, introduced in 2018, was one plank of the government's action to address the challenges that technology like encryption posed to law enforcement. That legislation established a framework for agencies to seek technical assistance from the technology industry and the introduction of computer access warrant powers for law enforcement. But, again, it's becoming more and more difficult with the advancement of technology.
I referred to Operation Arkstone. With these powers, Operation Arkstone has been one of the most significant child protection investigations by the AFP to date, due to its scale of offending and its reach across Australia. Yes, it was overseas, but this was in our own backyard. At the most extreme end, some of the offenders allegedly inflicted acts of sexual abuse on Australian children ranging in age from 16 months to 15 years. It was recorded and put online. This is depraved, evil material and is exactly why we should have this type of legislation and exactly why it takes precedence over civil liberties.
Another operation, Operation Ironside, which we saw recently, was a huge success. During Operation Ironside there were 696 search warrants executed, 290 offenders charged and 728 charges laid. There were 4,784 kilograms of drugs seized, and we know what drugs do to our communities. In my electorate, in Coffs Harbour or Kempsey or Port Macquarie, you see the ice on the street every day and you see the effects it has on our own people. There's never black and white; there's always grey in between. There are very different reasons why people use drugs. But, if the drugs aren't there, they can't be used. We need to give police the powers to investigate and to decrypt.
This bill seeks to introduce three key powers that will significantly assist the AFP and ACIC in the fight against such cyber-enabled serious crimes as were uncovered by Operation Arkstone and Operation Ironside. Firstly, network activity warrants will enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence on the most harmful criminal networks operating online, including on the dark web, using anonymising technologies, rather than being limited to reactive deployment in relation to nominated and specific criminal offending. Secondly, data disruption warrants will enable the AFP and ACIC to disrupt serious criminality online by authorising the AFP and the ACIC to modify data belonging to individuals suspected of criminal activity, in order to frustrate the commission of serious offences. Importantly, this measure will be particularly effective in disrupting the distribution of child exploitation material. Finally, an account takeover power will enable the AFP and ACIC to take control of an individual person's online account in order to effectively gather evidence about criminal activity. This is to be used in conjunction with other investigatory powers. It is important to note the government has prepared amendments that strengthen the conditions of oversight and transparency for when and how these important new powers can be used. They cannot be used without significant justification.
In conclusion, as a former investigator myself, I commend this government's continued response to countering all forms of criminal activity that seek to harm the most vulnerable within our community. I welcome the changes that this bill will bring to the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies.
I rise to speak on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. Internet connected devices are increasingly at the centre of our daily lives and never more so than now, in the era of COVID-19. Whether you're the Prime Minister videoconferencing his national cabinet colleagues, a young person paying for lunch through their digital wallet or an Australian meeting their grandchild for the first time via Zoom, today digital devices are a part of everything that we do. However, that is just as much the case for criminals as it is for the rest of us. Digital connectivity has made it easier than ever before for criminals to communicate with one another, to share resources and knowledge and to prey on Australian families and businesses.
The Morrison government is committed to stamping out this kind of criminal activity. We are making the nation's largest ever investment in cybersecurity through the $1.7 billion Cyber Security Strategy. This includes $1.4 billion over the next decade to enhance the cybersecurity capabilities and assistance provided to Australians through the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre.
In recent months I've seen firsthand the government's commitment to protecting Australians online. Many people are not aware that in my electorate of Fisher, with the support of the federal government, we are in fact leading the way in the fight against complex and ever-growing cybercrime through local charity IDCARE. IDCARE was established by the federal government in 2014. It's based in Caloundra, in my electorate, and it has directly supported more than 200,000 Australians, helping reverse the impacts of cybercrimes from identity theft to the hacking of personal devices. IDCARE's services range from brief telephone consultations to complex advocacy and technical assistance, ranging across weeks and, in fact, months of support. They've developed a suite of more than a thousand response plans for the more frequently encountered crimes, and there in Caloundra is the only place in the world you'll find specialist identity and cybersecurity case managers. Once again, Fisher is leading the way in dealing with this sort of scourge in our society.
IDCARE's managing director, David Lacey, tells me that demand for their services has increased fourfold since 2015, with hundreds of people on the Sunshine Coast alone seeking support. Indeed, nationwide, a cybercrime is reported to the ACSC, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, every 10 minutes. Yet we know that the majority of incidents still go unreported. The ACCC's Targeting scams report found that in 2019 alone Australians lost more than $634 million to these online crimes. I have to say: it makes my blood absolutely boil to see these crooks trying to steal money from hardworking and often retired Australians.
When I recently visited IDCARE, I met a number of their clients. They were ordinary Australians like you and me, Deputy Speaker Freelander—well, perhaps not like you and me, because we're not retired! These local retirees were looking for investments that would guarantee their financial security after a lifetime of hard work, and they are now left with nothing. Local business owners trying to keep their staff employed and their customers served through the worst economic and health crises in a century have now been devastated by blackmail and extortion. That's why I was proud to join the once Minister for Home Affairs, the now defence minister, at IDCARE earlier this year to announce that the Morrison government would provide the not-for-profit with additional funding of $6.1 million over the next four years to provide their specialist services to a further 54,000 Australians. This funding is going to help IDCARE to help tens of thousands more Australians to protect themselves online and to pick up the pieces when, sadly, things go so wrong.
Scams, cybercrimes and identity crimes impact every one of us, and no-one is entirely safe. I'm sure we've all experienced those fake calls purporting to be from the tax office, Amazon or Telstra, or the ads for products that are too good to be true, and every year these scams just seem to get more and more sophisticated. However, unfortunately, these scams are not the worst of online crime. Child abuse, organised crime, terrorism, drug and human trafficking, large-scale fraud, illegal weapons trading and even assassinations are contracted, planned, funded and paid for on the dark web. Sadly and regrettably, these things are only getting worse.
Last year the AFP identified a 163 per cent increase in the amount of child abuse material being downloaded on the dark web in 2020 compared to the previous year—a 163 per cent increase! This is judged to represent less than half the material that is in fact available. The AFP is aware that in 2018 more than 10,000 secure and encrypted specialist handsets were being used by Australian criminals to send secure communications. Currently, the AFP and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission are able to deploy electronic surveillance for aspects of communications traffic, content data and telecommunications data. However, they can only do so in gathering evidence of specific criminal offences and in prosecuting known individuals. However, with the increasing sophistication of the tools available to criminals, it is becoming impractical in all too many cases to identify offenders without deploying electronic surveillance proactively.
Today's criminals use virtual private networks to conceal their location and encrypted physical handsets like Encrochat and Ciphr to operate on a closed, anonymous network. They use bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to make untraceable purchases and transfers of funds, and they conceal their identities behind random usernames and layers of anonymous accounts. The websites criminals use support their activities by their intentional avoidance of collecting any user information that law enforcement could use to identify a suspect for further investigation. In these circumstances, it can be nigh on impossible to track down an individual user or computer in order to deploy the powers available to them, even as law enforcement can observe a serious crime being committed.
The powers available to law enforcement need to keep pace with the increasing sophistication of crime online, and that is what this bill delivers. Firstly, the bill will get to the heart of this issue by giving the AFP and the ACIC the power to collect intelligence online concerning the activity of unidentified individuals and criminal groups by allowing access to the computers being used to facilitate serious criminal activity. Accessing these computers is often the only practical way to identify who the criminals are in order to investigate and disrupt their offences. We cannot allow a situation to continue where law enforcement can see serious crimes being committed but can do nothing to identify the perpetrators simply because they do not already know who those perpetrators are.
Secondly, this bill would give law enforcement, with the proper warrant, the power to take control of a suspected criminal's account in order to gather evidence about their activities and those of their associates. Once an alleged offender has been identified, the opaque nature of the websites that they use in planning and executing their crimes, and the anonymity of cryptocurrencies, can mean that the only place evidence is recorded is in the alleged offender's own accounts. As it stands, those accounts are only accessible to the AFP if the accused gives them access. Well, that's not going to happen!
With the right oversight from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, this power will ensure that Australian law enforcement doesn't need an alleged offender's permission to investigate their own crimes.
Finally, the bill will introduce a data disruption warrant to enable the AFP and the ACIC to take the fight right to the criminals and stop them in the act. The uniquely live and dynamic nature of the online environment means that, at times, law enforcement officers can see serious crimes, such as the dissemination of child abuse material, being or about to be committed in real time. At present, there is little or nothing an officer can do to prevent these crimes from proceeding. However, under this bill, the AFP and the ACIC would be able to apply for a data disruption warrant. This would give them the ability to disrupt data held on computers by deleting it, adding to it or modifying it such that it can no longer be used to commit a crime. Australians are well aware of the devastating impact that cybercriminals can have on their legitimate activities through modifying or deleting their data. This bill would rebalance the scales and give us the power to disrupt the activities of serious criminals in our turn and use their tools against them.
We've seen in recent months what a devastating impact such a reversal can have on organised crime. When law enforcement have the powers they need to use cutting-edge online tools themselves against the criminals, the results can be explosive. We will have read the extensive coverage in the media of Operation Ironside, the extremely sophisticated international effort which saw hundreds of Australian organised criminals planning their crimes on an online platform which was, in fact, operated by the US FBI. The outcomes delivered by the AFP as part of this operation are nothing short of incredible—nearly $50 million seized, 250 of the most serious offenders charged, 139 firearms recovered, almost five tonnes of narcotics removed from the streets and 20 threats to kill averted. The operation found alleged links between Australian criminals with the Asian crime syndicates, Albanian organised crime gangs and even the Italian Mafia. These are remarkable outcomes, and this one operation has already made Australia a materially safer place. With the bill before the House we have the opportunity to build more such operations and make them an important part of the law enforcement arsenal in this country.
I'd like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to both the former Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Defence, who I know put a lot of work into developing this bill before the House, and the current Minister for Home Affairs, who is in the chamber today. I'd like to congratulate them both for their work not just in this chamber—people have no idea of the sacrifices that that role entails, the intrusions on their own privacy, the incredible demands on their family lives and their own personal lives. It is, quite frankly, while probably one of the best portfolios in government, one of the most onerous. I dip my lid to the minister in the chamber today for the great work she is doing in her portfolio.
Australian law enforcement officers are resourceful, skilled and creative. When we give them the tools they need, they can be devastatingly effective against even the most sophisticated criminals. The bill before us levels the playing field. It gives the AFP the opportunity to turn the tables and use the underworld's own technologies and techniques against them to make Australia a safer place for all of us. I commend the bill to the House.
I would like to thank my colleagues right across this chamber for their contribution to the debate on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. The government's first priority is ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. It is vital that our law enforcement agencies have effective tools to protect the Australian community. The growing use of the dark web and other technologies that allow criminals to remain anonymous is increasingly inhibiting agencies' ability to protect our community. This bill will substantially boost the capacity of the Australian Federal Police, the AFP, and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the ACIC, to identify and disrupt serious criminal activity occurring online, particularly activity by criminals who seek to use the dark web and other platforms to evade law enforcement.
The arrest of more than 220 criminals as part of Operation Ironside earlier this year was a testament to the dedication and hard work of our law enforcement agencies, but it also demonstrated the persistent and ever-evolving threat of transnational serious and organised crime and their increasing tendency to seek out and use technology—often operated exclusively for the criminal market to conceal their offending. In the case of Operation Ironside, ingenuity and world-class capabilities gave our law enforcement an edge. This bill is just one more step the government is taking to ensure our agencies maintain that edge.
The bill has been reviewed extensively by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, with a report tabled by the committee on 5 August 2021. I circulate an addendum to the explanatory memorandum, responding to issues raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The government thanks these committees for their review of these important reforms.
We do not accept serious crime in our communities and neither should we accept it online. Our laws must keep pace with technology if our agencies are to continue to do the job we expect of them to keep Australians safe.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. By leave—I move government amendments (1) to (60), as circulated, together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), after "3,", insert "3A,".
(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (before line 13), before section 27KA, insert:
27KAA Sunsetting
This Division ceases to have effect 5 years after it commences.
(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 8 and 9), omit paragraph 27KA(3)(b), substitute:
(b) subject to this section, must be supported by an affidavit setting out:
(i) the grounds on which the warrant is sought; and
(ii) the things proposed to be authorised by the warrant in accordance with section 27KE; and
(iii) an assessment of how disruption of data held in the target computer is likely to substantially assist as described in paragraph (1)(c), to the extent that such an assessment is possible; and
(iv) an assessment of the likelihood that disruption of data held in the target computer will substantially assist as described in paragraph (1)(c), to the extent that such an assessment is possible.
(4) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (after line 9), after section 27KB, insert:
27KBA Endorsement of application — Australian Federal Police
(1) A law enforcement officer of the Australian Federal Police (or another person on the law enforcement officer's behalf) must not make an application for the issue of a data disruption warrant unless the making of the application has been endorsed, either orally or in writing, by an endorsing officer of the Australian Federal Police.
(2) An endorsing officer of the Australian Federal Police must not endorse the making of an application for the issue of a data disruption warrant unless the endorsing officer is satisfied that the making of the application is appropriate in all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an endorsing officer of the Australian Federal Police means:
(a) a law enforcement officer of the Australian Federal Police who is declared, in writing, by the chief officer of the Australian Federal Police to be an endorsing officer of the Australian Federal Police; or
(b) a person who is in a class of law enforcement officers of the Australian Federal Police that is declared, in writing, by the chief officer of the Australian Federal Police to be a class of endorsing officers of the Australian Federal Police.
(4) The chief officer of the Australian Federal Police must not make a declaration under paragraph (3)(a) in relation to a law enforcement officer of the Australian Federal Police unless:
(a) the law enforcement officer is a superintendent, or a person holding a higher rank, in the Australian Federal Police; and
(b) the chief officer is satisfied that the law enforcement officer has the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to endorse the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants; and
(c) the chief officer is satisfied that the law enforcement officer has completed all current internal training requirements relating to endorsing the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants.
(5) The chief officer of the Australian Federal Police must not make a declaration under paragraph (3)(b) in relation to a class of law enforcement officers of the Australian Federal Police unless:
(a) each person in that class is a superintendent, or a person holding a higher rank, in the Australian Federal Police; and
(b) the chief officer is satisfied that each person in that class has the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to endorse the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants; and
(c) the chief officer is satisfied that each person in that class has completed all current internal training requirements relating to endorsing the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants.
(6) A declaration under this section is not a legislative instrument.
27KBB Endorsement of application — Australian Crime Commission
(1) A law enforcement officer of the Australian Crime Commission (or another person on the law enforcement officer's behalf) must not make an application for the issue of a data disruption warrant unless the making of the application has been endorsed, either orally or in writing, by an endorsing officer of the Australian Crime Commission.
(2) An endorsing officer of the Australian Crime Commission must not endorse the making of an application for the issue of a data disruption warrant unless the endorsing officer is satisfied that the making of the application is appropriate in all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an endorsing officer of the Australian Crime Commission means:
(a) a law enforcement officer of the Australian Crime Commission who is declared, in writing, by the chief officer of the Australian Crime Commission to be an endorsing officer of the Australian Crime Commission; or
(b) a person who is in a class of law enforcement officers of the Australian Crime Commission that is declared, in writing, by the chief officer of the Australian Crime Commission to be a class of endorsing officers of the Australian Crime Commission.
(4) The chief officer of the Australian Crime Commission must not make a declaration under paragraph (3)(a) in relation to a law enforcement officer of the Australian Crime Commission unless:
(a) the law enforcement officer is an executive level member of the staff of the Australian Crime Commission; and
(b) the chief officer is satisfied that the law enforcement officer has the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to endorse the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants; and
(c) the chief officer is satisfied that the law enforcement officer has completed all current internal training requirements relating to endorsing the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants.
(5) The chief officer of the Australian Crime Commission must not make a declaration under paragraph (3)(b) in relation to a class of law enforcement officers of the Australian Crime Commission unless:
(a) each person in that class is an executive level member of the staff of the Australian Crime Commission; and
(b) the chief officer is satisfied that each person in that class has the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to endorse the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants; and
(c) the chief officer is satisfied that each person in that class has completed all current internal training requirements relating to endorsing the making of applications for the issue of data disruption warrants.
(6) A declaration under this section is not a legislative instrument.
(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (line 15), omit "justifiable", substitute "reasonably necessary".
(6) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (after line 33), after paragraph 27KC(2)(c), insert:
(ca) the nature of the things proposed to be authorised by the warrant in accordance with section 27KE; and
(cb) the extent to which the execution of the warrant is likely to result in access to, or disruption of, data of persons lawfully using a computer, and any privacy implications (to the extent known) resulting from that access or disruption; and
(cc) any steps that are proposed to be taken to avoid or minimise the extent to which the execution of the warrant is likely to impact on persons lawfully using a computer; and
(cd) the extent to which the execution of the warrant is likely to cause a person to suffer a temporary loss of:
(i) money; or
(ii) digital currency; or
(iii) property (other than data);
so far as that matter is known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member; and
(ce) if:
(i) the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member believes on reasonable grounds that the data covered by the warrant (within the meaning of section 27KE) is data of a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or of an employer of such a person; and
(ii) each of the offences referred to in paragraph 27KA(1)(c) is an offence against a secrecy provision;
whether the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs:
(iii) the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the journalist's source; and
(iv) the public interest in facilitating the exchange of information between journalists and members of the public so as to facilitate reporting of matters in the public interest; and
(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 8 (after line 3), at the end of section 27KC, add:
(3) For the purposes of having regard to the nature and gravity of the conduct constituting the offences referred to in paragraph 27KA(1)(c), the eligible Judge or a nominated AAT member must give weight to the following matters:
(a) whether that conduct amounts to:
(i) an activity against the security of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) an offence against Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code;
(b) whether that conduct amounts to:
(i) an activity against the proper administration of Government; or
(ii) an offence against Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code;
(c) whether that conduct:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, serious violence, or serious harm, to a person; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code;
(d) whether that conduct:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, a danger to the community; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code;
(e) whether that conduct:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, substantial damage to, or loss of, data, property or critical infrastructure; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 10 of the Criminal Code;
(f) whether that conduct involves, or is related to, the commission of:
(i) transnational crime; or
(ii) serious crime; or
(iii) organised crime;
that is not covered by any of the preceding paragraphs.
(4) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters that may be considered by the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member.
(5) To avoid doubt, this Act does not prevent a data disruption warrant from being issued in a case where the conduct constituting the offences referred to in paragraph 27KA(1)(c) is not covered by subsection (3).
(6) For the purposes of this section, secrecy provision means a provision of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State that prohibits:
(a) the communication, divulging or publication of information; or
(b) the production of, or the publication of the contents of, a document.
(8) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (lines 3 and 4), omit "within a reasonable period", substitute "as soon as is reasonably practicable to do so once the computer or thing is no longer required for the purposes of doing any thing authorised by the warrant".
(9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (lines 29 and 30), omit "justified and proportionate, having regard to the offences covered by the warrant", substitute "reasonably necessary, and proportionate, to do one or more of the things specified in the warrant".
(10) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 16 and 17), omit "justified and proportionate, having regard to the offences covered by the warrant", substitute "reasonably necessary, and proportionate, to do one or more of the things specified in the warrant or authorised by subsection (9)".
(11) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (line 20), omit "within a reasonable period", substitute "as soon as is reasonably practicable to do so once the computer or thing is no longer required for the purposes of doing any thing mentioned in paragraph (9)(c)".
(12) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 24 to 26), omit "justified and proportionate, having regard to the offences covered by the warrant", substitute "reasonably necessary, and proportionate, to do one or more of the things specified in the warrant or authorised by subsection (9)".
(13) Schedule 1, page 16 (before line 25), before item 14, insert:
13A Before section 28
Insert:
27KU Sunsetting — emergency authorisation for disruption of data held in a computer
(1) Subsections 28(1C) and (1D) cease to have effect 5 years after they commence.
(2) An emergency authorisation for disruption of data held in a computer has no effect after the end of the 5-year period beginning at the commencement of this section.
(14) Schedule 1, item 15, page 17 (after line 4), after paragraph 28(1C)(b), insert:
(ba) there are no alternative methods that:
(i) could have been used by law enforcement officers to help reduce or avoid that risk; and
(ii) are likely to be as effective as disruption of data held in the target computer; and
(15) Schedule 1, item 17, page 17 (before line 20), before subsection 28(5), insert:
(4A) In deciding whether to give an emergency authorisation for disruption of data held in a computer, the appropriate authorising officer must have regard to:
(a) the extent to which the execution of the emergency authorisation is likely to result in access to, or disruption of, data of persons lawfully using a computer; and
(b) whether the likely impact of the execution of the emergency authorisation on persons lawfully using a computer is proportionate, having regard to the risk of serious violence or substantial damage referred to in paragraph (1C)(a).
(4B) Subsection (4A) does not limit the matters to which the appropriate authorising officer may have regard.
(16) Schedule 1, item 17, page 17 (line 24), omit "justified", substitute "reasonably necessary".
(17) Schedule 1, item 41, page 28 (line 30), before "If", insert "(1)".
(18) Schedule 1, item 41, page 29 (after line 6), at the end of section 49C, add:
(2) If:
(a) a data disruption warrant was issued in response to an application made by a law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency; and
(b) the person executing the warrant becomes aware that a thing mentioned in subsection 27KE(2) that was done under the warrant has caused material loss or damage to one or more persons lawfully using a computer;
the chief officer of the law enforcement agency must:
(c) notify the Ombudsman:
(i) that the thing has caused material loss or damage to one or more persons lawfully using a computer; and
(ii) of the particulars of that loss or damage; and
(d) do so within 7 days after the person executing the warrant became so aware.
(19) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 32), after item 46, insert:
46A At the end of section 64
Add:
(3) If:
(a) a person suffers loss or injury as a result of the use of:
(i) a computer; or
(ii) a telecommunications facility operated or provided by the Commonwealth or a carrier; or
(iii) any other electronic equipment; or
(iv) a data storage device;
for the purpose of obtaining access to, or disrupting, data that is held in the computer; and
(b) the use of the computer, facility, equipment or device, as the case may be, was authorised by an emergency authorisation for disruption of data held in a computer; and
(c) the giving of the emergency authorisation was not approved under section 35B;
the Commonwealth is liable to pay to the person who has suffered the loss or injury:
(d) such compensation as is agreed on between the Commonwealth and that person; or
(e) in default of such an agreement—such compensation as is determined by action against the Commonwealth in a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to the matter.
(20) Schedule 1, item 47, page 31 (after line 2), after paragraph 64B(2)(a), insert:
(aa) in a case where the computer is the subject of a data disruption warrant—the assistance order is reasonable and necessary to enable the warrant to be executed; and
(ab) in a case where the computer is the subject of a data disruption warrant—the assistance order is justifiable and proportionate, having regard to:
(i) the nature and gravity of the conduct constituting the offences referred to in paragraph 27KA(1)(c); and
(ii) the likely impact of compliance with the assistance order on the specified person, so far as that matter is known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member; and
(iii) the likely impact of compliance with the assistance order on other persons (including persons who may lawfully be using the computer), so far as that matter is known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member; and
(21) Schedule 1, item 47, page 31 (after line 9), after paragraph 64B(2)(b), insert:
(ba) in a case where the computer is the subject of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 28(1C)—the assistance order is reasonable and necessary to enable the emergency authorisation to be executed; and
(bb) in a case where the computer is the subject of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 28(1C)—the assistance order is justifiable and proportionate, having regard to:
(i) the risk of serious violence or substantial damage referred to in paragraph 28(1C)(a); and
(ii) the likely impact of compliance with the assistance order on the specified person, so far as that matter is known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member; and
(iii) the likely impact of compliance with the assistance order on other persons (including persons who may lawfully be using the computer), so far as that matter is known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member; and
(22) Schedule 1, item 47, page 32 (after line 13), after subsection 64B(2), insert:
(2A) In determining whether the assistance order should be granted, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard to whether the specified person is, or has been, subject to:
(a) another order under this section; or
(b) an order under section 64A of this Act; or
(c) an order under section 3LA or 3ZZVG of the Crimes Act 1914;
so far as that matter is known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member.
(2B) Subsection (2A) does not limit the matters to which the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member may have regard.
Duration of assistance order
(2C) If an assistance order is granted in relation to a computer that is the subject of a data disruption warrant, the order ceases to be in force when the warrant ceases to be in force.
(2D) If an assistance order is granted in relation to a computer that is the subject of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 28(1C), the order ceases to be in force when the emergency authorisation ceases to be in force.
Protection from civil liability
(2E) A person is not subject to any civil liability in respect of an act done by the person:
(a) in compliance with an assistance order; or
(b) in good faith in purported compliance with an assistance order.
(23) Schedule 2, item 8, page 40 (lines 2 to 9), omit subsection 7A(1), substitute:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a criminal network of individuals is an electronically linked group of individuals, where:
(a) in a case where each individual in the group uses, or is likely to use, the same electronic service as at least one other individual in the group—the use of that electronic service enables any of the individuals in the group to:
(i) engage in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence; or
(ii) communicate with any of the individuals in the group about any of the individuals in the group engaging in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence; or
(iii) facilitate the engagement, by another person (whether or not an individual in the group), in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence; or
(iv) communicate with any of the individuals in the group about facilitating the engagement, by another person (whether or not an individual in the group), in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence; or
(b) in a case where each individual in the group communicates with at least one other individual in the group by electronic communication—the electronic communication enables any of the individuals in the group to:
(i) engage in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence; or
(ii) communicate with any of the individuals in the group about any of the individuals in the group engaging in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence; or
(iii) facilitate the engagement, by another person (whether or not an individual in the group), in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence; or
(iv) communicate with any of the individuals in the group about facilitating the engagement, by another person (whether or not an individual in the group), in conduct that constitutes a relevant offence.
(24) Schedule 2, item 9, page 40 (before line 19), before section 27KK, insert:
27KKA Sunsetting
This Division ceases to have effect 5 years after it commences.
(25) Schedule 2, item 9, page 42 (after line 26), after paragraph 27KM(1)(a), insert:
(aa) that the issue of the warrant is justified and proportionate, having regard to the kinds of offences in relation to which information will be obtained under the warrant; and
(26) Schedule 2, item 9, page 43 (line 22), after "computer", insert ", and any privacy implications (to the extent known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member) resulting from that access".
(27) Schedule 2, item 9, page 43 (after line 22), after paragraph 27KM(2)(f), insert:
(fa) if:
(i) the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member believes on reasonable grounds that the data covered by the warrant (within the meaning of section 27KP) is data of a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or of an employer of such a person; and
(ii) each of the offences referred to in paragraph 27KK(1)(b) is an offence against a secrecy provision;
whether the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs:
(iii) the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the journalist's source; and
(iv) the public interest in facilitating the exchange of information between journalists and members of the public so as to facilitate reporting of matters in the public interest; and
(28) Schedule 2, item 6, page 43 (after line 24), after subsection 27KM(2), insert:
(2A) For the purposes of having regard to the nature and gravity of the conduct constituting the kinds of offences in relation to which information will be obtained under the warrant, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must give weight to the following matters:
(a) whether that conduct amounts to:
(i) an activity against the security of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) an offence against Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code;
(b) whether that conduct amounts to:
(i) an activity against the proper administration of Government; or
(ii) an offence against Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code;
(c) whether that conduct:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, serious violence, or serious harm, to a person; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code;
(d) whether that conduct:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, a danger to the community; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code;
(e) whether that conduct:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, substantial damage to, or loss of, data, property or critical infrastructure; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 10 of the Criminal Code;
(f) whether that conduct involves, or is related to, the commission of:
(i) transnational crime; or
(ii) serious crime; or
(iii) organised crime;
that is not covered by any of the preceding paragraphs.
(2B) Subsection (2A) does not limit the matters that may be considered by the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member.
(2C) To avoid doubt, this Act does not prevent a network activity warrant from being issued in a case where the conduct constituting the kinds of offences in relation to which information will be obtained under the warrant is not covered by subsection (2A).
(29) Schedule 2, item 6, page 43 (after line 30), at the end of section 27KM, add:
(4) For the purposes of this section, secrecy provision means a provision of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State that prohibits:
(a) the communication, divulging or publication of information; or
(b) the production of, or the publication of the contents of, a document.
(30) Schedule 2, item 9, page 46 (lines 25 and 26), omit "within a reasonable period", substitute "as soon as is reasonably practicable to do so once the computer or thing is no longer required for the purposes of doing any thing authorised by the warrant".
(31) Schedule 2, item 9, page 49 (line 3), omit "within a reasonable period", substitute "as soon as is reasonably practicable to do so once the computer or thing is no longer required for the purposes of doing any thing mentioned in paragraph (8)(c)".
(32) Schedule 2, page 66 (after line 14), after item 31, insert:
31A After subsection 64A(7)
Insert:
(7A) In determining whether the assistance order should be granted, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard to whether the specified person is, or has been, subject to:
(a) another order under this section; or
(b) an order under section 64B of this Act; or
(c) an order under section 3LA or 3ZZVG of the Crimes Act 1914;
so far as that matter is known to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member.
(7B) Subsection (7A) does not limit the matters to which the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member may have regard.
Duration of assistance order
(7C) If an assistance order is granted in relation to a computer that is the subject of a computer access warrant or a network activity warrant, the order ceases to be in force when the warrant ceases to be in force.
(7D) If an assistance order is granted in relation to a computer that is the subject of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 28(1A), 29(1A) or 30(1A), the order ceases to be in force when the emergency authorisation ceases to be in force.
Protection from civil liability
(7E) A person is not subject to any civil liability in respect of an act done by the person:
(a) in compliance with an assistance order; or
(b) in good faith in purported compliance with an assistance order.
(33) Schedule 3, item 4, page 101 (before line 12), before section 3ZZUN, insert:
3ZZUMA Sunsetting
This Division ceases to have effect 5 years after it commences.
(34) Schedule 3, item 4, page 101 (line 25), omit "by means of a written document signed by the applicant", substitute "in person".
(35) Schedule 3, item 4, page 101 (lines 27 to 29), omit "if the applicant has reason to believe that the delay caused by making a formal application may affect the success of the investigation—orally in person, or", substitute "if the applicant believes that it is impracticable for the application to be made in person—".
(36) Schedule 3, item 4, page 101 (after line 31), after subsection 3ZZUN(2), insert:
(2A) An application:
(a) must specify:
(i) the name of the applicant; and
(ii) the nature and duration of the warrant sought; and
(b) subject to this section, must be supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds on which the warrant is sought.
Unsworn applications
(2B) If a law enforcement officer believes that:
(a) taking control of the target accounts is immediately necessary, in the course of the investigation mentioned in paragraph (1)(c), for the purpose of enabling evidence to be obtained of the commission of the offences mentioned in that paragraph; and
(b) it is impracticable for an affidavit to be prepared or sworn before an application for a warrant is made;
an application for an account takeover warrant under subsection (1) may be made before an affidavit is prepared or sworn.
(2C) If subsection (2B) applies, the applicant must:
(a) provide as much information as the magistrate considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and
(b) not later than 72 hours after the making of the application, send a duly sworn affidavit to the magistrate, whether or not a warrant has been issued.
(2D) If:
(a) subsection (2B) applies; and
(b) transmission by fax is available; and
(c) an affidavit has been prepared;
the person applying must transmit a copy of the affidavit, whether sworn or unsworn, to the magistrate who is to determine the application.
(37) Schedule 3, item 4, page 102 (after line 23), after paragraph 3ZZUP(2)(d), insert:
(da) the extent to which the execution of the warrant is likely to impact on persons lawfully using a computer, so far as that matter is known to the magistrate; and
(db) the extent to which the execution of the warrant is likely to cause a person to suffer a temporary loss of:
(i) money; or
(ii) digital currency; or
(iii) property (other than data);
so far as that matter is known to the magistrate; and
(dc) if:
(i) the magistrate believes on reasonable grounds that each target account is held by a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or of an employer of such a person; and
(ii) the alleged relevant offence, or each of the alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought is an offence against a secrecy provision;
whether the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs:
(iii) the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the journalist's source; and
(iv) the public interest in facilitating the exchange of information between journalists and members of the public so as to facilitate reporting of matters in the public interest; and
(38) Schedule 3, item 4, page 102 (after line 28), at the end of section 3ZZUP, add:
(3) For the purposes of having regard to the nature and gravity of the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought, the magistrate must give weight to the following matters:
(a) whether the conduct constituting the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought amounts to:
(i) an activity against the security of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) an offence against Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code;
(b) whether the conduct constituting the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought amounts to:
(i) an activity against the proper administration of Government; or
(ii) an offence against Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code;
(c) whether the conduct constituting the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, serious violence, or serious harm, to a person; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code;
(d) whether the conduct constituting the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, a danger to the community; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code;
(e) whether the conduct constituting the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought:
(i) causes, or has the potential to cause, substantial damage to, or loss of, data, property or critical infrastructure; or
(ii) amounts to an offence against Chapter 10 of the Criminal Code;
(f) whether the conduct constituting the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought involves, or is related to, the commission of:
(i) transnational crime; or
(ii) serious crime; or
(iii) organised crime;
that is not covered by any of the preceding paragraphs.
(4) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters that may be considered by the magistrate.
(5) To avoid doubt, this Act does not prevent an account takeover warrant from being issued in a case where the conduct constituting the alleged relevant offence, or alleged relevant offences, in respect of which the warrant is sought is not covered by subsection (3).
(6) For the purposes of this section, secrecy provision means a provision of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State that prohibits:
(a) the communication, divulging or publication of information; or
(b) the production of, or the publication of the contents of, a document.
(39) Schedule 3, item 4, page 110 (before line 10), before section 3ZZUX, insert:
3ZZUWA Sunsetting
This Division ceases to have effect 5 years after it commences.
(40) Schedule 3, item 4, page 115 (after line 18), after subsection 3ZZVG(2), insert:
(2A) In determining whether the assistance order should be granted, the magistrate must have regard to whether the specified person is, or has been, subject to:
(a) another order under this section; or
(b) an order under section 3LA of this Act; or
(c) an order under section 64A or 64B of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004;
so far as that matter is known to the magistrate.
(2B) Subsection (2B) does not limit the matters to which the magistrate may have regard.
Duration of assistance order
(2C) If an assistance order is granted in relation to a computer that is the subject of an account takeover warrant, the order ceases to be in force when the warrant ceases to be in force.
(2D) If an assistance order is granted in relation to a computer that is the subject of an emergency authorisation, the order ceases to be in force when the emergency authorisation ceases to be in force.
Protection from civil liability
(2E) A person is not subject to any civil liability in respect of an act done by the person:
(a) in compliance with an assistance order; or
(b) in good faith in purported compliance with an assistance order.
(41) Schedule 3, item 4, page 120 (line 2), omit "6 monthly", substitute "annual".
(42) Schedule 3, item 4, page 120 (line 4), omit "and 31 December".
(43) Schedule 3, item 4, page 120 (lines 9 and 10), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(44) Schedule 3, item 4, page 120 (line 13), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(45) Schedule 3, item 4, page 120 (lines 19 and 20), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(46) Schedule 3, item 4, page 120 (line 26), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(47) Schedule 3, item 4, page 120 (line 30), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(48) Schedule 3, item 4, page 121 (line 2), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(49) Schedule 3, item 4, page 121 (line 8), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(50) Schedule 3, item 4, page 121 (line 15), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(51) Schedule 3, item 4, page 121 (lines 26 and 27), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(52) Schedule 3, item 4, page 121 (line 30), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(53) Schedule 3, item 4, page 121 (lines 36 and 37), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(54) Schedule 3, item 4, page 122 (lines 5 and 6), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(55) Schedule 3, item 4, page 122 (line 10), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(56) Schedule 3, item 4, page 122 (lines 19 and 20), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(57) Schedule 3, item 4, page 128 (lines 17 and 18), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".
(58) Schedule 3, item 4, page 132 (lines 26 and 27), omit "6 monthly", substitute "12 monthly".
(59) Schedule 3, page 134 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:
National Emergency Declaration Act 2020
5 Paragraph 15(8)(a)
After "IAAA,", insert "IAAC,".
(60) Page 135 (before line 1), before Schedule 4, insert:
Schedule 3A — Reviews
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010
1 At the end of subsection 6(1)
Add:
; (e) the function conferred by subsection (1E).
2 Before subsection 6(2)
Insert:
(1E) The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor must:
(a) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021; and
(b) commence to do so before the end of the 3-year period beginning on the day that Act receives the Royal Assent.
Intelligence Services Act 2001
3 After paragraph 29(1)(bc)
Insert:
(bcaa) if the Committee resolves to do so—to commence, as soon as practicable after the fourth anniversary of the day the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 receives the Royal Assent, a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to that Act; and
I thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—the committee—for its comprehensive review of the bill. The government has prepared amendments in response to recommendations made by the committee. The amendments I move today will enhance oversight of powers contained in the bill. In line with the committee's recommendations, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor—the INSLM—will commence a review of the powers in this bill within three years of the bill receiving royal assent. The PJCIS also has the option of reviewing the bill after four years from the bill receiving royal assent, and the powers will sunset five years from the date of royal assent. I am also introducing a series of amendments to give effect to a number of the committee's recommendations which focused on strengthening arrangements for when these new powers can be applied for and issued. These amendments will strengthen the issuing criteria for data disruption warrants to include that the disruption of the data is reasonably necessary and proportionate; require additional matters to be specified in an application for data disruption and account takeover warrants, including, for example, the type of acts of data disruption that are proposed to be carried out under the warrant; and provide that an application for a data disruption warrant must be endorsed by a sufficiently senior officer who is of a rank that has been approved by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or CEO of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and who has completed the necessary training.
Amendments are also being introduced to strengthen protection for third parties and journalists. These amendments will ensure that loss or damage to innocent third parties as a result of a data disruption warrant can be caused only to the extent to which it is necessary and proportionate and will require notification of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, if this occurs; strengthen the issuing criteria for network activity warrants to include consideration of privacy implications, to the extent known, where the warrant is likely to result in access to data of persons who are lawfully using a computer; strengthen the issuing criteria for data disruption and account takeover warrants to include consideration of whether the power is likely to have an adverse impact on third parties, including privacy implications, to the extent known; and provide an additional public interest test for data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and account takeover warrants where an investigation of an unauthorised disclosure offence is in relation to a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist. On the issue of providing greater protection for journalists, I note that the government is committed to implementing the recommendations from the PJCIS press freedoms report, including the expansion of the public interest advocate regime. This issue is most appropriately addressed across all aspects of the electronic surveillance framework and will be progressed alongside holistic reforms to Australia's electronic surveillance laws which are already underway.
Government amendments being introduced today also address a range of the committee's recommendations in relation to assistance orders. These amendments will require assistance orders for data disruption warrants to be reasonably necessary to enable the warrant to be executed and the assistance sought to be justifiable and proportionate; require that issuing authorities consider whether a person is, or has been, subject to other mandatory assistance orders, to the extent known; clarify that a person may only be subject to an assistance order while a warrant or an emergency authorisation is in force; and provide protection from civil liability in respect of an act done in compliance with an assistance order or in good faith with an assistance order.
Each of the amendments I have outlined is intended to address the concerns identified by the committee which led to its recommendations. I particularly note recommendations 10 and 30, which were of significant focus during the committee's consideration of the bill. The government has worked in good faith to address the committee's concerns. The amendments I have introduced ensure that warrants for the new powers are more likely to be issued for more serious crime types whilst still being available to fight all forms of serious crime and to tighten the definition of 'criminal network of individuals' whilst still enabling valuable criminal intelligence to be collected. These amendments, like many others being introduced today, balance essential safeguards with the need to preserve the operational effectiveness of the new powers.
These government amendments do not address all of the committee's recommendations. In particular, the committee made a number of recommendations proposing to expand the oversight role of the committee to the intelligence functions of the ACIC and AFP and extend the oversight remit of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to include all intelligence functions of the AFP. The ACIC and AFP are already subject to extensive parliamentary oversight, including by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. Expanding IGIS oversight to all of the AFP's intelligence functions is contrary to the recommendations of the comprehensive review of the framework governing the National Intelligence Community and the government's public response to those recommendations.
In addition, there were several recommendations made by the committee which are more appropriately considered as part of the holistic review of Australia's electronic surveillance framework currently underway. These include recommendations to expand the function of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to cover the proprietary of the AFP's and ACIC's policies and activities, remove the ability for AAT members to issue warrants under the bill and change postwarrant concealment powers.
I also note the committee's recommendation that my department not make further submissions that are provided on behalf of the Home Affairs portfolio. Joint submissions have been longstanding practice of previous governments and remain appropriate today. Portfolio submissions provide the committee and public with a comprehensive overview of the operational, policy and legislative issues, all of which must be understood and considered as a whole for good policy development. I believe the Australian people expect the government to act in a coordinated and coherent way. This approach does not preclude portfolio agencies also providing additional submissions, as they did for this bill, to further assist the committee's consideration of specific operational issues.
I'm also taking this opportunity to introduce two additional government amendments. The first makes minor amendments to the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 to clarify that the minister's power to modify administrative arrangement requirements during a national emergency does not apply to apply to account takeover warrants. The second would amend the frequency of the Ombudsman's inspection of records relating to account takeover warrants and subsequent reports to the minister on these inspections from six to 12 monthly. The Ombudsman raised this amendment with the committee during its inquiry as giving the Ombudsman more flexibility in how it conducts its essential oversight role. Making this change is consistent with recommendation 17 of the committee on the frequency of agency reporting.
The new powers introduced by this bill are critical in enabling law enforcement to tackle the fundamental shift in how serious criminality is occurring online. Without enhancing the AFP's and ACIC's powers, we leave them with outdated ways of attacking an area of criminality that is only increasing in prevalence. I commend these amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Before the adjournment I was advising the House of my constituent and the circumstances of Mr Rafal Oleszczuk, who contacted by office last year together with his partner, Karina. The tragic story is as follows. In 2009 Rafal suffered a serious motorcycle accident and lost a leg. According to his wife, since 2009, he has had to rely on a very basic, unsafe and painful prosthesis that doesn't fit properly. He could only wear the prosthesis for one hour at a time, and even so, when he wore it, it left him with scars and blood boils, which ultimately burst during the course of that one hour. All of this restricted Rafal's range of movement in his access to the wider community, activities and prospective employment opportunities.
When the NDIS was first rolled out in the Illawarra, in 2017, Rafal and his family hoped for a prosthesis that was state of the art—one that he could walk in, one that fitted him properly, one that would allow him to return to the workforce. In 2019 Rafal and Karina lodged an application for an NDIS plan. They included in it everything they needed, including doctors' and specialists' reports, impact statements and the requisite quotes. The plan was approved within two months; however, there was one glaring omission. There was no funding for the leg. According to Karina and Rafal, there was funding for core supports. They were great, but without access to the prosthesis he had no capacity to access those supports. This is typical of lots of examples that come across our desks.
They lodged a review to include the prosthesis in the new plan under advice that, unfortunately, it would take some time to process as they were a high-price item. After waiting five months, Rafal and Karina contacted my office seeking assistance, and they got it. We immediately followed up with the NDIS and within two months I was advised that the quote for the new prosthetic leg had been approved.
Earlier this year we were contacted by Karina and Rafal, who told my office that since Rafal's new prosthetic leg had been fitted he'd been able to use it. Rafal's now working full time. He has changed careers and has himself become a disability support worker. This is a success story. It shows how the NDIS, as originally conceived and properly implemented, can transform lives. It can enable people to get their lives back together and contribute as productive members of the workforce in the way they wish to. According to Karina, Rafal's much happier, is more independent and is increasingly able to engage in social activities.
Over the next couple of weeks members of this place will stand to celebrate the achievements of our Paralympians, and we should. People like Rafal will never represent Australia in the Paralympics but their situation is worthy of our attention. I simply say to the government: instead of seeing the National Disability Insurance Scheme as an opportunity to withdraw $4.9 billion from the scheme to fund an elusive budget surplus that never actually occurred, focus yourselves upon the circumstances of people like Rafal. When we're cheering on our Paralympians, as we should, we should look what more can be done for the greater number of Australians who will never get that sort of recognition or adoration but deserve our support so that they can participate meaningfully in our society. Whether it's a prosthetic leg which transforms somebody's life and enables them to get back into the workforce and assist other people, whether it's the simple equipment that is needed for people—a wheelchair, or a bed which enables them to sleep properly—whether it's transport or whether it's the right sort of care and support that they need, these are the services that the NDIS was designed to improve.
So much has been frustrated over recent years. We need to get the scheme back on track. We welcome the fact that the government has belatedly moved to implement the outcomes of the Robertson review, but much more needs to be done so the scheme can live up to its full potential.
[by video link] I really am pleased to be able to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. It is unfortunate that this bill had its origin in the tragic death of Adelaide woman Ann-Marie Smith, who, sadly, was not only the victim of eight years of coalition mismanagement of the NDIS but the victim of severe neglect at the hands of her carer.
The Morrison government has so far presided over underspending $4.6 billion of the NDIS. There have been 1,200 Australians with a disability who died while waiting to be funded by the scheme. And, of course, there were the tricks and deception by the government to ram through, without proper consultation, independent assessments that were not supported by many living with a disability and that those in the disability community were certainly not consulted about. Labor welcomes the Morrison government's decision to act on the recommendations of the Robertson review, even though it's now 12 months since the report was handed down and 16 months after Ann-Marie Smith passed away. Neglect and slowness to act have become this government's legacy. Even though they are acting now, the Morrison government's lack of consultation and their continuing failure to consult people with a disability and their families on changes which directly impact their lives seems to continually happen.
Of course, everything possible should be done to protect people with a disability from neglect and abuse, and, while this bill does not address the gaping holes in NDIS safeguards, we will support this bill. More must be done to address the lack of proactive checking on service providers and the ineffective and understaffed NDIS commission. The concerns of stakeholders and people with a disability in relation to privacy and information sharing have not gone unheard. Labor recognises that the right to privacy is just as important as the need to protect. That is why, it's come to my attention, Labor will move amendments in the Senate to look at this very issue.
Without a doubt, one of the biggest issues raised with me is concerns about the NDIS. What is so disappointing to me is that the NDIS, as a scheme, should hold the key to both economic and social empowerment of people living with a disability. Unfortunately, though, under the stewardship of this government, my office has been constantly receiving requests for help, as I know many other members have, from NDIS participants, their families and their carers, often at their wits' end.
I will speak a bit about Ann-Marie Smith. The Adelaide NDIS participant was just 54 years old when she tragically passed due to severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy, after being confined to a cane chair 24 hours a day for more than a year. Ann-Marie Smith's NDIS package included six hours of support per day. Reports are that she only received two hours of care per day and had not been seen outside her house in years. Of course, it must be said again that this should never, ever have happened. What happened to Ann-Marie should never have occurred, and it should never occur again in this country. Ann-Marie's story is nothing short of a tragedy. She should be alive and thriving today. Instead, she was neglected and abandoned and has now, sadly, passed away.
This is the nightmare that every parent of a child with a disability is scared of. This is what I hear over and over again from parents of a child with a permanent disability. They are constantly worried about what will happen to their child when they are no longer around to provide that care and support. The system should have protected Ann-Marie. It should have protected and cared for her. I've heard many stories from my electorate, and the parents I meet do not have faith that the NDIS system will be there to provide the important care and support that it was designed to or that their children's future is secure as they grow older. We cannot let this happen.
In my electorate, as I said, I regularly have issues raised with me and hear stories about the government's mismanagement, and I wanted to touch on some of those today. One of the most common issues raised with me by local NDIS participants are the delays they continue to face when they seek urgent changes or renewed plans. One participant contacted my office in February seeking help to navigate the bureaucracy of the NDIS. His NDIS plan was funded until 7 April, with supports to help him with some of the most basic daily tasks, like getting up from his chair, changing his clothes and personal hygiene. He contacted my office in February seeking urgent help as he was going to run out of funds before his NDIS plan was reviewed. His carers, who were just trying to make sure he wouldn't be left without support, reduced the daily hours of care provided to him, to ration out his remaining money to ensure that he did not go without. This left him feeling very vulnerable, and he told me it even resulted in him sleeping in the chair one night as he did not have enough money in his plan for his carers to come back and move him into bed. That is simply not good enough. During this time, he contacted the NDIS seeking an urgent review of his plan and requesting the extra funds of his renewed plan so he could continue to have his care requirements met. It took the NDIS almost a month to respond to this urgent situation and provide him with a short-term extension of his plan for three months. Unfortunately, this kind of story is just too common—participants forced to wade through the NDIS bureaucracy while just trying to get a review of their plan and make sure that their care can be continued.
Another concern that's been raised with me is about the changes that are associated with moving the mobility allowance from the disability support pension to the NDIS plans. I have heard time and time again that the NDIS plans are not making up for the removal of the mobility allowance from the NDIS and, as a result, participants are having to dip into their own money to fund transport to appointments. One constituent contacted my office seeking help after finding that she was worse off when she moved onto the NDIS after being on the disability support pension. She thought that moving from the disability support pension to the NDIS would give her better support. But she found out that, when it came to transport costs, she was actually worse off. Her mobility allowance, or the money available as part of her DSP, was cut. She expected to see that funding put into her NDIS, but it didn't happen. The funding for her transport in her NDIS plan does not even come close to meeting her mobility allowance. She has relied on her mobility allowance to be able to afford transport to access her appointments and services. Without the mobility allowance and without an increase in her NDIS plan, she is being forced to dip into her own savings to fund her transport to critical services. This shouldn't be happening. People should not find themselves worse off because they have become an NDIS participant.
Another example is a constituent from Morphett Vale who called my office regarding his need for a particular piece of assistive technology. He initially called my office to enquire about the delays in getting the NDIA to process and approve his piece of equipment that he required. After months of my office working with him to raise this issue with the NDIA, he was told that this assistive technology that he required was not deemed to be reasonable and necessary. But, of course, he did need it; he needed it to actually participate fully in life. People with a disability are not a checkbox list to be ticked off. Many have complex and difficult requirements that can't be assessed by a one-size-fits all system. The NDIS should be a system that meets an individual's need, particularly when it comes to specific assistive technology.
There have been a lot of issues raised with me, as I said. My office has been constantly bombarded with issues. Another example was a mother caring for her child with a disability. She contacted my office, at her wit's end, after she'd been waiting months for the NDIA to review her change of circumstances. She was going into surgery and needed the NDIA to sort out her arrangements so she could organise care for her child. After my office intervened, we were able to get her a meeting and have her child's plan reviewed. But it shouldn't take my office intervening to get this to happen. How many others are falling through the cracks, unable to advocate for themselves and not knowing where to turn?
I also highlight Sean from Seaford, who is legally blind and whose application for a specific laptop was denied based on an administrative error on the NDIA's end. My office had to work with Sean for over two months to raise an internal review and have his application reassessed, even though it was completely the fault of the NDIA system.
Then there's Victor from Morphett Vale, who suffers from a permanent brain injury and was initially asked by the NDIA for up-to-date information from a neurologist. Victor couldn't understand what more recent information they would need, considering his condition is permanent and hasn't changed. This is also a story that happens too often. Sadly, even after Victor provided the required information, he was rejected, and again my office had to intervene and raise this internally with the NDIA.
You can see that there are many, many issues. There are many people that are not getting the care and support that they need and deserve from the NDIS system. We need a system that responds to people's needs. We need a system that delivers on the dream of what an NDIS can deliver. It requires the careful attention of this government, not the neglect and lack of interest I feel they show a lot of the time.
When it comes to this bill, of course we will make sure we are supporting important pieces of legislation that improve the system. But I do ask the government: it is time to make sure you are listening to people living with a disability and their families. You need to consider the issues in this bill around privacy that have been a focus. And, of course, you need to start making sure that people with a disability and their families do get to engage and get the supports that are necessary without having to regularly go to their member of parliament's office to try to get some support. It is just not good enough. I very much urge the government to take a careful approach to the NDIS to make it better—not to neglect it, not to rip money out of it and not to make inaction an excuse for the failure of this system.
[by video link] I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. As many of the contributors have noted, this bill proposes changes that would implement recommendations (1), (6), (7), (8) and (9) of the Robertson review into the tragic death of Adelaide NDIS recipient Ann-Marie Smith. I want to begin by saying how dreadfully sorry I am, on behalf of the 150,000 constituents of Shortland, that Ann-Marie Smith went through what she did before her tragic and untimely death. The system failed her, and this bill is important because it's an attempt to repair the system, at least partially, to make sure that does not happen again. Labor is supporting the bill in the House and will move amendments in the Senate to clarify the basis upon which participant information can be shared and to require the minister to have a review of the bill to ensure stakeholders' future consultation on these important issues.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a proud Labor legacy and one of the key achievements of the Gillard government. History will recall that Julia Gillard was the Prime Minister who introduced this scheme to make clear to our fellow Australians with disability that whatever support they need to live fulfilling and dignified lives they will get. Imagine the lives of people with disability and their families and support networks at this current time of the pandemic if there were no Disability Insurance Scheme. Ten years ago there was no such scheme. In fact, I remember attending the launch of the Hunter pilot scheme with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in the middle of 2013. It was a historic day for the Hunter as one of the pilot regions for the NDIS.
In talking on this bill, which the government maintains is about improving support for participants, I briefly want to go back to the creation of the scheme. The Productivity Commission reported the following to the Rudd government:
The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient, and gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate supports and little scope to participate in the community.
This assessment was 10 years ago. It's disappointing that, for all the progress that has been made, my constituents with disability still have issues with choice, having decisions made for them rather than making their own decisions. There are also issues with certainty when there are annual plan reviews, not to mention the insidious independent assessments introduced by the Liberals and Nationals.
In speaking on the improving supports for at-risk participants bill, I want to draw to the attention of the House one of the biggest issues NDIS participants have dealt with over the past year—that is, the attempted introduction of independent assessments, which is a shameful indictment on the Morrison-Joyce government and clearly undermines the claims by this government of a bipartisan commitment to the NDIS. The truth is, through attempting to introduce independent assessments, they were trying to make life more difficult for people with disability. That's not an accusation I make lightly, but the fact is that independent assessments were to be the blunt instrument deployed by this cruel conservative government to cut funding to NDIS participants.
I have raised an example in the House before of the cruelty of these so-called independent assessments to my own constituents, and that's the case of a six-year-old whose grandmother contacted my office because his mother was too distressed to. This young boy's plan had been cut from $100,000 a year to just $8,000 a year. That's over a 90 per cent cut in funding to his plan. What did this mean for him in terms of practicalities? His core support had been reduced from 35 hours a week to just five—a gigantic cut. This boy has a rare genetic disorder. His mother is a single mother. The reason given by the independent assessor for this drastic reduction was that, now that he was at school, he didn't need the support. This overlooked the fact that he was at school last year and needed the support, and now all of a sudden he doesn't.
The question I ask the government is: who is best placed to assess a participant's needs? Is it their doctors, their allied health professionals, their carers and the people who know their disability the most, or is it some random from a private contractor that the government was going to pay $339 million to with the explicit intent of making cost savings? The answer to this, obviously, is those that know the participant best are best placed to determine their needs, not some so-called independent assessor with a clear incentive to cut costs in the scheme.
In fact, the only reason independent assessments have been shelved for the moment is that they were met with universal condemnation by NDIS participants, NDIS stakeholders and state and territory governments. I thank and acknowledge all those who've fought against these changes and succeeded in getting another U-turn from the Liberals and Nationals. The take-home lesson from this sordid independent assessment experiment is that the Liberals and Nationals will not hesitate to attack the foundations of the NDIS just to save money, and this is plainly wrong.
As another example, I regularly get families of kids with autism coming to me in tears because they've gone through a review of their plan and found that their plan has been massively cut, and the reason that the National Disability Insurance Agency has given for the cut is that clearly the plan is not working because the child with autism is not getting better; they are not recovering from the autism. As the families and every independent expert has made the case to me, you don't recover from autism; you learn to live with it and to fulfil your potential. That is just another example of this government's callous attacks on the NDIS and the participants in it.
I have also had cases where someone's NDIS plan was dramatically slashed when they finished high school and went onto university. The justification given by the agency was that they were going to be under a lot less stress at university than at high school. Well, I just don't see how they could have made that assessment. For many people university is as stressful as high school, if not more stressful. To cut someone's plan so callously because of such an arbitrary decision just further emphasises the real motivations of this government.
I'd also like to talk about the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission component of the bill. I want to draw to the attention of the House a situation one of my constituents is experiencing right now. This constituent is highly vulnerable. I won't go into her particular condition, but like most of the country my Shortland electorate is in lockdown, and an issue has arisen for my constituent regarding her support worker having access to help her during the lockdown. My parliamentary liaison has had to refer this issue my constituent is having with her provider to the commission.
The above complex situations demonstrate the urgent need for an effective cop on the beat. Labor believes that everything possible should be done to protect people with a disability from neglect and abuse. The commission has a fundamentally important role to play, and yet it is ineffective and understaffed. Unfortunately this bill does nothing to address the significant holes in NDIS safeguarding that are evident in this commission.
The truth is, as a pilot region for the NDIS, my electorate and the participants in my electorate have gone through many generations of plans. In fact, at one stage, I had the distinction of having more complaints issued before the NDIA than any other electorate in the country. More must be done to improve the system. More must be done to improve it for constituents in my electorate. It's all very well and proper for the government to brag about it being a demand-driven program, but every year billions of dollars are cut from the NDIS because this government has put in place systems and staffing cuts to choke demand. You can say it's demand driven, but if you choke demand, if you restrict demand, if you cut plans in a thoroughly unscientific way, you are cutting the NDIS and you're doing a great disservice to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians.
Ultimately the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a fundamental compact between the Australian society and Australians with a disability. It is a compact that says that we will not leave you behind; we will make sure that, no matter how your disability occurred, whether through birth, a freak accident or some other mechanism, we will allow you and support you to fulfil your true potential—not just to give you the most fulfilling life possible but so that your potential and your contribution to society is not lost. This government is destroying that fundamental principle with its cuts and attacks on the NDIS.
I will finish by noting that tonight is the opening ceremony of the Paralympic Games in Tokyo. We wish all our Australian Paralympians well. I'd like to give a special shout-out to my constituent Rheed McCracken and wish all of them all the very best of luck. One of Australia's most distinguished Paralympians is Hunter local Kurt Fearnley. He's also one of the most eloquent and effective advocates for the NDIS. He said the following about the cost of funding the NDIS:
People with disabilities' lives do not live and die around an election. We're here for good and if you want to make permanent gains, you've got to give permanent funding.
The government should heed the advice of Kurt regarding funding. They should also support the amendments that my colleagues will make in the other place to strengthen this bill. As I said, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a contract that Australia as a prosperous first-world social democracy has with people with disability, and unfortunately for my constituents this potential is not being realised.
I am very pleased to follow my colleague the member for Shortland in this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. I know time is going to be short this evening, but I absolutely concur with the sentiments that the member for Shortland just articulated. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is indeed one of the greatest social reforms this nation has ever seen. For the very first time, the NDIS gave people the chance to access the support that suited their individual needs and it provided choice and control in doing so. That's how it transformed lives.
I do want to acknowledge at the outset the extraordinary work of the former member for Jagajaga, a very dear friend and colleague, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, for her leadership role and the terrific team that she had around her to really make the National Disability Insurance Scheme a reality for this nation. Newcastle, along with the Hunter region, was one of the pilot cities for the NDIS rollout, so we have had a long history and a lot of experience of the implementation of the NDIS. I've had the pleasure, really, of seeing firsthand how the NDIS can fundamentally change lives for the better. I think that we should never, ever lose sight of that incredible joy, but we can't let our appreciation of the NDIS and all of the great things that it does distract us from the appalling job that this government has done in its implementation.
After years of Liberal government mismanagement, the Prime Minister promised to fix the failures of the National Disability Insurance Scheme at the last election. But, true to form, the Prime Minister has failed to honour that promise, leaving the NDIS in a shambles for many of its participants. The NDIS has gone backwards and people with a disability and their families are paying the price for that broken promise. It's unconscionable that people with disabilities have to fight for the basic things that they need in order to live a decent life. We know this from multiple reviews which have revealed a litany of cases where people have been left behind and neglected. Perhaps one of the most devastating examples was the death of Adelaide NDIS participant Ann-Marie Smith, a story that continues to sadden all Australians to this day.
Ann-Marie Smith was one of many lives lost in a series of NDIS related tragedies caused by eight long years of Liberal government cuts and privatisation. Labor was relieved when the Morrison government heeded our calls for an independent investigation into the death of Ann-Marie Smith but, unfortunately, the government refused to extend that inquiry to include a review of the tragic death of David Harris. Just as Ms Smith's family deserves to know the truth and to seek assurances that others will not fall victim to a failing in the system, so too do the loved ones of Mr Harris and the countless other victims of abuse and neglect.
As is so often the case with this government, they remain tone deaf and oblivious to all of those warnings. Whenever there is an emergency, we know that this government is very slow to react. Sadly, so many Australians have paid a high price for that inertia. I have been contacted by many people who have experienced this government's incompetence firsthand. By the time people reach out to me for support to help navigate their way around the NDIS, I know that they're already at their wits' end. In most government departments there's usually a pathway for elected representatives to escalate critical cases and to get a response within a few hours, or a day at the most. However, with the NDIS Novocastrians are being forced to wait weeks or, indeed, months for an answer or a resolution.
Eighteen-year-old Shelby from Jesmond is just one of those people. Shelby has a complex neurological disorder and uses a wheelchair. She is currently living in medium-term accommodation, pending a review to transfer to specialist disability accommodation funded by the NDIS. While the review is underway, the NDIS have not granted Shelby an extension for her medium-term accommodation; despite her complex needs, they told her that she has to apply for public housing. With hundreds of people on public housing waitlists in Newcastle, I fear that Shelby is at greater risk of being rendered homeless every day.
And then there are stories like Rodney Fisher's. Rodney was contacted by the NDIS in August last year and was informed that they would be reassessing his eligibility.
Debate interrupted.
[by video link] My apologies for my croaky voice; I am recovering from a cold. But do not fear; I've been tested, as is the practice these days. If you've got flu-like symptoms, get tested. On the day that I was tested in Victoria, last Wednesday, there were almost 50,000 people in Victoria who did the same thing: they got tested, making sure that they did not have COVID, making sure that they were not passing it on to their loved ones or to their work colleagues or to people [inaudible]. In Victoria, they've come a long way, and the Victorian government and Bendigo Health are doing their job. On this day, test results were back to everybody—99.1 per cent; a bit of a gold standard, I'd say—and available the next day. I got mine about 27 hours after I was tested, and I know this to be true of almost everyone who's been going through the Bendigo Health facility, due to their work and their support.
My little children also had to be tested. You know the nature of toddlers: if they've got a cold, you've got a cold. I've now discovered what it means to be a childcare parent and the Petri dishes that our childcare centres are. It is a testing time for a lot of our childcare educators and our families, with what's going on in this current lockdown.
I raise these figures because they speak to the modern life we're living at the moment. It was not just in 2020; now, in 2021, the moment you have a sore throat or a cold, you do go out and get tested, to make sure that you don't have COVID-19.
It's not just the testing that is critical. We're also at the stage where it's about vaccines. Bendigo Health, as has been remarked in this place, has been doing a very good job at getting jabs into arms. There's a willing community, willing to get vaccinated. A few weeks ago, Bendigo topped the charts of the nation by having the most first jabs in arms. We'd be well on our way to being fully vaccinated, but we had such a high uptake of AstraZeneca, and, as you know, with AstraZeneca there is a three-month lag with getting fully vaccinated.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that we're doing well in terms of vaccinations. Bendigo and this region have a very high vaccination rate for one-year-olds. It's what we do as parents; it's what we've always done—we make sure that our kids are vaccinated. What has been said to me, as to why we don't have more people vaccinated, is that that is for two reasons: (1) lack of supply, and that's on the Prime Minister; and (2) making it easy. That is where Bendigo Health is doing a good job. It's making it as easy as possible. One of the reasons for our success is the fact that they had and continue to have a very simple model of how to get vaccinated, although mixed messaging from the government is hurting.
The other reason we're doing well is that we have fantastic local media. We still have strong local media in our region who've made the message clear to people on how to get vaccinated, where to get vaccinated and who can get vaccinated. I think our journalists locally were some of the most excited under-40-year-olds to learn this week and last week that they are now eligible to get vaccinated, and I think that they were the first in the queue.
There have also been great partnerships with local businesses, like DON KR, which is our biggest employer in the region, partnering with Bendigo Health to make sure that all of their workers were vaccinated on site. They've informed me that, at the end of this month, next week, they will hit a vaccination rate of over 85 per cent for their workers. So people have been at work and been able to get vaccinated—double dosed. It's a remarkable effort but a demonstration of what can be done when we work together.
In the final few seconds that I have, I truly do call on the Prime Minister to park the politics and speed up the supply, and to really encourage and foster these partnerships at the local grassroots level. Think about incentives to encourage those who aren't sure, who've been busy or who haven't yet been able to get online and book in. Vaccination rates are the end to our lockdown. From our Prime Minister we need leadership, to ensure that more people are getting vaccinated. I believe Australia can get to the same vaccination rate as we have for one-year-olds—a rate of 95 per cent—but only with strong leadership from the top and from the federal level.
[by video link] Yesterday was a great day for agriculture in Australia. It was a great day for broadacre farmers, dairy farmers and growers of fresh produce in horticulture and agriculture. It was a great day because the Liberal-National government delivered a history-making agriculture visa. The Nationals have been advocating for an agriculture visa for years. We've listened to our primary producers from Darwin to Robinvale to Burnie and have now delivered what they called for.
This visa is about providing a long-term, reliable workforce for our critical industries while solving one of the greatest challenges facing food and fibre production in regional Australia. It's about structural change, which will give primary producers the confidence to grow into the future. The new visa will be in place by 30 September this year, with full implementation within three years. The visa will be demand driven. In other words, there will be no limitation on the number of workers brought in. Australia will welcome as many workers as are needed. Importantly, it will be available to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers from a range of countries. The ag visa will provide workers for the meat processing, fisheries and forestry sectors, and it will undergird and secure the growth of our primary industries in agriculture.
Since being elected to this parliament, I have worked closely with my primary producers in the electorate of Mallee. It became quickly apparent that a sustainable solution for workforce challenges was urgently needed. Throughout my stakeholder engagement, I have spoken with producers in citrus, table grapes, stone fruit, almonds, dried fruits, carrots, meat processing and broadacre crops—all in Mallee. These industries are unique, and the challenges they face are varied. Citrus and stone fruit producers need a great number of workers to harvest the fruit off the tree, whereas broadacre farmers need skilled workers to operate complex machinery. The ag visa is solutions focused and can be tailored to solve differing challenges. I spoke with local producers yesterday, and they are over the moon about the announcement. Rocky Mammone said it was a great win for horticulture in Sunraysia. Jeff Scott, the CEO of the Australian Table Grapes Association, said it had been a long time coming and it was very welcome news. The government will be collaborating with industry to inform the details of the management and implementation of the visa.
I'm excited about the ag visa announcement because it reflects the culmination of a body of work undertaken by the Nationals for several years. The implementation of an agriculture visa was a key recommendation of the inquiry into growing Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030, which was completed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, of which I'm a member. It was also a recommendation of my own seasonal workforce policy that I developed after significant collaboration with local industries in my electorate. The new visa will complement the existing Pacific islander programs, which have gone from strength to strength in recent years. The current review of the Pacific islander programs will lead to improvements for these initiatives and will help to inform the design of the new visa. Australia will continue to support our Pacific island partners by doubling the number of workers coming into the country under these schemes. This visa will help not only growers but also workers. It will reduce exploitation in ag industries because it creates a legal avenue through which farmers can more easily access the workers they desperately need. The visa will also have the right protections in place to ensure that exploitation does not occur under the new program. The Commonwealth is working with our state and territory partners on options for national labour hire licensing to stamp out illegal behaviour.
The workforce shortages in our agriculture sector are real and they are urgent. Unfortunately, the current constraints on overseas workers to fulfil workforce shortages are state and territory quarantine measures. At the beginning of the pandemic, the national cabinet agreed that the state governments would manage the quarantine of international arrivals, and it is imperative that states and territories do much more to support the agriculture sectors by developing quarantine solutions in time for the implementation of the new visa.
I rise to pay my respects to Australian Army Warrant Officer Class 1 Barry 'Buck' Buckley OAM. My mates speak of him highly as a great man. He was a photographer, a soldier, a father and a husband. He started his career at Kapooka in 1962 and initially served in the infantry and the engineer corps. He was a Vietnam veteran and he served in Cambodia. He was also a veteran of Somalia. In the final years of his career, he spent some time in the north. He was in the north with us on Kangaroo 95 but also in Queensland, at Shoalwater Bay, and with NORFORCE in the Kimberley. He really got around. In fact, he saw the world serving our nation.
Gary Ramage is a photographer and a veteran of 30 years. He is, of course, well known and respected in this place from taking photos of all of us pollies from the gallery. Gary has done so much in his career and he served with Buck in Somalia. Gary said that Buck knew that a box of black and white 8 x 10 photographic paper would hold exactly four cans of VB! When the team deployed the mobile darkroom over to Somalia, it was full of beer. Sadly, it had to be disposed of on arrival in the country.
Of all the corps and jobs he had, Buck loved his Australian Army Public Relations Service the most. He loved the photographers under his reign. He always had their backs when they stuffed up and would ensure that they learned from their mistakes. I'm told that there were many such mistakes. He fought hard to have his corps recognised. He changed the badge and the lanyard. But, above all, he gave his soldiers self-worth. It was the smallest corps in the regular Australian Army and he built in that corps esprit de corps, which is a great credit to him and it is remembered by all who worked with him.
Another mate of mine who served with Buck was more on our side of the House. He served with Buck and he noted that Buck was quite fond of conservative politics. In 1996, when he met the then Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel and previous Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, he welcomed her by saying, 'Welcome back to government, Ma'am.' There is honour above politics, of course, and he respected the opinions of others. To many, he was a mate and a teacher and he will be sadly missed. Our condolences go to Robyn, Barry's family and his mates. Rest in peace, Buck. Vale, Warrant Officer Class 1 Barry 'Buck' Buckley OAM.
In the time remaining, I want to acknowledge the work of the veterans in Darwin. Last night, they conducted a candlelight vigil for the people of Afghanistan. There is an organisation called the Council for Australian Veterans, or CAV for short. It's a new organisation that is seeking to bring together all the ESOs and it's an organisation that works from the ground up. I thought it showed great leadership for the CAV to invite members of the community and veterans and their families, regardless of where they served, to come to the cenotaph in Darwin and hold a candlelight vigil for the people of Afghanistan, to not only remember and reflect but also connect with and support each other. They walked together to the cenotaph. There were veterans and civilians from all walks of life. It's a great credit to Adam Giuliani, the president, and all the members that they could extend that to our community in the Top End.
Tonight I know we are all eagerly awaiting the adjournment of the House so that we can go home and get stuck into watching the opening of the 2020 Tokyo Paralympic Games. There are 179 Australian Paralympians putting the finishing touches on their preparations tonight and getting ready to inspire us all with their passion, their commitment and their pride in representing our nation over the next two weeks.
I'm proud to say that the electorate of Fisher is the absolute powerhouse of the Australian Paralympic team. There are 151 electorates represented in this House, so you might expect Fisher to have one or two athletes competing this fortnight. But there are no fewer than 10 Australian Paralympians out of the 179 either living or training in Fisher.
I have spoken already in this place about Liam Schluter, Katja Dedekind, Ruby Storm, Keira Stephens and Benjamin Hance, who have all headed from the USC Spartans to compete at Tokyo. Liam is going to his second Paralympics after years of bagging medals for Australia in the Commonwealth Games and the World Para Athletics Championships. I know Katja will be looking to repeat her success on the podium after snaring a bronze medal in the 100-metre backstroke S13 in Rio. Ruby Storm recently medalled in 10 separate events at the national championships and smashed records at the 2018 Pan Pac Para trials; I know we're all looking forward to watching her performances. At just 18 years old Keira Stephens has just two previous international events to her name but already has a record of success, with silver at the Pan Pac Para Swimming Championships in the women's 100-metre breaststroke. Benjamin Hance has had the perfect build-up to the Games; he's the fastest S14 Australian in the men's 100-metre backstroke, and he won his first long course Australian title in April this year.
Those are five terrific prospects in anyone's book. But they are far from Fisher's only representatives. They will be joined in the pool by double gold medallist and experienced veteran Blake Cochrane. Blake lives in Bli Bli but he trains in Fisher at USC, so I'll claim him as one of mine; Blake and I know each other anyway. Go, Blake! We're all looking forward to watching you. An expert in freestyle and breaststroke sprinting in the S8 category, Blake will be one to watch in the coming days. I have met Blake on a number of occasions, and he is an absolute top bloke.
Fellow USC Spartan and my fellow Alex Surf Club member Braedan Jason is also no stranger to the Paralympics, having competed in four events at Rio. With gold medals in three events at the Pan Pac games in 2018, Braedan will be looking to repeat his success on the biggest stage of all in both freestyle and butterfly.
Beyond our swimmers, Fisher is sending two members of our fantastic local Suncoast Spinners: Chris Bond OAM and Hannah Dodd. Chris has helped lead Australia to Olympic gold in wheelchair basketball at the two previous Olympics as well as to a world championship in the same four-year period. I'm lucky enough to know Chris through the Suncoast Spinners group, where, with the support of a grant of $243,000 from the Morrison government, he has been helping to lead a new wheelchair rugby program on the coast. His colleague Hannah Dodd is an incredible athlete, living with spina bifida. Not content with having been the top-ranked Australian competitor in grade IV equestrian, Hannah has now moved across to wheelchair basketball and will be heading to her second Paralympics in that new sport. Hannah is a tough competitor; she usually dislocates a shoulder during each game! I know she will bring that true Sunshine Coast grit to our team in Tokyo.
Finally, we'll be seeing young Daniel Bounty, formerly of Pacific Lutheran College and Caloundra State High School in Fisher, who, at just 19 years of age, will be competing in the T38 1,500 metres. Daniel has been shaving seconds off his personal best in recent months, and we are all excited to see what he can do in Tokyo.
Australians, if you were inspired by the Olympics and the Olympians, please get involved in the Paralympics. If you think it's inspiring to watch an athlete swim or run, it is even more inspiring to watch someone swim with no arms and no legs. Go, Aussies! Do well. We're so proud of you. Best of luck.
I want to say thank you to the thousands of people who joined me in standing up for Medicare. We all know that cutting Medicare is in the Liberals' DNA, and what we're showing is that Macquarie will not stand for it. More than 5,000 people signed my online petition or mailed back with a strong message to the Morrison government: don't mess with Medicare. At every stage of life—young adults, pregnant women, families with toddlers or teenagers, more mature people and the elderly—people get why Australia needs a strong Medicare system. It's a matter of fairness, so that the quality of care you receive is not based on your postcode and doesn't need your credit card.
Of course, the cost of funding Medicare is increasing every year; there are more people, an older population and more complex treatments. But individuals are contributing more to the cost of their care than they ever have. The data shows that out-of-pocket expenses for people in the Macquarie electorate have risen dramatically since the Liberals came to office. The amount people spend when they visit a GP has gone up by 35 per cent, and the out-of-pocket cost of a visit to a specialist has gone up by 43 per cent. The Liberals have cut Medicare, time and time again, through changes to Medicare items and six years of rebate indexation freezes. It's what they do whenever they think they can get away with it.
Mr Speaker, parents of high school students are understandably asking questions about where younger teens fit in the government's vaccination rollout. Australia is slow to turn its focus to this group, and delta has made it much more urgent. Canada approved vaccination for 12- to 15-year-olds back in May. Other countries did it in June, and they're moving closer towards approvals for the under-12s. We still don't have approval yet for the 12-to-15 age group, except for children of that age who are immunocompromised or have underlying conditions, like severe asthma, diabetes, obesity and epilepsy, and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. We're told that approval of vaccinations for the rest of the 12-to-15 age group is imminent. What isn't clear is whether and how they'll be prioritised, when 16- to 39-year-olds are the next on the list from the end of this month. It's still almost impossible to be vaccinated if you're a year 12 student living in the Blue Mountains or Hawkesbury, even though you can be in other parts of Sydney and even if you go to school in one of the areas of concern. How will this all work? Will teens go into schools or will parents have to get kids to hubs? And where there are no local hubs, like in my electorate, will they have to take them into more COVID affected areas simply to get vaccinated? Parents need to know the plan, principals and teachers need to know the plan so that they can plan, and kids absolutely need to know what the plan is to protect them.
Mr Speaker, most people have done their best to stick to the rules in this awful lockdown, but I do think there's a case for compassion. Richelle's mum, Sara, contacted my office after frustrations she was having in trying to get an exemption so her daughter could have her weekly hair wash. Richelle is wheelchair bound. She has limited and sometimes uncontrolled movement. She has a very understanding salon that looks after her. The salon owner had agreed to open up, wear personal protective clothing and, obviously, not have anyone else around so Richelle could have some dignity. This is a New South Wales matter, and I reached out to Blue Mountains state member Trish Doyle, who immediately asked the New South Wales health minister to consider this request. Two weeks later, we finally received an email refusing it.
There was a suggestion made that they consult another occupational therapist. This is what happened next. The OT suggested Richelle bend over the kitchen sink to have her hair washed. When Sara explained that Richelle's ability to bend at the neck like you or me just doesn't exist, then home modifications to the sink through the NDIS were suggested. Sara explained the time delay in doing this and the response was, 'Well, can you lay her out on the grass and use a hose?' 'Can you lay her out on the grass and use a hose'! This is a humiliating experience for the family and shows a deep lack of compassion. I know we're in lockdown—we all know we're in lockdown. I know that most people want to do the right thing, but I ask the New South Wales government to have a proper process in place where requests can be consistently and compassionately assessed in a timely way, with some dignity.
I rise tonight to highlight the ongoing situation facing Cairns and the Far North Queensland tourism sectors due to the state-government-enforced lockdowns and lockouts. The impact on Cairns and Far North Queensland businesses simply did not start with the recent three-day Cairns and Yarrabah lockdowns. Those were started by one COVID case and there was only one subsequent to that. It started well before that, firstly with the Sydney lockdown, then the South-East Queensland and Victorian lockdowns and then more recently with the ACT lockdown.
This has prompted Tourism Tropical North Queensland, Advance Cairns and the chamber of commerce to write letters to the Prime Minister; to the Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk; and to the treasurers, both Frydenberg and Cameron Dick. That letter clearly outlined the situation facing the Cairns and Far North Queensland sectors. That letter was dated 11 August and it stated quite clearly that state and federal governments were being urged to target timely and direct wage support assistance, similar to the JobSaver program offered by the New South Wales government in conjunction with the Commonwealth, and to reintroduce the flexibility provisions of the Fair Work Act that were put in place for employers during the JobKeeper period, which would make a material difference to both employers and employees. They were also looking for a detailed COVID-19 transition map.
That was on 11 August. On 20 August, not having received a response, I actually wrote to the Queensland Premier and to the Queensland Treasurer. I said that, while I appreciated the level of support announced thus far, it simply didn't go far enough to support businesses and workers affected by lockdowns. I talked not only about businesses in lockdown areas but also about Port Douglas, Kuranda and the wider community. I pointed out that this had started well before the lockdown in Cairns—it went back to the New South Wales lockdown. I made the point that 50 per cent of everybody who comes into Cairns actually travels from New South Wales or Victoria.
I said that, while the recently announced funding from the Commonwealth and Queensland governments was greatly appreciated, it fell well short of what was required. I told them that the Commonwealth stands ready to work with the Queensland government to continue to support tourism during Queensland affected lockdowns and lockouts. I told them that in my view there was an immediate need for direct business support for businesses in Cairns and I strongly encouraged them to put a further proposal to the Commonwealth government for funding. I said that I sincerely looked forward to working with them to deliver that solution.
I was absolutely gobsmacked by the response I got from the Treasurer in Queensland. He responded to me within about 18 hours of my letter. I sent my letter at 5.30 on Friday and I received his response—not directly to me, but through my local media—at 4.30 the following day, Saturday. I didn't actually receive it myself until six o'clock that night. This is what he said to me, 'The Palaszczuk Labor government shares your concerns.' Fantastic! He then said that he had called on the federal government to reinstate JobKeeper but that the call had fallen on deaf ears. Then he went on to say, 'While the New South Wales and Victorian governments have had their credit ratings downgraded due to the pandemic the outlook for the federal government's credit rating has been upgraded this year, leaving the Australian federal government as one of the few in the world to retain a AAA rating among the major rating agencies.' Wow! Surprise, surprise! He continued that it is now time for the federal government to put credit ratings back to work by returning JobKeeper to support businesses and communities. He said: 'I note that the federal government has strong financial capacity but that its political security is weak. The Morrison government holds government by the slimmest possible majority, holding only 76 seats in the 151-seat House of Representatives. This means that a single backbencher has the power to force the federal government to change. Warren, this places you in a position of incredible influence.' This is an absolute disgrace!
He then went on to say, 'You have the power to tell the Prime Minister and your colleagues to change and to advise your colleagues that if they don't restore JobKeeper you'll cross the floor in government,' and he 'reminded' me: 'It was your crucial vote that led to the removal of Malcolm Turnbull as the Prime Minister. I urge you to exercise the same power again for the benefit of the people of Far North Queensland.' What a disgraceful political response, when the people are on their knees in Far North Queensland! To resort to that type of nonsense is just— (Time expired)
House adjourned at 08 : 00