I present report No. 39 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 25 October 2021. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 19 October 2021.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 19 October 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 25 October 2021, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue:
The development of the Australian corporate bond market: A way forward
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.
Speech time limits—
Ms Owens 5minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Dr Haines: To present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Federal Integrity Commission, and for related purposes. (Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021)
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 Dr Haines: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2021)
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 Dr Webster: To present a Bill for an Act about social media services, and for related purposes. (Social Media (Basic Expectations and Defamation) Bill 2021)
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2021)
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
5 Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act to restrict activities in relation to thermal coal, and for related purposes. (Coal Prohibition (Quit Coal) Bill 2021)
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
6 Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act about COVID check-in data, and for related purposes. (Privacy (COVID Check-in Data) Bill 2021)
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
7 Ms Sharkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Spam Act 2003, and for related purposes. (Unsolicited Political Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 2021)
(Notice given 19 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
8 Ms Sharkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Aged Care Act 1997, and for related purposes. (Aged Care Amendment (Making Aged Care Fees Fairer) Bill 2021)
(Notice given 19 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
9 Mr Hill: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to cashless welfare arrangements to protect pensioners and other social security recipients, and for other purposes. (Protecting Pensioners from the Cashless Debit Card Bill 2021)
(Notice given 19 October 2021.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
10 Mr Hayes: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 29 November 2021 is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People as declared by the United Nations in 1977;
(2) recognises the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self determination and a future built on peace, dignity, justice and security;
(3) acknowledges the obstacles to the ongoing peace process, particularly the need for urgent action on issues such as settlements, Jerusalem, the Gaza blockade and the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories;
(4) further recognises that the ongoing humanitarian situation in Palestine is far-reaching, with many in the Australian community affected by this ongoing conflict; and
(5) calls on the Government to ensure Australia is working constructively to support security and human rights in Palestine, in advance of a just and enduring two-state solution in the Middle East.
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits—
Mr Hayes—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Ms McBain: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia has a severe timber shortage:
(b) a report by the Master Builders Association and the Australian Forest Products Association concludes Australia is heading towards a deficit of 250,000 house frames by 2035;
(c) the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment states numerous studies show the need for 400,000 hectares of new plantations over the next decade to meet Australia's demand for timber;
(d) data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences reveals there are only 2,750 hectares of new plantations of softwood;
(e) the Government first promised to expand Australia's timber plantations by 1 billion trees in 2018; and
(f) answers to questions in the Senate reveal the concessional loan program set up to help meet the 1 billion trees target is yet to even open after the Government promised $500 million before the last election;
(2) acknowledges the impact the timber shortage is having on the construction and forestry industries and those Australians undertaking building and do-it-yourself projects; and
(3) conveys its disappointment that the Government has failed to do the necessary work for Australia to have sovereign capability to provide softwood and to grow jobs across the forestry and construction sectors.
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms McBain—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Mr Leeser: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the critical work of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in safeguarding Australia's security and national interests;
(2) notes that ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess recently observed that 'Australia's threat environment is complex, challenging and changing';
(3) commends the Government for providing $1.3 billion over ten years in the 2021-22 Budget to help further improve ASIO's capabilities; and
(4) thanks the men and women who work in ASIO and our other national security agencies for their dedication to keeping Australians safe from a range of threats and to protecting our national sovereignty.
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Leeser—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Ms Claydon: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia's social security system is a proud Labor legacy;
(b) social security payments provide economic stability, fostering smooth transitions during times of economic uncertainty; and
(c) Centrelink has provided critical support to many Australians over the course of the pandemic;
(2) recognises that:
(a) the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a reminder for all governments about the importance of robust local public services;
(b) there are many people who do not have internet and rely on local Centrelink branch access to conduct their Centrelink business;
(c) the closure of face-to-face Centrelink services will force many vulnerable Australians, carers, people with disability and students to travel excessive lengths to access the services they need;
(d) many people who rely upon Centrelink services live well below the poverty line and have zero capacity to pay more for travel or parking; and
(e) the Government's secret plan to close or reduce access to Centrelink shopfronts across Australia is unconscionable; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) terminate any plans to consolidate, close or reduce access to the Mornington, Newcastle, Tweed Heads, Yarra and Abbotsford Centrelink offices once and for all;
(b) cease the impending closure of the face-to-face Centrelink service in Braddon; and
(c) reinstate all Centrelink shopfronts which have been closed in the last two years, including the services located in Benalla and Newport, Victoria.
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Claydon—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Mr Wallace: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) a number of Australian businesses have been impacted by cyberattacks including by ransomware in 2021; and
(b) ransomware is a common and dangerous type of malware employed by cyber-criminals that can affect both individuals and organisations, and cause severe damage to reputation, and business bottom lines;
(2) records its concern at the impact and frequency of cyber-attacks on Australian individuals and businesses;
(3) further notes the significant investment by the Government of $15 billion in cyber and defence capabilities, including $1.35 billion through the Australian Signals Directorate/Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), to keep Australians safe online;
(4) recognises the important work done by the ACSC providing advice and technical support to individuals and businesses affected by cyber incidents;
(5) urges all Australians to implement good cyber hygiene measures across their home and business networks; and
(6) encourages all Australians to visit cyber.gov.au and take the steps to protect themselves, their businesses, their families, and Australia's digital sovereignty.
(Notice given 18 October 2021.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
Mr Wallace—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
5 Mr Burns: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) asylum seekers are still being held in alternative places of detention, such as hotels, in Australia;
(b) many of these individuals have now been detained for over eight years and have suffered significant psychological harm as result of their prolonged and indefinite detention;
(c) this program costs taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year and continues despite:
(i) the impact on the physical and mental health of detainees; and
(ii) repeated offers to resettle asylum seekers from New Zealand; and
(d) the Minister for Home Affairs acknowledged in comments on 21 January 2021 that 'it's cheaper for people to be in the community than it is to be at a hotel or for us to be paying for them to be in detention and if they're demonstrated not to be a threat';
(2) applauds the significant contribution migrants and asylum seekers make to our economy, our democracy, and our vibrant, multicultural community; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) address the issue of the indefinite detention of asylum seekers in hotels in Australia;
(b) honour the Minister for Home Affairs' previous comments and ensure that Australians will no longer see an expensive and cruel program of indefinite detention inflicted on people in our care; and
(c) immediately release Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharaunicaa from detention on Christmas Island and allow them to return to their home in Biloela, Queensland to the community who loves and supports them, and wants them home.
(Notice given 23 March 2021.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Burns—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 Dr Webster: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the Government's commitment to ensuring there is a strong, skilled and sustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) workforce by launching the NDIS National Workforce Plan;
(2) acknowledges that the disability workforce will require an additional 83,000 workers over the next few years to strengthen the responsiveness, quality and capability of the NDIS workforce and complements other Government reforms to build a simpler, fairer, faster and more flexible NDIS; and
(3) recognises the Government's 2021-22 budget investment of $12.3 million in the Care and Support Workforce Package over the next two years to cut red tape and promote regulatory alignment across the aged care, disability and veterans' care sectors.
(Notice given 23 June 2021.)
Time allotted—45 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Dr Webster—10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 Mr Gorman: To move:
That this House notes that:
(1) dementia is the leading cause of death of women in Australia;
(2) over 42,000 Western Australians are living with dementia and some 242 new diagnoses are made each day;
(3) 472,000 Australians live with dementia and almost 1.6 million people are involved in their care;
(4) it is expected that the number of people living with dementia in Australia is likely to increase to over 1 million by 2058;
(5) we all have a role to play in building dementia-friendly communities such as the initiative of the Memory Cafe in Cambridge;
(6) Western Australians are fortunate to be served by Alzheimer's WA which was founded 40 years ago in Inglewood and has just opened their new base in Subiaco; and
(7) the 42,000 Western Australians suffering from dementia deserve local, well-funded care, support and research.
(Notice given 22 June 2021.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Gorman—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 Mr Pasin: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on average, 2.5 million containers, 122,000 air and sea vessels, 22 million passengers and 144 million mail items arrive in Australia each year;
(b) around 35,000 pest and disease border detections are recorded across biosecurity regulated pathways each year; and
(c) the global and regional spread of pests and diseases is accelerating and trade volumes are growing; and
(2) further notes that:
(a) Australia has one of the most robust and effective biosecurity systems in the world, which is essential to keeping our nation safe from exotic pests and diseases;
(b) a strong biosecurity system protects and empowers Australia's reputation as a clean and green producer of food and fibre, ensuring primary producers can maintain their production levels and attain premiums for their product in our international export markets; and
(c) the agricultural industry's ambitious goal of $100 billion by 2030 is only attainable through substantial continued investment in biosecurity; and
(3) acknowledges and welcomes the Government's history of investment in biosecurity, which saw investment in biosecurity and export services increase from $630 million in 2014-15 to a record 1 billion in 2021-22; and
(4) welcomes the additional $400 million in new funding announced through the 2021-22 budget to further expand biosecurity systems and safeguard Australian agriculture and our environment from exotic pests and diseases.
(Notice given 23 June 2021; amended 18 October 2021.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
Mr Pasin—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
20 October 2021
I move:
That this bill be read a second time.
This bill imposes a temporary levy on offshore petroleum production. The purpose of the levy is to recover the costs of decommissioning the Laminaria-Corallina oilfields and associated infrastructure. It will ensure that taxpayers are not left to pay these costs.
The levy will be at a rate of 48c per barrel of oil equivalent and be paid on an annual basis, in arrears. The first payment made will be for the 2021-22 financial year and be payable in the first half of 2022-23.
All entities with an ownership interest in a petroleum production licence issued under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006will be liable to pay the levy.
The ATO will administer the levy. The levy will be in place until the net costs associated with the decommissioning have been recovered or 30 June 2030 at the latest. Once net costs have been recovered, the levy will cease.
The government remains committed to keeping the Laminaria and Corallina oilfields and associated infrastructure, and the surrounding marine environment, safe and secure.
Public consultation occurred, and the government accepted a number of recommendations put forward by industry in the final design and operation of the levy.
As such, the final design of the levy ensures it's temporary, targeted and effective at recovering costs with as little regulatory burden as possible.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2021 addresses the collections and consequential amendments related to the Offshore Petroleum (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2021. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Thorpe has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia and that Senator Cox has been appointed a member of the committee, and informing the House that Senator Steele-John has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth and that Senator Cox has been appointed a member of the committee.
Mr Speaker, I might enunciate something I said to you digitally and apologise for my coughing. I assure colleagues it has nothing to do with COVID. It has everything to do with my asthma, which seems to be a little less controlled this morning than I'd like it to be normally. I give a quick shout-out to those who suffer from respiratory diseases who might find themselves coughing regularly. I've noticed in particular as I travel around community that there's a real stigma associated with coughing at the moment, so I give a shout-out to those fellow Australians who, like me, struggle with pulmonary disease. It is a reminder to other Australians to be kind in our judgements of people. Not every cough means someone is suffering from COVID.
In any event, I rise to make a contribution to these two very important bills, the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. As I sat here last night, listening to contributions from others, I reflected on a South Australian hero, and I'd like to make a few comments about him in the context of this bill.
I said in my maiden speech that we stand on the shoulders of giants, and in my case, as a South Australian member of parliament and someone who represents a portion of the former electorate of Wakefield, I'd like to mention, particularly with reference to this bill, the Hon. Bert Kelly, who was, of course, the member for Wakefield from 1958 and perhaps more commonly is referred to as the 'Modest Member'. I say this in a debate where others have quite rightly made contributions about how significant free trade is to the modern, globalised, connected world order today.
I hasten to suggest there'd be very few people who would come into this chamber in 2021 and vehemently oppose free trade or suggest that the future for global trade involves crushing and significant tariffs. But, as someone who perhaps knows more about the history of this place than I do, Mr Speaker, you know that that wasn't the case in 1958, when Bert Kelly was elected. His antiprotectionist views were particularly unpopular, and some say his time in that ministry was limited by the fact that he held those views, but, in any event, once he was no longer in the executive, he began writing a column in the Australian Financial Review, initially anonymously under the moniker 'Modest Member'. Ultimately it was fleshed out that he was the Hon. Bert Kelly was of course the Modest Member. I should say that, post retirement, he continued to write that column but referred to himself as the 'Modest Farmer'. As someone in this place who hopes to retire to a career in farming at some point, I'd like to think that I have a bit in common with the Hon. Bert Kelly, who lost preselection in 1977, the year I was born.
I say we stand on the shoulders of giants not only because of what he achieved and his courage but because, quite frankly, the course of Australian political history was probably altered in this space more significantly by Kelly than by any other person. You might not want to take my word for it. Perhaps we can take the word of former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who on Bert Kelly's death indicated:
No private member has had as much influence in changing a major policy of the major parties.
This was a person who came to this place in 1958, when protectionism was de jure, and over the course of time he saw, through his humble advocacy, that policy was changed across decades and ultimately to the point where now almost no-one—indeed, I would argue no-one—would argue in favour of crushing tariffs.
Leaving my parochialism and my admiration for Kelly to one side, I will turn to the bill. This bill is important for producers in Barker. Often those in this place hear me talk about the farmers in my electorate, but this bill is important not only for the farmers in my electorate. I see its importance resting principally with food manufacturing in my electorate. Increasingly, my electorate is taking the clean and green commodities that we produce and turning them into clean, green and safe processed foods for the world. Indeed, the electoral division of Barker holds the title of having more Australians, per head of population, employed full time in the manufacturing sector than has any other division in this place. Barker is the home of Australian manufacturing, and I'd like to think that, with the very bullish free trade agenda that's being pursued by this government, its future status not only is safe and secure but will thrive going forward.
The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, commonly referred to as RCEP, is another step in that direction. It's a modern free trade agreement between Australia and 14 other nations, no less, in the Indo-Pacific. It has been described as the world's largest free trade agreement. As I said earlier, it complements the myriad free trade agreements that have been established, not least of which are those that have been established since we came to office in 2013, most recently the agreement entered into with the UK. I'll leave for another day my comments on how the harm to Australian farmers that was occasioned by the Common Market turning its back on Australian farmers is about to be addressed—albeit, as I have said publicly, at a time when Australian producers are probably going to find it difficult to fill demand, because we have been so successful in pivoting away from the UK in our trade efforts over the generations since 1972.
In any event, this bill effectively operates to achieve three things. It provides rules, including product-specific rules, in determining imported goods from RCEP-originating countries—RCEP-originating goods. These are preferential rules for the 14 countries and Australia. Of course there needs to be integrity around how we do that, and this bill seeks to achieve it. It also, as part of that integrity requirement, requires Australian exporters to keep sufficient records. That is of course important. Most importantly, in terms of the operation and efficacy of these bills, it creates a new schedule of preferential customs duty rates for goods that qualify as RCEP-originating goods. If the Hon. Bert Kelly were in this place today, he would be cheering on RCEP. It's about creating a lower-tariff environment, a freer trade environment. I'd suggest that, at the time, Kelly was talking particularly about traditional trade routes between our nation and continental Europe, in particular the UK, and probably he did not dare think we could enter into free trade agreements with 14 countries in the Indo-Pacific, the majority of whom don't operate under property-owning democracies. He would be incredibly pleased to see what's occurring.
I've indicated what we're doing in relation to RCEP. I think it's also important to point out that we have engaged in deep consultation, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, with governments and agencies from the signatory countries. Once in force this will be, as I said earlier, the largest free trade agreement in the globe. RCEP signatory states account for 30 per cent of the world's population and GDP. No other free trade agreement brings together the collective economic weight of ASEAN nations and the major economies in North Asia. RCEP also provides for additional economies to join the agreement in the future, building the significance of the agreement over time. With respect, I suggest that the significance of this agreement might ultimately be borne out geopolitically, as well as delivering an important economic dividend for RCEP member states.
While I'm mentioning the RCEP member states, it's probably important to list them. The RCEP member states are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. As I said earlier, that's 30 per cent of the globe's population and 30 per cent of the globe's GDP. RCEP has been ratified by Brunei, China, Japan and Singapore and will enter into force 60 days after one or more of the Asian members and four more ASEAN members ratify RCEP.
I've mentioned economic efforts in my electorate and the fact that they centre around agriculture and food production, principally, but this agreement is far broader than that. It provides for financial services, specialist services and others. It's important to note a phenomenon that I'm seeing in my electorate, which I think is playing out across Australia right now, and it's born of infrastructure that our nation has built, principally over the eight years that we've been in government. Increasingly, in communities in my electorate—principally those on the coast, but not exclusively so—people who work in the service sectors, particularly high-wealth individuals and those with the ability to work remotely, are leaving Victoria and finding a home in coastal villages such as Robe, Beachport and Kingston in my electorate. From there they're servicing their customer base in the service sectors. This reflects the fact that the provision of those services, not only interstate but now internationally, is made that much easier by the RCEP agreement.
Burt Kelly, when he was first elected, in the 1950s, brought to this place views about a free-trade future, but he perhaps never imagined that we would be entering into free trade agreements or preferential trade agreements with 14 nations in the Indo-Pacific, many of whom don't share our system of government. I don't think he could have imagined that, in the relatively near future, we would be at that place, as we are. Perhaps in his mind, in the late 1950s, it would be even more strange that a member of this place representing the electorate of Barker would get to his pins and say, 'There is a real likelihood that, because of this agreement, constituents living in my electorate and working digitally could provide services directly into those Indo-Pacific nations.' Even for someone as visionary as Burt Kelly, that concept would have been a bridge too far, but that's where we find ourselves. It's a happy circumstance we find ourselves in, and it's fair to say that a lot of that trajectory owes its origin to Kelly's initial push to change our views on protectionism. Bear in mind that this was someone who declared himself a modest member and who was also subsequently described by Gough Whitlam as a private member who moved the trajectory of major political parties' policies more than anyone else. And I don't think we should forget the giants whose shoulders we stand on. In that regard, I want to take the opportunity to reflect on the service of the Hon. Bert Kelly, the former member for Wakefield, and how his efforts have, in a sense, allowed us to arrive at this place.
The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brand has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be disagreed to.
[by video link] I believe in free trade and welcome all the benefits trade can bring us. As an open trading nation, Australia has been a big beneficiary of the multilateral rules-based trading system that has operated for decades. We have a long history of successfully concluding free trade agreements with countries and with collections of countries. We have before us the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the RCEP. Speakers yesterday artfully articulated the size and economic weight of the collection of states that it encompasses. It brings much of the Indo-Pacific into a trading relationship. This has been a very difficult period for many Australian exporters, with disruptions brought about by the global pandemic, and ongoing trade disputes have highlighted the need for an effective policy for trade diversification.
RCEP, while in many ways welcome, is not a policy for trade diversification. Let's examine what RCEP is. RCEP will be the world's second most important trade agreement on arrival, ranking only below the WTO itself. RCEP countries include nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners, accounting for 58 per cent of Australia's total two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports, which is obviously very significant. Importantly, RCEP includes our near-neighbours, ASEAN countries and New Zealand and our major trading partners—China, Japan and South Korea. In this context, Australia's participation in RCEP affirms the importance we place on our Indo-Pacific geography. The experiences of Australian exporters over the past few years have emphasised the significant impact of geo-economics on our domestic economy. And the COVID-19 global pandemic has shown the critical role that regional supply chains have in ensuring that products make the timely transition from the raw material to the consumer's hands. Noting growing uncertainty and unease, now more than ever Australia needs to diversify its trade both in markets and in products.
RCEP will provide a single set of basic rules for Australian SMEs exporting to RCEP member countries, making regional value chains cheaper by simplifying previously fractured trading regimes and cutting red tape. Labor supports such measures that encourage SMEs to boost exports and create more jobs for Australians. SMEs currently account for only 14 per cent of Australia's exports, whereas in G7 countries they account for 25 per cent, and the European Union average is 35 per cent. However, exporters contribute more than nonexporters to jobs and productivity, on average employing more staff, paying higher wages and achieving higher labour productivity compared with nonexporters. So lifting SME exports to 25 per cent of Australia's exports would increase our GDP by an estimated $36 billion—which, as I'm sure all honourable members would agree, a very good thing. Labor has previously raised concerns over the Morrison government's refusal to commission independent economic modelling for the RCEP. That must be said and put on the record—again. We called for the final treaty text to be publicly released before the agreement was signed, to allow it to be scrutinised, but unfortunately that did not occur.
Greater transparency is absolutely vital to building community support for fair and open trade. We know there is ongoing unease and concern in the community about the potential dangers of free trade agreements, and this unease can only be addressed through engagement and transparency. Labor has been in consultation with the union movement and other civil society stakeholders throughout the negotiations and the eventual signing of RCEP. We have written to the trade minister to clarify issues relating to the government's ability to regulate our domestic aged-care regime under the agreement to ensure the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care can be realised. I and my colleagues look forward to the government's assurances on these matters being placed on the parliamentary record in the course of this debate.
RCEP does not include an investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, mechanism. It is worth noting that the use of ISDS clauses is in decline in Australian trade agreements. Importantly, RCEP does not include any commitments in relation to waiving labour market testing for migration purposes beyond those in our existing trade agreements with RCEP signatories. An Albanese Labor government would ensure that future reviews of RCEP would ensure Australia's national interest is pursued without undermining Australia's ability to democratically set our own policy. This includes in relation to migration, labour standards, aged care, child care, government procurement and the environment.
There are some positive elements to the RCEP, but there are also issues which the government must address, not just with RCEP but with the government's entire posture relating to trade policy. I've had the opportunity to think a great deal on the question of our trading relations with our region. In June 2019, I chaired the Indo-Pacific Trade Taskforce of the federal Labor Party. We undertook extensive consultation with experts, officials, industry and other figures. Our task force's final product, a 42-page report with 13 distinct policy recommendations, really got to the core of the need not only for trade diversification but also for a focus on trade as a pathway to economic growth.
Our recommendations go some way further than the approach of the current government, which has been to negotiate and conclude trade agreements and then, once they have that announcement and the front-page story, move onto the next thing, without necessarily doing the hard work required to activate these agreements. What they don't understand is that the trade agreement is, in fact, only the first step in improving trade with a country or a collection of countries. There needs to be ongoing attention to issues and non-tariff barriers and a constant dialogue with industry and businesses on the course of trade.
We share just one recommendation that goes to this: increasing major exporters' Asia capability via a mutual DFAT secondment program. Subject to additional funding and security clearance requirements, major Australian exporters and investors on long-term deployment in an Indo-Pacific market could receive training from DFAT's Diplomatic Academy; a short-term placement in the relevant DFAT countries section, to sensitise them to the national interest; and an in-country briefing by post. DFAT and Austrade officers on pre-deployment training could spend three to six months embedded in one of the top exporters or investors in their market. This would benefit regional and rural businesses outside the Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne triangle. Obviously, as someone who represents an electorate in regional Australia outside that triangle, I think it would be excellent if we could jump on and make the most of such recommendations, because government has a role to play in enhancing trade diversification and increasing our prosperity on the back of trade. That is something that this government would do well to remember. It's the hard work that is required, not just the signing of agreements, as important as they are.
One source of controversy in the process of developing RCEP has been the inclusion of Myanmar, and I will go to that briefly. The coup in Myanmar earlier this year, the ongoing violence by the military regime and the ongoing denial of the rights of the people of that country are completely at odds with not only our values but the values of free and open trade. While the exclusion of Myanmar from RCEP may have proven to be too difficult when the agreement included the rest of ASEAN, there are nonetheless concrete steps that this government can take to ensure that Myanmar's inclusion in RCEP does not convey legitimacy to the regime and their actions. In June the government chaired Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended sanctions against the Tatmadaw regime. In August the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties embarrassingly had to remind the Morrison-Joyce government once again of the need to act. Specifically, the JSCOT inquiry into RCEP recommended that the government:
… continue to pursue the restoration of civilian, democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority, and considers making a declaration to this effect at the time of ratification.
The Morrison-Joyce government's refusal to implement any sanctions since the coup sends precisely the wrong message that Australian does not care, that we are mere bystanders to democratic backsliding in our region.
Australia had a longstanding policy of recognising states and not governments. Nevertheless, Labor calls on the Morrison-Joyce government to engage at a high level with the national unity government of Myanmar. Australia must stand up for human rights. It is well past time for the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to act in support of Myanmar's democracy, to implement targeted sanctions and to support the people and democracy of Myanmar. Australia must once again become a global leader in defending free trade and working with like-minded nations to reform and modernise the World Trade Organization, the WTO, to reflect the realities of today's global economy and reform the stalled disputes process. In the interim, regional agreements such as RCEP that include our greatest trading partners and offer their own dispute settlement processes are integral to maintaining a rules based environment for our trading nation to operate in.
But, as I said, free trade agreements in whatever form they come are not a substitute for an effective policy or trade diversification. It is high time—it is well past time—for this government to create a plan for trade diversification and to implement it. We can create new prosperity from trade, and government must play a part in achieving this. It is the federal government's role to ensure that we are doing the hard work to make sure that trade is diversified not just in the Indo-Pacific region but throughout the world. We have brilliant businesses, we have brilliant industries, we have brilliant workers. Federal Labor will always make sure that Australian workers and businesses have every protection and opportunity to trade with the world. That is how we became the prosperous nation that we are, and it is the federal government's responsibility not just to write and get agreement on trade agreements but to do the hard work to make sure that non-tariff barriers are removed wherever possible, to reform the WTO, as previously mentioned, but importantly to diversify our trade. We face very challenging times to come. We must ensure that we are not overly exposed to any one market. The federal government, the current Morrison government, has simply not done enough to ensure that that exposure is reduced and has not done enough to support our exporting businesses. We must lift the number of SMEs that are given those export opportunities. I want to thank everyone who is working hard on this. I want to again encourage the federal government to diversify more so that we have more eggs in more baskets for the ongoing security of our nation and for the prosperity—(Time expired)
I rise today to speak and give my strong support for the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. RCEP was signed by Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, the then Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and his counterparts from 14 countries on 15 November 2020. The other RCEP signatories are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. While Australia already has free trade agreements with the 14 RCEP parties there are still significant trade benefits that will accrue to Australian importers and exporters.
These benefits include access to a new single set of rules and procedures for accessing preferential tariffs in any of the 15 RCEP markets. It will reduce the compliance burden on Australian importers and exporters by allowing them to use a declaration of origin, a simpler process compared with the certificate of origin process currently in place. It will improve mechanisms for tackling non-tariff barriers including in areas such as custom procedures, quarantine and technical standards. More broadly the RCEP agreement will also offer greater certainty for business investment and rules of ecommerce, make it easier for Australian businesses trading online and provide a common set of rules on intellectual property. It also reinforces Australia's commitment to a rules-based trading framework.
When member for Barker spoke previously he paid due homage to the great Bert Kelly, former member of this place, who argued for free trade long before it was fashionable. I think we could probably assume that I wasn't around in that period from 1958 until the seventies when Bert Kelly was a member of parliament, but I can assume that back in the day the senior bureaucrats in this country, business leaders and almost all members of the public would have disagreed with his position on free trade—removing protections—leading to greater economic efficiencies and how it would massively benefit our country.
It's interesting that in the debate that we are having the moment there is this overwhelming, I guess, opinion from those same bureaucrats, business leaders and probably many members of the public around some of the climate policies that are being discussed. But to go back to the former member for Wakefield Bert Kelly, a nice little corollary for me is that his son Tony Kelly lives in my electorate in the little town of Porongurup. He and his wife Dawn are very dear friends, as are his extended family.
As someone who came to this place as an avowed free marketer, and I'd spent many years of my life campaigning for the deregulation of the Australian Wheat Board, I was very proud to be part of the coalition that signed, in the early days, free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. The benefits of those free trade agreements have been manifested across my electorate, particularly amongst the agricultural sector. Access to broader markets—and a whole range of factors—has been a key part of seeing, for example, canola prices across the Western Australian wheat belt currently nudging $1,000 a tonne. Back in the day when I was farming, pre 2013, the price ranged from around $300 to $500 a tonne. The prices that we are seeing today make farming across the Wheatbelt of Western Australia an extremely profitable business. We have seen farmers investing very heavily in their businesses. We've seen the purchases of new machinery and of other inputs into the agricultural supply chain going through the roof. These are very prosperous times for wheat growers.
Similarly, meat producers—both sheep and beef—are also experiencing fantastically high prices and consistently high prices, too. We have seen prices for lamb at around $8 per kilo, and those prices have been maintained for several years. Previously, we had seen prices spike when there was, for instance, a drought on the east coast and, once the east coast got back to normal production, the prices would fall again. That hasn't been the case this time around. I put that down, in a very large part, to those free trade agreements that we have signed in the last seven or eight years. As I say, my electorate is very much seeing the benefits of those previously assigned free trade agreements.
Australia is an export nation. We have a small domestic population of around 25 million people and, of course, we need to trade with the rest of the world. Trade is a two-way thing. While we export the things that we do best, particularly in mining and agriculture but also some specialised manufacturing and our service industries, we also import from the world. People lose sight of the fact that that also benefits our nation. While I think many of us would lament the fact that the car industry has moved offshore from Australia, the fact is that we are now importing vehicles at the most economically efficient cost from countries in South-East Asia, including countries such as Japan, Korea and increasingly Thailand, and that has a benefit for local consumers. Why should local consumers be forced to pay a high price for a vehicle to protect an Australian industry that is not as efficient as its overseas counterparts? That is a particularly salient point that people need to remember about free trade agreements. It's not just about our exports and exporting the things that we do well; it's also about importing goods and services from countries who do it better than us—and we are winning that particular contest.
When I was growing up, and probably in the times of the great Bert Kelly, Australia ran a trade deficit every month. Every month, we'd be regaled with what the trade deficit was in a particular month and it caused economists and, I'm sure, Treasury bureaucrats enormous angst over how this nation was going to pay its way, because we consistently ran trade deficits. I checked the trade figures for the month of June, July and August of this year and I can report that our nation's trade surplus in June was $11.7 billion; in July it was $12.65 billion; and in August it was $15 billion. What that tells me is that Australia is doing pretty well when exposed to the competition from the rest of the world. We are producing goods and services that people in the rest of the world want and we are importing those goods and services that Australian people need and want, and we are currently coming out in front. I think that is a great result and a great testimony to the vision and foresight of the aforementioned Bert Kelly.
To come back to the RCEP agreement, what it does is expose us to the Asian middle class. Thirty per cent of the world's population live directly to the north of us, sharing a similar time zone. This has certainly come at a time when we need to diversify our trade. In the early 1970s our trade partner and significant economic partner through that period, the United Kingdom, joined the Common Market, and Australia lost one of its largest trading partners. That took some adjustment, and we turned towards Asia at that time. Recently, China has become our largest trading partner by a considerable margin. Through various geopolitical issues, our reliance on that market has become problematic, so it's particularly important and particularly timely that this agreement allows us access to broader markets.
We have much work still to do. To Trade Minister Tehan: congratulations on revisiting the UK and the trade agreement that was recently agreed to—it's not in place yet—and for the work that has been done with the United Kingdom to reopen that market. The EU is also looking to expand its trade opportunities, and certainly Australia is well placed to supply goods, services and particularly agricultural produce to the European Union. That, of course, would massively benefit my constituents. There are a couple of additional areas of opportunity, as I see them, and the first one is India. With its 1.2 billion people, a population which is rapidly becoming more wealthy, the Indian market is particularly crucial. Once again, it's particularly important for us to get our agricultural produce and food into that market, and I'm looking forward to work being done on that. The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf are not often mentioned, but we also currently export a great deal of agricultural produce into those markets, and any freeing up of not so much tariffs but certainly trade barriers would be much appreciated.
I want to touch briefly on the importance of a rules based system. The barley growers in my electorate had a rude wake-up call and discovered that not everybody plays by rules when, in the middle of 2018, China initiated an antidumping process against the barley growers from Western Australia. An antidumping claim is that subsidised products are being sold under the cost price into a given market. As a barley grower from Western Australia, I can reassure this House and anybody listening or watching that there are no subsidies on Western Australian barley. What we saw as part of this process was that barley marketers and exporters out of Western Australia had to open their books to the purchasers. When I say 'open their books', they had to show their Chinese customers every sale that they had conducted, not just with China but with other markets across the world, to show that they were not undercutting or selling a dumped product or a subsidised product into China. That's not a bad position of strength to be in as a purchaser, when you've been able to have a look at your supplier's books and see exactly what they are selling into other markets for. I suspected at the time—and I'm sure this will be borne out in the World Trade Organization, where we currently have an appeal underway—that this was a spurious claim and that it was simply used to leverage information out of the barley producers from Western Australia.
Finally, I encourage businesses across my electorate to take the opportunity to sell into these markets, new and old. Austrade does have small grants available for businesses to get overseas, to get into these markets, to talk to customers and see if we can provide them with the services and goods that they need. We have trade missions in many of these countries, and there is support from the Australian government for exporters to get overseas, expand our markets and create ongoing Australian jobs and wealth.
I have some amendments to move before the third reading, but I'd like to briefly make a few comments on these particular bills, the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. They relate to the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which Australia is a party to with other nations. I would like to quickly go through those: Brunei; Cambodia; Indonesia; Laos; Malaysia; Myanmar; the Philippines; Singapore; Thailand; Vietnam; Japan; New Zealand; South Korea, formally the Republic of Korea; of course, us, Australia; and, finally, the behemoth amongst all of those nations—China.
I am a great supporter of free trade, but all nations also have to respect the rules. If each nation is able to take advantage of its competitive advantage, it benefits us all. We all end up with greater resources and greater wealth. But the problem we have, amongst the many madnesses that have come across this nation over the recent few years and especially this recent year, is the idea that we will enter into some other international agreement which will put brakes and limitations upon our economy—I am talking about good old net zero by 2050—but those exact same brakes will not apply to China, who of course is a partner in this economic partnership.
When we go down the track of grandstanding in this place, as we all often like to, and say, 'We're going to support net zero by 2050,' and that doesn't apply to our largest trading partner, China, let's be very clear what we are doing. We are putting our nation at a competitive disadvantage—economically, politically and militarily—against the Chinese Communist Party, which is currently running China. Everything under that net zero policy puts our economy at a disadvantage but strengthens the Chinese economy. What type of politician would get elected to the Australian federal parliament or one of our state parliaments and implement and advocate for policies that put our nation at an economic, political and military disadvantage next to China? Unfortunately, that appears to be over 95 per cent of the politicians who have been elected to this parliament. We need to think very carefully about the security risks that our nation has ahead. We cannot simply focus on the idealistic world of free trade if, in doing so, at the same time we are going to be putting our economy at a competitive disadvantage.
One of the amendments moved by the opposition—amendment (2)—calls for the government to adopt the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in relation to Myanmar to introduce Magnitsky-style laws and place targeted sanctions on regimes. There is a good argument that we should employ those Magnitsky-style laws to greater effect and try to put sanctions on those other nations that are abusing human rights—nations that authorise their police force to fire rubber bullets into the backs of unarmed, fleeing protesters. If we see that, we should call it out internationally. There are nations where police officers take a rifle, turn it upside down and spear it into the spine of a protester laying on the ground. When we see things like that, we should call it out. When we see someone laying on the ground, being held down by a police officer and having his head stomped, we should call out those human rights abuses. When we see knees flying into the kidneys of an unarmed protester, we should call that out because that is a violation of human rights. I am not talking about what is happening in some totalitarian regime in some developing nation. I have just given examples of what is happening here in the nation of Australia when it comes to abuses of human rights. So if we're going to go on some frolic—and we rightly should call out Myanmar for their abuses of human rights—we've got to clean up our own act first. We've got to stop those abuses of human rights happening in our country.
Let me give you another example of why Magnitsky laws are important. There is an article that we are a signatory to—the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. And where we see breaches of that declaration, anywhere around the world, we should call it out. I'll give you one section of that particular declaration of human rights, article 3, which states, 'Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.' One of the greatest fundamental freedoms is the right to go to work, the right to do your job, the right to employment. And yet that fundamental freedom is being taken away and suspended around the nation of Australia today. Also, article 6 reads:
Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
And yet every state government in this nation is currently violating that section of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights by putting sanctions and prejudice and disadvantage on people simply because they have not wanted, for whatever reason, to participate in a global medical experiment. If we're going to ahead and criticise other nations for their abuse of human rights, we firstly need to clean up our own act here. As I foreshadowed, I will otherwise support these bills, but I will be raising a couple of amendments in the third reading stage.
I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. Australia has a long and proud history of trade and trade agreements with other nations. It has built our nation since before Federation. In fact, from at least 1700 to 1907, fishermen sailed each year from Indonesia to the Arnhem Land coast and traded with our Indigenous peoples for sea cucumber, which they boiled down, dried on their boats and traded with other nations. Then there was early whaling, followed by the export boom off the sheep's back, the gold rush of the 1850s and our enduring trade partnership with the UK, which we now return to as our closest allied partner, along with the United States.
I've been listening to those opposite, particularly the member for Melbourne, who has been talking about trade and highlighting the ineptitude of those opposite, who simply don't get it and who simply don't understand the value of trade to our nation. Free trade agreements, FTAs, help boost the economy and jobs growth in Australia and deliver new job opportunities to SMEs and big business through greater trade and investment. FTAs give Australian businesses and consumers improved access to a wider range of competitively priced goods and services, new technologies and innovative practices. They promote regional economic integration and build shared approaches to trade and investment between our nation and our trading partners.
We've heard much recently about the trade agreements currently being negotiated by the minister with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Indonesia and India. I congratulate him on his work, which is so important to Australian businesses and families, especially in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast. So many family businesses in my electorate engage in international trade. The amendments I will outline shortly are crucial for their domestic and global competitiveness when it comes to exporting and importing.
While I am briefly speaking of the minister I take this opportunity to thank him for the work he did on the Morrison government's $1.2 billion tourism package and half-price airfares that are still in the system. He listened to the tourism industry and delivered what they needed during this pandemic. Australians will be pleased to know that they can once again holiday on the Gold Coast in time for Christmas. Now is the time to rebook those airfares—and around 100,000 have been on hold while the Queensland government has had the borders closed over these past months, making it so difficult for Gold Coast businesses and tourism to bounce back. It has taken a $1 billion hit—$1 billion over the last quarter out of a $6 billion a year industry. I thank the minister for the most recent tranche of support measures—the $600 million 50-50 Commonwealth and state tourism and business hardship package that assisted so many Gold Coast businesses to get them through to Christmas, when borders will reopen and when vaccination rates will be at 80 per cent.
Just this week we saw the Queensland Premier finally come to her senses—use common sense—look at the national plan and agree to it. I'm very pleased that Gold Coast businesses now have a light at the end of a very long dark tunnel. They can at least plan—hopefully, with certainty—for an increased volume of customers from the southern states. Families can be reunited and Queenslanders can return home, all safely in accordance with that national plan.
The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, commonly referred to as RCEP, is a modern free trade agreement between Australia and 14 other nations in the Indo-Pacific. It complements and builds upon the established free trade agreements we have with nations in our region. While RCEP covers all areas of a modern free trade agreement, the proposed legislative amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 implement only the trade-in-goods commitments Australia has made under RCEP.
The proposed amendments will facilitate trade between Australia and the 14 other nations that are party to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The amendments provide the product specific rules, the PSRs, for determining if imported goods are RCEP-originating goods. These goods are produced, obtained or include sufficient content from one or more of the RCEP parties. Satisfying these rules qualifies the goods for a lower rate of customs duty when imported into Australia, which translates at the end of the day to lower prices for the importer and, of course, ultimately the consumer. The changes will require Australian exporters and producers to keep sufficient records to enable them to prove, when necessary, that their goods are RCEP-originating goods if they claim a preferential rate of customs duty when they're exporting their goods to one of the other 14 RCEP parties. The amendments seek to create a new schedule of preferential customs duty rates for goods that qualify as RCEP-originating goods. The new rules for determining originating status of goods and record-keeping requirements for exporters and producers will be added to the Customs Act 1901, and the new schedule of preferential customs duty rates will be added to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.
I will briefly outline the changes to the Customs Act 1901 and then the details of changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. For those who might be at home listening or who might even be in the car travelling in the country listening to ABC radio, a shout-out to all of you out there. The act will be amended to insert rules for determining if imported goods are RCEP-originating goods. When these rules are satisfied, importers—largely distributors or wholesalers—gain a preferential rate of customs duty when products are imported into Australia. These rules are similar to those used in all of Australia's recent free trade agreements, so it's a matter of updating. The rules, including the PSRs, will be implemented in the same way as they have been for all free trade agreements that use PSRs. The changes to record-keeping requirements that I mentioned pertain to the Customs Act 1901. These obligations will make it possible for RCEP parties to determine the validity of claims made by Australian exporters and producers. Other RCEP parties will also impose reciprocal obligations on their exporters and producers that would allow Australia to undertake compliance activity if, and when, required.
In terms of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, the main amendment will be to insert a new schedule of preferential rates of customs duty for eligible goods that are determined to be RCEP-originating goods. This schedule reflects the commitments that Australia made during these negotiations. Each other RCEP party will have their own schedule that reflects the commitments they made during those negotiations. All of these schedules will be different. For a significant number of goods, customs duty rates will be eliminated when RCEP comes into force. The remaining customs duty rates on most other goods will be progressively reduced over 19 calendar years after the year that RCEP comes into force for Australia. A small minority of goods will not have their duty rates eliminated under RCEP, and customs duties on excise-equivalent goods will also be maintained to ensure consistent treatment with domestically produced equivalents. It's important to note that there is actually no cost associated with making these changes that will benefit Australian importers and exporters. The 2021 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook estimated that implementing the agreement will have no impact on customs duty receipts. In my mind, these changes are therefore necessary to assist Australian exporters and importers with their recovery from the pandemic.
RCEP was signed by Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, the then Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and his counterparts from 14 countries on 15 November 2020. Implementing the agreement underscores Australia's commitment to the rules based international trading system and reinforces our free trade positioning in global markets. It underlines how important trade continues to be for our nation, for jobs and for the prosperity and future of our open and free Liberal democracy.
First of all, I thank all members for their contributions to this debate on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. I also thank in particular the opposition member for Brand for working so closely with the government. It is such an important bill.
The signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement in November 2020 by Australia and 14 other countries signalled a shared commitment to opening up a new trade world and investment opportunities and supporting the rules based trading arrangements. These were especially important signals in the face of the challenges of COVID-19 and, of course, the emerging trade tensions. All signatory states—the 10 ASEAN member states and Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea—share the common goal of promoting productive trade and investment links right across the Indo-Pacific region. The amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the related amendments to be made to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 are required to implement the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Primarily, these amendments provide the rules that allow importers to determine whether their goods qualify for a preferential treatment, and that is absolutely great for Australian exporters.
This agreement will look in market access and address non-tariff barriers, creating significant new trade and investment opportunities for Australians across the Indo-Pacific. It will also establish rules, and that provides greater certainty and improves the business environment across the region.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brand has moved and amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 6), after the paragraph beginning "Subdivision E" in section 153ZQA, insert:
• Subdivision EA provides that goods are not RCEP originating goods if safety approval of the goods has been sought but has not been obtained or has been refused.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 13 (after line 20), after Subdivision E, insert:
Subdivision EA — Safety
153ZQIA Safety
Goods are not RCEP originating goods under this Division if:
(a) the producer or importer of the goods, or an entity related to the producer or importer of the goods, has applied for approval of the goods under a safety law of:
(i) if the goods were wholly obtained or produced in a Party—that Party; or
(ii) otherwise—the Party in which the goods were produced; and
(b) that approval has not yet been granted or has been refused.
I will quickly go through them. This particular bill gives special preference to goods that are of RCE, which is the agreement of the partners origin. If a good is made in that country, it gets special treatment. However, the purpose of this amendment is based upon safety. It seeks to exclude goods from that provision—exclude them from giving those preferences—if:
(a) the producer or importer of the goods, or an entity related to the producer or importer of the goods, has applied for approval of the goods under a safety law of:
(i) if the goods were wholly obtained or produced in a Party—that Party; or
(ii) otherwise—the Party in which the goods were produced; and
(b) that approval has not yet been granted or has been refused.
If goods are made in foreign country, and in that foreign country they attempted to obtain some safety or regulatory approval and it is not given in that country—if the regulatory authorities in the country of manufacture say, 'That good is not yet approved' or 'We do not think it's safe to be distributed in this country,' they cannot export that to Australia and expect to get these preferential tariff arrangements.
Now, some may think that would never happen. It would never happen if goods were imported into Australia for use in Australia, and yet in the country of manufacture, the country of origin, the regulators have said: 'Hang on a minute. We're not going to grant this particular good safety approval, because we have concerns about that particular good.'
Let me give you an exact example of why this bill is needed and an exact example of why this is something that would be caught by this amendment. I quote directly from the Wall Street Journal on 15 October 2021. The headline says 'FDA delays Moderna COVID vaccine for adolescents to review rare myocarditis side effect'. It says:
Agency holds off decision on expanding use of shot to 12-to-17-year-olds while it looks into risk of rare heart condition
The article goes on:
The Food and Drug Administration is delaying a decision on authorizing Moderna Inc.'s Covid-19 vaccine for adolescents to assess whether the shot may lead to heightened risk of a rare inflammatory heart condition, according to people familiar with the matter.
So, in the USA, their regulators, the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, have not approved Moderna vaccines for 12- to 17-year-old children because they are not sure. They are applying the precautionary principle, and yet that good, which is manufactured in the USA, is exported to Australia. And what have we done? I'll quote directly from a release by the minister of health on 5 September. It says:
TGA approves Moderna vaccine for 12 to 17-year-olds. Australia's medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, has provisionally approved the use of the Moderna (Spikevax) COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years.
This enables this vaccine to be injected into Australian children. We have regulators in the USA that say that this good is not fit for 12- to 17-year-olds in America, where it is manufactured. But it's being exported to Australia where our regulators say, 'Maybe it's okay, don't worry and just shoot this stuff up into kids.'
Do parents around the nation know this? Is any media outlet in the country reporting that this substance is being injected into Australian teenagers? It's made in America, but the American say, 'This is not safe for American teenage kids.' How many children in Australia are we putting at risk because of this madness? What is the TGA doing by approving something to be injected into Australian children, when it cannot be injected into American children? It's a good that is made in the USA. (Time expired)
The government will not be supporting the amendments moved by the member for Hughes, and I make it very clear that the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement preserves Australia's right to impose restrictions on imports necessary to protect human life and health. The right is made clear in the agreement's general exceptions as well as the agreement's technical barriers to trade and sanitary chapters. The rules of origin are not relevant to this as they relate only to whether goods qualify for a preferential rate of import duty. These amendments propose to impose a new circumstance that would make goods that would otherwise be originating under the agreement no longer originating goods. That is something we cannot allow. Broadly, the circumstances proposed by these amendments are where a producer or importer or a related entity has made an application for approval under a safety law of a party, and such approval has not yet been given. The proposed amendments do not define what is to be considered a safety law. The circumstances are not stipulated in a finalised agreement, and, as such, the new section would insert circumstances that are neither stipulated in the agreement nor agreed to by the parties to the agreement.
These bills implement obligations under the agreement in relation to the rules of origin, and I make that point clear. Their purpose is to ensure that Australia's domestic laws are in conformity with Australia's international obligations, and that is so important. On the issue of entry into Australia, the provisions of these bills are guided by the terms of the agreement. The proposed amendments would also only affect whether or not the goods are given preferential tariff treatment due to Australia implementing the agreement. They would not prevent such goods, even if they were defined, from being imported into Australia. The proposed amendments would be outside the scope of the agreement.
I thank the minister for his explanation. But, just to be clear, what has been outlined is that goods can be manufactured in the country of origin where that country decides that the particular goods carry such a dangerous risk to the citizens of that country that the regulators in that country do not allow the use of those goods for that particular purpose, and yet those particular goods can be imported into Australia and used for a purpose that is unlawful and outlawed in the country of origin. I think that puts Australians at risk. I think that is the wrong policy, and I commend these amendments to the House. I hope that they have support.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 responds to the threat of cyber-enabled attacks and other risks to Australia's critical infrastructure. Labor is committed to the safety and security of all Australians, and urgent cybersecurity reforms are definitely required to address the ever-increasing number of cyberattacks Australians face. The pervasive threat of a cyber-enabled attack and the manipulation of critical infrastructure is serious, is considerable in scope and impact and is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Ransomware and other cyberattacks are a multibillion- dollar cost to the nation annually, threatening jobs and investment when we can least afford it. A cyberattack is reported in Australia every eight minutes, which is a 13 per cent increase on pre-pandemic levels.
The COVID-19 pandemic has fast-tracked the movement of our lives online, where we now heavily rely upon digital systems to navigate life and business like never before. Many of Australia's most significant social and economic opportunities, as well as geostrategic and security challenges, are currently unfolding through the prism of cyber and critical technologies. This not only increases our reliance on cyber systems but also increases the risk should those systems become inoperable. It is for that reason that Labor will support this bill, which is a step forward in the protection of critical infrastructure and essential services that all Australians rely upon.
Critical infrastructure is increasingly interconnected and interdependent, making our lives easier and providing economic benefit. However, connectivity without proper safeguards creates vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities, if exploited through cyberattacks, can result in cascading consequences across our economy, security and sovereignty. The interconnected nature of our critical infrastructure means that an attack on one essential function can have a domino effect that degrades or disrupts others. Critical infrastructure underpins the delivery of goods and services that are essential to the Australian way of life, our nation 's wealth and prosperity and, indeed, our national security.
This bill proposes enhanced cybersecurity obligations for those assets that are most important this country. It introduces additional reporting requirements for cyber incidents that affect critical infrastructure assets. It also provides a definition of 'significant impact', and that is a cybersecurity incident that will have a significant impact if the incident has materially disrupted the availability of essential goods or services provided by using the asset. It also offers government assistance to relevant entities in response to significant cyberattacks that impact Australia's critical infrastructure assets.
While Australia has not suffered a catastrophic attack on our critical infrastructure, we are not immune. Australia is facing increasing cybersecurity threats to essential services, businesses and all levels of government. In the past two years we have seen cyberattacks on Australian food suppliers, on Australian hospitals, on our universities, on media outlets and even on this parliament's own network, just to mention a few. Internationally, cyberattacks have disrupted critical sectors. In the United States, for example, we have seen significant disruption to water and fuel supplies caused by cyberattacks. In this threat environment it is critical—it is crucial—that Australia's technical authority, the Australian Signals Directorate, is empowered to assist entities in responding to significant cybersecurity incidents to secure infrastructure assets. That is what this bill proposes to do.
These are last-resort powers, and affected entities will undoubtedly retain their reservations. In supporting this legislation, Labor is relying upon the intention stated in the bill and as given by the department and indeed by agency heads—that these powers will only be used as a last resort. With that in mind, it is very important to emphasise that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security will be notified and briefed each and every time the government enacts this power and will conduct a full review of the legislation when additional critical infrastructure reforms are introduced by government. In evidence provided to the committee, witnesses overwhelmingly indicated their willingness to co-operate with the Australian Signals Directorate. It is always the case that, where a parliament seeks to increase the power of executive government, parliamentary oversight is also increased in order to ensure sufficient transparency and accountability by the executive government. To that extent, we are very much supportive of those safeguards. In this threat environment it is critical, I think, that we have that caveat on the use of these powers, and that's what is intended by this bill.
Government assistance powers would only be needed in the event that an affected entity is unwilling or unable to respond appropriately, thus these measures should only be needed sparingly, if ever. In the instance that there is a disagreement between an entity and the Australian Signals Directorate on the best course of action, this bill incorporates the committee's recommendation to include safeguards that require the minister to consider multiple impacts and current responses. These are the checks and balances required at any stage when a parliament is seeking to increase executive powers, albeit for the common good and in the national interest. They ensure there's a balance with respect to decisions made by ministers or by executive government more generally.
I'd also note that the bipartisan committee also called on the Morrison government to review the processes for classified briefings for the opposition during caretaker periods, in response to serious cyberincidents, and to consider best-practice principles for any public announcement about those incidents, especially during election campaigns. We would expect, as would be the Westminster tradition and convention, that in the case of an election the opposition would be involved in such matters and that the matter itself would be dealt with, in the caretaker tradition, by the Public Service and the department heads. We've made that very clear.
While this proposed legislation is a positive move, we have to note that the government has so far fallen behind in taking meaningful action to prevent cyberattacks on Australian organisations. In fact, one of the Prime Minister's first actions upon coming to office was to abolish the dedicated cybersecurity minister, and it has been at the bottom of the government's to-do list ever since. The Australian Cyber Security Centre's second annual cyberthreat report, released last month, reaffirms the fact that ransomware remains the most serious cyberthreat facing Australian businesses. It also reveals a 15 per cent increase in reported attacks since last financial year, with more than one ransomware attack reported every day, on average. That's a remarkable number of incidents that are occurring currently.
In February we called upon the government to develop a national ransomware strategy to reduce the volume of these attacks and co-ordinate government action across policy, regulation, law enforcement, diplomatic and defence capabilities. More recently, Labor introduced the Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 into the House of Representatives and the Senate. The government last week—finally—heeded Labor's call for a national ransomware strategy to combat this billion dollar scourge.
With only a few parliamentary sitting weeks left in the year—and, indeed, possibly this parliamentary term—and more consultation on this proposed ransomware reporting scheme to be done, this looks like yet another announcement with no delivery from the Morrison-Joyce government. We're at the back end of this parliamentary term, this threat has been real and growing for days, weeks, months and years, and we are only now seeing the government seriously attending to this matter after the efforts of the opposition to make it very clear that the need was great and urgent. The government has conceded that more work needs to be done in communicating, consulting and responding to concerns regarding its proposed positive security obligations for critical infrastructure sectors. These important initiatives need to be done properly. These are important initiatives, and they do need to be done well and diligently.
While Labor supports this important bill, I can't overstate the need for more attention to be focused on reducing cyberattacks and protecting the critical infrastructure and essential services that all Australians rely upon.
It's a pleasure to rise to speak today on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020. I'm particularly pleased because I have some degree of experience, which I'll talk about shortly, in relation to the protection of critical infrastructure. I'm also greatly in favour of the concept of looking at what is most important and looking at ways to enhance protections around those critical pieces of infrastructure. Indeed, in the military, where I had my first career, when we plan operations, we look at our own forces and those of opposing forces and we look for critical capabilities. Then we look at what some of the critical vulnerabilities that sit below and enable those capabilities are. In the case of an enemy force, we look at how to target some of those vulnerabilities to, if you like, bring the house crumbling down. Equally, in our own interests, we look for our capabilities, what vulnerabilities we have and how we can provide protection against those vulnerabilities. So it's wonderful to see that the Morrison government is taking a similar, mature, methodical planning approach when looking at our national critical infrastructure. Indeed, this is the course that we must and will continue to take.
In the last parliament, we passed the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 to identify and manage national security risks of espionage, sabotage and coercion resulting from foreign involvement in Australia's critical infrastructure. The reforms in this bill will apply to a range of owners and operators of critical infrastructure. It's worth taking a moment to classify what we mean by critical infrastructure. There are 11 different categories. As I name each category, I feel certain that listeners will absolutely identify with why it is that each of these categories has been defined as 'critical'. The categories are: communications; financial services and markets; data storage and processing; defence industry; higher education and research; energy; food and grocery; health care and medical; space technology; transport; and water and sewerage. Since we passed the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, new challenges have emerged. Indeed, on 1 July last year, our Prime Minister tabled and announced the 2020 Defence Strategic Update. What it painted was a picture of a degrading security environment, particularly within our Indo-Pacific region, and a large part of our response to our deteriorating security situation is looking at those vulnerabilities and how we can bolster their stability and security.
Of particular concern is the increase that we have observed in the aggressive use of what's referred to as 'grey zone activities'. What we mean by 'grey zone activities' is that they sit somewhere beyond that threshold of illegality but short of actual military conflict. Some of the examples are interference operations, coercive use of trade and , of course, economic levers. We've seen those geo-economic levers used in an aggressive form against Australia. These activities, whilst they sit below the threshold of open conflict, certainly threaten stability and, indeed, sovereignty. Whilst these grey zone activities are certainly not new and have always existed on the spectrum of conflict, what we are seeing is an escalation in the use of these grey zone activities, including in Australia and within our region.
Cyberwarfare is absolutely on the rise, and we can rightly refer to cyber as being a new battleground. In its Annual cyber threat report 2020-21 the Australian Cyber Security Centre noted that there were 67,500 reports of cybercrime. This reflects a 13 per cent increase on the previous year and equates, very worryingly, to a cyberattack here in Australia every eight minutes. This is indeed alarming. Throughout 2019 and during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic Australia's critical infrastructure sectors were regularly targeted by malicious cyberactors seeking both to exploit the victims of the attack and in many cases to gain profit. This totally disregards our communities and in some examples has led to material impacts. For example, during this period we've seen multiple regional hospitals having been the victims of cyberattacks, and this has resulted in the delayed delivery of health services, including surgery, to regional communities. A major national food wholesaler was also the victim of a cyberattack. This affected their systems and temporarily disrupted their ability to provide food during a time when there was unprecedented pressure on the food and grocery sector. There was also a water provider which had its control system encrypted by ransomware. Had that system not been restored quickly enough from backups that could well have disrupted the supply of potable water to a regional population hub. It could also have disrupted the agricultural activities which relied on that same water source.
Attacks on our critical infrastructure require a joint response. They require government, business and individuals to operate in a coordinated fashion, and this indicates the interrelated nature of these risks. The new framework provided by these bills will enable government, industry and partners to defend Australia's national interests. It will require entities to adopt and maintain a risk-management program for critical infrastructure assets, and this will in turn bolster their resilience in the face of threats.
I've had the opportunity to see firsthand some of the Australian operators of critical infrastructure and to work hand in hand with some of those operators. After leaving the Australian Regular Army I worked for most of the last 14 years as a risk, crisis and business continuity management specialist. This involved working with largely mining, oil and gas companies and helping to build their resilience. This involved taking teams and training them in incident and crisis response, working with all levels of management to train on a system of response and to empower those individuals who were managers within their own business to take the responsibility to lead others and to manage through responses. The last engagement I had was with Woodside Energy, a great Western Australian company and the operator of a whole range of oil and gas platforms offshore and processing facilities onshore. Dealing with hydrocarbons, particularly when they're under high pressure, is already a very high-risk environment. Add to that the reality that some of these facilities also take the form of those targetable critical vulnerabilities I mentioned earlier, and we have absolutely no option but to invest in the protection of those assets.
In fact, some of the key themes in which these incident and crisis responders were trained and exercised came under the acronym PEARL, which stands for people, environment, asset, reputation and liability. The acronym makes them easy to remember. They are also prioritised. Of course, every organisation should and must look after their people first—their safety and their security. Of course, the environment, assets, reputation and liability also need a close degree of attention when we're looking to build that resilience.
I also credit some other great organisations, like Rio Tinto Iron Ore and BHP Billiton, which I saw, over many years, dedicate a great deal of effort to building resilience. Not only do we look at the training of teams of individuals to be ready to respond; we also look at the investment in physical infrastructure—in safety response systems, fire management systems and the readiness and maintenance of those systems to provide that protection.
I also had the opportunity to work with a number of organisations during live responses. That's where we see resilience really come to the fore, after the investment, over years, of training and equipment. I won't go into some of the specifics, but, needless to say, the readiness and resilience that was built up by companies like those I mentioned should be credited. It has paid off in spades already and will into the future. Through this bill, we can see how government is partnering with the investments that those businesses are making to protect the critical infrastructure upon which all Australians rely for our wellbeing and prosperity.
On the financial services front, I also worked with some of our major financial institutions, our banks. This is where business continuity becomes really essential. Of course, banks take the responsibility for safeguarding our personal savings, but, as institutions, they also, importantly, enable cash flow for our businesses, whether they be small family businesses or large businesses. Essentially, our banks set the conditions that underpin economic confidence. For this reason, the processes of business continuity management remain absolutely essential, and I provide credit to our banks and to our regulators—which, obviously, this government takes a large degree of responsibility for—for maintaining the resilience of our financial institutions in the interests of us all.
Entities will also now be required to report cybersecurity incidents to the Australian Signals Directorate, which will enable the latter to build a better picture of the threat environment surrounding Australia's critical infrastructure. This, in turn, will allow government to provide better advice and assistance to entities about how they can safeguard critical infrastructure. The public expects the Australian government will protect the nation if a cyberincident affects Australia's critical infrastructure and results in serious threats to Australia's interests. Even if a critical infrastructure entity is doing all it can to protect itself and the services that it provides, we recognise that there are some threats that are beyond the capabilities of critical infrastructure operators themselves to mitigate. That is why this bill also contains what I call 'last-resort powers', which can only be used in situations where an entity is unable or unwilling to respond to an incident. I note that this legislation has been developed through extensive consultation with industry, which is very welcome and will absolutely be continuing.
As I conclude, I'll lean on the words the Prime Minister used when he launched the 2020 Defence Strategic Update. He said:
The enduring responsibility of Government … is timeless—to protect Australia's national interest, our sovereignty, our values and the security of the Australian people.
This bill does exactly that, and I commend it to the House.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on this significant bill, the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020, designed to better protect Australia's critical infrastructure assets from a growing range of cyberthreats. Labor broadly supports the measures in this bill and will be supporting the passage of this bill through the parliament this week. For the benefit of the previous speaker, I'll point out that the process that has brought this bill to the House today has been shambolic, to say the least, and it has left the parliament with significant additional work to achieve the aims of this bill.
In recognition of the increasingly interconnected and interdependent nature of Australia's complex modern economy and society, the bill before the House does significantly expand the definition of critical infrastructure, subject to Commonwealth regulation, from the current four sectors of electricity, gas, water and ports to 11 sectors of national significance encompassing communications, financial services and markets, data storage and processing, defence industry, higher education and research, energy, food and grocery, health care and medical, space technology, transport, water and sewerage.
The bill then introduces a series of new obligations on the owners of this critical infrastructure, designed to improve the ability of both the owner and the Australian government to protect these assets from attack. For example, the bill introduces new requirements that critical infrastructure asset owners report certain cyberincidents to the government. In addition, the bill gives the government significant powers to intervene to assist critical infrastructure asset owners responding to critical cybersecurity incidents if necessary and, as a last resort, without the consent of the asset owner.
These new obligations and government powers are needed today because the threat environment facing critical infrastructure asset owners has deteriorated significantly in recent years. There has been a rapid growth of cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure globally and in Australia from both nation state actors and from international organised crime groups.
In May 2021 the world saw a high profile example of the impact that a significant cyberattack could have on a piece of critical infrastructure. Affiliates of the Russian ransomware crew DarkSide, an organised crime group, targeted the US colonial pipeline in a ransomware attack that shutdown its operations for six days. That pipeline was responsible for carrying nearly half of all the fuel supply to the east coast of the United States. The fuel shortages and the lines at the petrol stations that we saw as a result made global news headlines.
Just a month later another Russian ransomware crew, the REvil group, launched a attack on JBS meats, the worlds largest meat supplier, bringing its operations to a halt, including in Australia—an attack that had the potential to cause food shortages around the world.
In the background to these high-profile attacks there have been a series of incidents affecting utilities around the world, including water and electricity companies and the operators of ports and rail networks. The Australian Cyber Security Centre's recent annual cyberthreat report has noted:
Approximately one quarter of cyber incidents reported to the ACSC during the reporting period were associated with Australia's critical infrastructure or essential services. Significant targeting, both domestically and globally, of essential services such as the health care, food distribution and energy sectors has underscored the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to significant disruption in essential services, lost revenue and the potential of harm or loss of life.
The secretary of the Department of Home Affairs underlined the urgency of the threat environment when he told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in July 2021 that our security agencies wanted the government assistance provisions in this bill 'on the statute books tonight'. Addressing this worsening threat environment is both an urgent and a difficult talk. Cybersecurity is a whole of nation endeavour. It requires defending networks operated by multiple levels of government, within small and large businesses and within civil society. Indeed, the defence mobilisation review found that in the event of cyberwarfare many of the targets of state-sponsored cyberattacks will be civilian businesses or individuals. Designing policy interventions to protect this diverse and rapidly evolving attack service is difficult, particularly when the circumstances demand rapid action.
Unfortunately, the Morrison government has not met this challenge. This bill is yet another example of the Morrison government dithering on a major challenge and then rushing once we've reached the crisis point. It has been too slow to act. Then when the threat environment reached a crisis point it has failed to give due weight to the complexity of the challenge.
The time line leading up to the introduction of this bill tells the story of the government's lack of urgency. The genesis of the bill was the Cyber Security Strategy 2020. By the time the Cyber Security Strategy 2020 was released by the Morrison government in August 2020 the government's previous Cyber Security Strategy 2016 had reached the end of its four-year life four months before. The government spent 12 months developing its new strategy. Four months after the Cyber Security Strategy 2020, the government released an exposure draft for this bill and indicated that it intended to introduce the bill to parliament just 10 days after public consultation concluded. Dither and then rush—the Morrison government's MO.
This was a crazy approach to such a consequential and complex piece of legislation. Industry was aghast and warned in the most urgent terms that the governments rushed approach could do more harm than good. Stakeholders raised numerous concerns with the exposure draft, but the government insisted on forging ahead with minor technical amendments. In response, Labor insisted that a bill of this consequence and complexity be subject to a substantive PJCIS review. Thankfully, under an avalanche of objections, the government agreed that the bill be referred for the PJCIS for inquiry in December 2020. After the madcap rush to progress the exposure draft, this inquiry then took nine months. Yet again, it was left to the PJCIS and the constructive bipartisan efforts of the Labor members of this committee to do the hard work of getting the bill into a workable shape that the government itself had neglected. In this instance, the bill required a little bit more than panelbeating. Indeed, the unanimous bipartisan report of the PJCIS recommended radical surgery.
The governments original bill was split in two. Recognising the worsening threat environment and the 14 months that had passed since the release of 2020 cybersecurity strategy, the PJCIS ultimately recommended that only the most urgent measures in the original bill be passed subject to amendments. As previously outlined, these provisions include the expanded definition of critical infrastructure government assistance provisions in the event of a significant cyber incident and a mandatory reporting scheme for these incidents. However, the PJCIS finding that critical infrastructure asset owners 'did not feel like their input or feedback had been actioned or acknowledged during the government's consultations on the original bill,' the committee recommended other measures in the bill, like the establishment of risk management programs and the declarations of systems of national significance with associated enhanced security obligations, be 'revisited and amended in a consultive and collaborative basis' in a separate bill to be considered by the parliament at a later date.
This really is an extraordinary indictment of the Morrison government's failure to work in partnership with the broader Australian cybersecurity ecosystem in our shared task of protecting the nation from cyberthreats. As the PJCIS highlighted, the government's consultation failures on the provisions—that have now been punted to bill two—created enormous uncertainty across multiple industries about unknown future regulatory burdens that this legislation would impose. My observation, speaking to people in the industry, is that this uncertainty has had the opposite effect to that desired by the government. In response to this uncertainty, many organisations have fallen into a compliance mindset and adopted a wait-and-see approach to the cybersecurity measures that they might be required to implement by regulation. Instead of driving an uplift in cyber maturity, many organisations have paused their cybersecurity investments while they wait for clarity from the government.
It's been a real failure of the government to work in partnership with the IT systems operators outside of government towards a shared goal. Cybersecurity isn't something that government can do from behind the ramparts. It requires government to come out from the Commonwealth security and law enforcement silos and work hand in hand with operators of IT systems in an extremely diverse range of organisations—large public sector companies, privately held companies, state and local governments and even civil society group it is. It requires government to build trust with the operators of these networks—something that was not assisted by the process through which this bill was developed. Finally, it requires government to build understanding and expertise in the real-world challenges facing the operators of these IT systems.
The process of the development of this bill has highlighted that, while policymakers within the government are able to undertake a reasonable desktop exercise identifying the kinds of policy interventions you'd like to see in an ideal world, they have little appreciation for how private sector networks are actually developed, operated and defended in the real world. While there is significant technical expertise within Commonwealth defence, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the government has shown at the policy level it does not have sufficient experience and understanding of the cybersecurity challenges of the private sector. This is a capability gap that the Commonwealth will need to address as the threats that this bill is designed to respond to become more acute. This is particularly notable in the context of the government assistance or step-in powers created by this bill. Anyone who has worked with large private sector IT networks understands that the risks of people who lack specific knowledge of a network interfering with it are significant. If you don't build it, it's easy to break things. The potential for unintended harm is significant and, with critical infrastructure, the scale of unintended harms are potentially extremely significant. As a series of major technology companies, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services, highlighted in the consultation of the PJCIS on this bill, government intervention in their networks has the potential to increase the risk they face from cyberthreats. AWS told the PJCIS:
… there is a deeper underlying assumption in the entire bill here that seems to be this: if something bad happens to a critical piece of Australia's infrastructure, then the government is capable of stepping in and fixing that bad thing. In many instances, we think there's a really big risk of the government stepping in and misunderstanding how the regulated entity operates, and maybe making things worse—so creating more or new problematic security incidents than are at risk in the process.
Microsoft explained the risk of installing foreign software on a network and said:
Doing so in the context of the data storage or processing sector with hyperscale cloud providers—these are interdependent systems. They will introduce vulnerabilities. We think it's going to potentially be a source of substantial third-party risk that we may have to mitigate for from the government if there is uncertainty on how these powers may be used.
Similarly, representatives of Google said:
What we need is information and collaboration, because the only software that's safe to operate in a Google or hyperscale cloud environment is our software and our systems that have been tested and vetted.
I am sure that the technical experts at the Australian Signals Directorate understand the reality of working with networks that you don't run, much more so than the policy designers of this legislative framework. The PJCIS heard that industry would overwhelmingly without compulsion cooperate with the ASD and the ACSC in the event of a major cybersecurity incident. These compulsory powers are only intended to deal with the most extreme scenario where entities are unwilling or unable to respond. I'm confident that these powers would only be exercised as an absolute last resort, if ever, and then with extreme reticence and caution.
Importantly, the PJCIS spent significant time considering a range of safeguards that could be put in place in the exercise of these powers. I welcome the proposal that any use of the assistance powers be reported to the PJCIS after they are rendered. That said, I share the view of Labor members expressed in their additional comments to the PJCIS report that there's more to do in this space. As this bill is currently drafted, all ministerial authorisations for the use of the government's intervention powers are excluded from judicial review. The government has not adequately explained its reasons for this wholesale exclusion from judicial review. The role of judicial review on the exercise of powers like this has been a common difference of approach between Labor and coalition members on the PJCIS over a number of inquiries now.
Labor members also highlighted the Law Council of Australia's submission that consideration should be given to an independent issuing authority for authorisations to exercise these powers along the lines recommended by the third INSLM. This would be similar to the authorisation of compulsory industry assistance powers under part 15 of the Telecommunications Act. I note in this respect the committee's recommendation that the impacts of the provisions of this bill be reviewed by the PJCIS again when bill two of these reforms is introduced into the parliament. I want to highlight the additional comments of Labor members. They said:
… the Committee should take advantage of that opportunity and—in the absence of compelling evidence from the Government—recommend further improvements to Part 3A.
In my remaining time I want to deal with two matters that the PJCIS highlighted in its report that are not dealt with in this bill—largely the protection of non-governmental democratic institutions under this regime. They aren't directly covered by the regulatory framework put in place by this law. In fact, we don't have existing institutional or program responses to lift the cyber-resilience of non-governmental democratic institutions in our society. I'm talking about political parties, think tanks, universities and newspapers. These have recently all been very frequent targets of cyberenabled foreign interference around the world. A constant theme of recent elections around the world is cyberenabled foreign interference.
Chris Krebs, a former Director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, appeared before the PJCIS and warned that Australia needs a process in place to enable non-political entities to make disclosures of any cyberenabled foreign interference during an election campaign. He told the committee:
… you never want the incumbent with the ability to put their thumb on the scale and change the outcome of the election … you would not have wanted a White House press conference for those sorts of announcements because that, in and of itself, can be politicised.
This is an important learning for Australia. The committee report makes recommendations that the government put in place a process during the caretaker period for apolitical disclosure of cyberenabled foreign interference, and the government should take that up.
I rise to support the second reading on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020, a very important bill introducing enhanced frameworks to make sure we are providing the kinds of protections that are necessary, in the modern era, for our critical infrastructure when it comes to the risk of cyberattack. I think about this in the context of my home state of South Australia, with the infrastructure that is now coming online in the electricity sector and the sorts of risks that we need to be wary of as new technology enters our marketplace from an electricity point of view. I think Queensland has a rate of installation of rooftop solar that's around the same or slightly higher than South Australia's. Both states lead the nation, and as a nation we lead the world when it comes to the installation of rooftop solar. It's a good example of where the future of electricity generation is going to be, particularly for household-level consumption, going forward—in my view. It's a technology that has become much more affordable. Around one-third of households already have rooftop solar, and growth figures show that's only going to increase in the future.
I believe this is a source of generation that we'll increasingly rely on, but, equally, more technology makes it more reliable. One of the challenges with solar is that it's good when the sun is shining but, if the sun's not shining and you want to turn on your television or your dishwasher or cook your evening meal, it's not very helpful if you can't capture the generated electricity and store it. Now, of course, we have the advent of home-scale battery storage systems. They've been a little expensive for the average person to afford until now, but we know where the unit price of batteries is heading—down. Hopefully, it will become a more and more affordable option for people to couple their rooftop solar panels with a home battery so they can charge up the battery when the sun is shining during the day, when they might not be at home to consume energy, and save that energy to use when they need it in the evenings.
We're going a step further again in South Australia with battery units. Household batteries are sometimes described as a distributed grid—as in distributed generation and storage of electricity—and in South Australia, on that definition, we've got the largest distributed grid in the world. We hope to continue to build on that. The Commonwealth government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, is co-financing a scheme with the South Australian government to provide subsidy for home batteries, because we want to partner as much of that rooftop solar with battery storage as we can, for the reasons I've just outlined. The next step, beyond us storing our own electricity at home and using it when we need it, is being able to share that electricity. If I've got excess electricity that I'm not using stored in my battery and someone else in my neighbourhood is running low on stored electricity, or any electricity, then, through that distributed grid, we can have a transaction where some of my electricity goes, at a charge, to the person who wants to consume it. We can have what is sometimes called a virtual power plant. When you think of all these small batteries combined, they're the same size as a major electricity generator and they're holding electricity that can be dispatched on demand, and all these systems are interconnected.
What's vitally important for that kind of virtual power plant to work is all the systems being able to talk to each other on a central platform—in the cloud, no doubt—and share information: who's got what energy; what future consumption and demand is likely to be; where there is excess energy being stored in a household and where there is a deficit of energy available to a household, despite what they're expected to consume going forward; and how we trade that electricity amongst all the people in this virtual power plant. That effectively means you've got not only distributed storage but also the ability to share demand and the most efficient way of capturing, storing and providing electricity for consumption. That's an unbelievable proposition. It's something for which the technology already exists, and we're trialling it in South Australia. That is all predicated on the technology and communication of all those units, which could be hundreds if not thousands, with billions and billions of data points coming together to provide electricity for a neighbourhood. That, of course, raises the huge risk of someone being able to interfere through the cyberworld in something like a virtual power plant and, effectively, take it offline and take out a neighbourhood's electricity source because, through a cyberattack, they were able to disrupt and infect that platform and remove the ability for that platform to come together, to share that collaboration and to provide the power source for an entire neighbourhood.
That is one example among thousands—if not millions—of others that we are going to have when it comes to the future of infrastructure in this country, whether it's at the low level—in small scale, like the example I've just outlined—or, again in electricity, in the very large scale. In South Australia, we're building an interconnector now with New South Wales. It will take around 800 megawatts of electricity in either direction, which will be vital for the stability of the South Australian grid, given some of the challenges we've had with that in recent years and will also be vital to the ability to attract investment in larger-scale generation and to have markets where renewable energy generated in large solar or wind projects in South Australia can be not just used domestically in the South Australian market but also exported for sale in somewhere like New South Wales. So, at the other end of the electricity infrastructure scale, a multibillion dollar interconnector is the sort of infrastructure that already—and even more so into the future—is reliant on cybercapability and is vulnerable to cyberattack.
That is the modern world. That is the current situation and the future, as well, for infrastructure. In terms of this bill, of course, electricity is one of the easier examples to talk about, but other speakers have talked about the wide variety of infrastructure that is captured that is going to be vulnerable to cyberthreats today and into the future. That is really every single piece of infrastructure we can conceive now and some that we can't yet conceive, because, in the future, almost everything is going to be reliant on cybertechnology and at risk of cyberthreat. In a beautiful country like ours, we've not had, from a physical infrastructure risk point of view, the same kind of alarm and concern throughout our history. Obviously we're lucky enough to be one country on an entire continent. We've not had a major conflict here since the advent of what some philosophers call 'total war' or 'absolute war' where, in modern warfare, infrastructure has become a major target physically, as has happened in other parts of the world. We don't have the sort of history or the culture of having a paranoia about the protection of our infrastructure. But, of course, that is not the case when it comes to the risk of cyber because there is no tyranny of distance related to cyber. There are no proximity issues with cyber. Someone anywhere else on the planet with an internet connection can attempt to launch a cyberattack on any critical infrastructure in our country, and that's why we now have the risk and the need to respond to that risk through this legislation and the other things that this government is doing.
I've had the pleasure, a couple of times, of going to the Australian Cyber Collaboration Centre which is located just outside of my electorate in the Adelaide CBD in the Lot Fourteen Precinct, which is the heart of the city deal between the federal government, the state government and the Adelaide City Council in South Australia. It's amazing what they're doing there. It is very much in line with what this legislation is about, which is creating partnerships and support between government, the private sector and other people that have expertise in cyber and in risks of cyber. There's a cyberwarfare range at the centre, which is quite an experience to visit. It's almost a SCIF-like set-up—a room that's secure—where you can come in as a company, plug your software platforms into the mainframe and have people launch cyberattacks on the systems of your business so that you can identify what the vulnerabilities to cyberattack might be for your software platforms and other systems that you use. You can also seek to repel those attacks and can use various tools available in the marketplace to see which ones are the most effective for the systems your business operates in order to best protect your business from the risk of these cyberattacks, and you can weigh up the wide variety of costs for different levels of security.
So, what's happening there at A3C, as it's known, is assisting the private sector, particularly those that have a significant vulnerability to cyberattacks. For somewhere like Adelaide, that's obviously industries like defence, space and critical infrastructure such as the mining sector and the ag sector. Given the examples of attacks on private sector businesses around the world, no-one who operates a computer could say that their business doesn't have a vulnerability to cyber. So, A3C is an opportunity for any business to engage with that industry collaboration and assess and then address modern cyber risks to their business.
The other thing we know about cyber is that whatever you do today is the best you can do to protect yourself against what are known to be the capabilities of offensive cyber today. But, every day, new capability is developed and new risks emerge, so we need to be ever vigilant and constantly learn from the attacks undertaken on businesses, particularly those that we have the purview of learning from in our own country. That's really what the heart of this bill achieves. By creating the reporting framework that is one of the pillars of this bill, we're essentially making sure there's a requirement for high-risk targets—particularly those captured within this bill, related to critical infrastructure—to first and foremost report any cyberattack or suspected cyberattack that they receive, because it's very important that the experts—and the ASD is a world-renowned agency when it comes to this topic—know and are able to capture all the known or suspected cyberattacks launched on critical infrastructure across the board in this country.
That puts a government agency like ASD in the best possible position to be aware that something has occurred, to perhaps have an initial triage approach to considering the initial prima facie evidence of what's occurred and to decide whether they need to look more closely at that attack. We know that there are attacks constantly. We have tens if not hundreds of thousands of attacks a year, and we know there are different levels of attacks that bring different risks. But ASD are the experts and the ones in the best position to make decisions around how to respond to those threats. By having a mandatory system of reporting in place, they're going to have the awareness of all the things they can then choose to look at and prioritise.
Secondly, we're talking about government having a much more significant involvement in working with the private sector when it comes to critical infrastructure to help them, work with them and provide support for them if and when they are imminently at risk of, adjacent or either side of, or in the middle of a cyberattack. As a Liberal, I'm always a bit nervous about interfering in businesses or having additional regulation or requirements on business. But this is something that I thoroughly support. An agency like the ASD, with the expertise that they have, should be in a position to provide all the necessary support to businesses. Not only do we want to look after them and support them but also, by the very nature of the definition that they are critical infrastructure, they're doing things that are vital in our society, and they are a very high-risk target to people who may wish harm upon Australia and our interests.
For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House, and I thank all those who made contributions. I am pleased that this legislation will have bipartisan support. It's important and necessary legislation that we should pass and give this new capability and this new framework to the ASD and other government agencies so they can get on with the good work they're doing in protecting our country.
Before I make some remarks on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020, I want to acknowledge the work being done right now by our warfare counter-cyberoperatives, Australians who are right now defending our country and our economy at the ASD and obviously at other agencies and in other organisations and businesses. They're in the fight on the front line right now.
As we've heard from several speakers, every eight minutes or so there's a cyberattack on our country. That's an attack on our economy, on our way of life and on our sovereignty, so this is very important legislation. Whilst I agree with some of the comments made by the speakers on our side about the delays and the misunderstandings that have been consistent in getting us to this point today, I nonetheless want to acknowledge the government in finally introducing these new laws to ensure the resilience and safeguarding of Australia's critical infrastructure, which most definitely has our support.
The government is introducing these new laws to ensure the resilience and safeguarding of Australia's critical infrastructure. There are many threats, ranging from natural hazards such as weather events to more direct, human induced threats, including interference, cyberattacks, espionage, or chemical or oil spills, to give some examples, as well as attacks by insiders. They all have the opportunity and the potential to significantly disrupt our critical infrastructure.
Pervasive threat of cyberenabled attacks and manipulation of critical infrastructure assets is very serious and considerable, as we heard and as we read almost daily. The scope and impact is significant, and there is an increasing, unprecedented rate of these cyberattacks. If at the start of my contribution there was a cyberattack and those Australians were fighting against it, trying to stop it and mitigate the damage, by the end of this contribution there will have been another one and Australians will again be at the fore of protecting our nation. So we are critical of the delays but on the same ticket in terms of the intent of this bill, because we are facing increasing cybersecurity threats to our essential services, to our businesses and to all levels of government, as we have experienced in our own federal Parliament House. The Commonwealth's parliament's IT systems have come under attack, as we're all well aware.
In the past two years, cyberattacks have also hit networks in the health and food sectors, media and, as all listeners will understand, our universities, where there's not only disruption of the work at our universities but the theft of our brilliant, internationally-acclaimed intellectual property from our brilliant academics and researchers.
Internationally, cyberattacks have disrupted critical sectors, including water and fuel supplies in the United States. In this threat environment, it's crucial that Australia's technical authority, the Australian Signals Directorate, is empowered to assist entities in responding to significant cybersecurity threats and incidents to secure our critical infrastructure assets.
Now, as speakers have already mentioned, these are last-resort powers and affected entities will undoubtedly retain their reservations and their right to keep a keen eye on all bills policies that federal governments have. In supporting this legislation, we are relying on the intention stated in the bill, as given by the department and agency heads, that these powers will only be used as a last resort. With this in mind, it is very important to emphasise that the PJCIS, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, will be notified and briefed each time the government enacts this power and will conduct a full review of the legislation when additional critical infrastructure reforms are introduced by the government. In evidence provided to the committee, witnesses overwhelmingly indicated their willingness to cooperate with ASD. Government assistance powers would only be needed in the event that an affected entity is unwilling or unable to respond appropriately. Thus, these measures should only be needed rarely, if ever. In the instance that there is disagreement between an entity and ASD, in the best course of action the bill does incorporate the committee's recommendation to include safeguards that require the minister to consider multiple impacts and current responses to any actions under this legislation.
The government itself has conceded that more work needs to be done in communicating, consulting and responding to concerns regarding its proposed positive security obligations for critical infrastructure sectors. These are important initiatives, and they need to be done properly. As the member for Gellibrand said, government agencies and the federal government itself need to engage with industry more. They need to build a deeper level of understanding and build a deeper level of trust and together build a deeper level of expertise to meet the threats that are increasing, that are significant and that could do great harm to our nation and, obviously, great harm to the economy. We need to build that resilience together. The member himself has a great deal of experience in this industry, and I hope that the federal government takes his contribution and looks at it very seriously indeed, because there is bipartisan support for this bill and bipartisan support for securing our nation from all threats. Cyber is becoming a domain and already is a domain where significant threats can materialise.
As I said, by now, those Australians working at ASD and in other agencies are combatting yet another cyberattack. This is real. It's happening every day, every eight minutes, so it's good that this legislation has finally arrived. Cyberspace is such an important domain and it's a place where threats to our nation can arise and are continually arising. It is such a crucial domain and it's one that I, having a responsibility as a federal representative, have been seeking to understand at a deeper level so that I am able to support, to the best of my ability, those Australians who right now are countering these threats. I recently, with the member for Bean, spent some time on an ADF parliamentary program focused on cyber: cyberwarfare, cyberdefence, cyberoffence. We visited a number of organisations that are providing cyber and information warfare capabilities to Defence and the whole of the Australian government. I was incredibly impressed by the intelligence and adaptability of these mostly young, some not so young, Australians who are operating in this domain, defending our sovereignty and defending our economy, so I want to give a shout out to all of those. Obviously I won't give your names, but I want to acknowledge the importance of the ADF Parliamentary Program that gives the opportunity for elected federal members to spend time with the ADF to understand the seriousness of the work you do and the need for proper resourcing. I acknowledge Lieutenant Colonel Andy Martin and also the host for that event from the Navy. They are exceptional Australians doing fantastic work.
In the time remaining, I will do something that I think we should all do more often, and that is provide some contextual information to Australians who are tuning in today about this domain of cyberspace and the incredibly important work that ASD and some of our ADF defence agencies are doing. Cyberspace is a global domain within the information environment, consisting of an interdependent network of information technology infrastructure including the internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems and embedded processes and controllers. The resident data is used to store, modify, exchange, process and collaborate on information. Cyberspace is unbound by physical location or international boundaries. It is like the matrix; it's everywhere. Cyberspace provides users with unprecedented access to information, audiences and critical targets across vast distances, and this is why it is so important. On a day-to-day basis you are in this domain and you are potentially the subject of some sort of attack or even monitoring. That's why it needs the vigilance of the operators in this environment and the interest, concern and resourcing of government to work closely with industry to make sure that Australians are protected as much as possible.
There can be conflict within cyberspace, and we learnt more about what we can do and where we're under-resourced in this area during that parliamentary program. Conflict in cyberspace can be conducted across large geographic distances, and it can have significant effects. We visited and spent time with the Information Warfare Division, which was formed only recently, in 2017, in the Department of Defence. It's formation was part of an initiative by the Australian government to combat threats to Australia's national interests in the information environment. I acknowledge Major General Susan Coyle, CSC, DSM, who is the Head of Information Warfare—this fifth-domain warfare for the defence of our nation. It's incredibly important work. She is a very impressive person who I've known for some time, and I really wish that division all the very best in its important work, as I do the Australian Signals Directorate for their important work.
There are great Australians doing work every day to protect our nation, our sovereignty and our prosperity by protecting our economy, and they're unsung heroes. They are not out on the front line in another country. They are here defending, in the cyberspace domain, our people, our country and our way of life. It is incredibly important work. So even though you are necessarily anonymous in the work that you do, I reconfirm from federal Labor—and, I'm sure, all parliamentarians—our thanks to you for the important work that you do and our support for this legislation that will be used as a last resort, should it be needed in this essential business that we are in of defending the Australian people with every resource that we have at our disposal.
I'm pleased to rise to speak on the second reading of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020. In my view, what makes Australia probably the best country in the world is the ease of access to critical services. Every Australian has learnt through experience to have high expectations when it comes to accessing those services, and rightly so. We have an expectation because, on the whole, things just work. We expect our lights to go on. We expect our water to run. We expect our kids to have easy access to education. We expect to have access to our own money, our own bank accounts—and it goes on and on and on. Unfortunately, recent events have posed a threat to this access and, in very real terms, to what makes this country what it is and how it works. We take for granted that our services will just simply work, that the security of these services is assured and that we maintain sovereignty of those services, but increasingly we are faced with the sad fact that this may not be and is not the case. In reality, our critical services are so interconnected in nature that if the cybersecurity of one of them is breached the domino effect could result in significant consequences to not only our national security but our economy and our sovereignty, and that is completely unacceptable for a country as free as ours.
When our essential services are faced with a physical threat, such as fires or floods, it's a given that government agencies and the wider Australian public will do whatever they can to preserve the critical running of those services. I know that in 2019 when bushfires engulfed my own electorate of Cowper and then again in 2021 when we had the devastating floods we made sure the access way to our hospitals and fire services were maintained. We prioritised the protection of phone towers and electricity poles. We set up perimeters. We called for reinforcements. Once a catastrophic physical event occurs, we reassess our situation and form plans as to how best to protect ourselves from that disruption ever happening again. We look at the experiences and best practices from around the world. We learn and evolve. We adjust and change our safeguards accordingly. When it comes to a physical threat, this type of response is a given, but the fact remains that what you can't see can hurt you. In fact, the threats posed by cyberattacks on our essential service networks are more catastrophic than any individual physical threat could ever be, and the response to safeguard these services from such attacks needs to be appropriately significant.
We've seen from overseas the extreme impact of cyberincidents such as the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline in the US, which affected the distribution of fuel throughout the country. On home soil, in the past couple of years, we've seen cyberattacks on this place, the federal parliament, on logistics in the medical sector and on universities—and these are only the ones that were publicised in the media. In fact, in the 2021 financial year, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, or the ACSC, received over 67,500 cybercrime reports. That's an average of one every eight minutes. Concerningly, this represents an increase of 13 per cent from the previous financial year. I don't know what's more concerning about those figures—the 13 per cent increase or the fact that the ACSC received close to 60,000 cybercrime reports even before the true impact of COVID hit us.
Since COVID, there has been an increasing trend towards ransomware related activities, with demands ranging from thousands to millions of dollars, and, increasingly, cybercriminals are moving away from low-level attacks on individuals in our community to the larger, more profitable, high-end organisations. In short, they're essentially going for the big fish, and the big fish tend to be our critical services. To increase the likelihood of ransoms actually being paid, cybercriminals are encrypting networks, exfiltrating data and then threatening to publish the stolen information online for all to see. The risk that this poses is not just to Australians but to our national security, and it grows more menacing as the shifts in targeting and tactics intensify.
The reforms outlined in the amendment bill will strengthen Australia's ability to effectively respond to serious cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Pleasingly, as a first step, the bill expands the definition of 'critical infrastructure' in response to society's evolving modern needs. The government will continue to review these definitions to ensure they remain current, given the changing technologies and threats. Fundamentally, a service is deemed critical when it's considered to be the case that, if the asset were destroyed, there would be a significant detrimental impact to our basic standard of living, to Australia's wealth and prosperity or to the security of large or sensitive data holdings. Taking this into account, critical infrastructure will now include energy, communications, financial services, defence industry, higher education and research, data storage and processing, food and grocery, health care and medical, space technology, transport, and water and sewerage.
The bill looks to introduce a cyberincident reporting regime for critical infrastructure assets. To effectively protect our critical infrastructure, we need to truly understand the threat, and no-one and no group can do that without the proper data and the proper information. If incidents aren't reported, we can't be expected to learn from them and stop them from happening again or from escalating in the future. The reporting regime will require entities to report cybersecurity incidents to the Australian Cyber Security Centre through the ReportCyber portal and provide ownership and operator information for the Register of Critical Infrastructure Assets. Critical infrastructure entities will have up to 12 hours to report a critical cybersecurity incident, once they become aware of it, and up to 72 hours to report other cybersecurity incidents, the timing of which aligns with other existing reporting regimes, both nationally and globally.
The next step of the bill relates to making government assistance available to industry, as a last resort and subject to appropriate limitations. There may be situations where there is an imminent cybersecurity threat or an incident that poses a risk of negatively impacting Australia's national interest. Where responding to such a situation is beyond the capability of the asset's owners or operators, the reforms will provide government with the ability to provide reasonable and proportionate directions or assistance to those entities to resolve the incidents. These actions will focus exclusively on protecting and defending the asset, noting its importance to the economy, to society or to defence, and it will be a criminal offence not to comply with the directions made under the government's assistance regime. It is important to note that intervention on this scale may be authorised only once the Minister for Home Affairs has sought agreement from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. It should be noted that these powers are clearly defined and confined, proportionate and appropriate, and subject to a range of safeguards.
The reporting regime and government assistance powers recognise that industry has a role to play too, and this imposition of obligations on business is an important part of a comprehensive response to the serious challenges we face.
In conclusion: we, as Australians, have a right to assume that our critical services will continue to work now and into the future; we, as Australians, have a right to assume that our sovereignty is secure when it comes to accessing what we have come to expect are basic services to the modern world and a right to assume that our government is doing everything within its power to preserve the security of our essential services and our economy. I note—and it's pleasing to see—that both sides of the House have approached this in a bipartisan way. This bill is a critical step towards facilitating the government's and the private sector's ability to meet those fundamental assumptions. As the type and scale of the threat to Australians' way of life continues to evolve, so too must the legislation in place evolve to counteract those threats, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is proactively doing so.
I echo a lot of the previous speakers in saying the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 is an important bill. Australia is facing increasing cybersecurity threats, which underscores the need for this legislation. Those threats are not just to the private sector but to government, essential services and the stuff that sits in the middle, if you like, between the public and private sectors—critical infrastructure which is regulated in various ways by government but may be provided in the private sector and, of course, by individuals.
These are crimes and scams which concern so many in the community, from the proverbial little old lady being scammed out of small amounts of money, as has been said, to crimes that increasingly are rising up the value chain—the modern equivalents of the bank heist. But even more serious are the threats to essential services and critical infrastructure which this bill primarily concerns itself with. We have already seen, in the United States, examples of fuel and water infrastructure being disrupted by cybercriminals and cyberattacks. In this bill the government, for once—to their credit—are focused on an important issue, but typically, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security found, they've mucked up their legislation quite profoundly. So I'm pleased that the minister—and it's good that we've actually got someone in the Home Affairs ministry at least impersonating an adult, after the obstinacy of the previous incumbent, who liked to say no just for the fun of it—has listened to the PJCIS, a government controlled committee, and the opposition and agreed to split the bill in half. With the half bill going forward we will of course vote for it.
The half of the bill that was retained and will go forward with everyone's support includes expanding the definition of critical infrastructure beyond the four sectors that were already covered—electricity, gas, water and ports—to incorporate seven new systems of national significance. The list will now be: communications, financial services and markets, data storage and processing, defence industry, higher education and research, energy, food and groceries, health care and medical, space technology, transport, and water and sewerage.
The second thing the bill, or half bill, will take forward is the introduction of additional reporting requirements for cyberincidents that affect critical infrastructure assets, which, of course, are the critical intelligence-collecting tools for the responsible agencies.
The parts of the bill that the PJCIS said, in essence, were half-baked, would do more harm than good if they proceeded and needed a further reworking include the requirement to introduce 'government assistance to relevant entities for critical infrastructure sector assets in response to significant cyberattacks' and the introduction of 'additional positive security obligations for critical infrastructure assets, including a risk management program, to be delivered through sector-specific requirements'. In essence, these things need more consultation with industry.
Just about everyone out in the real world—experts and people who actually run this critical infrastructure—who examined the government's proposals had reservations and said that the process was flawed, that the consultation process leading up to the drafting of the legislation was inadequate, that there was an unknown and totally unquantifiable regulatory impact of much of it because of the ham-fisted way the government had brought the legislation in and that there was far too much detail unknown left to the regulations. It makes sense in this kind of stuff that not everything is codified in the legislation and that many decision points would be left in the regulations. But, when you are introducing an entirely new regime with potentially enormous compliance costs and regulatory burden on industry, the regulations should be developed and consulted with alongside the legislation. Sure, they can be amended down the track by the responsible minister, but it's not an adequate way of actually bringing in a whole new regime, imposing costs on whole sectors of the economy, to not be able to tell them what they're actually up for instead of, 'Oh, don't worry. Trust us; we're the government.'
An aspect of the legislation which has received significant media attention is, if you like, the big stick intervention power. Obviously the home affairs minister wanted a big stick after the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction got himself a big stick. It gives the ASD the power to assist entities—'assist is a very polite government word, but I think it means to intervene and take control—whether they like it or not in responding to significant cybersecurity incidents to secure critical infrastructure assets. We take the government's assurances that these extreme powers would be used only in emergency events, and quite rightly there's a reporting regime through the PJCIS.
That kind of wraps up my comments on the bill itself. But I do want to note that the government, through this, is imposing a lot on the private sector—new standards, new accountability and a pretty heavy-duty intervention power. The government, though, are in no position, really, to lecture anyone on cybersecurity or cyber-resilience. They're in their ninth year and their record on cybersecurity—and that of their own government departments and agencies—is abysmal. The government need to get their own house in order, really, before they can with credibility tell the private sector that they're going to put all these compliance costs on them. Indeed, as we've just discussed, they can't even quantify what the costs might be.
In my just over five years in the parliament, I've sat on the Public Accounts and Audit Committee. It's not for everyone—it can be pretty dry—but it's a really important and fascinating committee, because you constantly rove across every part of government, working closely with the Auditor-General. I read and look at all the audit reports that come through. One of the most common themes of the Auditor-General, who I think is now six years into his 10-career term, is noncompliance by the government year after year. We in this committee feel like goldfish, going round and round in the bowl seeing the same thing—government departments not complying with the cybersecurity standards. For my sins, last year when I was stuck in Canberra for long slabs—six weeks or eight weeks—I decided one Sunday to sit down and read a whole bunch of stuff, including the Auditor-General's mid-term report. He did a report, five years through his 10-year term. I know, I know—it's fascinating! It is actually a great report. The Auditor-General is a really clever, thoughtful man who's got a view across government. I would recommend that nerdy members—I know there are a few more out there—actually take the time to have a look at this stuff on occasion. It's five years of reflections. He said:
… the category which consistently has the most number of financial audit findings raised relates to the information technology control environment, with the most common area relating to weaknesses in security management. These findings are consistent with the conclusions in performance audits of cyber security, which have also consistently identified non-compliance.
With cyber security being an area of government priority—
or so they say; they say it is a priority but they don't do much—
for many years, these findings are disappointing.
The Auditor-General is, of course, prone to understatement and measured language. 'Disappointing' is pretty high up in his lexicon of 'no good', 'not good enough' 'got to do something' and 'got to improve things'. He went on to document:
Cyber resilience and compliance with mandatory IT security policies has been a key program of audit in recent years.
In other words, 'I do this year after year.'
This government spent eight years cutting the Auditor-General's budget, year after year, to reduce scrutiny—an effective cut of over 22 per cent by the time the government was finally shamed this year into starting to reverse that trajectory. Even with that cut of 22 per cent to reduce scrutiny of this government's performance, rorts, waste and mismanagement, the Auditor-General has found space and resources every year to keep looking at cybersecurity and cyber-resilience, and every year this government fails its own tests. Since 2013-14, when the government came to office, the ANAO conducted five performance audits—this was a couple of years ago, they have done a couple more—looking at 17 different government entities. The audits found:
… compliance with mandatory requirements of information security continued to be low.
These are not 'nice to do'. They're not, 'This would be a good idea.' These are the mandatory requirements the government puts on itself, which they continue to fail. Let's be really clear: this bill is putting massive new requirements on the real economy out there, and the government, for eight years, has failed to get its own house in order.
The 2018 Cyber Resilience audit found that low levels of compliance were driven by entities not adopting a risk-based approach to prioritise improvements to cyber security, and cyber security investments being focused on short-term operational needs rather than long-term strategic objectives.
That's a bit like the government really.
The government should be an exemplar in these things. The private sector should be able to look to the government and see the best practice in cybersecurity on behalf of Australians, given the critical data and critical essential services which the government operates, at least those which they haven't managed to privatise yet.
I'll read a few examples to keep making the point. In a recent audit report looking at the cybersecurity strategies of non-corporate Commonwealth entities—that's Public Service speak for 'departments that aren't corporatised'—the auditor general looked at the Attorney-General's Department; the Australian Signals Directorate; the Department of Home Affairs—they're the big three, aren't they? They're responsible for cybersecurity policy—the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Future Fund Management Agency—there's just a few billion going on there—the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Austrade; the Department of Education, Skills and Employment; the Department of Health—there's a little bit of secret data there, maybe—and IP Australia. Guess what he found?
None of the seven selected entities examined have fully implemented all the mandatory Top Four mitigation strategies.
The top four are the mandatory four that have been mandatory for years. So none of those seven agencies last year had even got the top four. The government now—finally, after years of being poked by the Public Accounts and Audit Committee—have said, 'Yes, you're right; we should mandate the essential eight.' The government have just put new standards on, and they haven't even met the four that we've been pushing for for the last few years.
Even worse, perhaps, than the noncompliance is that the agencies, year after year, are still deluding themselves, the government, the parliament and, therefore, the public about how they're actually going. This is the key point I want to make, and it does relate to the bill: we really need to think about, as we're putting these requirements on the private sector, how we are working in the public sector to get cybersecurity and cyber-resilience standards up. The current system relies on self-assessment. I'll just go back to the Auditor-General's mid-term report. It's a great summary. He said:
The public sector operates largely under a self-regulatory approach.
Policy owners—the Department of Finance, for some things; the Attorney-General's Department; the Home Affairs Department; and the Public Service Commission—establish rules of operation and then largely leave it to the head of each department or agency to be responsible for the compliance, reporting to the minister.
There are almost no formal mechanisms in these frameworks to provide assurance on compliance. Often the ANAO—
when they randomly come in, every 20 years, in some cases, to smaller agencies—
is the only source of compliance reporting and our resources mean that coverage is quite limited.
That's very polite code for, 'The government doesn't give us enough money, because they keep cutting our budget,' just to remind people again.
That's the Auditor-General pointing out that, in cybersecurity, the government sets a bunch of standards and then says, 'It's up to the departments.' There's supposed to be an audit framework around that, where departments assess themselves every year against a checklist and report that in. What the Auditor-General consistently finds is that they delude themselves. They just tick the boxes and go: 'Yes, we're going well. It's all good; it's tickety-boo. We've got four out of four here with the big four.' I have read so many of these audits. To quote again from the same audit report, No. 32 of 2021, which looked at those seven departments:
For the three entities that had self-assessed full implementation for one or more of the Top Four mitigation strategies … two had not done so accurately. None of these three entities were cyber resilient.
Even worse than the fact that there are still problems in compliance—no doubt because of resources, culture or whatever—is the fact that the reports which come into the parliament and the government aren't even right. That's an issue I believe we seriously need to look at.
We can't just let this roll on. It has gone on for the six years I've been on the committee. Gai Brodtmann, the former member for Canberra, went round and round in circles on this for years. It's basically been the entire term of this government's office. It's their ninth year, and they have not taken their own responsibilities seriously. Of the three entities, only Treasury was compliant with the top four mitigation strategies—a tick to Treasury. National Archives was not compliant. Geoscience Australia wasn't compliant, and they've got critical national security data. Audit reports for years found that, with Services Australia and their system redevelopment, the cybersecurity risk framework was not appropriately managed and operating costs were not monitored. In relation to the My Health Record system, the ANAO found that 'management of shared cybersecurity risks was not appropriate and should be improved'. In planning for the 2021 census, the ANAO found 'the ABS has not fully implemented all the lessons from the 2016 census, particularly in relation to developing its cybersecurity'.
I will spare the House my reading the rest of them, given that I have only one minute left, but you get the point. This has gone on for years. For the government to say, 'We're going to put these standards on the private sector,' while they don't have their own house in order shows that the system isn't working. That's the point. It's a systemic problem now. We actually need to change the way we do this assurance process. I'll draw a parallel with financial accounts. Government departments don't just take their financial accounts and dump them into parliament and say, 'Here are our accounts.' There's a robust and rigorous system of independent audit and assurance over those accounts. We've just completed a 10-year reform program, so the performance statements of government departments in the corporate plans are now going to get a mandatory robust independent audit and assurance system over them. That's my point and that's what I'm calling for. We need a similarly robust, independent assurance because we can no longer trust what the government agencies are telling the government.
I commend half of the bill—not the dud half that the government mucked up. I commend half of the bill and I call on the government to get their own house in order.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020. The expanding threat of cybersecurity vulnerability and malicious cyberactivity has become increasingly evident in recent years. While Australia has enjoyed relative security in this regard, the incidence of cyberattacks, ransomware and the exploitation of system vulnerabilities has been increasing in frequency, scale and sophistication in recent years. In Australia, recent high-profile cybersecurity incidents affecting government departments, including parliamentary networks, major logistics and transport companies, the health sector, education providers and media companies have brought public attention to this issue. Internationally, there have been cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, including water services and airports. In the year 2019-20, the Australian Cyber Security Centre reported 2,266 cybersecurity incidents with just over one-third of those incidents coming from critical infrastructure companies and assets. However, the ASD has said that this is expected to be just a fraction of the number of cyber incidents affecting critical infrastructure, given the voluntary nature of reporting.
The Australian Cyber Security Centre notes that phishing and spear phishing remain the most common methods used by cyberadversaries to gain access to networks or to distribute malicious content. Typically, this involves an unsuspecting user executing or opening a file that they received via email as part of a spear-phishing campaign. The ASD has also publicly noted that, alongside the increasing sophistication of cybercriminals, the likelihood and severity of cyberattacks is also increasing due to our growing dependence on new information technology platforms and interconnected devices and systems. While the 5G mobile network will underpin Australia's transition to a more digital economy and the internet and internet connected devices will enable a greater flow of information and efficiencies than ever before, it also makes us more vulnerable to significant threats to our infrastructure, our information and systems more broadly. It's against this background that the SOCI bill was first introduced late last year and, indeed, the explanatory memorandum to this bill makes the point very clearly:
Critical infrastructure is increasingly interconnected and interdependent, delivering efficiencies and economic benefits to operations. However, connectivity without proper safeguards creates vulnerabilities that can deliberately or inadvertently cause disruption and result in cascading consequences across our economy, security and sovereignty.
… … …
… the interconnected nature of our critical infrastructure means that compromise of one essential function can have a domino effect that degrades or disrupts others.
Because of these factors, the amendments in this bill were designed to enhance the obligations in the SOCI act and expand its coverage to sectors including communications, financial services and markets, data storage and processing, defence industry, higher education and research, energy, food and grocery, health care and medical, space technology, transport, water and sewerage.
Following its introduction in December 2020, the bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security later that month. The committee received over 80 submissions to this inquiry and held a number of private and public hearings. As is noted in the advisory report that the PJCIS tabled on 29 September 2021, while there was general acknowledgement from all submitters of the level of the threat and the need to do more, there were a number of conflicting views and opinions over elements of the bill. Before coming to those conflicting views or issues, and the government's response to the PJCIS advisory report, it is worth noting some of the evidence presented to the committee regarding the level of the threat.
When outlining these threats and the increasing challenge of preparing, hardening and countering assets, the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs said this to the committee:
Cyberattacks will soon reach global pandemic proportions. This has been building for about five years but has accelerated over the course of the COVID pandemic.
… … …
Basic cybersecurity protections will always help, but malicious actors, such as cybercriminals, state sponsored actors and state actors themselves will defeat the best defences that firms, families and individuals can buy. We have to do what we can, of course, to defend our own networks and devices against known vulnerabilities. However, just as we do not rely on home security alarms and door locks to deal with serious and organised crime, we cannot leave firms, families and individuals on the field on their own.
Evidence at the committee was also received from a panel of experts, and one of those experts in the public hearing on 9 July highlighted the shift in the cyberthreat environment. Mr Chris Krebs noted:
… there have been three strategic shifts over the last several years in the threat actor landscape. First … was ransomware and criminal actors.
… … …
I think the second strategic shift that we've seen was probably over the last two to three years, where, rather than go after their primary targets through the front door, the intelligence apparatus of our adversaries—traditionally, from the US perspective at least, we call that Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, but obviously there are others—have sought to effectively use the global ICT ecosystem, the systems we use on a daily basis, as a real-time collection apparatus.
… … …
The third and final strategic shift that I'd suggest we really prioritise is a shifting to functional disruptions and moving away from purely reconnaissance and intelligence collection.
The committee also heard evidence that the rise of cyber-enabled crime and security threats has not been counted evenly by entities and that there has been an uneven investment in cybersecurity. There are companies out there who have been spending almost a billion dollars a year on cybersecurity programs, which is clearly a significant investment, but it's also true that that is not consistent across any industry anywhere.
As noted earlier, while the need for reforms was not contested in evidence to the inquiry, a number of significant concerns were expressed about aspects of the bill and the process taken to develop it. The detail on these is found in the PJCIS advisory report, and I will outline a number of them. The first of those regards the timeline for the co-design of rules and economic modelling. There was concern that there was insufficient time for that to be done. A second concern that was raised by a number of submitters was around the variation in the breadth and specificity in the definitions of what would be included and what a critical infrastructure asset is. That caused concern in various sectors that the definitions were either too specific or too broad. Another concern was the unknown regulatory burden of positive security obligations. Then there was a concern about the time frames outlined in the bill for the notification of cybersecurity incidents to ASD under proposed part 2B. The final concern raised was that the potential reach of the powers in the bill was not being accompanied by appropriate authorisation or oversight mechanisms in the eyes of some.
Ultimately, as noted in the advisory report, the PJCIS, a bipartisan committee, whilst strongly supporting the aims of the bill, came to the conclusion that it would need a significant amount of redrafting to pass in its entirety in a way that was going to ensure maximum buy-in and maximum understanding. The committee reached the conclusion that that would be required to be able to respond to the level of concerns that had been raised in an appropriate fashion. The committee's concern was that doing so would significantly delay the time-critical elements of the bill. As a result of that, the PJCIS made 14 recommendations in the advisory report, including splitting the bill into two separate bills with a first bill to incorporate the measures to respond to cyberincidents and cyberincident reporting as well as associated definitions and powers. What we are discussing today is actually the government's response to the PJCIS report and, in particular, the recommendation to split the bill into two separate bills.
The amendments in what we're discussing today are effectively creating the first of those bills. The key measures retained in this particular bill include: first, government assistance to relevant entities for critical infrastructure sector assets in response to serious cybersecurity incidents that impact on Australia's critical infrastructure assets. Second is the mechanism by which cyberincident reporting to the ASD may be required by responsible entities for critical infrastructure assets that are subject to cybersecurity incidents. Thirdly, it has expanded the definition of 'critical infrastructure assets' to include assets across the 11 industry sectors, so increasing them from four to 11. Importantly, this bill also extends—this concern was raised, and so has been actively addressed—the period for making a written cybersecurity incident report to the ASD. It also addresses another concern that had been raised by increasing the level of consultation and oversight which is going to be carried out as the next bill is developed.
By way of finishing, there is no doubt that cybersecurity threats are very real and potentially very significant, and doing something as soon as possible is imperative. The bipartisan committee, the PJCIS, acknowledges this very real threat but also identifies significant concerns with the draft bill which could potentially undermine it achieving its aims and goals. On this point I note the criticism from earlier opposition speakers, although I note that none of them actually sat on the committee. They criticised the government's approach on this bill and the failure to get the legislation perfect the first time. If only it were remotely possible to draft perfect legislation for anything or to have a perfect process for anything. I also dismiss those criticisms because this legislation concerns an area that involves many different sectors facing many different threats, and they are evolving in a very fast-changing landscape. We heard in the evidence that was given to the committee and which I cited earlier that some of these threats are only just emerging. The third wave of what we are now concerned about is actually just emerging. It's not that we've been sitting back and watching all this happen before responding. A lot of these threats, and their increase and their severity, have been within the last three to five years, if not in the last 12 to 18 months. The fact that the PJCIS works in the way that it does—that it gets the opportunity to have inquiries into bills and to hear from experts and then to effectively give recommendations to the government in a bipartisan way, pointing out issues that have emerged through that process—is to me a sign that democracy is working and that there are good checks and balances. I believe that the fact that the minister and the government responded to the recommendations of the committee reflects responsible and sound governance by this government. I commend this bill to the House.
[by video link] Good afternoon and hello from Hobart. I'd like to echo the considered comments of the member for Curtin, the previous speaker. I believe the member is quite right that the cyberthreat to the public and private sectors is very real and very significant. It's more diverse than people might have once believed. We have the obvious perpetrators, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, and we have seemingly countless criminal gangs attacking the Australian public and private sectors. We also have state-sponsored criminal actors. Regrettably, we even have allies who like to eavesdrop on the public and private sectors in Australia to try to find out what's going on. I'm too polite to list some of those countries. We would be naive to think that anyone and everyone don't have an interest in our electronic world and in our data and aren't attempting to obtain some of it.
That's a longwinded way of saying there's obviously merit in the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020. I applaud the government for trying to take action against the cyberthreat to this country. I think it's also good that the government split, albeit at the last minute, the original bill in accordance with the strong recommendation of the PJCIS. The original bill was unsatisfactory, and it's wise to have carved out what the government thinks are the most urgent aspects of the bill to try to get them through the parliament this week. I say that in essence.
However, I note that both the PJCIS and the Australian Signals Directorate have cast doubt on the urgency of getting anything through the parliament this week. The Australian Signals Directorate mentioned earlier in the year that the likelihood of this legislation being used is 'very rare'—and I understand those were the words they used. Why are we continuing to act with such urgency, when we could slow it down and make sure that the provisions in these reforms are really well crafted, watertight and effective? I think we're missing an opportunity there. We're creating perhaps to some degree too much concern about getting this through this week.
I will also ventilate a couple of other concerns with this bill. I think it does give excessive power to the government and the minister in particular because the people who affected by the decisions of the government and the minister don't have any resort to judicial review or any sort of effective independent oversight of the decisions of the government or the minister. In fact, I note that in the bill before the House now the right to judicial review is explicitly carved out and denied to the people or organisations that would be affected by the decisions of the government and the minister in the future.
I also make the point that the reforms in this bill are not adequately funded. I do note that in the last federal budget there was $42 million set aside to secure critical infrastructure, but I suggest that it's patently obvious that to do this job properly we will need many multiples of that and we can't rely on existing government agencies, like the ASD, to raid their own existing budgets to implement additional safeguards. They need additional funding. I would certainly support that occurring.
Talking more broadly than just the provisions of this bill, I take this opportunity to say that the government has a lot more work to do. Yes, it does need to rework what we now know as the second bill, the bit that has been put aside. It needs to get that right. It needs to go slowly. It needs to work closely with all stakeholders. It needs to listen to their reasonable concerns and address all reasonable concerns. The cyberthreat to this country is too big an issue to not get right and to not properly fund. The government also needs to do much more work more broadly.
I did 20 years in the Army. I did a lot of work on vital asset protection and I well know you can't have a platoon of infantry soldiers on every vital asset in the country, or a battalion at every port, or a division along every strategic railway line. We can't do that in a practical sense so we have to be clever about the way we respond to the threats from nation states.
We also need to do much more work on other threats to our critical infrastructure. I'm talking about our physical infrastructure now, and the obvious example of that is, of course, our telecommunications infrastructure. We learned through the terrible bushfires of 18 months ago that our critical communications infrastructure is terribly, terribly vulnerable. In fact, the Australian Communications and Media Authority claim that nearly 1,400 telecommunications facilities were directly or indirectly affected during the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires, during which the average outage was 3½ days and the longest was 23 days. Of course bushfires are going to destroy infrastructure, but there are all sorts of things we can do to make our physical infrastructure more robust. For example, better battery storage to cover outages in mains powers to phone towers, the purchase of more mobile telephony facilitates for mobile phones.
I do note that since the bushfires the government has put some more money into this, but, again, it's a bit like the funding for the reforms before House today about cybersecurity, it's not enough. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can throw several tens of millions of dollars at these issues and then sleep easy at night, that our technical and our physical infrastructure and our data are all safe. It won't be. We're up against forces that are very, very well funded. We are up against the climate which is becoming increasingly unpredictable and severe. We need to harden this country in all the ways we can and we need to be prepared to pay for it.
Also, when we're talking about the security of this country—this might be some way from the substantive matter before the House at the moment, but I actually think it's very relevant. If we are going to talk about cybersecurity and we are going to talk about hardening our physical infrastructure and things like being more robust against natural disasters, we have also got to talk, and in more detail, about all the other ways that foreign actors interfere in our sovereignty and in our national security, particularly when you look at national security in the broadest sense, which brings me to the issue, again, of reviewing the foreign investment provisions in this country.
It is a good thing, obviously, that the Treasurer said at the start of COVID that there would be a national security assessment of all foreign investment. But to the best of my knowledge, that was, or is, a temporary arrangement, tied very much to COVID and the risk of foreign actors, foreign corporates, raiding Australian corporates when they are vulnerable during COVID. I think that those national security safeguards should be permanent and apply all the time.
I think we should go a lot further when it comes to the conduct of the Foreign Investment Review Board and what the Treasurer and the government allows in the future. Here are a couple of ideas for you, Deputy Speaker. For starters, the Foreign Investment Review Board should apply much tougher scrutiny of investment that could adversely affect Australia's agricultural, business and property sectors, including the commercial property sector, as well as—I suppose this is the new bit—our cultural, environmental and heritage wellbeing. This scrutiny must apply equally to all foreign investors with no exemptions.
An example of a specific reform is that all purchases of agricultural land worth over $2 million should go to the Foreign Investment Review Board, instead of the current threshold of $15 million. And there needs to be greater reliance on land leases instead of freehold title. That last point is something that comes up with me constantly in my community. They're acknowledging this country was built on foreign investment and we need foreign investment. I'm not anti foreign investment. It's just got to be on our terms. That includes if someone wants to farm a substantial piece of farmland or broadacre prime agricultural land. Maybe that can be allowed, but it must be leasehold not freehold title. My constituents raise that all the time: lease farmland to foreign interests; don't sell it to foreign interests. The current business investment requirement that all acquisitions on an interest of 20 per cent or more in any Australian business valued at over $261 million should also be applied to all foreign investment instead of the current practice of allowing carve outs for favoured trading partners, including China—remember that we have some sort of trade agreement with China, apparently—Japan, Korea, Singapore, New Zealand and the United States. That was very free-ranging omnibus of matters connected with cybersecurity, but I maintain that my point is valid: the government needs to work harder to safeguard Australia's sovereignty and security.
When it comes to cybersecurity, let's properly fund what's before us today. Let's talk to stakeholders and ensure that concerns that still exist about the bill before the House today, including the fact that there's no judicial review of ministerial decisions, are addressed. Let's fix those sorts of things. The sign of a good government is one that is not pigheaded but instead listens to stakeholders, to the crossbench and to the opposition, takes on board all of the good ideas that come from all directions and implements them—and properly funds the measures before the House today. But it also needs to look at all the other ways in which we can safeguard Australia's national security, not just cybersecurity but also our defence arrangements, hardening our infrastructure against natural disasters and looking afresh at our foreign investment provisions. That's something that would be very appealing to a great many Australians. There are so many things we could be doing and need to be doing, not just the edgy things like cybersecurity that are getting all the publicity at the moment.
I'll leave it there. I commend the bill in essence, although it's flawed, and I look forward to the other half of the bill coming before the House, which needs to be much improved in what was in the original version.
[by video link] I wonder how many government members have two-factor or three-factor authentication enabled on their systems on their phones and computers. I wonder how many use the password 'password123' to get into secure networks. I wonder how many of them leave their laptops open or unattended in an office or on a plane or have TikTok on their phone. Now I ask the same of every public servant in this nation. Every public servant has access to highly privileged information—information that could be dangerous or at least embarrassing in the wrong hands. The digital literacy of this government and their departments leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, the same can be said for the private sector as well. Honestly, the digital literacy of the nation concerns me.
The pervasive threat of cyber-enabled attacks on and manipulation of critical infrastructure assets is serious, considerable in scope and impact, and is increasing at an unprecedented rate. We are facing increased cybersecurity threats to essential services, businesses and all levels of government. In the past two years, cyberattacks have struck the federal parliament's network, the health sector, the media and universities. Potentially most concerning is that they struck the food and beverage sector, with Lion beer shut down for almost three weeks. Many people in Australia found that very disturbing.
More seriously, though, earlier this year we saw an attack on a critical fuel pipeline in the US. While there are different levels of concern about the things that happen and the troubling prospects they raise, if such an incident were to occur to a piece of our essential infrastructure, such as a central industry like the resources sector, by striking out ports in northern Australia, which are responsible for exporting to the world, or our oil and gas rigs in the offshore industry, our nation's economy would just about flatline. Similarly, if our southern import ports were hit, our supply chains would stop, leaving us cut off and without vital supplies, including, potentially, fuel.
In his submission on this matter to the PJCIS, retired Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn AO expressed concerns resulting from his work examining Australia's national resilience. He is particularly troubled about our lack of national liquid fuel security. The coronavirus pandemic has exposed a global lack of resilience as a result of collective failure to assess and act on national risks and vulnerabilities in the face of a rapidly changing world. Australians have also been complacent with respect to the significant exponential changes occurring in the world and our growing lack of national resilience. We've already seen supply chain disruptions due to COVID-19 and vaccine nationalism. There is no doubt that if push comes to shove other nations will restrict fuel exports to us if they need that fuel.
But it's not just about fuel supply, it's not just about jobs and it's not just about the economy. It's about our national security, our sovereign integrity and our ability to look after ourselves. As I mentioned, earlier this year we saw a damaging cyberattack in the US. The Colonial Pipeline suffered a ransomware cyberattack that took its service down for five days, causing massive fuel supply issues across the United States. The pipeline, almost 9,000 kilometres long, usually carries 2.5 million barrels of diesel, petrol and jet fuel per day. So, having it offline for five days caused huge economic damage to the nation, and many states declared a state of emergency. The organisation that attacked the pipeline operates by infiltrating an organisation's computer network and stealing sensitive data. A day or so after that they will make themselves known to that organisation and make threats about data being leaked should a ransom not be paid. Or they will seize operation of that computer network and not provide access to it until a ransom is paid.
This organisation and many across the world know that attacking critical infrastructure such as pipelines is a way of making a quick buck. We in Australia are not immune to such coercions. As an island nation reliant on our critical resources industry and ports of trade, and of course our energy networks, for everything, this is not a threat we can take lightly. The threat of cyberattack and the manipulation of critical infrastructure assets is serious, is massive in scope and is increasing at an unprecedented rate—certainly faster than this government, responsible for myriad digital disasters in recent years, can cope with.
The bill before us today was introduced in December last year. Since that time the PJCIS has been working on its inquiry. We've heard a great deal of feedback that there is a lot more work to do on this suite of legislation, with many stakeholders concerned about the lack of consultation to date. The inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security received around 100 submissions and held numerous hearings of experts and industry professionals. Many companies, industry bodies and trade unions expressed concern with the bill, its consultative development and issues with regulatory impact, particularly the concurrent rules development that occurred throughout the review.
Threats to critical infrastructure are serious. When they happen, we need to act—swiftly. The lack of action and consultation to date makes it clear that we are not at all ready for these sorts of threats. As such, I support the recommendation from the PJCIS to split this bill in order to pass its most urgent parts whilst continuing to refine more-complex elements that at this stage are not fit for purpose. Subsequently, bill No. 1 will deal with the expansion of the 11 sectors that are deemed to be systems of national significance, the additional reporting requirements for cyber incidents and the new government assistance measures. Bill No. 2 can handle the positive security obligations and sector-specific requirements following further consultation with industry.
In this complex threat environment that we currently find ourselves in it is crucial that Australia's highest authority on these issues, the Australian Signals Directorate, is empowered to assist entities in responding to significant cybersecurity incidents in order to secure our nation's critical infrastructure assets. ASD has observed that malicious cyber activity against Australia's national and economic interests is increasing in frequency, scale and sophistication. In 2019-20 there were 2,266 cyber incidents reported to the Australian Cyber Security Centre. Just over a third of all incidents reported to the centre over the past 12 months have been reported by Australia's critical infrastructure sector. This is expected to be just a fraction of the number of cybersecurity incidences affecting critical infrastructure, given the voluntary nature of the reporting.
ASD's knowledge of domestic cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities relies on the Australian community and industry voluntarily reporting incidents. This voluntary reporting and sharing of information assists ASD with identifying threats and subsequently publishing advice to mitigate those threats to others. That's why, as important as the bill before us today is to ensuring that we have the right legislative mechanisms for action when required, our national digital literacy and institutional knowledge of cybersafety must also be significantly improved as a nation. It's up to each and every Australian, as well, to protect themselves, their families and their businesses online—and, let's face it, we can't now conduct our lives without being online.
The Australian Cyber Security Centre, working within the Australian Signals Directorate, are supporting the government with their cybersecurity strategy, but a strategy has not been released since 2016. The cyberthreat landscape, however, has shifted and evolved dramatically since that time. The magnitude of threats faced by Australian businesses and families has increased. It's up to us all, but especially the government, to be proactive in this space. I believe that kids should be learning how to stay safe online from the moment that they can work out on their own how to watch Bluey on mum and dad's iPad. It's just as important as looking both ways before crossing the road. Cybersecurity education must become the norm early on, from primary school, and in small businesses, large businesses and government departments. It's not just about cybersecurity; it's about cyberliteracy. It's about literacy in cybersecurity requirements and protecting ourselves, our privacy and our information.
A higher number of incident reports to ASD through the provisions proposed in the bill will assist in building improved national situational awareness and allow ASD to identify trends and provide targeted advice to others in order to assist entities with better preparing and protecting their networks and Australia's critical infrastructure. But, with that, each Australian must be educated on what to look for and what to report.
The expansion of the definition of 'critical sectors' in this bill to include the defence industry as one of 11 systems of national significance elevates the importance of having a sovereign, self-sufficient Australian defence industry. Indeed, it begs the question: how was this sector not included before? As retired Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO says about fuel: 'If push comes to shove in a conflict situation, we must not assume that other nations will have the desire or capacity to support our defence assets. As a result, we must be able to scale up, invest in and ensure the security of our Australian defence industry and our sovereign capability to maintain, sustain, repair and upgrade our defensive capabilities and equipment.'
The powers in the bill before us today are last-resort powers, and that is the assurance that both Labor and affected entities wish to confirm. Most organisations affected by this are very willing to work with the Australian Signals Directorate, and the government assistance powers should only be needed in the case of an affected entity being either unwilling or unable to respond appropriately. One would expect that the use of such measures would be uncommon and rare. Should there be an instance where there is disagreement between the affected entity and the ASD on an appropriate course of action to combat a threat, there are safeguards in place that will involve the minister having the final say. As I have said, the initiatives put forward in this bill are important. We must get this right and we must act quickly, but, equally, we must improve the cybersecurity literacy of everyone so we remain resilient as a nation. I commend to the House the components of the bill that should now be proceeded with and I look forward to seeing the results of the work on the remainder as a separate bill.
My colleagues, in particular the shadow minister for defence, have done a very good job in outlining what the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 does and why, subject to passage of the government's amendments, Labor supports it. I would just like to make a few comments about why the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I am a member, recommended that the original bill introduced by the government be split in two and that very significant parts of the bill not proceed at all in their current form.
The parts of the bill that the committee found should not proceed in their current form included proposed new positive security obligations for workers and businesses who operate and maintain a vast array of infrastructure assets across Australia. The detail of exactly what those positive security obligations would or could be and who those new obligations would apply to was to be left to regulation. This meant the breadth and potential impact of the legislation was uncertain; but, potentially, the measures proposed by the government would have impacted literally hundreds of thousands of workers and businesses across Australia.
It was both deeply concerning and wholly unsurprising to learn that, despite the impact that these proposed measures could have on the lives and livelihoods of hundreds and thousands of Australian workers, the government did not consult workers or a single trade union prior to the introduction of the critical infrastructure bill and the government barely consulted with industry either. It is quite unusual for the intelligence and security committee to receive submissions from trade unions, but the government's failure to consult with workers or their representatives was drawn to the intelligence and security committee's attention by the ACTU and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia.
This abject failure to consult was not only an insult to Australian workers who would be potentially impacted by the measures in this bill; it was also counterproductive. As the ETU told the intelligence and security committee in one of its three submissions to the committee's inquiry, by failing to consult with the ETU and other unions, the Department of Home Affairs had:
… missed a significant opportunity to gain insights into the security and resilience of critical infrastructure from the perspective of the people who actually build, maintain and operate these assets on a daily basis. In addition, the Department appears to have no visibility of existing provisions in industry, at least as they relate to the industry sectors the ETU is familiar with, and their effectiveness.
The government's failure to consult, coupled with the broad and uncertain nature of the powers it was seeking in the original version of this bill, gave a rise to a serious and understandable concern and anxieties the part of many workers and their representatives. As the ACTU noted about the original version of the bill:
… this proposal could subject nurses, truck drivers, call centre workers, electrical linesperson's and even apprentice electricians to the same rules as ASIO officials, subject to the Minister's whims.
… … …
Some employers have already flagged to their workers they intend to use the introduction of this legislation to request access to workers' communication and social media and discriminate against employees for their political views, in order to over-zealously comply with rules not yet issued. As union members in public services can attest, political preferences, party membership, membership of a trade union, participation in democratic expressions of protest, social media profiles, internet activity, and psychological medical history are examined in security vetting. Awarding this power to industry or subjecting packaging workers in the food and grocery sector to this process through a Government agency would be a gross overreach.
I'd also like to acknowledge the many businesses and industry groups who also expressed concerns about the breadth and ill-defined nature of many of the powers in the government's original bill, albeit from a different perspective. The concerns of workers' representatives and the concerns of industry were heard loud and clear by Labor and Liberal members of the intelligence and security committee alike, which is why the committee recommended unanimously that the critical infrastructure bill be split into two, with many of the more contentious measures to be reconsidered and redrafted in light of the committee's comments and feedback from key stakeholders.
I would like to thank the government—and I can thank the minister because she's present here in the chamber—for accepting the committee's recommendations, which were a sensible, measured and bipartisan response to an identified need by security agencies on the one hand and, on the other, serious and understandable concerns about the original version of the bill from a range of stakeholders, including the ETU, the ACTU, industry groups and legal experts. With the amendments introduced by the government to implement the intelligence and security committee's recommendations, I commend the bill to the House.
The Morrison government is committed to uplifting the security of critical infrastructure and safeguarding the essential services they provide for all Australians. Recent incidents, such as compromises of the Australian parliamentary network, university networks and key corporate entities, illustrate that threats to the operation of Australia's critical infrastructure assets continue to be significant. The interconnected nature of our critical infrastructure means that a compromise of one essential function can have a domino effect that degrades or disrupts others. The consequences of a prolonged and widespread failure in the energy sector, for example, could be catastrophic to our economy, security and sovereignty as well as to the Australian way of life.
The government has introduced the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 to enhance the security of critical infrastructure in Australia, to build situational awareness and to enable the government to assist industry to effectively prevent, defend against and recover from serious cybersecurity incidents. The measures in this bill are a vital step towards uplifting the security of the critical infrastructure that underpins the delivery of goods and services that are essential to the Australian way of life, our nation's wealth and prosperity and our national security. I would like to thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its work on this bill, through its inquiry and recommendations. I also thank members for their contributions and call on them to support this vital bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I asked leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (59), as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column headed "Column 2"), omit "2020", substitute "2021".
(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 8), omit the heading.
(4) Schedule 1, items 2 and 3, page 4 (lines 9 to 19), omit the items.
(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 25 and 26), omit paragraph (c).
(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraph (d).
(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 5), before "(e)", insert "; and".
(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 16 to 18), omit paragraph (b) of the paragraph beginning "The framework consists of the following:" in section 4.
(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph (d) of the paragraph beginning "The framework consists of the following:" in section 4.
(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 20 and 21), omit the paragraph beginning "The Minister may privately declare a critical infrastructure asset" in section 4.
(11) Schedule 1, item 7, page 13 (lines 23 and 24), omit the definition of critical infrastructure risk management program in section 5.
(12) Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (line 22), omit the definition of cyber security exercise in section 5.
(13) Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (line 16), omit the definition of designated officer in section 5.
(14) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (line 1), omit the definition of evaluation report in section 5.
(15) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (lines 2 and 3), omit the definition of external auditor in section 5.
(16) Schedule 1, item 7, page 19 (line 3), omit the definition of incident response plan in section 5.
(17) Schedule 1, item 7, page 20 (line 32), omit "52(4); or", substitute "52(4).".
(18) Schedule 1, item 7, page 20 (lines 33 and 34), omit paragraphs (r) and (s) of the definition of notification provision in section 5.
(19) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (lines 22 and 23), omit paragraph (ba).
(20) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (lines 27 to 31), omit paragraphs (bc) and (bd).
(21) Schedule 1, item 11, page 22 (lines 1 to 6), omit paragraphs (bf) to (bh).
(22) Schedule 1, item 16, page 23 (line 23), before "10", insert "sections".
(23) Schedule 1, item 16, page 23 (lines 24 and 25), omit ", 12N,", substitute "and 12N".
(24) Schedule 1, item 16, page 23 (line 25), omit "30AG,".
(25) Schedule 1, item 16, page 23 (line 25), omit "30CB, 30CM, 30CR, 30CU and 30CW".
(26) Schedule 1, item 17, page 23 (line 27), before "10", insert "sections".
(27) Schedule 1, item 17, page 23 (lines 28 and 29), omit ", 12N,", substitute "and 12N".
(28) Schedule 1, item 17, page 23 (line 29), omit "30AG,".
(29) Schedule 1, item 17, page 23 (line 29), omit "30CB, 30CM, 30CM, 30CR, 30CU and 30CW".
(30) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (lines 20 and 21), omit the definition of system information event-based reporting notice.
(31) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (lines 22 and 23), omit the definition of system information periodic reporting notice.
(32) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (lines 24 and 25), omit the definition of system information software notice.
(33) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (lines 26 and 27), omit the definition of system of national significance.
(34) Schedule 1, item 18, page 25 (line 13), omit the definition of vulnerability assessment.
(35) Schedule 1, item 18, page 25 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of vulnerability assessment report.
(36) Schedule 1, item 21, page 29 (lines 1 to 14), omit subsection 8G(3).
(37) Schedule 1, item 32, page 53 (lines 10 to 13), omit subsection 12L(25).
(38) Schedule 1, item 32, page 54 (after line 15), after subsection 12N(1), insert:
(1A) The following is an example of a situation where a person is not entitled to cause access, modification or impairment of a kind mentioned in subsection (1): a person who is an employee or agent of the responsible entity for an asset would exceed the person's authority as such an employee or agent in causing such access, modification or impairment in relation to the asset.
(39) Schedule 1, item 39, page 57 (line 9) to page 66 (line 15), omit Part 2A.
(40) Schedule 1, item 39, page 67 (line 23), at the end of subsection 30BBA(2), add:
; and (d) if the Minister is aware that an entity is the responsible entity for an asset that is, or is proposed to be, specified in the rules:
(i) give the entity a copy of the draft rules or amendments; and
(ii) if a submission is received from the entity within the 28-day period mentioned in paragraph (a)—give the entity a written statement that sets out the Minister's response to the submission.
(41) Schedule 1, item 39, page 68 (line 23), omit "48", substitute "84".
(42) Schedule 1, item 39, page 68 (after line 27), at the end of section 30BC, add:
Exemption written record
(5) The head (however described) of the relevant Commonwealth body (see section 30BF) may, by written notice given to an entity, exempt the entity from subsection (3) in relation to a report about a specified cyber security incident.
Note: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003.
(6) A notice under subsection (5) is not a legislative instrument.
(7) The head (however described) of the relevant Commonwealth body (see section 30BF) may, by writing, delegate any or all of the head's powers under subsection (5) to a person who:
(a) is an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the relevant Commonwealth body; or
(b) holds, or is acting in, a position in the relevant Commonwealth body that is equivalent to, or higher than, a position occupied by an SES employee.
Note: The expressions SES employee and acting SES employee are defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(8) In exercising powers under a delegation, the delegate must comply with any directions of the head (however described) of the relevant Commonwealth body.
(43) Schedule 1, item 39, page 69 (after line 28), at the end of section 30BD, add:
Exemption written record
(5) The head (however described) of the relevant Commonwealth body (see section 30BF) may, by written notice given to an entity, exempt the entity from subsection (3) in relation to a report about a specified cyber security incident.
Note: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003.
(6) A notice under subsection (5) is not a legislative instrument.
(7) The head (however described) of the relevant Commonwealth body (see section 30BF) may, by writing, delegate any or all of the head's powers under subsection (5) to a person who:
(a) is an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the relevant Commonwealth body; or
(b) holds, or is acting in, a position in the relevant Commonwealth body that is equivalent to, or higher than, a position occupied by an SES employee.
Note: The expressions SES employee and acting SES employee are defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(8) In exercising powers under a delegation, the delegate must comply with any directions of the head (however described) of the relevant Commonwealth body.
(44) Schedule 1, item 39, page 70 (after line 4), after section 30BE, insert:
30BEA Significant impact
For the purposes of this Part, a cyber security incident has a significant impact (whether direct or indirect) on the availability of an asset if, and only if:
(a) both:
(i) the asset is used in connection with the provision of essential goods or services; and
(ii) the incident has materially disrupted the availability of those essential goods or services; or
(b) any of the circumstances specified in the rules exist in relation to the incident.
30BEB Consultation — rules
Scope
(1) This section applies to rules made for the purposes of paragraph 30BEA(b).
Consultation
(2) If the Minister is aware that an entity is the responsible entity for a critical infrastructure asset, then, before making or amending the rules, the Minister must:
(a) give the entity a copy of the draft rules or amendments; and
(b) give the entity a written notice inviting the entity to make a submission to the Minister about the draft rules or amendments within 28 days after the notice is given; and
(c) consider any submission received within the 28-day period mentioned in paragraph (b); and
(d) if a submission is received from the entity within the 28-day period mentioned in paragraph (b)—give the entity a written statement that sets out the Minister's response to the submission.
(45) Schedule 1, item 39, page 70 (line 17) to page 95 (line 3), omit Part 2C.
(46) Schedule 1, item 44, page 95 (lines 19 to 24), omit section 35AAA.
(47) Schedule 1, item 45, page 103 (after line 16), at the end of section 35AD, add:
(3) If subsection (1) or (2) requires an entity to be consulted, that consultation must involve:
(a) giving the entity a copy of the draft Ministerial authorisation; and
(b) inviting the entity to make a submission to the Minister about the draft Ministerial authorisation within 24 hours after receiving the copy of the draft Ministerial authorisation.
(48) Schedule 1, item 45, page 114 (lines 5 to 10), omit section 35AU.
(49) Schedule 1, item 45, page 122 (after line 23), at the end of Part 3A, add:
Division 6 — Reports to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
35BK Reports to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
(1) If the Secretary gives one or more directions under section 35AK or 35AQ, or one or more requests under section 35AX, in relation to a cyber security incident, the Secretary must give the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security a written report about the incident.
(2) The report must include a description of each of the directions or requests.
(50) Schedule 1, item 53A, page 124 (lines 15 to 17), omit the item.
(51) Schedule 1, item 61, page 134 (line 12), omit paragraph (2A)(b).
(52) Schedule 1, item 66, page 135 (line 18) to page 140 (line 8), omit the item.
(53) Schedule 1, item 69, page 140 (lines 15 to 20), omit paragraphs (f) and (g).
(54) Schedule 1, item 69, page 140 (line 21), before "(h)", insert "; and".
(55) Schedule 1, item 69, page 140 (lines 25 to 32), omit paragraphs (j) to (m).
(56) Schedule 1, item 69, page 141 (line 8), omit "financial year; and", substitute "financial year.".
(57) Schedule 1, item 69, page 141 (lines 9 to 11), omit paragraph (r).
(58) Schedule 1, page 142 (after line 3), after item 70, insert:
70A After section 60A
Insert:
60B Review of this Act
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may:
(a) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of this Act; and
(b) report the Committee's comments and recommendations to each House of the Parliament;
so long as the Committee begins the review before the end of 3 years after the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Act 2021 receives the Royal Assent.
(59) Schedule 1, heading to Part 3, page 144 (line 3), omit "2020", substitute "2021".
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has made 14 recommendations in its advisory report. Notably, it recommends that the bill be split into two separate bills, with the first bill to incorporate the urgent cyberincident response framework and reporting regime. The government acknowledges and thanks the committee for its work in relation to this bill and other government national security priorities. The Australian people are safer and more secure as a result of the responsible approach that members of this committee take, working together in a truly bipartisan way in the national interest.
These government amendments respond to the urgent recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's 29 September 2021 advisory report on this bill and statutory review of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018. The intelligence and security committee recommended that these amendments, outlined in recommendations (1) to (5) along with recommendations (10) and (14), be legislated in the shortest possible time. The government is taking immediate action by acting in the very first sitting week since the committee's advisory report was released
The reason for this urgency is clear: cyberattacks pose a serious threat to Australian infrastructure. On 19 June 2020, the Prime Minister announced that Australian organisations were currently being targeted by a sophisticated, state-based cyberactor. They were targeting our critical sectors, including government essential service providers and operators of critical infrastructure. Cyberattacks continue. Internationally, we have seen cyberincidents cause significant impacts. The 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack prevented the distributed of energy supplies to customers along the east coast of the United States. Repeated attacks over the past years on the Ukraine power grid show the devastating impact that malicious cyberactors can cause to critical infrastructure.
The Australian Cyber Security Centre's 2021 annual cyberthreat report, released on 15 September 2021, highlights that the volume of cybercrime reporting equates to one report of a cyberattack every eight minutes, compared to one every 10 minutes last financial year. Approximately one-quarter of reported cybersecurity incidents affected critical infrastructure organisations, including essential services that all Australians require, such as education, communications, electricity, water and transport.
These government amendments address recommendation 1 of the advisory report by amending this bill to retain only the measures that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended be taken forward to the first bill. The measures in the bill as amended will specifically expand the scope of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 to include assets across 11 industry sectors as critical infrastructure assets, provide a mechanism to require cyberincident reporting, enable government responses to serious cybersecurity incidents and retain associated definitions and powers. The amendments do not, however, define offensive cyberaction. This bill is clear that the use of offensive cybercapabilities is expressly prohibited from any direction or intervention that the Minister for Home Affairs can authorise.
The bill and explanatory material also respond to recommendations 2 and 3 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's advisory report through amendments to the cyberincident reporting requirement. In accordance with recommendation 4 of the advisory report, these government amendments also include a provision to ensure that, as soon as practicable after a government assistance measure is directed or requested, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security be notified in writing about the circumstances, actions, status of, and parties involved in each measure used relative to any cybersecurity.
The government amendments include a provision that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may conduct a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the reformed security of critical infrastructure legislative framework in the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act not less than three years from when this bill receives royal assent in accordance with recommendation 14 of the advisory report. The amendments also change the commencement of the bill to the day after royal assent and deal with other minor technical matters, including that the bill be passed as per recommendation 5 of the advisory report. These urgent reforms will put the laws in place to respond to a cyberincident and protect Australian critical infrastructure. I commend the government amendments to the House.
While I rise to support the government amendments to the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020, it's clear that the government requires the splitting of this bill into two parts in order to bring forward some of the recommendations arising out of the joint standing committee's report. It's critical that we move on these issues.
What the opposition has been saying for some time is that cyberattacks in this country are growing rapidly. Indeed, the government should have acted earlier. That's the obvious evidence, so we welcome the procedural motion to split the bill. We believe that in doing so we'll be able to bring forward and action some of these matters that were in the original bill, and that's important because the demand in responding to cyberattacks is greater and more urgent each and every day. For that reason, we have supported that. In fact, it was a suggestion by opposition members of the committee and the shadow minister for home affairs—and no doubt the shadow Attorney-General and other members on this side—who believe the government has been dragging its feet in this very important area of national security. So we do support the minister's procedural motion to split the bill if it means actioning things that should have happened some time ago.
It's important for the security of this nation and it's important that organisations that continue to be attacked in this space believe the government can attend to these matters as quickly as possible. I know that national security agencies have been wanting some of these matters for some time. Therefore, we don't want to see, by the enactment of the original bill, any delays to some of these very important matters. It is for that reason that I join the minister in supporting the procedural motion to split the bill. It reflects the view of the opposition, the view of the joint standing committee and, I'm glad to say, the view of the government. For those reasons and for others, the opposition supports this and will be supporting the procedural motion put by the minister.
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.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
[by video link] I have just announced a $20 million commitment towards a first-class indoor aquatic centre for North Bellarine, a vital piece of high-participation community infrastructure, good for older adults who love water aerobics, great for people with disabilities, perfect for young families with kids learning to swim and just what we need if you are doing rehab—a pool for the whole community, and it will include allied health services. But would you believe it, Deputy Speaker: the Geelong Council Liberal mayor is against an indoor aquatic centre. Instead, she is desperately ramming through a shoddy tender process to build an outdoor pool. An outdoor pool will have low participation. It will be freezing in winter. Older people just won't use it. It would be hopeless for people with disabilities and no good for young families with kids. It's not even suitable for kids under seven learning to swim. Can you believe that? And with massive heat loss, it is totally environmentally unsustainable. The outdoor pool will cost more because you won't have the income that comes with high usage and heating costs will be astronomical. The Liberal Mayor's outdoor pool is just a really bad idea. It will be the big Bellarine lemon! So, instead, let's do it once, let's do it properly and let's do it indoors for everyone in North Bellarine.
Today I am delighted to read a speech prepared by an impressive young man from Fisher, as part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week campaign. The speech reads:
My name is James Donnelly. I'm an 18-year-old high school student and a proud resident of the Sunshine Coast electorate of Fisher.
Who wouldn't be? The speech continues:
Robert Menzies described democracy as the idea that, with all our inequalities of mind and body, we stand equal. Australia is a nation which yields the same opportunities for every person, in spite of our differences in opinion and background. It is the wealth of diversity that embodies this lucky country. But democracy was never the easy option and for centuries humble citizens of the free world have defended their liberty from tyrants who selfishly seek personal power. 2021 is a time of discord and doubt, both ideological and through the physical borders of the pandemic. To move forward we must be optimistic, but we must not turn a blind eye to those opportunists who seek to further their authoritarian rule in this time of global tension. In 20 years I hope for an Australian government which is as committed to freedom and progression as those who lead us today. A government which continues to stand in brave defiance of rising oppressive powers, not yielding to those who seek to undermine the integrity of our safe and secure society.
[by video link] I rise on this fourth anniversary of arrivederci Holden and the fifth anniversary of antio and gule gule Ford, when the last of Australia's once great car manufacturing industries closed their doors and, with it, ended an iconic era of postwar nation building in this country.
Holden, like the Ford factory in my electorate that shut shop in 2016, was more than just an icon of Australian car manufacturing. Both were major employers of the thousands of postwar European migrants who came here under the Arthur Calwell migration program. Jobs were key to establishing the basis of a new life in a faraway country. Australia needed their labour in order to grow, and they needed hope for a better life for themselves and their families.
On the assembly lines and factory floors they not only built cars but also forged stories of mateship and camaraderie and built suburbs and communities around them—Broadmeadows and Ford, Elizabeth and Holden; entire suburbs and streets that brought cultures and faiths together and rose to build contemporary multicultural Australia. These workers were embraced by Labor and the union movement, who collectively defended their rights and aided their integration into the Australian community, a community that they shaped and changed. These migrants didn't just make 'Australian made'; they in fact made Australia.
As we look to the future, Australians can have a great deal of hope and optimism. As we face the challenge of caring for our country and the globe, the track record of this government and members on this side of the House speaks for itself. From early pioneers who prepared fields with a wooden plough and a horse to farmers using modern digitally controlled harvesters, adaptation, hard work and a belief in ourselves have been our foundation. Our approach to emissions reductions must be pragmatic but based on science. The decisions we make now will affect our ability to put food on the table and whether we can afford the electricity to run a small business. The need for prudence is evidence. The need for a considered approach is obvious. Farmers in my electorate of Mallee are still feeling the bite of Kyoto. This drives me to ensure that we as the government make decisions that are right for now and for our future, but specifically do not risk the livelihoods of regional Australians. Australia has an incredible track record. We are already meeting and beating our current Paris commitments and are a leader in the world precisely because this government considered what the cost would be and how it would impact mums and dads, farmers, business owners and industry. Our children and grandchildren can trust that we will mitigate the risk and set up their future for growth and prosperity.
'Shakedown politics' are the Prime Minister's own words for states and territories desperately fighting off a health crisis. How does the Prime Minister described the Nationals, the junior coalition partner, dictating the terms for climate policy? What slick marketing term does the Prime Minister use to describe eight years of his government's inaction on this most critical issue? Perhaps the PM thought he could pass the buck because he's got a history of shirking responsibility. Now the Nationals are claiming that this deal can't be sorted out after only a four-hour party room meeting. They say it may take weeks or months. How about a decade? How about eight years of government inaction, three prime ministers and 21 energy policies? Is that long enough? Australia is now in the embarrassing situation where the Prime Minister is going to Glasgow, but he has no policy. 'Code red for humanity' is how the IPCC, the most authoritative body of climate scientists, has described the situation we are in, yet members of this government are talking about how we should all be willing to take a hit on our mortgages to supports fossil fuels and government funding of those industries. This is beyond a disgrace, absolutely beyond a disgrace. Australia should be a renewable energy superpower. The world is moving on, the market is moving on, but Australia is being left behind and Australian jobs will be left behind. Only a Labor government will take action, only a Labor government will end the climate— (Time expired)
Live music is set to be reignited on the Central Coast with two venues in my electorate of Robertson being supported as part of round 3 of the more than $2.5 million Live Music program. This program is all about helping venues to reopen and rebuild following the shutdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and it's going to mean that Australian artists can get back on stage. Avoca Beach picture theatre, iconic in our community, and Hardy's Bay RSL & Citizens Club have received around $52,000 for upgrades to their facilities and the purchase of new equipment. This funding brings the government's total investment in this program to more than $8 million, which will support over 300 live music venues and the recovery and sustainability of the sector. The Morrison government is also investing more than a billion dollars into the art and creative sector in 2021-22. Norm and Beth Hunter from Avoca Beach picture theatre said that they are excited because this grant is really about community building. 'While the money will go towards improving the presentation of live music at our venue, it also enables us to establish a country and local music scene. We really want to build a live music culture again and bring the Central Coast community together.' I couldn't agree more with Norm and Beth Hunter. I'm told that the theatre will be hosting a number of well-known artists over the coming weeks, including Amber Lawrence, Gina Jeffreys and Adam Harvey, and I thank artists and venue owners right across the coast for their resilience and wish them all the best as— (Time expired)
In the coming months northsiders from Toombul to McDowall to Brighton will have to make a choice about who they trust to lead Australia out of the pandemic: a complacent and arrogant government who has had eight years to deliver a plan for carbon emissions and to protect our environment but still cannot even agree on the science of climate change, or Labor who will listen to the experts, invest in renewables and deliver net zero by 2050; a government that has presided over falling wages and job insecurity, or Labor who has a plan for workers to lift their wages and to deliver good, decent, secure jobs; a government that undermines Medicare at every opportunity and refuses to properly fund our hospitals, or Labor who will always extend and defend Medicare and invest in Australian's health; a government that sees child care as a luxury that women choose and has overseen skyrocketing fees for families, or Labor who understands that child care is critical family infrastructure and has a plan to reduce out-of-pocket costs for families; a government who is swamped in scandal and rolling in corruption allegations, or Labor who is committed to an effective and busy national anticorruption commission with teeth, who will hold federal politicians and public servants to account. Labor will invest in northside infrastructure projects built by northsiders using materials and equipment manufactured in Australia.
I rise today to congratulate the many candidates who were successful in the local government elections held across my electorate of O'Connor this week. After the recent WA redistribution O'Connor is now home to more local governments than any other electorate across the nation. There are 57 all up, ranging from Wiluna in the northern Goldfields down to Nannup in the state's deep south.
Around O'Connor I work closely with mayors, shire presidents and councillors, all of whom passionately advocate for their communities. The success of this advocacy shows in this month's announcement of funding for nine projects widely spread across O'Connor under the Building Better Regions Fund. Projects were funded from Kalgoorlie in the Goldfields through to Merredin and Pingelly in the Wheatbelt; down to Esperance on the south coast; across to Bremer Bay, Ongerup and Albany in the Great Southern and over to Manjimup in the South West.
Perhaps less heralded is the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program Phase 3, which will inject an average of $1.02 million across every one of O'Connor's 57 shires. This program recognises the role of councils as the closest tier of government to the people in accelerating Australia's recovery from the pandemic. During the COVID crisis local leadership across O'Connor has been exceptional. My commiserations to those elected members who have helped their communities emerge from COVID and did not get up at this week's elections. Congratulations to the candidates who did win and will be at the frontline of O'Connor's continued economic recovery.
I've had the pleasure of meeting regularly with the school captains of Warringah as part of the Warringah Youth Ambassadors Program. They are bright and engaged young people who are focused on excellence, showing leadership and making a difference to their classmates and their communities. Many of them want to study science and medicine and care deeply about the environment and the future of our planet. We've had in-depth discussions about respect and consent, mental health, growing a sense of community in their schools, the role of defining gender and sexuality, the impacts of climate change and the legacy of our generation's lack of action on theirs.
Listening to the ambassadors speak so sensibly and work through issues in an open and respectful way, looking to each other for new viewpoints, it makes me hopeful that these young people are much more collaborative and open to discussion than many in this place. It's not enough to read out speeches written by young people. We need a process for young leaders to have a voice and a role in this parliament, in this place, where the decisions that are being made will have long and lasting impacts on their future. Young leaders of Australia need more opportunities to contribute to our discussions and long-term policies. This generation is not one to be silenced. They are smart and agile communicators and they will be heard. As students return to classrooms next week in Warringah, I want to wish them all the best of luck in their exams. You have got this. Thank you to the parents and teachers. It has been a tough year but you have succeeded.
(where locals gather not only to play lawn bowls but to socialise over a meal and entertainment and to support one another, especially through this COVID-19 pandemic. A few short weeks ago I had the absolute pleasure of presenting a cheque at the clubhouse to upgrade their facilities. The club is the successful recipient of $596,650 from the latest round of the Building Better Regions Fund. I congratulate General Manager Steve Condren, who shed a tear when I called the club, his dedicated committee—Rob, Bob, Pete, Lyn, Rose, Luchica and Maurice—and the wonderful club members for this historic funding in Moncrieff that will serve so many locals.
I thank City Heart Task Force executive member and Director of RDA Gold Coast, Estella Rodighiero, for assisting the club with their funding application. I also thank former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Riverina, and the Minister for Sport, Senator Colbeck, for joining me four months ago on a visit to the Nerang bowls club to look over the plans for the clubhouse upgrade. I'm incredibly proud that it is the Morrison government that has listened to the needs of my community and delivered this funding to benefit the good people of the Nerang community.
Our community continues to fight plans to build a massive waste incinerator in Matraville that will impact all of Sydney's eastern suburbs. The New South Wales Liberal government recently released the state government's Energy from Waste Infrastructure Plan. The plan aims to ban waste incinerators in the Sydney basin, but it does allow the New South Wales government to grant exemptions to replace certain fuels to power industrial and manufacturing processes on site. Opal paper and SUEZ are seeking such an exemption from the New South Wales government as part of a terrible idea to build the eastern suburbs incinerator.
Any exemption will allow consideration of their proposal for the construction of a huge incinerator right next to residential housing on the Opal site at Matraville. The towering vent stack will be built literally 130 metres from homes in our community and operate seven days a week, discharging air pollutants across Sydney's eastern suburbs. I am strongly opposed to this proposal and will continue to fight it on behalf of our community.
The New South Wales Liberal government must not allow an exemption to the ban on incinerators in the Sydney basin. That's why I've written to the New South Wales planning minister to demand that he reject the Opal and SUEZ request for an exemption. The New South Wales Liberal government should not be allowing big companies to ride roughshod over the health and welfare of our community. Now is the time to put a stop once and for all to the eastern suburbs incinerator.
[by video link] This Sunday, 24 October, the University of Tasmania Burnie 10 will be run for the 37th time. If you live on the north-west coast of Tasmania, you have every reason to be proud that Burnie hosts Australia's premier 10-kilometre road run. Our region also has a proud military history and traditions. We punch well above our weight when it comes to service to the nation, so this Sunday it's fitting that the start of the Burnie 10 will reach spectacular new heights with a flyover of RAAF F-35A Lightning aircraft. For the 10,000 runners and spectators this will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the supersonic stealth aircraft as it takes to the skies over Burnie.
I give a big shout-out to the Burnie Athletic Club [inaudible]. The club has taken on the responsibility for conducting [inaudible]. When it looked like their dream of a flyover was going to fall short, I'm so pleased they reached out to me and together we were able to ensure that the RAAF will be buzzing in the sky over Burnie on Sunday. Whether you walk, run, wheel or spectate, there's no better place to be than at the Burnie 10 this Sunday from 11 am.
When every state and territory leader wrote to the Prime Minister to say, 'We need this federal government to commit to more funding for the public health system, for public hospitals, to get us out of COVID,' how did the Prime Minister react? He said: 'I won't be bullied. I won't engage in shakedown politics. I won't invest more in our health system.' When the National Party, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, said, 'We don't really want to believe in climate change and we don't really want to commit to net zero emissions by 2050,' how did this Prime Minister react? He said: 'I'll just sit and wait. You tell me your terms, and maybe I'll meet them.' In other words, he also does not want to act. We have two huge challenges facing us, one that is important right now and one that is important for the future of our country and the world, and the response of Australia's Prime Minister is to say: 'It's not my job. I'm not going to do it.' He's not going to commit right now to looking after Australia's health system in the future and he's certainly not going to commit right now to the bare minimum needed to commit to protecting the environment and the jobs and industries of the future, which is net zero emissions by 2050. What is the point of the Morrison government and everyone who's part of it? They're led by the— (Time expired)
The first anniversary of the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the republic of Artsakh was marked on 27 September. Bennelong is home to the largest Armenian diaspora in Australia, many of whom have friends and family and heritage from Artsakh. The suffering in this region clearly and deeply affects many in my electorate.
When I visited Artsakh in 2019 I was struck by the normality of the place in an area constantly threatened by its neighbour. I was amazed by the hardiness and resilience of the people in the towns I visited. But just a year later we saw tragic images of roads clogged with refugees—a direct juxtaposition of images taken nearly 100 years earlier of the victims of the Armenian genocide. This was a heart-wrenching event in a part of the world that has known much suffering.
A ceasefire agreement was reached on 9 November, but sadly it did not end the fighting. Since then I have heard reports of 100,000 Armenian civilians being uprooted from their homes, 5,000 having been killed and hundreds of Armenians having been imprisoned. The fighting must stop. The ceasefire must hold. There must be serious and open dialogue between the two countries. Ownership of ancient lands is complex, but no progress will be made while bullets continue to fly. When states talk of war, it's always the people on the ground who suffer, the people of Artsakh— (Time expired)
I want to speak today about reports that a former Afghan army officer has been executed in Afghanistan. While his name is being withheld to protect his family, this officer previously worked as an interpreter for the ADF. He had been living in fear of exactly this reprisal, and his wife and three children are still in hiding. After the fall of Kabul, the family were trying to secure a visa to Australia to join his sister here. I want to honour this man for the work he did on behalf of his nation and ours. I want to send my deepest condolences to his family in Afghanistan, who must be terrified for their own safety, and to his sister and any relatives here, whose worst nightmare has come true.
We honour this man's memory, but we should have done more to protect his life. While we have taken some steps to accept Afghan refugees into Australia, this process has lacked urgency and began well after it should have—too little, too late. We have a moral obligation to help people who risked their lives side by side with Australian troops. Veterans of the Afghan conflict tell me they are suffering moral injury every day, feeling powerless to help the Afghan mates they relied on.
But we also have a strong strategic reason to offer this protection now. At some point in the future our soldiers will be again be involved in conflict, and when that happens they will need to work with local security, local interpreters, local intelligence. If we fail our allies today, who will be our allies tomorrow?
It's Youth Voice in Parliament Week. The Raise Our Voice Australia campaign encourages youth voices to share what they want Australia to look like in 20 years. I'm proud to share a speech from eight-year-old Jasrah, who attends South Yarra Primary School and lives in my electorate of Higgins. Over to you, Jasrah:
All Australians have to come together and put a stop to pollution.
Pollution is hurting our animals on this land.
We have to do our part, cleaning up our land and oceans.
I can see Australia in twenty years as the cleanest country and there's so much we can do to achieve this goal.
Find ways to get plastics out of the ocean.
Reduce pollution by using recycled plastic and paper products.
Try and buy things that can be reused. chools can plan a bigger part to teach children about pollution.
Excursions to the beach to find rubbish and pick it up.
We could be doing more projects on pollution.
There should be more recycling bins around the country.
It's important to protect our animals to keep them safe just like we are.
If we can keep our oceans clean, then we can all enjoy life and know that our environment is protected.
Mr Speaker, the future is bright with articulate voices like those of eight-year-old Jasrah.
Some 500 Australians have died from COVID-19 since parliament last met, in August. Christmas will not be the same for those 500 families. I pass on my condolences to each of them. Sadly, the government fail to see that the words they choose in the way they approach this crisis are a life and death policy challenge. They underestimated the seriousness of this challenge when they backed Clive Palmer in the High Court. They belittled 2.7 million Western Australians when they called WA a hermit kingdom. The Prime Minister went further when he compared Western Australians to cave people. And it's embarrassing to see the 'Prime Minister for New South Wales' try to explain his policies using cartoon analogies, such as to The Croods.
But then along came the Deputy Prime Minister. He launched an intracontinental ballistic missile at the people of Western Australia, comparing Western Australia to North Korea. He said:
… you are going to really turn yourself into a hermit kingdom. Like, we'll have North Korea and kind of another hermit kingdom on the west coast of Australia.
This is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia attacking 2.7 million Western Australians who simply want to live without COVID and without interference from this government. We deserve so much better from the Deputy Prime Minister, and it's embarrassing that not one Liberal— (Time expired)
I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the volunteer charitable community and the sporting and other civic groups in my electorate of Menzies to round 7 of the Stronger Communities grants, a round that will be opening soon. These grants provide amounts of between $2½ thousand and $20,000 for organisations to undertake the provision of important equipment and the like to the area. In the past, these grants have gone for things like solar panels, IT equipment, upgraded kitchens, air-conditioning, upgraded toilets, new sportsground shelters, an all-weather area, vehicles, a watering system, disabled toilets, a community garden, a scoreboard, refrigerators, storage, upgraded women's change rooms, a repaired wicket at a cricket oval, and a shelter and barbecue. So they're very useful grants for organisations not just in my electorate but the electorates of everybody in the House—a total of $150,000 per electorate.
I encourage all charitable, voluntary community organisations to contact their local federal member of parliament to get their application in. This round opens very shortly. It closes in December. If there is much-needed equipment that you want for your organisation, this is the opportunity to contact—in my case, Menzies—my office or your federal member for parliament.
There's a sentiment I know that is widely shared. There's something about being born and bred in Western Sydney that compels you to try harder than everybody else. The residents of Western Sydney could not have tried any harder than they did over our 106 days in lockdown.
I pay tribute to the good people of Greenway for their resilience in the face of tremendous adversity. I pay tribute to the countless community organisations and volunteers who established free food distribution networks to so many people isolated and doing it tough; to the small businesses who made the incredible sacrifice of closing for the public good, too many of them permanently, unfortunately; to the parents and teachers who, with patience and ingenuity, helped navigate the remote learning environment—and a shout-out to the Blacktown school principal whose wisdom went viral when they told us to focus on our children, rather than their learning; and to our frontline healthcare workers and our police, who exercised professionalism and compassion, knowing that the vast majority of residents wanted to do the right thing, which was made so difficult when at one stage there were 40 rule changes in 60 days. Most importantly, the smart people of Greenway knew all along that getting vaccinated was a race, so much so that by mid-September our electorate became the most vaccinated one in the entire country. I thank Greenway for keeping one another safe during such a tough time.
It's two o'clock, so the time for members' statements has concluded.
The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Leader of the House be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. An Auditor-General's report published yesterday found 55 per cent of the grants earmarked for regional development over a four-year period were given to major cities. How can the minister claim the government is delivering for the regions when it is clearly not?
I thank the honourable member for her question. In that Auditor-General's report, which I've been through, it says quite clearly that they don't stand by the integrity of the data. That is actually stated in it.
Honourable members interjecting—
Yes. It also states that it includes—
If you want to hear the answer, member for Grayndler, it also includes such things as the community grants scheme, which does not include regional areas. You must clearly understand, and I know you do, that it includes things such as—
Mr Speaker, he's such a comedian. It includes things such as the Royal Far West children's society, which is based in Manly. Are we going to say they aren't deserving of funds? It includes things such as Ronald McDonald House, which of course is proximate to where those children have to go for treatment. Are we going to argue against that? I understand the member for Eden-Monaro's question but, overwhelmingly, this does benefit people in regional areas.
I was looking at one case in the member for Flynn's electorate where we upgraded the water requirements for the small town of Biggenden. Only about 890 people live in Biggenden—it's a very small town. In that town, over $5 million was required to upgrade the water system. It is just not possible for a cost like that to be carried by the people of Biggenden unless they get the support of a government that looks to the corners of this nation. That's what things such as the Building Better Regions Fund does, and, because it does that, we have the capacity to help those small towns. We have the capacity to help towns such as—in my area—Werris Creek, a railway town, where, similarly, we had to upgrade the dams and the water facilities, which is what the Building Better Regions Fund and grants such as this do. I acknowledge that the administration of sections of that grant are done in the city and that certain grants, such as to Ronald McDonald House, are in the cities, but I hope the member for Eden-Monaro is not asking us to remove funding for such things as Ronald McDonald House.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Seventy per cent of Australians aged 16 years and over have met the call to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. With such a tremendous effort and with more milestones to come, will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's national plan for reopening is working by putting restrictions like lockdowns behind us so we can safely live with the virus?
I thank the member for Higgins for her question and her constant advice when it comes to managing the issues of the pandemic, given her great experience. It is great news for Australia. Seventy per cent of Australians aged over 16 have been fully vaccinated. Our full vaccination rate is now in excess of that of the United States. Indeed, not only has our first dose vaccination rate passed those of European Union countries like Germany and so on, as well as Israel, but, within days, we will pass the first dose vaccination rate of the United Kingdom as well. Victoria, in particular, and Tasmania will go through that 70 per cent gate in the next 24 hours, joining New South Wales and the ACT, as Australia's vaccination rates surge to what we expect will be one of the highest vaccination rates of anywhere in the world. That has been a great effort by Australians, and I thank Australians for keeping their side of the deal of the national plan, which said, 'Go out and roll up your sleeve, and we will get through this together.' That is what Australians have been doing. They have been keeping their side of the deal of the national plan, and that has enabled them not just to save lives—they've saved more than 30,000 lives over the course of this pandemic—but also to have one of the strongest economic performances throughout the course of the pandemic, as we now move towards having one of the highest rates of vaccination around the advanced world today.
This means that, as a result of the national plan, the Melbourne lockdown will end on Thursday night. It means that, in New South Wales and the ACT, the lockdown has already come to an end. It means restaurants, cafes and pubs are open. It means that barbers and hairdressers will be able to fix many of the home haircuts that have been done during lockdown over the last few months. I know there are plenty of people looking forward to that. Live theatre is open again in Sydney now. Hamilton is back on the stage, and Harry Potter will return to the stage in November as the national plan takes effect. Kids are going back to school, and what is great is that kids are getting together again and having play dates and sleepovers again. That's what the national plan has been designed to deliver. In Queensland, I welcome the fact that they're opening their borders again in December. I welcome the fact that they're introducing home quarantine for people returning to Queensland. But there are 8,000 Queenslanders who need to be able to get home and have access to home quarantine, and I encourage the Queensland government to go further down that path, as I also do the governments of South Australia and Tasmania. Australia is opening up because of its great efforts. Thank you, Australia.
My question is again to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Can the minister confirm that this government has spent regional funds on the North Sydney pool but rejected a funding application for the Bega War Memorial Pool?
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned.
I find it rather peculiar that the member for Gellibrand has straightaway opened with a joke about Ronald McDonald, obviously referring to Ronald McDonald House. You must think that is humorous, member for Gellibrand. I'm sure the people watching you think you're a complete lark—
The member for Gellibrand will not interject again, or he'll be ejected. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister: I have already cautioned the member for Gellibrand. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
As to the Building Better Regions Fund, in the last round there were $1.7 billion worth of requests, which shows that this is an incredibly well responded to grant system. Within that system, we had over 1,000 applications in the last round.
There are so many areas in regional Australia. I acknowledge the member for Eden-Monaro's question, where she talked about a certain grant. Unfortunately, within the envelope that we have, we were unable to help on that issue. But what we can say quite clearly is that, in the last round, in further discussions within the Expenditure Review Committee of the coalition, we extended a further $100 million—that's a $300 million package—because we look towards those corners of our nation which we can help—
Opposition members interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Macquarie is persistently interjecting. I will not tolerate members who ignore my repeated warnings. I'm trying to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, which I'm finding difficult. Those behind the Manager of Opposition Business are the first to complain when I'm asked to rule on a point of order and I haven't heard everything. I am going to labour the point. It prevents me doing my job, and it's disruptive to the house. If you think it makes any political difference, you're wrong. You're all wearing masks. It's just a loud wall of noise. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Of course, we are making sure that we continue this program. Obviously, we hope the Australian people find it prudent, for the re-election of a coalition government, and we are striving our very best to make sure that they see us in that light.
We look forward to the Labor Party putting forward their views on what they intend to do with the Building Better Regions Fund. It's interesting that you bring that up, member for Eden-Monaro, because I note that, back in 2014 in the electorate of—we don't want to hear this, do we?
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. I think the Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat too. At this point I can anticipate where the Deputy Prime Minister is going, which is back seven years. The question was very specific. It asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister could confirm that one grant had been received and another one hadn't. Within that context, he's been very relevant up until this point, but he doesn't have the ability to go down a track of looking at other grants. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Of course. I can confirm that one grant has been received and another one hasn't.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government's plan for a strong economic recovery is delivering infrastructure projects and creating jobs in regional Australia, particularly in my home state of Queensland? I'd like to thank the BBRF for the project in the township of—
The member will just ask his question. You've missed 90-second statements. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Speaker, you're too cruel! I have to acknowledge that the member for Flynn is retiring. He has had a marvellous career here—over a decade—after being a great success in business. One of the most understated people in this building is the member for Flynn. He has written more cheques and done more business than many other people here combined. That's the sort of acumen we want. With his fuel businesses, hotel businesses—I know he's got a great love of the racehorse business. He has stood behind his people. He has stood behind the 845 people of Biggenden, as he just mentioned, with the $5.7 million they got for the Biggenden water treatment plant. If the people of Biggenden had to pay for it per person—man, woman and child—that would be over $6,700 each that they would have to find. Of course they can't find that money, and that's why we have a coalition government—Nationals and Liberals—to make sure the people of Biggenden are looked after.
It's not just there. It could be the Ivy Anderson Home at Springsure. As you know, people want to be born in an area, live in an area, work in an area and spend the rest of their days in that area. In Springsure, with 5,100 people, it was $4 million that the Nationals and Liberals, the coalition government, provided so that people have those nine extra units.
Opposition members interjecting—
I know it's hilarious to those opposite, but we find aged care serious. We make sure we provide for that in myriad forms.
In Gladstone, that great industrial city, with everything from coal to beef to grain to sodium cyanide to all the things found in that marvellous industrial city of in excess of 45,000 people that the Member for Flynn has stood beside—he's going to make sure that, after his decade in here, that city continues to grow for the decades into the future.
It's not just in the member for Flynn's seat but also as we go north to Hells Gate. Hells Gate is in the seat of the member for Kennedy, who's not here today. I was speaking to the member for Kennedy today—or, more to the point, he was speaking to me!—and we once more went over Hells Gate and how important that is for the development of our nation. The dam at Hells Gate, as has been rightly pointed out to me by the Prime Minister, has a business case that will arrive back here early next year, and this will be instrumental in not only the wealth of those downstream but in moving water west. That is vision. That's what you get from the Coalition. That's why the Australian people will be re-electing us.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education. In the Senate just now, the minister for regionalisation said that, if the Prime Minister adopts net zero without the approval of the National Party, 'It will be ugly.' Does the minister agree?
What I can say is that the process of going through this has been diligently followed. I have been in close contact with the Prime Minister through the process. What I can say is that a committee of four—Minister McKenzie, Minister Pitt, Minister Littleproud and Minister Hogan—have all been working on this process. As recently as today I had a meeting because we're going to make sure that the Prime Minister of Australia is reported back to as soon as possible. In fact, I believe it will be within the next day that we will get back to him, because we're not grandstanding. This is not about—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
I will take an interjection.
No, don't take the interjection. I'm about to deal with the interjectors.
There were about 400 of them! But I would like to know. I hear so often how the Labor Party have been wanting this for years—eight years, I think—but we haven't received one dot of a costing, one dot of a proposed plan. There is not one dot of one. Even though after eight years they have not provided a skerrick of evidence as to how they would achieve their outcome—and, by gosh, they've had a lot of spare time in those eight years—
I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister—Member for Isaacs, I can still hear you, notwithstanding the fact that you've moved—that he needs to come back to the question. I realise the provocation, but he has to come back to the question. I allowed some tolerance.
We will make sure that we follow a prudent process. I acknowledge the work of the Senator for Victoria. I state that it will be a prudent process which our party can stand behind, and we will work constructively to make sure that it is not only the best outcome for original people, that we respect the role of the Nationals party room, that the final arbiter will be the Nationals party room—of our position. We don't—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
The members for Isaacs and Whitlam can leave under standing order 94(a).
The members for Isaacs and Whitlam then left the chamber.
That's correct, member for Grayndler—I'll take the interjection—I am the Deputy Prime Minister. And you are the Leader of the Opposition—and long may that be the case!
My question is to the Prime Minister. A number of climate-denying Nationals members of your government have been holding climate policy to ransom. So that other members can reflect their communities' call to rapidly act on climate change, will you allow an open debate and conscience vote on the climate change bill before parliament? Why are the Nationals' votes the most powerful within the Coalition?
Before I call the Prime Minister: the first part of the question had some descriptions in it that really don't belong in a question, I need to say—assertions like that. And I think all members, including the member for Warringah, wouldn't like it if there was a question that made an assertion about them. So, I'm just going to point out that that is not really what question time is for. There are other forms of the House where people can engage in political combat of that nature.
The world's response to climate change—and that will be the subject of the summit that is being held in Glasgow in a few weeks time—will be seeking to bring people together on this issue, and the response being made around the world to climate change will have a significant impact on Australia. It will have a significant impact, particularly on rural and regional Australia, and I think it would be unfair for this place to send those Australians anything other than a message that we understand that. We understand that people in rural and regional Australia will face some real challenges to their economic futures because of what is happening around the world and the changes in the global economy.
The Liberals and the Nationals understand that, and we think it's important that we don't engage in any sort of pejorative way in a discussion with those who have a different view or different views to ours. I don't think that's very helpful in what we're trying to achieve here. I think Australians want to embrace the changes that are occurring, but I also think they want to ensure that all Australians can go ahead together, in rural and areas, and that we have a clear and considered plan for how that is going to be achieved so that we can mitigate the negative impacts of what is going to occur and also realise the opportunities that can be there for all Australians, particularly in rural and regional areas.
That is what the government is working through, and the government will make a decision about the position that it will take to COP26. The date hasn't changed. It's been the same date all year. We've been working towards that date over the course of the year. So, when I attend that summit I will take the government's position, and the government's position will be determined like all government positions are, and that is by federal cabinet. That was the approach taken in the past when it came to these matters and the commitments that Australia has made on these issues: on Kyoto 1, we meet and we beat; on Kyoto 2, we met and we beat it; and on Paris, we will meet and beat the commitments we have made. There is no mystery at all on this side of the House as to what our 2030 target is. It's what we took to the last election. It was endorsed by the Australian people. We've been implementing those policies, and we've seen a reduction of 20 per cent, and more, in carbon emissions since 2005. We have one of the highest rates, if not the highest rate, of rooftop solar in the world. We have seen record levels of investment in renewable technologies here in Australia, and we propose that there be more. Those opposite have not set out their 2030 target. They have repealed, they say, the target they took to the last election— (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of how the Morrison government's strong economic management and sticking to our national plan is ensuring that our economy is set up to generate more jobs for Australian families and businesses? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and acknowledge her background in small business as a speech pathologist and is a strong advocate for the people of Burwood, Box Hill and Blackburn across her electorate. Today the Australian economy got some further positive economic data. Job ads were up 4.9 per cent for the month, with the strongest growth in NSW where job ads were up 16 per cent. We have seen data from the National Skills Commission which demonstrates that businesses are rehiring as their doors are reopening. We know that the Australian economy will rebound strongly as a result of the economic support that we have put in place and as a result of restrictions easing across the country. I welcome the fact that tomorrow in the great state of Victoria we will see those restrictions eased.
Yesterday consumer confidence was up for the sixth week in a row. Last week business confidence was up. Last week we saw Australia's AAA credit rating reaffirmed and our economic outlook upgraded. We know that $330 billion has been accumulated on household and business balance sheets. That primes the Australian economy for a strong recovery.
I am asked: 'Are there any alternative policies?' We have seen from those opposite the carbon tax, which saw electricity prices skyrocket. We saw from those opposite the mining tax, which didn't raise any revenue. We saw the cash for clunkers and we saw the pink batts. But 77 days ago we got another policy that probably makes Labor's greatest hits. It was a $6 billion conversation starter, a cash splash to pay $300 to people who have already had the jab. The member for Rankin, in a cameo appearance before this chamber, had this view: he said that the government should pick up the idea and run with it. But it's not a memo that the shadow cabinet got, because they're not running with the idea. They're running away from the idea. On Insiders Senator Katy Gallagher, the shadow finance minister, was asked directly about the $300 payment to people who have already had the jab. What did she say? Is it still the policy? 'The time for that has passed.'
My question is to the minister for regional development. The Business Council of Australia's recent modelling shows that in dollar terms regional Australians will be three times better off from a transition to net zero by 2050 than people in cities. Does the minister agree with that modelling? What does the government's own modelling show?
One part of that question is very simple. I don't agree with the Business Council of Australia's modelling—if you want a straight answer there it is—and nor should I have to, because that's the Business Council of Australia's modelling. They're entitled to their modelling. Modelling is not a letter from God. It is no more than the opinion of people. Maybe the member for Grayndler is an expert in nonlinear regression analysis. I'm certainly not. So I'm not going to say—
An honourable member interjecting
Well, you certainly are not. At least I did econometrics. He didn't. I doubt whether the skill sets for things such as regression analysis reside in many corners of this chamber at all. Maybe it does. Maybe I'm confounded in my ignorance about who is expert in that. When we talk about modelling and when we talk about: 'Have I been aware of modelling?' I have to say the people with the capacity to do a deep dive into modelling, to get to the bottom of it, would be a very, very small group indeed. What I am interested in, though, are the results of modelling. The member for Hume, the minister, has shown us sections of that. So we are aware of that. On that premise, we have used the time, one week, to deal with something that will go for decades into the future and to do our very best to make sure that we are able to correspond with our people in our electorates on our best analysis so that we can give them the best deliberations on an incredibly important decision.
The Liberal Party, and obviously the Prime Minister, as leader of the Liberal Party, has had the capacity for analysis of this. But the Labor Party have told us that, in the last eight years, they have been calling for something—and in eight years, they have not come up with a plan. We don't know what they have been doing. They have not given us any costings. What they have said is that there is something they will buy. They don't quite know what it costs, they don't quite know what it is, but they are going to buy it.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on the key milestones in the vaccine rollout and how these are continuing to keep Australian lives and livelihoods safe?
I thank the member for Robertson and note for the benefit of the House that Australians have now passed the 70 per cent double dose vaccination rate—to be precise 70.007 per cent. Our first dose rate as a nation is 85.5 per cent. In Robertson, it's over 80 per cent for double dose and an extraordinary 95 per cent for those who have already had their first dose.
Around the nation, Australians have stepped forward and are stepping forward to protect themselves and their families, their friends, their communities and their country, and we thank them and we honour them. They are doing that in record numbers. We've seen 277,000 come forward in the last 24 hours. We have now passed the 33 million mark for Australians who have been vaccinated. We have passed the million mark for those who are between 12 and 15 who have had either first or second doses—60 per cent and 25 per cent respectively for first and second doses for those young Australians who are doing their bit to protect the country. When we look around the states and territories, we see here in the ACT an extraordinary 98.1 per cent; New South Wales at over 92 per cent; Victoria is on the cusp of joining that 90 per cent club, at just over 89 per cent; Tasmania is on its way to 90 per cent; and all other four jurisdictions, South Australia, the NT, Queensland and WA, are in the 70 per cent to 80 per cent bracket—and those numbers are increasing every day.
All of this means that in a world that is seeing over 400,000 cases a day, with 7,500 lives lost in the last 24 hours, Australians are protecting themselves and they are protecting others. We couldn't have done this without the extraordinary work of our nurses, our doctors, our pathologists, whether public or private, and everybody who has been assisting in the process of this vaccine rollout. It is about saving lives and it's about protecting lives. We see with regard to hospitalisations, serious illness and loss of life that the vaccines are protecting people.
We are doing this as we said we would do, but we are doing it with record numbers. I want to thank every Australian that has come forward and I continue to urge those who are yet to have a first dose and those who are due to have their second dose to come forward and be vaccinated.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Does the minister agree with National Farmers Federation President Fiona Simson, who says that 'the lack of a net zero target will punish farmers'?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I have great respect for the National Farmers Federation, but I'm not here as a member of the National Farmers Federation; I'm here as a member of the Nationals party to make sure that those people in regional Australia we represent are treated with respect and to give our best endeavours on an incredibly important decision so that they know that we have been dutiful in our task.
I also say—and this is really important—that a great kernel within the Nationals party is farmers, but even in my own electorate only 12 per cent are farmers, of which I am one. What we have done for those people in those electorates is the reason overwhelmingly those seats are held by National and Liberal parties' members, because what they have heard from the Labor Party in regard to their future has been pretty dire. If we go back through the record of the Labor Party, whether it's the carbon tax or the closure of the live cattle trade, it is not a good record at all.
We are also making sure—and this is fundamentally important—that in our deliberations we understand people in the working-class areas of Gladstone, Townsville and South Tamworth and are very mindful of the people of Singleton and Muswellbrook. Those people who live on the streets, who may not be farmers but are just as important, know that the Nationals are in there fighting for them.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's national plan facilitates the safe opening of Australia's international borders and ensures that Australians and permanent residents currently waiting overseas can return home?
I thank the member for his question. I congratulate the people in his electorate of Forde who have rolled up their sleeves and helped Australia to reach the significant milestone of a 70 per cent vaccination rate right across the country. We are officially in phase B of the national plan. As we continue to hit those vaccination milestones we will reopen our international borders, and we will do that in line with the national plan. We want to make sure that families, friends and loved ones can be reunited as soon as possible. We want to bring into this country the international students who have long enjoyed learning and studying here in Australia. We want to make sure that we can bring in the skilled workers that Australian industries so desperately need. As soon as we possibly safely can do so we will be bringing back international tourists so that they can enjoy everything that we have to offer here in this country.
We have made it very clear that the first step in reopening our borders is lifting the travel restrictions for fully vaccinated Australian citizens, permanent residents and their families, including parents, both here and overseas. With many states and territories moving to home quarantine or to no quarantine for fully vaccinated travellers, international travel will be far easier. It will also mean that fully vaccinated Australians wanting to return from overseas can come home quicker.
We know that vaccination is the key to being able to safely reopen to the world, which is why we have been planning for a time when we reach a vaccination rate of 80 per cent, which is phase C of the national plan. We are on track to achieve that nationally early next month. As someone who represents an electorate on a state border, I have to say that I am looking forward to the day when state borders are a sign on the side of the road and not a roadblock, not something that stops people from being able to enter and come home.
From a Commonwealth perspective, we will manage a sensible staged reopening of our international borders. The Australian Border Force stand ready—and they are—to support the reopening of our international airports. They will be working very closely with airlines to support passengers as they enter and leave Australia.
The Australian people have done the right thing. They have achieved that very significant milestone of a 70 per cent vaccination rate today. They can be absolutely assured that the Morrison government is committed to restoring our normal way of life and the freedoms that generations of Australians have enjoyed for years.
My question is to the minister for transport. Does the minister agree with the Prime Minister that electric vehicles will end the weekend?
I don't know whether that is a complete quote and whether it is taken in context. I have a suspicion that it's not actually been taken in context. I think that it might have been a reflection on another party's policies and not on our own. I don't think that was a reflection on our policies, and it's quite clear that we understand the dynamics of this nation. We note also, as refers to electric cars, that Boris Johnson has a policy on electric cars at the moment. I'm sure that in some areas they're very pertinent, but of course in other areas they're not. But what it does say is that we might—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance and the minister's answer where he said he wasn't sure about the quote. I'm happy to provide the quote for him.
No, I've heard the question. It was a short question—
It was.
and I'm ready to rule on the point of order. As I've repeatedly said as Speaker, I can't vouch for the accuracy of questions or indeed answers and I certainly don't want to start receiving evidence during question time. I'm just pointing out that's the nature of question time. It's not my role to vouch for the accuracy or not. I simply make the point: when a question is framed, even in a tight way like that, so that it has at its heart an accusation, the questioner well knows, particularly an experienced one, that it might be seeking a yes-or-no answer. But that cannot be compelled, and the minister answering the question merely needs to be relevant to it. I'm listening to him.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I believe that the context of that question was on the premise of a policy brought forward by the then leader of the Labor Party, the member for Maribyrnong. What I can say about the member for Maribyrnong is that he seems to have a more substantial policy direction in regard to any target than the member for Grayndler, who in his time in the seat has not presented any policy on how he would achieve the objectives he wants to achieve. What we have in this place is quite clear: we have a policy that has been developed and planned diligently, I imagine, over an incredibly long period of time by the leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia; we have a process of analysis that is now being conducted by me and the Nationals; and we have a complete and utter void on the other side.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Health. Will the minister update the House on the success of the rollout of the Morrison-Joyce government's vaccination program in rural, regional and remote areas?
I'd like to thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question and I would like to compliment him on the tireless work that he has done for his electorate of Parkes, which is as big as the country called Germany. I'd also like to compliment him on the great work he did when he was in the Health portfolio, with his work on the single-employer model for GP registrars and the innovative models of care which are really kicking goals in the workplace dilemma in the Health portfolio. He's also lived through the cyclone of delta arriving in his own electorate, and he and his contacts have been liaising with the Flying Doctor Service, the New South Wales local health districts, the GPs and the pharmacies. That has meant that western New South Wales has gotten through it.
Regional Australia was at the forefront of planning back in 2020. There was a special plan that was put in place for vaccine delivery amongst Indigenous people, back in March, before this delta wave hit. That model is being used around the country now—in places like northern Victoria, around the fine city of Mildura, which the member for Mallee looks after—and that model is working. There was a full-court press of expanded vaccines powered into the area at short notice. There were extra GPs brought on board, extra pharmacies rolled out, Commonwealth vaccination clinics, Defence vaccine administration teams and AUSMAT teams. And, of course, the net result is that there are now no more active cases in Wilcannia that anyone is aware of. The New South Wales Department of Health turned up with 30 motorhomes to supply isolation accommodation for those cases, so it was really a full-court press.
We have seen that around other places. In regional Australia, there has been a lag in Indigenous vaccination rates, but, because of the ACCHOs engaging with their own local leadership teams and counteracting all the misinformation on social media, they are catching up. When I visited Tobwabba, my own electorate's Aboriginal medical service, their vaccination rate was 62 per cent double vaxxed, which is a great achievement. Regional Australia has been at the forefront of planning, implementation and delivery. If you're in the most far-flung regions of Australia, Commonwealth plans—either the flying doctors or all those primary-care people doing a wonderful job—will look after you and keep you safe.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. The minister opposes the New South Wales government's New England Renewable Energy Zone, saying it will turn the region into a 'sea of wind farms'. That zone will create thousands of jobs, cheaper electricity and $11 billion of investment in his own electorate. Why does the minister for regional development oppose regional jobs?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I must say, if that is the case, we are looking forward to wind farms in Sydney. I suppose, if all these jobs are being created, then there is absolutely no reason we can't put wind farms off the coast of Manly? There's no reason at all, if it creates all these thousands of jobs! You would have no problems with that! I acknowledge that the shadow minister has clearly stated that he has got no problems with wind farms off the coast of Manly. You might hear about that in the paper.
Opposition members interjecting—
It looks like we have other members of the Labor Party who have got no problems with wind farms off the coast of Manly! This is a vexed issue. I actually disagree fervently with the member saying that wind farms create thousands of jobs in New England. They don't. They can produce power—there's no doubt about that—but they don't produce thousands of jobs. You're probably removed from regional areas, so you're not aware of this at the moment, but we now have a very vexed issue in the areas where there are wind farms, with a divide between those who are for and against wind farms. If you had any knowledge of regional areas, you would be aware of that.
What!
You disagree with that, member for Eden-Monaro? I don't think so. This is the area where we can divide communities right down the middle. In so doing, in New England and other areas, we are making sure, just as we do in other policies, that we listen to the people and do not come up with glib one-liners that completely misunderstand the issues. The member for McMahon has clearly stated today that he wants wind farms off the coast of Manly, and may he stand by that statement.
The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
It goes to disorderly conduct. It's not within the realm of the Deputy Prime Minister to verbal members on this side during his speech. He just continues to do it. It's disruptive—
The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. I did anticipate that this would occur sometime during the sitting. I've made the point repeatedly that certainly ministers can't ask questions, because that's not how question time works. I won't go through it all. It's fairly obvious. But I do think that the Leader of the Opposition has a reasonable point, which is that the Hansard record shows what's said. When it comes to so-called verballing I see it in questions as well. I am going to make that point.
An honourable member interjecting
Whoever was expressing surprise must have been one of the ones that hasn't been here for a long time. Questions that have at their heart an accusation, like one just recently asked by the Leader of the Opposition, do fall into that category as well. I don't think members want me intervening on absolutely every aspect where someone feels misrepresented. That's why they can claim to be misrepresented at the end of question time.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. With many students in my electorate returning to school this week, will the minister outline how the Morrison government is ensuring the national curriculum will help our kids roar back and instil a factual, positive view of our history and love of our country.
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and his contribution to his electorate and indeed to our nation. It is fantastic that kids are returning to school in Melbourne and Sydney, and it is such a relief for parents and for kids. As they return to school, we are absolutely backing them in to roar back. We're doing that through record funding to every single school; we're doing that through additional mental health support; we're doing that through keeping the economy strong so that there are opportunities for them post schooling—and, of course, we're also doing this through revising the national curriculum to ensure that standards are high and that we instil that love of country which the member for Bennelong referred to.
Mr Speaker, as you'd be aware, the national curriculum is presently under review. But I've got to say that I would not support what the independent Australian curriculum authority has presently put out, the reason being that, in some cases, standards haven't been lifted but have in fact gone backwards. The clearest example of that is in the teaching of the times table. Presently, kids are being taught that in year 3, but under the revised national curriculum, which ACARA, the independent body, has put out, it would be taught in year 4. In some other countries it's actually taught in year 2. But I'll tell you what is suggested to be taught in year 2, and that is to suggest or to analyse whether a statue is racist. So you can't learn the times table, but you can do an analysis of a statue in year 2, when you are seven.
My biggest problem, though, is actually in the history curriculum—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
and it is in this history curriculum where I have the greatest problem. As you know, we live in the greatest, egalitarian, freest, wealthiest country that has ever existed in the history of humankind, but if you read that national draft curriculum on our history, you wouldn't think this. It has such a miserable view of our history. Frankly, we're not going to stand for that, because there is a reason that we are the greatest country in the world, and kids need to learn about that reason so that they can defend it, so they can be proud of it and they can do what previous generations have done.
I notice whenever I talk about this topic, whenever I talk about pride in Australia and I talk about pride in our history, the Labor Party opposite get so upset, because they equally have such a miserable view of our history and they want that miserable view imparted to kids. Well, we don't on this side of the House. We are proud of our country. We know that mums and dads are proud of their country, and we want to ensure the kids are equally proud.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. BHP and Rio Tinto have committed to net zero emissions by 2050 for their companies. Giving the mining, farming and livestock industries all support net zero, why won't the minister?
First of all, I don't agree with the premise of the question—that all farming industries and mining industries support net zero emissions. I acknowledge the statements of BHP and Rio, and I acknowledge the statements made by the NFF. But they certainly come with caveats; there's no doubt about that. I haven't heard BHP and Rio—
Member for McMahon!
Sorry, I missed that.
Let's just move on. You answer the question and I'll deal with the interjections.
I did hear it, actually. I just wanted to repeat it. Mr Speaker, it's incredibly important that we understand that the CEO of BHP or the CEO of Rio, who I think resides in London—one thing I do know is that they don't reside in Muswellbrook or Singleton, they don't reside in Petra Avenue, South Tamworth, where I once lived, and they don't reside in Emerald or Gladstone. These people who have had a very fortunate life—good luck to them and God bless them—will not live with the same outcomes, if we don't do this properly, as that people in the regional towns that we represent. To talk about the views of people who live in the rarefied air, as senior businesspeople, although we've got no problems with that whatsoever—they're not really the people that the Nationals represent.
We represent the blue-collar working men and women of the town of Gladstone, who have been deserted by the Labor Party. We represent the miners of Nowra, who have been deserted by the Labor Party. Might I quote the member for Hunter, who I think realises this as well, who says that the Labor Party has done nothing with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the last 14 years. If there's one person that I think warrants listening to on this, it's the member for Hunter, and he lives—unsurprisingly—in a mining seat. We won't listen to or be bullied by people in the boardrooms; we will listen to the people who are actually in our constituencies.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government has supported regional Australia through the COVID-19 pandemic, including through the government's support for the nation's iconic agricultural shows and field days?
I thank the member for Mallee for her question and for her commitment and support for the strong agricultural shows and field days in her own electorate of Mallee. Our agricultural shows play an important role not just in bringing our communities together once a year but also in showcasing all that is great about our agricultural industries. Sadly, COVID has struck them a cruel blow—the 50,000 volunteers across this country who turn up to support and showcase their community every year and the over 4,000 show men and women who travel across this country, making sure that there are rides there for the kids to make the shows even better. COVID has dealt them a cruel blow, not only this year but last year as well.
Last year we committed $34½ million to support them and get them through these tough times, and we've committed an additional $25 million this year to help pay for many of the fixed cost that will not go away, like insurance, rates and electricity. They have no income stream to be able to cover that. For those cancelled shows and field days, we've stepped in with support to keep them going, to support those men and women who are prepared to volunteer for their community. In the member for Mallee's own electorate, over $200,000 has gone into that, as part of the $38 million that has gone to our rural shows. Last year all our rural shows in our capital cities were shut down. This year Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra—we're hoping Hobart will be able to showcase—were unable to run. They play an important role in connecting the city and the bush, bringing the bush to the city and being able to showcase to metropolitan Australians how we produce their food and fibre in the sustainable way that we do so they can take pride in and understand what Australian farmers do. This is an investment not only in the city but also in the bush, in making sure there is an appreciation of the hard work that our men and women do in the agricultural sector. We're continuing to make sure that we also support those show men and women.
I've got to acknowledge the member for Maribyrnong for his advocacy on this, and for bringing it to my attention—that they were the forgotten ones. We've worked together to make sure that there's been over $8 million to support them, to provide money to the show societies to pay their rents. So, the show societies get the money, but the financial burden of these show men and women is taken away. These are small-business men and women right across our country, who travel across our country and bring so much joy. It was important that they not be forgotten, and I'm proud to say that we have not forgotten them.
We've also made sure that we've supported our show societies, particularly the country ones. We've supported them with a $20 million infrastructure fund to ensure that they can continue to build infrastructure. When they've lost their revenue they don't have the savings to put towards new infrastructure. So $20 million has gone right across this country to help them build infrastructure and have better shows next year. Our investment is about the men and women who put their heart and soul into our communities and make sure the show goes on.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Can the minister confirm that the Morrison-Joyce government rejected the Kaban wind and battery project that would provide dispatchable power to 96,000 homes and create 250 regional jobs in the Atherton Tablelands? Why did the government oppose regional jobs?
We know where the regional jobs lie. Do you know what's special about Muswellbrook? It's a mining town. Singleton's a mining town. But I don't know one town in Australia about which you would say, 'That is a renewable energy town,' and that's the—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
That's the ground truthing of it.
The Deputy Prime Minister can resume his seat. The member for McMahon on a point of order?
Yes, a point of order on direct relevance. Muswellbrook is not in the Atherton Tablelands. The jobs are in the Atherton Tablelands.
The Deputy Prime Minister is 29 seconds into the answer. He's entitled some context. I'm listening closely to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I'm very aware of Atherton—Tolga, Mareeba. I've spent a lot of time up there—I would suggest a lot more time than the member for McMahon has. But if the member for McMahon is so sure in his belief of the renewable jobs, as he states, then I can understand why he stands by why he would want a renewable windfarm off the coast of Manly. I understand why he'd do that—as he nodded in the previous answer when I asked him whether he'd want that—
No, the Deputy Prime Minister needs to deal with the question that's been asked, not the previous question.
We will make sure that we talk about and are very protective of the jobs that we in regional Australia have now. We are not going to go to the people of regional Australia and tell them that, for the sake of the zeitgeist of the Labor Party, we will put them out of a job. We are making sure that we protect the jobs now. If the leader of the Labor Party, the member for Grayndler, wants to stand by those mining jobs, wants to stand by coalmining, let him come to the dispatch box right now and say so.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
I refer to your previous ruling. If the Deputy Prime Minister continues to make assertions and to invite the opposition to take action, then, when we don't, people reading it will assume that that provides an answer in itself—the fact that we can't answer. I'd ask you to consider the ruling—not necessarily now—and report back at another time about this process, because it will disrupt the parliament.
I won't report back. I can report now. I do say to ministers that they can't invite a member to do something that they're not able to do under the standing orders. They simply can't do that in question time or in any other part of the day, so what I am seeking to do is to avoid that happening. It has happened from time to time since question time was invented, but it's better if it doesn't happen. And I should say that the tone of questions is also reflective of that sentiment.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is keeping Australians safe by strengthening laws to cancel the visas of foreign nationals who have been convicted of serious offences? Is the minister aware of any threats to this approach?
I thank the member for Lindsay for that important question, and I want to commend her for her work on community safety and her advocacy for victims of family and domestic violence in the electorate of Lindsay. She is a great advocate for them.
For the Morrison government, community safety is our highest priority. You can see that in all the actions that the government has taken since we've been elected from securing our borders, investing in national security, and building and rebuilding our defence forces. Security and community safety is the top priority of a coalition government when we come to office. That's why, under this government, there are almost 10,000 noncitizens whose visas have been cancelled or refused under the character test. That means there are 10,000 serious criminals who have committed very serious crimes against Australians who either have been deported, have had their visas cancelled or have been prevented from ever coming here. For the benefit of this House, I want to record that that includes 216 murderers, 1,700 serious drug offenders, over 1,300 sex offenders, 320 outlaw motorcycle gang members, 37 kidnappers and thousands of other violent offenders. To those thinking that this is obvious, I say that this is the first Australian government to take this question so seriously and to get the laws in place to be able to cancel these visas.
What we've done in the last three years is asked the parliament for more laws to enable us to take community safety even more seriously, and we've been prevented by the Australian Labor Party from getting those powers to ensure that the Australian community can be even safer. The question has to be asked: why does the Australian Labor Party oppose the government getting more power to deport foreign criminals and prevent criminals from ever coming here? These are straightforward laws, I say to this House, that have been proposed for many years. They say that, if you are a serious criminal or offender who has been convicted—for two years—of a sexually based offence or a serious crime, then we can refuse you permission to ever come here. It's a simple matter. These are laws that say that, if you commit a serious offence here, you will be deported from Australia. Labor has again today voted these laws down. Why? We know that there is only one group of people in Australia who are happy about this today, and that is the Australian Greens. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Labor Party: why do you oppose these laws? Support the coalition. This bill will come back here, and we want you to support these laws.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. I refer to the answers he gave yesterday on government modelling. Senator Canavan is demanding the release of government modelling that forecasts the impact of net zero emissions on agriculture. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that he has the modelling, which shows regional impacts, will he release it?
I thank the honourable member for her question and I say to the member for Sydney that I said I clearly had seen the results. I can't help it if the member for Sydney and the tactics of the Labor Party can't read the Hansard, but, if they want to go back and read the Hansard, they will clearly—
No, the Hansard is out there, member for Grayndler. The Hansard is most definitely out there, and you're out there with it! If you had read the Hansard, which is out there, you would know that I said 'the results' of the modelling.
I also said earlier on that I don't pretend for one second to be an expert in nonlinear regression analysis, linear analysis—all the statistical models that are pertinent to modelling. Senator Canavan is. He is one person who is, so I can understand the interest that he may have, because he has the competency and skillset to go over that. The people with that expertise are a very small subset of those that reside in this parliament.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of a technology focused approach to reducing emissions and how this approach ensures that we can create jobs and protect industry? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. As one of the most experienced farmers in this place, he is a representative of a strong agricultural and mining region in the west of Australia and he understands the importance of a technology led approach to providing affordable, reliable energy and bringing down our emissions. It's developments in technology that will strengthen our regions and reduce our emissions without adding costs and without slashing jobs. That's our focus. It's technology, not taxes, and that's why we expanded ARENA's mandate: so it can invest in all priority technologies on our technology investment road map, including clean hydrogen, clean steel and aluminium, soil carbon regenerating our soils and making them healthier, and carbon capture and storage.
Just overnight the UK announced their plan to get to net zero, which includes $1 billion for a carbon capture and storage fund to reduce emissions by 20 to 30 million tonnes across a series of different hubs. They are very similar to our policy. Like the UK, President Joe Biden has said he will double down on carbon capture and storage. The IEA and the IPCC both regard carbon capture as absolutely essential to achieving the goals of the Paris agreement, and that's crucial to making sure we have strong traditional industries in a country like ours as we bring down our emissions. Indeed, the only people who are refusing to support CCS and the jobs and industries they bought are sitting right there in the Australian Labor Party.
To achieve our stretch goals in our road map, we need utilised the expertise of every agency we have, including ARENA, but again, twice this week, we have seen the Labor Party joining forces with the Greens to vote against the technology led approach to reducing emissions. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. The member for Melbourne's tail wags this dog every day. Seven times they voted against ARENA investing in low-emissions technology, including low-emissions vehicles—electric vehicles. Seven times they voted against more jobs for Australian workers. Seven times they have gone out of their way to undermine the prosperity of regional Australia. Together with the Greens, they seek to weaken our traditional industries of mining, agriculture and manufacturing and undermine our regions.
This is a question for the Minister for Regional Development. Given the potential of renewable energy projects in the regions to create jobs and make electricity cheaper, does the minister agree with the Prime Minister that a renewable energy target is 'nuts' and a 'muppet of a proposal'?
I'd like to thank the member for Kingsford Smith for letting me bat right through the innings. It's obviously been great to have a full day of questions. I reject the premise of the question on the basis that I have not seen, in my electorate—which is a major renewable electorate—the thousands of jobs that he claims that they support. I can assure you that, as you go past the major renewable precincts, you certainly see lots of wind towers but you don't see the so-called thousands of jobs. That is why we make sure that we support where the jobs are. That is why the job of the National Party is to diligently go over this proposal in such a form that we can report back to our people that we have done our best to make sure that we protect their jobs, that, over the coming decades, we protect their standard of living and that we protect their capacity to pay off the houses that they have bought for their families, the cars and the education. That that is the role of the Nationals in regional areas.
I'm happy for the member for Kingsford Smith to come to New England. It's an open invitation. We can travel around, and, if he can find these thousands of jobs, then I would thank him very much for that—because they are just not there.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister for Defence Personnel. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is continuing to support the health and wellbeing of veterans and their families, especially during Veterans' Health Week?
I thank the member very much for his question. Of course, this week is Veterans' Health Week. There are more than 720 events planned right around Australia, and those events have already kicked off. I'm delighted that this year's Veterans' Health Week is the biggest yet, with ex-service organisations and community groups coming together to host those 720 events between Saturday and the end of November. It's more than just a week.
This year's Veterans' Health Week offers plenty of activities, including group walks and runs, water sports, seminars and workshops, dance classes and even a scavenger hunt. As part of the event calendar, veterans charity Swiss 8 has also been supported to host barbecues across the nation, during Veterans' Health Week and in the lead up to Remembrance Day, to help raise the awareness of the importance of mental health.
I would encourage everyone out there, veterans and their families, to get involved in Veterans' Health Week, and I want to thank all of those ex-service organisations and community groups for showing their support and putting on a raft of fantastic COVID-safe events and activities for veterans and their families to participant in. Among the planned virtual events is the Bravery Trek challenge 2021, run by the Bravery Trust, which challenges veterans and families to walk, run, or cycle 100 kilometres to celebrate 100 years of the Royal Australian Air Force. A full list of Veterans' Health Week events and information about how to register are available on the DVA website. You can go to dva.gov.au/vhw, call DVA on 1800 VETERAN—that's 1800 838 372—or you can email vhw@dva.gov.au.
The veterans of Australia deserve the very best support and welfare that—
The member for McEwen!
I'll take the interjection. That's why—
No. The member for McEwen can leave, under standing order 94(a).
The member for McEwen then left the chamber.
Working for veterans is an important piece of national work—whether it's through Veterans' Health Week, whether it's supporting our veterans through counselling services or whether it's speeding up the claims processing system, which is a project I'm very passionate about and am working on at the moment. This parliament exists to make life better for the people we represent. We are going to make sure that, under the watch of this government, life is made better for our veterans and that they get all of the support and the care that they need and they deserve.
The Leader of the Opposition on indulgence.
I join with the minister and the government in acknowledging the importance of Veterans Health Week and the mental health of veterans. The events in Afghanistan recently have had a real impact, I know, on not only veterans who served in Afghanistan but also those who served us loyally in Vietnam and in other theatres of war. We owe a debt of gratitude to all the men and women who have worn our uniform in our name.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
[by video link] Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
You may proceed.
On 16 April this year the Opposition Leader visited my electorate to make a series of unsubstantiated allegations, referencing my standing in the community I represent. During the course of a televised media interview conducted right in front of my electorate office, the Opposition Leader misrepresented me, claiming I had engaged in behaviour that brings politics into disrepute and that I have not represented the community and was an embarrassment to the local community. He then stated the words: 'This is a creep,' without any independent substantiation whatsoever. Finally, he misrepresented my apology, claiming that it was for behaviour when in fact it was nothing of the sort. My apology was for any hurt or distress that communication may have caused. With the clear documentary evidence now available and the absence of any complaint on these matters to answer after six months, let alone any investigation or even a charge, I repudiate these misrepresentations by the Opposition Leader and ask him to correct the record now that all this information is in the public domain.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Absolutely.
You may proceed.
On Monday 18 October, the member for Gellibrand, in a speech to this parliament, stated that 'the member for Hughes was banned from Facebook for spreading COVID-19 misinformation'. This is false. I was banned from Facebook for republishing the opinions and peer-reviewed studies of people like Dr Peter McCulloch, Dr Zelenko, Dr Brian Tyson, Professor Harvey Risch, Professor Thomas Borody, Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, Professor Paul Marik, Dr Pierre Kory—
The member for Hughes will pause for a second. I would just say to the member for Hughes that you need to show where you believe you have been misrepresented. I think you have done that, and giving a whole list of examples doesn't add to the point you have made. So, unless you have an additional point to make, I'd ask you to wrap up.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are many other highly qualified medical professionals that I could quote. Facebook are not the arbiters of truth. The opinions and peer reviewed published studies of highly qualified medical experts are not misinformation because they are different to the propaganda swallowed so easily by people like the member for Gellibrand.
No, the member for Hughes will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care to ask for a response to question in writing No. 606, which was placed on the Notice Paper on 3 August this year. This now well exceeds the 60 days—it's way over—and I would say that constituents deserve a response.
I will write this afternoon. In fact, I'll sign the letter as soon as I get back to the office. It will be waiting.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for McMahon claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, Mr Speaker, by the Deputy Prime Minister, who during question time asserted that I had indicated support for a windfarm off Manly. In fact, what I indicated support for was the government's Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, to be debated in the House tomorrow, which enables the minister for energy to declare an offshore wind zone. Not only do we support it, we've been calling for it for months.
I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
Almost a decade of inaction from the Government.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
This week we have seen a government that has descended into a rabble without a cause. The Prime Minister is leaving Australia's future in the hands of a man who can't even see a spa as the end of a sentence. We saw that today in question time. We saw a government where cabinet ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, openly dissociate themselves from their own government. We saw a mob that behaves like an opposition in exile on the government benches, led by a man of no conviction who has become a caricature of himself, a prime minister who is all smirk and mirrors, no substance. He's a prime minister who's incapable of dealing with the present, let alone taking Australia into the future. After a decade of ridiculing climate change, they've been mugged by reality and dragged towards net zero by 2050.
It's a familiar pattern. First, you deny a problem exists. Second, you wait until it becomes a crisis. Third, you blame someone else for the inaction. Fourth, when you do act, it's always too little and too late. And, fifth, when you do that, you pretend you've been there all along and hope no-one notices. On bushfires we saw it: 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' Then, when he decided to be hands on, literally by forcing vulnerable people to shake his hand, he said, 'I was there the whole way along.' On the pandemic, JobKeeper was a dangerous idea that he opposed. Administering vaccines was not a race. We were first in the queue when we were right at the back. Of course, as a result, we have the Prime Minister's lockdowns, which we're coming out of now, and he's trying to take credit for us coming out of the lockdowns that are a direct creation of a failure on vaccine supply and on purpose-built quarantine.
Now we're looking at climate policy, the latest in this pattern: banal comments from those opposite and denial. They now say that technology is the answer. But what's their position on technology? First, they did create some funds, like the Emissions Reduction Fund. Where does the money for those funds come from? It comes from taxes, and yet they hope no-one notices that. They say it's about technology, and yet the Prime Minister said that electric vehicles would end the weekend. He said you wouldn't be able to drive your SUV, you wouldn't be able to tow your trailer—all this absolute nonsense when we see where the world is going on those issues. And, before they adopted that, you had the Treasurer writing op-eds supporting electric vehicles. Regarding batteries to store renewables, the Prime Minister said the biggest battery in Australia was as significant as the Big Banana or the Big Prawn—he just dismissed all of it. On renewable energy targets, he said, 'It's nuts,' and 'It's a muppet of a proposal.' Remember when he became Prime Minister, he said it was a government of muppets? He got that right then and he's right now. This is a government of muppets.
The fact is that, in spite of all of that, they take people as mugs. They're funding the proponents of a coal-fired power station in Queensland, which they promised at the last election would happen. They know it's not going to go ahead, but they're using taxpayer funds regardless. This is a government that is scared of the present but terrified of the future, and incapable of shaping the future to take advantage of the opportunities which are there. Labor wants to seize that opportunity. Labor wants to make sure that Australians can benefit from those opportunities. That's why in my first budget reply I advanced the Rewiring the Nation policy, a $20 billion plan to build transmission into the 21st century so that renewables could go into the grid. This mob, through Malcolm Turnbull, have a good proposal that has gone ahead—Snowy 2.0. But guess what: it doesn't fit into the grid. It's going to be open. They haven't plugged it in so that you can use the energy for the grid. It is just extraordinary. Rewiring the Nation will do just that.
We want cheaper electric vehicles. We're not going to tell people what to drive. We're going to drive down the price, though, to make it competitive and to make sure that we're not the dumping ground for what the rest of the world doesn't want. That's why you need to deal with these issues. We want community batteries so that it's not just about putting solar panels on roofs but also about making sure that that energy can be stored. It's an efficiency measure. We want to make sure that Austrians can take advantage of the jobs through new energy apprenticeships.
Action on climate change is just one element of our plan for a better life for working families, secure Australian jobs and a future made in Australia. We want an economy that works for people, building back better from the pandemic through our National Reconstruction Fund, supporting existing and new industries. We want a future made in Australia, manufacturing here. The Deputy Prime Minister said, 'I can't see jobs with renewables.' It's about driving down energy prices that then enable you to manufacture goods and give you a competitive advantage. It's not just about the jobs in terms of maintenance of the windfarms or building of the solar panels; it's about the whole economy and driving costs down.
We want a future made in Australia. We want a Buy Australian Plan. We want people who work in those industries to have secure work. They want temporary labour to be imported. We want to train Australians so that we lift wages, not drive them down. We want to deal with the casualisation of the workforce. We want to look after gig workers. We want same job, same pay. We want to close the gender pay gap. We want to make wage theft crime. We want to skill up Australians through Skills and Jobs Australia. We have a plan for working lives. We have a plan for cheaper child care. We have a plan to look after Australians, from their first years through to their later years, by looking after aged care. We want equality for women. This mob set up inquiries to find out what their own office knew about things that happened in Parliament House. They can't be taken seriously.
All those opposite have is fear. This week, we've seen a remarkable attempt by the Prime Minister to say that net zero by 2050 under them is good but net zero by 2050 under us is somehow not good. It's just extraordinary. Labor offers hope for a better future, and we have a plan to achieve it. We have a plan for an economy that works for people. We have a plan for people's working lives that gives them opportunity. We have a plan where no-one is left behind and no-one is held back. We have a plan where Medicare is at the centre of our health system. We have a plan to offer hope for a better future—to shape change. Change is inevitable. You can either fear it or shape it in the interests of people. We want to do that. We can be a renewable energy superpower for the world. We're located in the fastest-growing region of the world in human history. That presents us with an extraordinary opportunity to advance. Labor's plan is consistent with what Labor always does: we look after people and we bring people with us on that journey.
Labor has always seen the light on the hill as being critical. This Prime Minister is the gaslight on the hill, someone who's not prepared for the present, let alone capable of leading us into the future, and is leading a government whereby, when he leaves and goes to Glasgow, the Deputy Prime Minister will be in charge of the country. It is embarrassing. This is a government that is incapable of the leadership that Australia needs, and that's why this Prime Minister always follows and never leads. (Time expired)
It isn't The Audacity of Hope from the Leader of the Opposition, is it? It's not really a positive, forward-leaning agenda for Australia and its future that we hear from him. Indeed, you wouldn't expect that from an opposition leader on a day when we've reached 70.1 per cent of double-dose vaccinations Australia-wide. There's no mention of the fact that Australians are leaning in and working together in this pandemic, with the support of the government—with the support of states and territories and the Commonwealth, through our national cabinet—to get through this pandemic in better shape than any other country in the world. And it is not just in a health sense, where we've been able to save 30,000 lives. Thirty thousand human beings have been saved because of the approach that our country has been able to put together, the work we've done together and the difficulties and sacrifices that people have made on behalf of each other. It is an outstanding result.
When we think about what Australians have contributed, we understand that this is going to be a difficult time as we recover and move out of the pandemic. It is the case that the government has spent enormous amounts of time working with our community to make sure we support our economy as we get through this difficult period. That's why you've seen programs like JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the cash flow boost and HomeBuilder—programs to keep the economy moving while we've been in this extraordinary and unprecedented time when government has had to limit the ability of people to work and to operate society normally. We've done that because we know that at the heart of our society is a strong economy and that our economy and the success of our economy are vital for each and every individual, their family and their business, all around this country.
As we move out of the pandemic and we go into the economic recovery phase, what kind of government we have will determine our success in recovering as we move forward. That's the question on people's minds. How can we get our business back on its feet? How can we get our family back on its feet? How can we get our mental health and wellbeing back on their feet? All of it is integrated with the success of people being able to go to work, being able to return to schools, being able to get back to life, being able to plan and think forward, and being able to socialise with each other and work together as communities and families. That's why the government is fully focused on our program to ensure we support that recovery. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition constant criticism of every feature of government policy and constant criticism of everything he thinks is wrong with society. We heard nothing, of course, about what he would do differently. In fact, we heard very little about how a Labor government would support families, individuals and businesses in that recovery process.
There's one thing, though, that he's consistent on. He's consistent on the fact that the Labor Party would use, and would continue to use, the Australian taxation system as its primary vehicle for delivering its policy outcomes. He even said so in his speeches: 'taxes, not technology'. He said that revenue is raised from taxes. That is true. It is, for government. But there's something out there called the private sector. Sometimes we call it a 'sector', but, actually, the private sector is what determines our success as a society. It's more than just a sector. It's more than just a place to collect taxes from. If it doesn't do well, if it doesn't thrive, if it is penalised and punished by oppressive government taxation and regulation, Australia will not thrive and do well. So, when the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and continues to say, 'Well, don't you know that taxes are where we get technology from,' he's missing something very important. If we don't have the right mix of tax incentives and the right plan to get to net zero by 2050, we will not attract private sector investment in this country that will be sustainable and that will be felt as a positive in our region.
Why is the government taking the time to make sure that our plan is the right one for regions and rural communities? Because we know that so much of our economic activity has been built off our productivity in rural and regional areas and that any regime internationally which punishes Australian regions must be dealt with by an Australian government first, as a primary consideration. That's what the government is taking the time to do. If we look carefully at what the Leader of the Opposition just said, he's referring back to the fact that, at the core of Labor policy—the Labor way—he wants to use the Australian taxation system to force changes in behaviour. We've seen this movie before. The Labor Party continues to demonstrate that it does not understand: 'Taxation 1', 'Taxation 2', 'Taxation 3'—the sequels are worse than the original. The Australian public continues to reflect on the fact that they do not want governments to punish them for their life choices.
We can do this with technology—not through taxes. The government is right to use technology to get us to where we need to go, because technology represents that great hope that Barack Obama was talking about. We don't hear it from the Leader of the Opposition. There's no audacity in his speech, because he doesn't want to focus on the hope of humanity, human progress and advancement, which require the least amount of government in people's lives and the least amount of taxation and regulation that you can possibly put forward for people on business and on society, so people can make genuine choices and can make the right choices and do what they think is right for the planet and the climate. We know that people will do that when they're incentivised to do so—not when they're punished and not when the taxation system is used. But we know one thing about the last 13 years, and that is that Labor is addicted to taxes and continues to be addicted to taxes.
The member for Isaacs!
And that is not the view of the government or the view of the parliament; that's the view of the Australian people, by the way, and that's because, every single time the Labor Party comes forward with an approach, what they mean is: 'We're going to use the tax system to force people to do what they don't want to be doing.'
The incentives this government has provided over so many years have led to emissions reduction. We are seeing emissions reduction that is real. We have not just met our Kyoto 1 targets; we have met our Kyoto 2 targets and we've met our Paris targets. We will meet, and beat, our Paris targets. That, of course, is what Australians do: we lean in. We lean in, in an international sense, in our region when we help our neighbours in the Pacific through this pandemic, as a priority for this government. We lean in in our region when we help our neighbours in Indonesia. We lean in in Afghanistan when we establish an air bridge to rescue 4,100 people in a matter of 10 days, which was an unprecedented effort where we helped people who were in need in Afghanistan—
The minister will pause for a moment. Member for Isaacs, I have indicated to you that you need to cease interjecting at the level that you are. If you continue to do so, you will be removed under 94(a). Minister.
This is a great country because Australians do just that when there's a crisis. We've responded so well because we've come together. We've stayed together. In all the challenges we have seen around the world, our society has performed the best because people have come together in an unprecedented way. Through its economic agenda, the government supports all of the work that Australians are doing and will continue to make those investments in people and businesses as we go forward.
We've seen, of course, JobTrainer, our modern manufacturing strategy and the biggest investment that we have seen in the Australian defence industry, meaning we will have a long-term, sustainable manufacturing industry here in Australia. We continue to see that at record levels of spending.
When they put that together, Australians know that the Morrison coalition government has got their back. Every single day, when they go back to work, when they go back to re-open those businesses to get their customers back in, they go back to work on their farms, in their businesses, in their lives, they'll have a government that does not want to punish them for getting back, getting on with it and recovering from what has been a very difficult period. Instead, this government will continue to incentivise people to get on with their lives and make the decisions they need to make. We won't punish them. Of course we won't use the tax system to punish them for the choices they make. We can solve the world's problems and Australians' problems with our positive plans and incentives that rely on the good nature of humans, the development of technology and the real science that means we can answer these questions. Our government knows it. We're going to back technology. We aren't going to use taxes. We are going to let the Australian people get on with it, get back on their feet and get back to what they do best: running their own lives.
I just wish the government did listen to the science. This government has had eight long years in power and, in that time, they have failed the community I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales. The cost of living has never been higher. House prices are soaring, petrol prices are skyrocketing as we get back on the roads and local jobs are hard to find. As we faced COVID-19, the government sat on their hands and watched as vaccines were ripped away from our community and sent to Sydney. They've overlooked local businesses, who have struggled during lockdown, with many still waiting on their COVID payments.
They've failed the recognise the Central Coast as a standalone region. At the start of this year's statewide lockdown in New South Wales, the Central Coast was lumped in with Greater Sydney. Then, in the middle of lockdown, we were reclassified as regional. Then, once the New South Wales lockdown was lifted, the Central Coast was 'metro' and coasties were forbidden to travel to travel to other regional areas in New South Wales. Then we were promised, with the road map, that we could travel to the regions when we hit 80 per cent fully vaccinated. I fully support the health advice, but we hit that milestone and the goalpost was moved again. This government has failed to act during this pandemic. The Central Coast was recognised as a standalone region by Labor over a decade ago, and this government needs to treat it like one.
They have failed to act and protect coasties from COVID-19. When the vaccine rollout first began, we were overlooked. The first hospital hubs were in Newcastle and Hornsby. There were none on the coast. Healthcare workers were told they'd have to travel to RPA, Westmead or Liverpool to get their vaccine to protect them and to protect the people they care for. The government then promised to deliver by June a vaccine hub for people living with a disability on the coast. That wasn't set up and running until September, four months later, while vulnerable people were at risk and not protected by this government.
At the height of the pandemic, with cases on the coast, hundreds of vaccines were ripped away and taken to Sydney. When I asked the Prime Minister about this in question time he said, 'It's a matter for the Premier.' It's always someone else's fault with this Prime Minister. He never takes responsibility and he always blames others.
The Prime Minister has failed to help businesses across the Central Coast and many other parts of regional Australia that have been hit by bushfires, floods and the pandemic, especially during this latest lockdown. Thousands of businesses across the coast were forced to wind back or shut down completely during lockdown. Some won't reopen. They were promised support and they were let down. This government failed to help them. They passed the buck to the states to provide COVID support payments instead. There were many businesses on the coast who were eligible for the payment, but some of them have told me that they're still waiting to receive any support. It's not good enough. After four months in lockdown, supporting their families and their workers, business owners deserve proper support. While they didn't offer support to businesses, the government did offer COVID supplements to individuals—if only more people had been eligible. The eligibility criteria for COVID support payments were so strict that many people were ruled out altogether. They were forced to go without help, in the middle of a lockdown, for week after week.
Clearly this government has completely forgotten the people of the Central Coast and regional Australia. We have been completely overlooked on all fronts but especially when it comes to regional funding. In the lead-up to the last election this government promised to deliver commuter car parks on the Central Coast of New South Wales. We're now at the end of 2021, and still no work has been done. Then, earlier this year, we learnt that around 90 per cent of grants under round 5 of the Building Better Regions Fund went to coalition-held or marginal seats—90 per cent of the grants. None of the money went to projects in Dobell in the community I represent on the northern part of the Central Coast, but a number of projects in the neighbouring Liberal-held seat of Robertson received a slice of the funds. Now, in the latest round of regional rorts, we've learnt that 55 per cent of all regional grants announced by this government since 2018 have gone to projects in big cities. They've completely overlooked regions like the Central Coast in favour of people living in big cities.
This government's inaction during the pandemic is typical of their pattern of failure to protect Australians over the past eight years, especially those living outside of big cities. They've completely ignored regional Australians, especially people living in my community on the Central Coast and especially younger people living in my community on the Central Coast. Clearly we're not a priority for them. Eight years of their inaction has been eight years too many. Regional Australia deserves better. The coast deserves better. We deserve a Prime Minister for all Australia.
At the outset I want to acknowledge the member for Dobell's past as a pharmacist and a fine pharmacist at that. Much of what she spent the bulk of the first part of her speech on should have been directed at the New South Wales government. They are matters out of the federal government's control. I acknowledge that she is concerned about her constituents, as we all are. We all come to this place to represent the constituents in our own electorates, and we do it to the very best of our ability, but much of what she spoke about was a state issue. I appreciate that we are the Commonwealth government, but they are matters that are out of our control and that we handed to the state government, being the administrators of public health in the New South Wales state.
As a former deputy prime minister and indeed as a regional member, I am proud of the regional infrastructure rollout and the regional funding that we have delivered in more than eight years of government. I've been in this place long enough to remember what was done during the first term that I served in this place, when the Labor-Greens alliance was in power. There is now $110 billion of money for infrastructure across this nation, a third of which is going into regional areas. Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, you would know about the Tiaro bypass and how important that is—$183 million. It is going to save lives. Much of the infrastructure that we're rolling out, as far as roads are concerned, is going to do just that. During my time as DPM, the $2½ billion Local Road and Community. Infrastructure Program was established, and I'm very proud of that. The mayor of Bland Shire at West Wyalong, Councillor Brian Monaghan, said to me only the other day that in 30 years he's not seen the amount of money that's being spent in local governments. He said that it's a record amount of money and that it's going to those little areas that would otherwise be devoid of spending. Now, I didn't see that sort of funding going out to local councils and to those local projects when Labor was in power in those six sorry years under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and then, of course, Mr Rudd again.
If you look at the spending, there are more than 32,000 infrastructure projects with federal investment across all electorates—not just regional ones, but each and every one of the 151 electorates across Australia. There is increased funding for road black spots; R2R; and spending on heavy-vehicle safety and productivity projects. As you would also be well aware, Deputy Speaker, we established the Office of Road Safety and, indeed, the Office of Future Transport Technology. We established that in 2018. They are making such a difference not only in identifying road safety initiatives as well as funding them, but also in what we need to do as far as future technologies in the important transport space.
When we talk of regional infrastructure I am very, very proud of the water infrastructure that we are putting in place as we speak. There's an additional $2 billion to the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund taking it up to $3½ billion, establishing the National Water Grid.
I can recall going to see the Rookwood Weir progress in April this year. What a project that is. In this place yesterday in question time I heard murmurings from the opposition about the fact we had not built a dam. Well, yes, we have, Scottsdale dam. It started in 2018 and was finished earlier this year, in north-east Tasmania, making such a difference for the farmers in that area. Not only that, in New South Wales Dungowan and Wyangala dams have converted to grant funding. Initially the New South Wales government requested loans which was going to be forthcoming. Then they wanted it as grants so that's what we have provided. There's the Mitiamo pipeline in Victoria. Emu Swamp Dam has commenced—a particular pet project of mine—in the seat of Maranoa. We are getting on with the job of building that important piece of infrastructure.
We've delivered more than $60 million for the redevelopment of Newcastle Airport. I can recall when we gave Newcastle Airport international status. Well, now we are putting money into making sure that it is even better and we're doing it at the same time that defence is upgrading the important runway and other infrastructure there. So rather than Labor talking about any inaction; it's been eight years of action, eight years of delivery, eight years of getting on with the job—not just making the announcements but actually doing the work, putting the business cases in and delivering.
[by video link] Well, after that speech we certainly had it confirmed that the coalition are the Seinfeld of Australian politicians. They've made it an art form doing nothing. If only the Prime Minister had ordered new vaccines we might have avoided locking down two of our largest cities for months at a time, and all those other areas. 'It's not a race' he said. Well, it was a race and we started with both legs tied together, because of the inaction of this coalition government. If only the Prime Minister listened to the experts instead of all those empty vessel backbenchers. The Prime Minister was warned by fire chiefs before the Black Summer bushfires that we were at risk of a serious bushfire season. We needed more aerial firefighting equipment so we'd have a better chance of saving property and lives. But what did he do? He ignored them and did nothing. Then after much of the country was burning all he could say was, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' If only the Abbott-Truss, Turnbull-Truss, Turnbull-Joyce, Turnbull-McCormack, Morrison-McCormack, Morrison-Joyce governments had acted on climate change instead of leading a party of head in the sand climate deniers, our nation would be much safer and heading in a much better direction. The coalition have made things worse.
This year Australia ranked last for climate action out of nearly 200 countries in a global report that assessed progress towards global substantial development goals—last! This is the Prime Minister who, when he was Treasurer, proudly brought in a lump of coal into question time to taunt Labor about our renewable energy policies. Instead of playing bullyboy tactics with his beloved lump of coal, if only the then Treasurer had actually developed some policies on renewable energy himself. This is devastating on so many levels. The coalition's inaction has left Australia exposed to more environmental threats, like more intense bushfires, as well as economic risks, like international carbon tariffs preventing our products going out. Australians are missing out. On Scott Morrison's watch 2,700 clean energy jobs have disappeared. The world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. That's what the world understands. Global capital is moving rapidly towards renewable energy. We have a once in a generation opportunity for Australia to jump ahead of the pack with Australian renewable energy made by Australian workers and Australian technology right here at home. The coalition are squandering this opportunity. They don't care about climate volatility. They are only worried about backbench volatility. As I am sure you would know, Deputy Speaker, yesterday in Queensland we had the biggest hailstones on record—16 centimetre hailstones coming at your car. But the coalition are only concerned about backbencher volatility. The Nationals should be concerned about the bush and the climate.
It's not even weak leadership; it's non-existent leadership. It's a sitcom that works like that COVID app. We actually need a good leader who inspires and motivates action. It's hard to inspire and motivate action when you run off to Hawaii when the going gets tough. It's hard to inspire and motivate action when you are in denial about any problem even existing. It's hard to inspire and motivate action when you just blame everyone else when things go pear-shaped. But this is the leader who currently sits in The Lodge. To steal a quote from General George Patton: 'Lead me, follow me or get out of my way.' Australia can't afford to wait any longer for real leadership.
The Morrison government just aren't up to the job. They are too scared to even admit there is a problem. Australia needs a government with courage and a government with vision. Australia needs an Albanese Labor government with ambition, a Labor government that creates jobs, cuts power prices and reduces emissions—net zero emissions by 2050 and enshrine this target in legislation. Labor will rewire the nation to become a renewable energy superpower. Labor's $15 billion national reconstruction fund will create secure jobs for Australian workers, drive regional economic development, boost our sovereign capabilities and diversify our economy. It will partner with the private sector on investments that will grow the economy and jobs, including in renewables and low-emissions technologies like wind turbines, batteries and solar panels that lead on to other jobs, and will modernise fuel and aluminium, hydrogen electrolysers and so many more that I don't have time to go through.
The Morrison government is stuck in the past. This is the time when we need a leader with a vision and ambition for Australia. This is the time for real leadership. Australia can't afford to waste any more time on a do-nothing coalition government. We need action now, not a poor man's— (Time expired)
There's now an economic transformation in progress around the world, and our government recognises and has been working on providing scalable commercialisable solutions to help Australia pivot to the new energy order. But building to this point has taken months and years. Changes to an economy of this magnitude cannot happen overnight. All of this takes time. Anyone who has been in leadership positions in the real world knows that, if you want to build a building at a school or hospital, it doesn't happen overnight. It takes years of planning and commitment to actually translate those to outcomes. A lot of work needs to happen, work which includes technological development, the building of businesses, the building of new infrastructure and the development of new customers and trade partnerships. I know it has been a long time since those opposite have been in government, but building businesses, infrastructure and new technology takes time.
We have a plan to get to net zero by 2050 that is achievable, accountable and economically viable. Those on that side are all about targets and no plan. A target without a plan is simply wishful thinking. It is what you do when all you care about are votes and not having an impact. Our plan has been under development for years. In fact it has resulted in the release of Australia's first low-emissions technology strategy. I would like this place to be debating those issues, not wishful thinking about targets that have no meaning, not wishful thinking about targets that have no plan. I would like to hear those opposite talking about our technology investment road map and having real debates about issues that are going to have an effect on Australians—that are going to happen, whether we like it or not. I would like to hear them talking about our road map, which will support $80 billion of public and private investment by 2030 and support 160,000 jobs.
We are making a shift to a long-term commitment to a net zero future because we know we should and we know we can. We don't believe in offering false hope with hastily made targets on the run. When we commit, Australians can be confident that we will deliver. We are doing the hard work right across the economy—on energy, transport, manufacturing and agriculture. We have been clear that we will continue to invest record amounts in renewables and in the highest solar uptake in the world. Australia is building wind and solar around three times faster than Europe or the USA on a per person basis. Australia has the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes having rooftop solar panels.
But we just can't rely on the sun and wind. We've seen that with the recent wind drought in the UK. As everyone knows, the sun goes down at night and rises in the morning, but overnight you can't use solar. We need power to back up the intermittency of renewables. We need firming power. We understand this, on this side. To this issue we've made a commitment using gas and hydropower for that firming power in the short and medium term to help us pivot off our traditional energy sources. Our investment in Snowy Hydro 2.0 will mean clean energy and more jobs.
Tasmania is leading the way with its wonderful hydropower, which has more than enough to help not only itself but also mainland Australia. We will make that happen. We will make Tasmania the battery of the nation through development of the Marinus Link. More than that, we know that the private sector is also investing in hydro. We know, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the world's largest government-led green bank, and ARENA, that we're investing in scalable, commercial, clean-tech solutions to fuel our manufacturing, ag and export sectors. These five clean-tech, commercial stretch targets aim to get clean hydrogen under $2 a kilo. These are facts. This is commercial. This is what business needs. We're looking for electricity from storage for firming under $100 per megawatt hour. We need green steel production under $900 per tonne and low-emission aluminium under $2 per tonne. We need carbon capture and storage under $20 per tonne of CO2, and soil cover measurement under $3 per hectare.
The significant amount of work from this government to build a plan for our future has reached a momentous point not only for our environment but also for our economy. I'm proud to say that since day one in this place I've been working very hard every day inside the government. In my first speech I said that climate change is real and affects us all. It's not just an environmental imperative to act. It's an economic one.
[by video link] Can you think of a more abject failure of political leadership in living memory? Laura Tingle asked this question in the Australian Financial Review last week. I know what my answer is: a resounding no. I cannot think of a bigger failure of leadership than the Morrison government. There are dozens of examples of the Prime Minister running away from his responsibilities. His first reaction to any problem created by his government is to deny it exists, and then detract and deflect. Eventually, if there is enough pressure applied, he will admit the problem but then shift the blame to someone else. When he acts, it is always too late. This has become a pattern of behaviour we all recognise. He said, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' It's so obvious and blatant that it's eroding the public's trust in government. Importantly, it is also eroding the government's capacity to do what is in the best interests of Australians and the future of our nation. Whether it's climate change, robodebt, aged care, car park rorts and sports rorts, or our pandemic response, he never shows leadership—just more spin.
Australia deserves better than this. Now more than ever, as we recover from this pandemic, we need strong leadership and a vision that is not just about winning the next election but is about what is good for individuals, families, small business and the environment. The Prime Minister is trying to claim credit for Australia's roadmap out of the pandemic as we begin opening up, but we all know it is his fault that millions of Australians have had to endure repeated lockdowns for almost two years. As a Victorian, I know just how tough it has been for everyone to endure lockdowns, let alone hearing the Prime Minister for New South Wales and his Treasurer constantly undermining the extraordinary efforts of Victorians. It was blatantly obvious to all of us that the Prime Minister prioritised New South Wales when hundreds and thousands of vaccines were diverted there ahead of Victoria, which has waited too long for adequate vaccine supply.
Then there's his woeful eight years of inaction on climate change. This is one of the Prime Minister's biggest failures and Australia's great shame. After years of talking down renewables and spruiking coal, he now claims he wants to act, but it's still too little too late. And, honestly, the people of Australia just don't believe a word he says. Most of the developed world is decarbonising. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Australia to get ahead of the pack. Instead, we have the National Party holding the Morrison government to ransom. It's not only embarrassing; it's devastating, and it will be costly. If Australia does not decarbonise, it will be punished economically through sanctions imposed by other nations.
The Prime Minister refused to commit to attending the Glasgow summit until he was shamed into doing so. It took Australian comedian Dan Ilic displaying messages on New York's Times Square billboards to get him to change his mind. The billboard messages—of burning native animals and other images highlighting Australia's appalling climate change policies—appeared last Thursday morning. By that afternoon the Prime Minister announced he was going to attend the Glasgow COP26 climate summit. Dan Ilic said in an interview with CNN that our Prime Minister is 'running away' from the crisis and, 'This what we have to do in this country, we have to drag our leaders to lead us.' How can we trust this Prime Minister with our future? This Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility and blames others for his government's failures. This is the Prime Minister who fled to Hawaii for a holiday while Australia burned in horrific bushfires in 2019.
Australians are demanding a government that has courage and vision—a vision for the future full of possibilities and opportunities, a vision that puts people ahead of political gain and a vision that focuses on strengthening our economy and having higher wages, secure work and more jobs. Labor has a plan to turn the challenges of the present into opportunities for the future. A Labor government won't run away from problems. Labor will secure a better future, a future fit for us now and for generations to come.
If politics is the battle of ideas then this MPI should be renamed 'touching the void', because I swear to you the Labor Party have never found an idea that they won't run away from. They have completely, absolutely and abjectly given up on engaging this government and the Australian public on the things that matter. This MPI feels like something that was designed by an evil genius without any evil and certainly with no genius. If we are to take the member for Corangamite, the previous speaker, at her word and blame Scott Morrison for the lockdowns then we should thank him for the freedoms that we are all about to enjoy. The one thing he will not, however, ever take responsibility for is the haircut of the member for Isaacs. That is probably somewhere that he can't go.
This MPI is as scattered as confetti. It has no purpose. It achieves and seeks to hold no-one to account and only allow those opposite to bring forward nothing but a grab bag of complaints, whinges and whines while hiding from the fact that they present to the Australian people no alternative. It is Monty Python-esque in its comedic errors—'What did the Romans ever do for us?' The aqueducts, sanitation, education, wine and all those sorts of things. Someone has been watching too much Life of Brian.
When we get to questions concerning Australians under the age of 40—things like housing affordability—those opposite have nothing to say. Why do they have nothing to say? Because they have no ideas to offer. We have the situation where house prices in Australia have increased by 16 times since the 1990s and wages have increased only four times. If not for the policies of this government, such as HomeMaker, which has led to an absolute surge in building approvals and buildings for Australians and first home buyers, this problem would be acutely worse. According to the New South Wales government, there is an undersupply of 100,000 homes in Sydney. You wouldn't know that from listening to those opposite, because they don't care about Australians under the age of 40. They don't care about their issues, because they don't meet them in the boardrooms of industry super. You only meet them out on the streets, where people care about getting on with their lives. Those opposite have never met working-class Australians, because they are now fully and completely paid-up members of industry super. Ordinary Australians, those people under 40, have a choice between saving for their home or listening to the legislation of those opposite, where they forcibly remove 10 per cent of their incomes to give to the trillion-dollar industry super sector that donates so much to the Australian Labor Party.
They're not about organised labour anymore—and I acknowledge the former president of the ACTU over there—they're actually about organised capital. I wonder what the view of the former president of the ACTU is on the Finance Sector Union this week suing Cbus for trying to take money from workers. I haven't heard a single peep from those opposite about workers being ripped off by industry super. They have the gall to come into this chamber and accuse us of inaction, while they will not raise a finger, they will not raise a hand in support of working-class Australians who are trying to buy their own home, who are trying to get ahead. They only offer more money to their donors in the form of increased superannuation payments. They only offer them higher taxes. I quote Senator Gallagher, from the other place, who on Sunday confirmed that they're looking at a carbon tax. The shadow Treasurer has a ready said, yes, they'll be taxing different entities, more money. The one thing we can guarantee from Labor is that they will tax you more, they will take away your hope and they will give you no reason to work harder to build something for the future.
Wow, I need some earplugs! This country needs a leader, one that actually wants to lead, not someone who simply wants the title. The Prime Minister has been given countless opportunities to lead this country when we desperately needed it, but instead of stepping up he steps back time and again, and we have seen him pass the buck to someone else. In 2019 experts, including former fire chiefs, warned the Prime Minister of the serious risk of the impending fire season. They urged him to invest in aerial firefighting capacity. He ignored these warnings, left the country and went on holidays. Yes, I am again talking about bushfires. In fact, the last time I spoke in parliament about the ongoing and compounding effects of the Black Summer bushfires followed by the pandemic, the response I had from one government minister was, 'With all due respect, the bushfires were 18 months ago.'
I am well aware of how much time has passed since the bushfires, because I won't forget that summer. I'll never forget standing in front of a room of terrified community members and telling them that, if they weren't prepared to defend their homes and their lives, they needed to leave. I'll never forget the days, the weeks and the months that followed those terrifying events and the ongoing trauma that so many people are still grappling with, and I don't need this government to tell me how much time has passed. The reason I stand up in here time and again is that, despite how much time has passed, people in my community are still desperate. They are in desperate need of support, and in truth I don't want to be the bushfire reminder. I am tired of having to stand in here to beg and plead with the government to take action and to continue to take action to prioritise the recovery of bushfire communities. Scott Morrison failed these communities when he was in Hawaii. He failed these communities when he said, 'I don't hold a hose.' And he continued to fail these communities by sitting on money that was earning interest, instead of taking action.
Two years ago this government set up the $4 billion disaster fund. Two years later and more than 18 months since the Black Summer bushfires the Morrison-Joyce government has only released $50 million from this fund. During that time that fund has earned the government over $700 million in interest. The fund has earned 14 times as much in interest than it has actually been spent. The fund was designed to pay out $200 million each year to councils, with $150 million set aside for recovery and $50 million for infrastructure projects to lessen the impact of disasters. But here we are once again approaching another disaster season with nothing built, no jobs created, no communities protected, because this government prioritises its bank balance or the possibility of an election slush fund over anything else. This is just another example of the Prime Minister's big promises with no delivery.
The bushfires, followed by the pandemic and along with floods in between, has meant that individuals, businesses and communities in my electorate are struggling now more than ever. Numerous border closures and lockdowns have hurt these communities more than this government seems to understand. Businesses in my area can't simply bounce back. The alpine region can't recoup their losses until the next winter rolls around. They've got more than six long months ahead of them, where they don't know how they are going to make ends meet to pay their bills.
This shouldn't have happened. This year's lockdowns and border closures were preventable. The problem was that the Prime Minister didn't prioritise the vaccine rollout. He said it wasn't a race. He treated it like anything but a race. He was too slow to order vaccines. We know other nations ordered theirs in July; the Prime Minister waited until November. He knocked back Pfizer. He didn't order enough vaccines, and he didn't order a variety of vaccines. As a result, more people have been exposed to COVID, businesses have suffered billions of dollars in economic loss and incredible pressure every day and Australians have experienced huge amounts of stress, trying to cope with working from home and homeschooling.
The stress from these lockdowns is more intense for people living in regional areas, because the lockdowns have brought to light the other failings of this government. For years this government hasn't invested enough in regional infrastructure. While the rest of the country was working and learning from home, people in my electorate were grappling with poor internet connectivity. This impacted not only countless businesses but also students. People on satellite internet can't buy additional data, because of legislation put in place by this government. New South Wales is opening up, which is fantastic, but the damage is done to regional communities. It's time to get rid of this government after a decade of inaction.
This is a great day for the strength of Australia and the strength of the great Aussie spirit. We've reached over 70 per cent of double dose vaccinations. I'd like to give a shout-out to my own community of Penrith, the Penrith LGA, where we've received 84 per cent. That's such a wonderful achievement.
This is about Aussies backing each other and Aussies getting on with the job, and that's just what we've been doing. We've been getting on with the job of supporting Australians through the pandemic, and now we are coming through and recovering on the other side. We've been supporting them through JobKeeper, JobSeeker and HomeBuilder, with 25,892 applications in my state of New South Wales alone.
We've been backing our manufacturers, and we've been backing jobs. This is what we've been doing throughout the pandemic and what we will keep our focus on. In fact, we were the first developed nation in the world to have more people in work after the pandemic than prior to the pandemic. Between May 2020 and June 2021, more than one million jobs were created. That's because we've been getting behind Aussies, and we've been supporting them through the pandemic so that they can do what they do best—getting on with the job and getting on with their lives.
This is the difference between the positive plan that we have—supported by technology, which we're very focused on—and the doom and gloom of Labor and their taxes, which they are completely obsessed about. In fact, the opposition leader couldn't even get through a speech during his MPI without mentioning the word 'taxes'. My community, the community of Lindsay, has not forgotten the taxes that would have been imposed if Labor had been in power: the housing tax, the retirees tax, taxes on electricity, taxes on cars, taxes on income and taxes on investment.
Investment is important. That's what we're doing; we're investing in the future of Australians. We're investing in important industries, like manufacturing, which is so important in my community of Lindsay, with over 600 manufacturers and over 6,000 jobs. When we look at manufacturing under Labor, one in eight manufacturing jobs were lost. This is extraordinary. Now we have a growing and thriving manufacturing industry in Western Sydney. A testament to this—and I visited just last week—is Scott from All Cast PPE, who has moved his factory to Penrith to produce personal protective equipment. We're investing in manufacturers, and they're investing in local jobs, employing local people, and also contributing to Australia's sovereign capability.
Another manufacturer tells me that he's investing in local trainees, which is so important, and this is backed by the Morrison government and the work that we're doing to support local manufacturers. Mal Hiley of Baker & Provan tells me that he has a personal passion for apprenticeships. They currently have six apprentices between first and fourth year, including two women commencing their fitting and machining trade. That is absolutely fantastic news. We're backing manufacturers and getting behind them. That's what it's all about—investing in them.
They're also investing in the technology that they use to expand their business. Tracy at Plustec in Emu Plains tells me that, because of our instant asset write-off program, she has been able to purchase new equipment, including a new upstroke cut saw for about $100,000. They not only gain a tax deduction but also the benefits of improved efficiencies through greater productivity, and that's fantastic news. We're investing in technology, definitely not taxes, and the obsession is still there with the Labor Party.
Another thing that we are investing in is the future of Australians. We've backed them through this pandemic. As we emerge out of the pandemic, we're enabling them to get on with the job, to get on with supporting each other through their communities—which we've been absolutely doing—so they can get back to work, get back to their families and get back to their lives.
As members would be aware, on Monday the Manager of Opposition Business raised as a matter of privilege whether the member for Pearce had failed to comply with the resolution of the House regarding the registration of members' interests such as would constitute a contempt of the House.
I'm satisfied that the Manager of Opposition Business has raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. The Manager of Opposition Business tabled a number of related documents, and I have examined these as well as his statement to the House.
The matter arises from an alteration made by the member for Pearce to his statement of interests on 13 September 2021. As recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, this alteration addresses payments related to a defamation case in the court. In the alteration, the member lists:
• Part contribution to the payment of my fees by a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust. As a potential beneficiary I have no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust.
The Manager of Opposition Business claims that, by not including detail as to the source of the donated funds in his statement of interest, the member for Pearce has deliberately evaded the purpose of the register. I also note that, while the member for Pearce made a public statement on 19 September about obtaining information from the trustee of the Legal Services Trust, that information did not include detail as to the source of the donated funds.
The House has several rules about the pecuniary interests of members, in standing orders and the resolution for the registration of members' interests.
In 1986, the House provided that certain behaviours in relation to the registration of members' interests would be included as a category of contempt of the House.
Since passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act in 1987, section 4 of that act provides the test which applies to consideration of all contempts.
The registration of members' interests is, in its nature, a disclosure regime, and transparency is a key feature. All members of this House would be familiar with their obligations in relation to completing and maintaining a statement of registrable interests and the fact that these obligations require them to exercise their judgment about the disclosures.
The explanatory notes, published by the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, state: 'The purpose of the statement of registrable interests form is to place on the public record members' interests which may conflict, or may be seen to conflict, with their public duty.' The notes also state as guidance: 'No form can cover all possible circumstances and members should consequently bear in mind the purpose and spirit of the return in deciding which matters should be registered.'
Based on my careful consideration of all the information available to me, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, and I'm willing to give precedence to a motion concerning privilege or contempt, as raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
As members would also be aware, and as House of Representatives Practice makes clear, 'an opinion by the Speaker that a prima facie case has been made out does not imply a conclusion that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred.'
In giving precedence for a motion to be moved, I am simply allowing the House the opportunity to consider a motion immediately and debate and decide on whether the matter should be referred to the committee for inquiry and report.
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:
(1) whether the conduct of the Member for Pearce, by refusing to disclose on the Register of Members' Interests the identities of individual donors to a Trust used to pay his private legal fees, has failed to properly register an interest where a conflict of interest with his public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise, and in doing so created a precedent which threatens the integrity of the Register of Members' Interests;
(2) whether the Member for Pearce has knowingly provided false or misleading information to the Registrar of Members' Interests;
(3) whether this constitutes a contempt of the House; and
(4) whether paragraph 2(k) of the House Resolution on the Registration of Members' Interests requires Members to provide reasonable identifying details of the sources of gifts that meet the relevant thresholds.
Mr Speaker, I will start by thanking you for considering the matters that I raised and for making the decision to grant precedence in weighing those issues up. Had you not done so, I'd be in a position of having to move a suspension of standing orders instead of us being able to put it to this House.
I note that, for the entire time of your speakership, there have not been many occasions where privileges references have been made, but, in every instance, when you have decided to not give precedence, the House has accepted that and no suspension has been moved, and, when you have given precedence, the House has then resolved to send the matter to the Privileges Committee. I urge the House to do exactly that today. In doing so, the House is not making a decision. I do not want members opposite to feel that they are being asked to adjudicate on the member for Pearce himself, but they are in a situation where the Speaker—elected unopposed—has said that there is a prima facie case here, and the resolution allows the committee of privileges to examine the merits of this.
What they would be examining is no small matter. We have here not the sort of blind trust that members have used previously. There have been a number of times when members come to this parliament having already, in their lives, amassed considerable wealth—good on them; there's no problem with that—and they want to make sure they avoid conflicts of interest, so they therefore put their money into a trust, and someone else handles where the investments go. Up until now, that has been what we have dealt with in the register when we have dealt with a blind trust. The member may not have known where the money was being invested but we knew exactly whose money it was.
On this occasion, we are dealing with something that, if it is allowed to stand and if you are allowed to do this, we may as well not have a Register of Members' Interests at all. The term 'blind trust' is being used—this is a brown paper bag stitched together by lawyers. We have no idea whose money is involved. If we accept what the member for Pearce has said publicly, we know the first thing—he can find out where the money has come from because he was able to say it's not foreign donors and it's no-one on the lobbyists' register. So he has made clear that he can find out whose money is in this trust, from which he has personally benefited for a personal bill. He can find out who it is and he has chosen not to. In choosing not to, he wants us to allow a situation to stand where the Register of Members' Interests does not allow the public to know who gives us money. Think about that. Think about the purpose of having a register. The whole reason it's there is so the public know if a member of parliament gets money. The public have a right to know where that money has come from. What the member for Pearce has done—there is a prima facie case of this, and the privileges committee will get the chance to examine it if this is carried—is something that no-one else in this House has tried on. Since Federation, no member of parliament has tried this—to receive income and not let anyone know who is paying.
The concept that he has no idea, I've got to say, I have difficulty with. There are philanthropists out there who could fund any charity in the world. To think that they look around for the different funds in a time of a pandemic—there's plenty of need out there—and say: 'Of all the different causes, the one I want to give money to is the legal bills of the member for Pearce. But I don't want him to know that I ever gave a cent, and somehow I've found out that this secret trust exists.' We're meant to believe that, if we're to believe that the member for Pearce has no idea at all.
But just start with this simple principle—why do we have a register? If you don't believe in having a Register of Members' Interests, vote against this. I get that. If you don't believe members of parliament should be held to any standards, vote against this. But if you believe that the public have a right to know where money comes from, if it comes to us, then allow the privileges committee to examine it. I don't know what they will find. There have been a number of times when precedence has been granted and I thought, 'Yes, we've got there,' and it has come back without an answer that I thought was great. But that's their job, and as a parliament we've appointed people to the privileges committee to do that job. Sometimes, regardless of party affiliation, those members on that privileges committee have taken their jobs seriously, have taken their integrity of that role seriously and have voted contrary to what might otherwise be considered party lines. The classic example of that would be Bruce Billson. I made the reference that precedence was given, it went through unopposed, we ended up with a unanimous decision coming back from the privileges committee and then the resolution was carried unanimously through the House. That's how matters of integrity should be dealt with. And that's what this House is being asked to consider again.
If we're not going to refer the member for Pearce, think about what's then allowed. Any member of this House can then set up a blind trust, have whatever income they want go into it and receive the money, and all they have to say is: 'I got it from the trust. I don't know where the money came from.' If we start with the principle that disclosure is there to avoid corruption, that the register is there to avoid corruption and that we want to avoid conflicts of interest to avoid corruption then we need to oppose a system where members of parliament can keep secret who is giving them money for personal bills.
If you're wondering whether this is just an issue for Labor, remember the extent to which those opposite railed against a Labor senator who disclosed where he had had money come from because it had been to pay for a personal bill and because of where that money had come from. He's no longer a member of parliament and he left because of that. If you think that was a reasonable prosecution of the facts, right now, the member for Pearce is wanting to create a situation where those facts would never be known, where anyone can just set up a trust, where it doesn't matter what business interest, what potential criminal interest, what potential overseas interest gives you money, where all you have to report is, 'I got the money from the trust.' No-one has ever tried this before, not because no-one had cause to possibly think of it—probably some people had—but because everyone just knew it would have been outrageous.
We've all known that you're not meant to do something like this—to say: 'Oh, someone gave me a wad of cash. I don't know who they were. But, yes, I got it. Good on me'—and yet the person who previously had been the Attorney-General of Australia in this House and had charge of introducing the anticorruption body, and then never did, is the person who has set this up. So, when this comes to a vote, I simply ask everybody to think of the way members have voted previously when they have taken their role on the Privileges Committee itself, because on that committee they have always acted with integrity and responsibly and they have said that they owe a duty to the parliament. Well, we all do, and this vote is a test of that, because if this is allowed to stand the Register of Members' Interests is obliterated in terms of being a disclosure document; the concept that we find out what the conflicts of interests are for members of parliament is obliterated; the concept that we have mechanisms in place to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption is gone. That's the decision that's in front of this House now.
The Privileges Committee might come back with an answer that I don't expect. That's on them. But it would be the cover-up to end all cover-ups if this House prevents the Privileges Committee from even being able to look at this resolution before us. If all they were allowed to look at was the letter that's been sent to them by the shadow Attorney-General, without the authority of it being a resolution of the House, it would mean they would deal with it differently. The only time the Privileges Committee has an obligation to report back is when the information gets to them by a resolution of this House. Everybody here at different points has made speeches about integrity. Everyone in this House has made speeches about standards. This resolution is a test of whether or not we hold to the exact words that, on different occasions, every one of us has uttered.
I thank the honourable member for his contribution on what is an important matter. I want to deal with Practice first, just to make very clear the circumstances that we are dealing with in relation to this particular issue. Mr Speaker, the first point is that the honourable member for Watson has asked you to grant precedence, which of course he can do if he gives proper notice and he has done that—we acknowledge that. You have given it due deliberation since he raised that earlier point on Monday—and we appreciate that as well. His request of you, Mr Speaker, on my reading of the Practice, is for you to give this issue precedence for the House to consider and to vote on, and that's what we're doing now. That's the extent of the request that's available to the member for Watson under the standing orders of the Speaker. So I want to make that very clear, just to respond to some of the points made in the member for Watson's contribution.
The member for Watson hasn't asked the Speaker to provide a verdict on the allegations that he has put forward to the Speaker as part of his submission. That is abundantly clear and that is very important, Mr Speaker, to note as part of this. Our position in relation to this matter is on that basis. I think it is important to note that, at page 769 of Practice it says, and I quote in part:
… the Speaker may reserve the matter for further consideration, or may give the matter precedence and invite the Member to move one of the above motions …
Referred to in an earlier paragraph on page 679. It goes on to say:
If the matter is given precedence, consideration and decision of every other question is suspended until the matter of privilege has been disposed of, or until debate on any motion related to the matter of privilege has been adjourned.
At page 771, the second paragraph says:
In determining that a prima facie case exists, the Speaker typically refers to the matter briefly, but does not express concluded views on the issues themselves, as it is for the House to decide, in practice after examination by the Committee of Privileges, whether a contempt or breach of privilege has been committed.
I wanted to make that abundantly clear as part of my contribution in explaining the government's position.
This issue has alerted us as a house to much a much broader issue, because there is not only this matter in relation to the former Attorney that has been raised by the member opposite but also a number of other cases which are of a similar ilk. I know that the member for Watson has made a claim in relation to the trust and to the lack of transparency in his contribution during the course of his earlier remarks. But the same principle applies to a number of other members in this place over a period of time in relation to defamation trials, in particular, which are expensive—and we note that—particularly when a member of parliament is taking an action against a corporate entity, a media organisation or a government body, for example. These are difficult matters for members.
I can give examples. For example, Mr Speaker, the same transparency issues raised by the member for Watson arise in circumstances of GoFundMe pages, where there is no transparency about the donors—no transparency whatsoever. You could make the same argument in relation to other members where they have received a donation, for example, from the Labor Party or, indeed, the Liberal Party if it's a reimbursement of costs or an indemnity of costs, because effectively that provides a flow-through vehicle. There's no transparency as to where that money has been donated from. For the Labor Party then to donate that money on to the member of parliament, there's no transparency in that process.
The GoFundMe pages for Senator Hanson-Young, for example, or Senator Bob Brown or others who have raised money provide a very interesting study. In the case of Senator Hanson-Young—which goes to exactly the points being made by the member for Watson about transparency in this issue—the donors to Senator Hanson-Young on a GoFundMe page included Mr Anon, otherwise known as anon. There was a John 51884010. There was a Mary W. There was an Anna B. There was a Buzz Rainbow Wolf. There was a Jeff CB. There was an Anne 559 and series of other numbers ending in a 5. There was Zanda B. There was MG. There was Steph Steph. There was Dave C. There was Bin H. There was Nicky. There was ET—ET donated. There was Leanne W.
I suggest to you that there is no transparency in that process. In fact, it makes a mockery of a suggestion that the GoFundMe page is a transparent process and donors are properly identified in their contribution to a member of parliament to provide support to them in a defamation proceeding. That's the reality. So the principle espoused by the member for Watson is not as virtuous as he might make out.
I can go to the member for Hunter, who has an issue in relation to this, but, Leader of the Opposition, because I appreciate the spirit in which the opposition member has approached this matter, I don't intend to conduct character assessments of those opposite. The point I'm making here is that I think this gives rise to a much bigger issue in relation to members of parliament. That is why on Monday of this week I wrote to the chair of the Privileges Committee. I understand that the shadow Attorney-General has also written to that committee. I believe that there are further issues beyond this which need to be considered by the Privileges Committee. I'm happy to, in a moment, table the letter that I wrote to the Privileges Committee, to Mr Broadbent, and I will make sure that members are able to view that, because I think—and I've detailed this in my letter—that there are bigger considerations and further considerations than those raised in the motion before the House at the moment, and they should be considered by the Privileges Committee. That should come back to the government, if the committee sees it appropriate, to deal with what is a much more significant issue.
I think there are other steps that, frankly, should be contemplated between the government and the opposition in relation to what is a significant issue, because, as the member for Watson pointed out, there are many people who come into this parliament, on both sides, with significant wealth—and good luck to them, as the member for Watson pointed out. There are many members, as I look around, who don't have those deep pockets to defend a defamation trial, in some cases costing over a million dollars. That's the reality.
Honourable members interjecting—
If the Leader of the House could pause. For those members interjecting: I will eject members interjecting under 94(a). This is not a normal procedure where you feel you can make contributions against the standing orders. This is a rare matter, and I need to hear people in silence. The Leader of the House.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there is a sensible discussion to be had at the appropriate time between the government and the opposition to see what the appropriate next step might be for this parliament. I think it's a workplace entitlement issue and I think it's a broader discussion that should be had. We are, as a government, prepared to have that discussion.
So I table the letter that on 18 October I wrote to the Privileges Committee and, for the reasons I've detailed today, the government is not going to support the motion that's before the House, because I believe that the letter that I wrote, the letter that has been written by the shadow Attorney-General and the broader issue that, as I point out, is here before us to deal with makes redundant the motion that's been moved by the member for Watson. It's on that basis that the government will be opposing it.
I rise to defend the existence of the register of pecuniary interests and I rise to defend this parliament, this House of Representatives and the integrity of this House, because I find it, quite frankly, extraordinary that the government would be in a position of rejecting a recommendation from the Speaker in granting precedence, as you have.
I've been in the position of Leader of the House. I held that position for two terms of the parliament. On no occasion would I have even considered rejecting a motion that was brought forward after the Speaker had given due consideration to whether precedence should be given. I'd be interested in the Leader of the House commenting about whether there has been a time since Federation whereby we've have the circumstances that the Leader of the House is contemplating this parliament conduct, because as far as I'm aware—I've received advice—since Federation there has never been a time when the House has voted down a resolution after precedence was given. In more than 120 years that has never occurred. Why? Because the standing orders are very clear.
Mr Speaker, the standing orders, under 51(d)(i), say that in order to grant precedence you had to give consideration as to whether 'a prima facie case of contempt or breach of privilege has been made out'. And you could only consider that after you'd considered (ii), which is 'the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity'. Mr Speaker, you've given consideration to this, and there's been some commentary in recent times about the seriousness with which you take your job. I've said publicly that you are an outstanding Speaker who has raised the conduct of this House. That's in the interests of us all, but it particularly assists the government to have a Speaker who does their job independently.
The idea here that there is any doubt as to the facts is extraordinary. What this motion from the member for Watson does is just ask that the committee consider these facts—consider them and make a determination and a recommendation. It's not a conclusion. In opposing this motion, the government is saying, 'Don't even look at it; just pretend; look away,' to something that is very serious. What we have here is that on 1 June the member for Pearce said that he would withdraw a defamation case against the ABC. On 13 September the member for Pearce updated his register, addressing payments related to the defamation case. It discloses:
But it's not a blind trust. He knows where the money is being invested. It's being invested in him, in what's a private legal matter. A blind trust is what the former member for Wentworth, the former Prime Minister, did when he was in this parliament, so that investments could be made on his behalf and he wouldn't know where they were being invested. This is being paid to his lawyers for a private legal matter.
It is a nonsense that the member for Pearce has no idea who donated to this trust, because how did they know where to put the money? How did they know? As to the GoFundMe page that the minister referred to, GoFundMe pages are pages people know. They're public by definition; they're on the internet. With this you had to know exactly how to donate money to this trust to benefit the member for Pearce. But the House doesn't know where the donations came from. The Australian public don't know where the money came from. This cannot be allowed to stand. If it's allowed to stand it renders redundant the processes of this parliament whereby all of us cannot receive money from private interests for personal reasons without disclosing it. That's the basis—point 1—for stamping out corruption in this parliament. I make no assertion regarding the member for Pearce, and nor does this resolution. But if this resolution is not carried then anyone can receive money from unknown sources into a so-called 'blind trust' and never declare it. It renders all the things, including foreign donations and interference—don't come in here and talk about national security again if you don't vote for this resolution, because you won't be taken seriously. This opens it all up to foreign interference in our politics. It opens it all up for corporate interests or individual interests to buy influence in this parliament without anyone knowing.
At the moment, some people can try to buy influence, and we know that gets disclosed. People have lost their seats over those issues. We know that Senator Dastyari lost his seat in the Senate as a result of a small amount. This is up to $1 million for the former first legal officer of the land—the Attorney-General—who was responsible, while he held that title, for introducing legislation to create a national integrity commission into this parliament. You couldn't make this up! You could not make the scenario up whereby the government is going to vote against this. I say to the Leader of the House—who, at the risk of receiving substantial criticism on social media, I have some regard for—think about what you are doing with this resolution. You're saying that you are ignoring the fact that the Speaker has determined there's a prima facie case worthy of consideration. You're not pre-empting the deliberations of the Privileges Committee; you're saying they can't even look at it—in spite of the Speaker's determination and in spite of the fact that there is so much public anger about this.
The public out there—I think, wrongly—think that there is a lot more dodgy activity than there is. I think most people go into parliament—overwhelmingly, on all sides—out of the public interest. That's why they do it. But I have to acknowledge that one of the reasons I support a national anticorruption commission with teeth is that a whole lot of the public are really angry about these issues. This will make them damn angry. And they have every right to be damn angry if this parliament is saying that someone who was the first law officer of the land received donations of up to $1 million, that he must know where they're from but that no-one else has a right to know where they're from, that we won't even give consideration to that, and that that's okay. It is not okay! No-one made the member for Pearce engage in this legal activity against the ABC. That was his decision. He's entitled, I guess, under the rules of the parliament, to seek donations, but he's not entitled do it anonymously and he's not entitled to pretend that it is a blind trust when it is not.
There is an absolute responsibility of every member of this House to support this motion to refer the member for Pearce to the Privileges Committee. It's consistent with every single decision that has been made in this House since Federation. Don't set a new precedent which opens us up to corruption in 2021. (Time expired)
The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of the Opposition be disagreed to.
The member for Isaacs just accused exiting ministers of taking a bribe. It is completely unacceptable. It is completely unparliamentary, and I ask the shadow minister to approach the dispatch box and withdraw that.
I'll just say to the minister, if members can just control themselves for a second: I'm the arbiter of who comes to the dispatch box and who doesn't. I heard interjections, but I didn't hear the substance of them. That's what happens when members shout at each other as they're leaving the chamber. The Manager of Opposition Business, on the point of order?
On the point of order: what the House has just done is unprecedented. Right now, the House has resolved—
No, the Manager of Opposition Business, we're not going to go over—
It goes exactly to what he's just pointed to. He just voted that we'll never find out if somebody has been bribed. That's how he voted.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
The member for Mackellar will not stand at the back of the chamber and interject. You will not scoff. You've got a seat; either sit in it or leave. I'm going to ask the member for Isaacs to come to the dispatch box and ask him whether he made an unparliamentary remark or reflected on members. The member for Isaacs.
I did.
I need the member for Isaacs to withdraw.
I withdraw.
I thank the member for Isaacs.
I've received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion for the appointment of members to certain committees.
Is leave granted?
Could we have a copy of the list? I want to know what I'm granting leave for.
We haven't got it, so we're not voting for it. We're not voting for it unless you tell us what it is.
There are two things. One is whether leave is granted. The other is the question that is put at the end. I know tempers are a bit frayed, but normally leave is granted and then the minister has to move—
Sorry, Mr Speaker, I appreciate what normally happens. We've just had something happen that has never happened in the history of the Federation, which goes to a corruption issue. What normally happens is not the issue today.
We won't keep debating the matter. Leave is either granted or it's not.
Leave not granted.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 12 of 2021.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 12th scrutiny report of 2021. As usual, this report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In this report, the committee has considered 111 new legislative instruments and commented on two new instruments. It has also concluded its consideration of five bills and four legislative instruments previously introduced. As I've previously noted, this committee has continued its important scrutiny work throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including by regularly meeting remotely via teleconference, tabling scrutiny reports out of session and continuing to scrutinise the many legislative measures which have been introduced to address this unprecedented health crisis.
In this report, for example, the committee considered three legislative instruments made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two extend the human biosecurity emergency period by three months each—most recently until 17 December 2021. This consequently extends existing emergency determinations, including the travel ban on Australian citizens and permanent residents from leaving Australia unless otherwise exempted. The committee also considered one instrument that removes the automatic exemption for Australians ordinarily resident overseas to leave Australia. While these measures clearly pursue the legitimate objective of controlling and preventing the entry and spread of COVID-19 in Australia and, therefore, promote the rights to life and health, they also necessarily limit a number of other rights, particularly the right to freedom of movement. The committee considers there is a risk that the longer this emergency period is extended—noting that it has been extended six times, lasting for almost two years—the less likely it is to be considered a temporary measure, and it risks impermissibly limiting the right to freedom of movement. The committee has, however, welcomed the recent announcement that the travel ban will be lifted soon and considers this will likely address many of the human rights concerns raised.
The committee also commented on the Migration Amendment (Merits Review) Regulations 2021. This legislative instrument increases Administrative Appeals Tribunal application fees for review of decisions relating to migration visas, other than protection visas, to $3,000—a 64 per cent increase. The committee considered that, for those who cannot afford to pay the application fee, there is a significant risk that the measure impermissibly limits the right to access to justice. The committee has suggested two amendments to assist with the proportionality of the measure.
The committee also concluded its examination of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021. This bill makes it a service offence for an Australian Defence Force member to use a social media or electronic service to cyberbully, but the offence also includes the broader prohibition on use that a reasonable person would find offensive. The committee considered this limits the rights to freedom of expression. While the measure seeks to achieve the legitimate objective of maintaining or enforcing military service discipline, noting the breadth of the offence, that imprisonment may be imposed and that it applies to members in their personal capacity and without any link to their service, the committee concluded it has not been established that the offence would permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression. The committee has suggested two amendments to limit the scope of the offence which may assist with the proportionality of the measure. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis.
With these comments, I commend this report to the chamber.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
The m otion was unavailable at time of publishing.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manger of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately:
The m otion was unavailable at time of publishing.
We need to restore the faith of the Australian people in our political system. All of us have a responsibility to do this. It is more than 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised an anticorruption commission and no wonder—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. This is a government of rorters who are trashing our democracy.
The member for Isaacs will resume his seat.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The question now is that the motion moved by the honourable Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
The main protection against corruption in politics was abolished today.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021. There is nothing more important than caring for our older and most vulnerable Australians, particularly at this moment in history, when the COVID pandemic poses such a significant threat to all older people with frail health and underlying conditions, and particularly when we've so recently had the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which has forensically examined the shortcomings of a system that has been ignored for far too long.
We all know that the royal commission exposed frankly terrifying things, from abuse, neglect and awful hygiene practices through to poor nutrition and ongoing workforce issues. It exposed a tragic vacuum of transparency and accountability. The royal commission handed down recommendations to the Morrison government, and those opposite have a clear moral obligation to act decisively to reform this system and protect these important but vulnerable people.
These people are mums and dads, grandmothers and grandfathers, and uncles and aunts. They are people who have contributed to Australia in so many ways, from running milk bars to pushing the frontiers of scientific research to teaching our kids to read books, ride bikes and cook meals. But they're also just people. They are simply people who need our care—older men and women who deserve safety, security, and appropriate care as they age. We can't just think of them as a number or a cost. They're not just a political problem for the Morrison government to run spin about or hide from, hoping that the spotlight on the problem goes away. They're loved ones, and we can't ever forget that. They are people who have mastered FaceTime so they can connect with their grandkids. They're women who listen to the radio for company. They're people who, like anyone, look forward to the weekend, to sunny weather, to their favourite meals and to having visitors. They're real people, and we owe them more. We owe them more than a system in crisis.
Labor supports action to fix the aged-care system. We want to see change. We want to see an aged-care system that we can be proud of, one that looks after—and I mean really looks after—those among us when they age. Last year, almost 700 residents in aged-care facilities died after COVID crept into their homes. It was horrendous. We watched the situation unfold in Victoria, and the Morrison Government stood back. The protections were not in place. Neither staff nor patients were adequately looked after. The system buckled under the pressure of COVID-19. These people deserved better. Their families deserved better. That's why Labor is fighting for a system that doesn't cut corners and doesn't ask too much of too few staff. We want the system that older Australians deserve after a lifetime of paying taxes, contributing, and raising families.
The Morrison government have consistently let us down and failed these people. After 21 expert reports into this issue, those opposite knew that older people had been suffering in aged care, but they didn't fix the problem. They have known about the parlous situation in the aged-care sector for some time and they've sat on their hands. They sat on those reports. The evidence mounted, as those reports collected dust on someone's shelf; however, in his most recent job, as Treasurer, the now Prime Minister actually cut funding to the aged-care sector. In 2016, he cut almost $2 billion from the aged-care budget. Meanwhile, they've managed to roll out money for other stuff. They've spent money on sports rorts, on an overpriced land acquisition that helped out mates and on giving billions in JobKeeper payments to businesses that don't need it, didn't deserve it and didn't even qualify for it. But they haven't adequately followed through with the systemwide changes that the aged-care sector and those within it are crying out for. If we look at the track record of the government, they're simply not up to the job of fixing the aged-care sector. They have neither the will nor the way. They can glance at the problem, they can skim reports, they can hear testimonials about bedsores, the prevalence of sexual assault in aged-care facilities and other heartbreaking situations of neglect and abuse, and then they walk away from the very changes that matter the most. Older Australians, their families and hardworking carers and nurses cannot trust the Morrison government to fix this broken system.
While there are aspects of this bill that are welcome, it's clear that it needs proper scrutiny through committee process, so I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes the:
(a) systemic, ongoing failures in Australia's aged care system as evidenced by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, including, but not limited to, poor levels of transparency, accountability and provider governance;
(b) inadequacy of the Government's response to the Royal Commission, including deferred and curtailed legislative action on key issues and an unclear plan for reform implementation; and
(c) Government's failures in providing safe and high-quality care for aged care residents due to their historic cuts and poor management of the aged care sector; and
(2) calls on the Government to clearly explain why they have ignored, deferred or curtailed so many of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's important recommendations to fix the aged care sector and deliver the care that older Australians and their families deserve".
I flag that, if this amendment is passed by this House, Labor will ensure that the bill goes to a Senate committee. I know that the government have at the last minute moved their own amendments to this bill; I'm pretty sure they came in this morning, which shows that, like their response to the royal commission, it seems everything they do for aged care is half-baked, half-cooked and done on the fly without proper thought or consultation. Imagine if they'd done their job and worked up this bill in proper consultation with all stakeholders. God forbid that they actually asked stakeholder in the sector, the people who know and understand what happens in aged care, about what should be in their legislation.
Older Australians, their advocates, workers, their trade unions, aged-care providers and their peak bodies—they're all extremely frustrated that they've been shut out of the room and not sufficiently consulted in the development of this bill. It's not clear why they weren't properly consulted, given the impact this bill will have on their care, their jobs, their organisations and the whole aged-care sector. Put simply, this affects their lives. It has major impacts on their homes and on their workplaces, yet they weren't asked for their expertise, their feedback or their experiences to shape the direction of this legislation. They weren't consulted on the residential aged-care funding framework and they weren't consulted on workforce screening, governance structures, banning orders and a code of conduct. This legislation raises very real questions; questions that need clear and considered answers. These are big issues with significant impacts on the quality of care in our aged-care facilitates and in the sector more broadly. These big issues require proper scrutiny and proper consultation.
Many of those affected, those who work in the sector and those who care deeply about these issues, and I include myself, want to know why parts of this bill fall so far short of what was recommended by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Why has the government fobbed off, delayed and outright rejected key recommendations? Of the 148 recommendations from the royal commission, more than half are not being implemented or they're not being implemented properly. There are very real questions as to why this is the case, and yet those opposite are not providing the answers or assurances to those who need them the most. The truth is that the government has neglected aged care and older Australians for eight years. Don't just take my word for it; the royal commission perfectly described the government's approach to aged care in its final report where it said:
At times in this inquiry, it has felt like the Government's main consideration was what was the minimum commitment it could get away with, rather than what should be done to sustain the aged care system so that it is enabled to deliver high quality and safe care.
This is apparently the approach the government is still taking. As I said, this bill contains some welcome changes. But we'd like to know why the government is pursuing this collection of changes at this time, because these changes don't match the royal commission's recommended time line, and, frankly, they don't seem to fully match the government's own time line. This bill fails to deliver enduring improvements and lasting reforms for the long run. Nothing will change without reform to the workforce. There is nothing to improve wages for overstretched, undervalued aged-care workers. They're gifting $3.2 billion to providers with no strings attached, nothing to make sure that this money goes to actual care or better food for residents in aged-care facilities ue to their disinterest in transparency and accountability, there is nothing to stop shonky facilities from investing their share in bonuses for management or a refurb for their offices.
They failed to clear the home-care package waiting list of 100,000 people. Their numbers just don't add up. Australians want to age at home. Those opposite have ignored the recommendation to require a nurse to be on duty 24/7 in residential aged care. They've also shirked the main increase to mandatory care minutes in residential aged care. Staffing levels are central to many of the quality-of-care problems.
I ask: why call a $200 million royal commission and then ignore most of its recommendations? The Morrison government's response to the royal commission and the aged-care crisis falls way short of where it needs to be, and this bill is a rushed attempt to cover up the government's failure to follow the recommendations of its own royal commission. Could this be a case of the government handing in its homework at the last minute? Could it be a rushed job to make it look like it's taking action when its main consideration is still the minimum it can get away with? In almost all areas of policy, the Morrison government takes this approach, and it's this attitude towards the aged-care system that worries older Australians. It worries their families. It worries the dedicated workforce that care for them. They know that this government isn't fully committed to helping fix the system it has broken after eight long and sorry years of neglect. That's eight very long years if you have been in that system or if you've had to deal with that system.
The government claims to have accepted or accepted in principle 126 out of 148 recommendations. However, when it comes to the details of the follow-through, you have to read the fine print. They are simply not implementing the recommendations they are purporting to accept. If they were to actually deliver on those recommendations, firstly they would need to reform the workforce. The government has no strategy when it comes to the wonderful people who work in the aged-care sector, who care for vulnerable Australians. This is patently clear to anyone observing the situation. I know aged-care facilities. I know aged-care workers. I know the nurses who work in the system. It's clear to everyone I speak to that this government doesn't have a clear and considered plan to address the pressures that they are under, and—oh my goodness—those pressures are enormous! We are in an aged-care workforce crisis.
Just this week, I met with many aged-care workers—ANMF members, my old union's members—and they were crying, some of them, telling us the care that they could not deliver to the elderly people in their nursing homes, knowing that, if they were toileting one patient or one resident and a bell rang, they'd have to choose between leaving a resident alone, rushing down the corridor and hoping that the bell didn't indicate someone had fallen and hurt themselves, that somebody had wandered out or that somebody was in trouble or needed their help. You shouldn't have to make those decisions. There should be enough people working in aged-care facilities to deliver the care to answer those bells when they ring.
This goes back to 2013, when the former Prime Minister and member for Warringah scrapped Labor's $1.2 billion aged-care workforce compact, a compact that the current shadow minister for health put in place. Labor actually understands the need for workforce reform. We know what needs to be done, and this was a good reform that the whole sector acknowledged was needed, and yet—there we go—the Liberal Prime Minister at the time scrapped it, cancelling a much-needed pay rise for workers. In the years since, the Abbott and Morrison governments have never developed a plan to make sure that we have a pipeline of excellent, qualified and professional carers, nurses and professional staff to run the aged-care sector.
Aged-care workers are the crucial backbone of the system. They are mostly women, I might add, and they are exhausted. They are stretched. They are underresourced. They are actually traumatised from the past year and a half, when their system has been pushed to breaking point and they, themselves, have been pushed to breaking point. For too many years they have been asked to do too much heavy lifting for too little pay. We know the workers are chronically underpaid and the system is haemorrhaging staff. They are leaving in droves, and would you blame them? They can get better conditions and higher pay as a nurse in a hospital, as a support worker in the disability sector or even as a worker in retail, for that matter—anywhere but the aged-care sector. This is because the Morrison government has failed to address the paltry pay and conditions experienced by those who work in this area.
During the pandemic aged-care workers aren't given the resources they need to take care of frail older Australians. The Morrison government wasn't even able to protect these nurses and carers with a timely and appropriate vaccine rollout to aged-care workers, and they're voting with their feet. Labor believe these workers should be paid more, and we're supporting the HSU and the ANMF's pay case before the Fair Work Commission right now—and there should be more of them. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we will support minimum staffing levels and an RN on every shift.
Sadly, the Morrison government can't be trusted to pay dedicated and hardworking aged-care workers properly, even though they know that the workforce is key to delivering a high-quality aged-care system. This isn't just Labor identifying the workforce as key to delivering a fit-for-purpose aged-care system. The royal commission itself recognised this too. It's a no-brainer really. What Australians need is wholesale reform of the aged-care system and investment in the sector and its workforce, and all this government can offer via this bill before us is a little bit of tinkering around the edges and fine print about what is not included in these measures.
To protect older Australians and to protect our aged-care workforce what we need is a regulator with teeth, but teeth that bite the right pieces though. Constantly hitting overworked and stretched out staff over the head with a meat axe for small compliance issues is not the type of teeth we need. We need a governance model within the sector that ensures facilities that get government subsidies spend those subsidies on actual care and not Maseratis. The system itself needs to have a governance model that clearly shows how public funds are spent through clear and accountable public reporting mechanisms. We also need individual aged-care providers to be required to clearly show the different types of care available, information about staffing levels and ratios, and information about nutrition and services within the facility. Let me say it again: transparency and accountability must be at the heart of all reforms and all measures adopted.
While Labor is pursuing an agenda of transparency and accountability, this bill represents the precise opposite. The Morrison government's agenda is opacity and obfuscation—a hard word to say, and some people would say that is onomatopoeic—making things as clear as mud with as much room to hide as possible. To go back to the words of the royal commission report, the government's main consideration was the minimum commitment it could get away with.
This bill is a masterclass in concealing things from the public and keeping things confusing for those who are seeking care within our aged-care system. This is the attitude of a government indifferent to the aged-care system that worries older Australians, their families and the workforce. We need a government with fresh ideas about what an aged-care system could look like and how to attract the next generation of talent to the system. We need a government that seizes on the opportunity to improve the aged-care sector, rather than one that shies away from reform without looking the problem directly in the eye. We need a government unafraid of taking on shonky players in the sector and creating a system where any one of us would be happy for our parents, our loved ones or, indeed, ourselves to spend time.
Sadly, Australians do not have a government that is willing to look at this problem and fix it, because that takes courage. What we see instead is eight years of neglect of a system that is groaning under the weight of its own crisis. We know that for the Prime Minister every problem is somebody else's problem. It's somebody else's fault. Every crisis is someone else's responsibility. When he's called out on his failure, the Prime Minister's response is always the same: 'It's not my job. It's a matter for the states. I don't hold a hose' Whether it's bushfires, robodebt, aged care or car park rorts, he doesn't show leadership; he just gives us more spin.
Instead of going missing in action and passing the buck, the Prime Minister's got to step up and be a leader. The stakes are too high when it comes to aged care. The Prime Minister has barely even acknowledged the aged-care system since it announced its lacklustre, beige and disappointing response to the royal commission. But there's nowhere to hide right now—not even Hawaii.
The Prime Minister is responsible for the aged-care system. He's responsible for the funding cuts he made as Treasurer and he's responsible for the terrible neglect identified by the aged-care royal commission. The Prime Minister failed to listen to listen to Australians, to their families and to the workers. He failed to listen to 21 expert reports and now even to his royal commission. It's clear that older Australians, their families and the workers that care for them can't trust the Prime Minister to fix this broken system. It's clear that, after eight years of neglect, another three years of this Prime Minister won't fix it. Older Australians, their families and hardworking carers and nurses can't trust the Prime Minister to fix this present system. He can't be trusted to fix the nutrition crisis and act with the urgency that this issue requires. He can't be trusted to pay dedicated, hardworking, aged-care workers properly even though they know the workforce is key to delivering a high-quality aged-care system.
Aged care has always a priority for Labor, and we will continue to fight for the aged-care system Australians need and deserve. We will fight for a better system for this generation of Australians and all who come next as they require care for their parents, their loved ones and, eventually, themselves. We'll fight for the aged-care workers who look after their patients with kindness, professionalism and patience. We stand shoulder to shoulder and advocate for them to get the pay and conditions they deserve.
I have always believed that the worth of a nation rests upon how it treats its most vulnerable, and I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed of some of the things I have seen and heard about in our aged-care system. Put simply, the stakes are too high to ignore the crisis. Therefore, I move to amend this bill as follows:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes the:
(a) systemic, ongoing failures in Australia's aged care system as evidenced by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, including, but not limited to, poor levels of transparency, accountability and provider governance;
(b) inadequacy of the Government's response to the Royal Commission, including deferred and curtailed legislative action on key issues and an unclear plan for reform implementation; and
(c) Government's failures in providing safe and high-quality care for aged care residents due to their historic cuts and poor management of the aged care sector; and
(2) calls on the Government to clearly explain why they have ignored, deferred or curtailed so many of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's important recommendations to fix the aged care sector and deliver the care that older Australians and their families deserve".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
(Quorum formed )
It's all doom and gloom on the other side. There's no positivity. There's no vision for the future of aged care in our country. We on the government side of the House are focused on one thing, and that's getting the job done for the aged-care sector by implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. On this side of the chamber, we are in charge of the government. We are delivering for Australians in the aged-care sector, and Australians continue to put their trust in a Liberal-National government to deliver major reform of the aged-care sector, and we are delivering on that commitment.
Caring for Australians in aged care has always been, and will continue to be, a top priority for the Morrison government. In the last budget, the government committed $17.7 billion over five years to assist in the continuation of reform to the sector. The five key pillars of the government's reform program are home care, residential aged-care services and sustainability, residential aged-care quality and safety, workforce, and governance. The amendments in this bill—the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021—represent the second stage in that agenda. There are currently more than 282,000 Australians in residential aged care, excluding care provided in the home. Every individual that makes up that number is more than a statistic to this government. Their quality of life and their continued prosperity is our focus.
In Moncrieff, I continue to visit all 20 aged-care homes and continue to stay in touch on the vaccination rollout and speak with residents. It's going incredibly well, with aged-care workers and residents now well protected against COVID-19. In fact, soon after the last budget, I took Minister Hunt to TriCare in Mermaid Beach where we talked to staff and residents about their vaccination rollout and how the increase of $10 per day per resident would positively impact care for their residents. I thank those who worked so hard to vaccinate aged-care workers and residents, and I encourage those who may be unemployed at the moment to consider retraining and entering the workforce for a rewarding career in Australia's aged-care sector.
This bill will directly impact our senior Australians, who have contributed much of their adult life to building a country full of opportunity and freedom in which future generations will prosper. They've built the country that we live in today.
The Prime Minister established the royal commission into aged care only three weeks after entering office. Quite symbolic, don't you think? It was an unprecedented act that set in motion a chain of events to reform and tackle the big challenges facing Australia's aged-care sector.
The royal commission established by the Morrison government undertook a thorough examination of the aged-care system and provided a detailed list of recommendations. I know that Australians will be pleased to hear that the government has taken swift action to deliver fundamental and generational reform of our aged-care system.
Not only does this bill deliver the second phase of reforms for the aged-care sector; it ensures the future stability of the industry and the best quality care every senior Australian deserves. The record investment of $17.7 billion over five years will support the changes.
There are approximately 85 aged-care facilities on the Gold Coast alone, throughout and surrounding my electorate of Moncrieff. I am pleased to speak on the bill currently before the House and to see the second phase of reforms delivered for my ageing citizens, who deserve the best care possible. The reforms will directly impact my electorate, and, as a member of parliament, nothing brings me more joy than to see the lives of my constituents positively impacted by the work we undertake in this place.
Moncrieff is home to more than 28,000 Australians over the age of 65. That's 18 per cent of the electorate's population. The Gold Coast is not only a bustling paradise for thrillseekers and a destination for family getaways; it's also home to vibrant and inclusive residential aged-care communities. I'm certain this bill will not only provide better protection for residents in aged care; it will offer peace of mind to senior Australians considering the transition to an aged-care community for their health and wellbeing.
Under the current model, funding levels for residential aged-care services are determined by using the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument. It does not adequately differentiate between residents in relation to the cost of delivering care, resulting in volatile revenue streams for providers and costs to government. This means clinical staff in residential aged-care facilities spend more time assessing residents for funding than delivering the quality care which residents require from the provider.
The royal commission examined these issues and recommended the introduction of a new case-mix funding model—the AN-ACC. A new specialist assessment workforce will create consistency across assessments, reduce funding volatility and free up aged-care workers to spend more time delivering the crucial care that aged-care residents deserve. It will also deter providers from delivering outdated and ineffective care in order to maximise funding. To put it simply, the new funding model will mean more time spent on caring for aged-care recipients and a reduction in overpriced services and wasted time on assessments.
Consistent with the royal commission's recommendation 121, under the new AN-ACC model, if the capability of a resident improves, there's no requirement for reassessment and potential reassignment to a lower payment class, providing an inbuilt financial incentive for aged-care providers to invest in restorative care. Changes to the aged-care funding model will be put in place from 1 October 2022. This will allow for providers and the broader aged-care sector to properly prepare to progress the newly developed and purpose-built funding model.
The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021 takes into careful consideration the timing of which amendments will be engaged. The faults within the sector that require immediate attention to ensure the continued operation of the aged-care system will be put into effect after the successful passing of this bill.
In April this year, residential aged-care recipients began being progressively assessed and classified under the AN-ACC. This classification will now be linked through this bill to the subsidy calculation for residential aged-care providers as the final step in implementing the AN-ACC model.
Not only do these amendments address critical flaws in our aged-care sector; they also create a contemporary, efficient, effective and stable funding approach. It lays the foundations for reform, like mandatory minimum care requirements and quality rating systems, and supports providers to better deliver individualised care for senior Australians.
The amendments will also revoke the limits on the number of respite days that can be offered at aged-care services. The Morrison government recognises the mental and physical toll of caring for a loved one. This bill takes into consideration both the wellbeing of the carer and the wellbeing of the individual receiving care. It provides families with a greater ability to transition a loved one to an aged-care facility when adequate care can no longer be delivered at home.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety listened to Australians from all corners of the aged-care sector. It uncovered harrowing truths and a culture of noncompliance throughout the industry. I stand here today and speak to the individuals, the families and the loved ones of residents in aged care that have experienced perpetrators abusing power to inflict harm, and those who endured an extremely difficult time, particularly at earle haven in my electorate, due to the financial failings of their provider. I want to make it crystal clear that any individual that believes they can cut corners on service provision or abuse the power of their position and continue to be employed in the aged-care sector is sorely mistaken. The Morrison government is putting in place up-to-date and fit-for-purpose financial and worker regulation measures—in part to recommendation 77 of the royal commission—by establishing an authority for nationally consistent preemployment screening for aged-care workers of approved providers and governing persons to replace existing police check obligations. The safety of residents should be at the forefront of all employment decisions. A national database of cleared and excluded individuals will be developed to support employment decisions in aged care. These safety measures anticipate there will also be mutual recognition arrangements with the NDIS and across the broader care and support sector.
Under the amendments put in place by this bill, Australians who require care and support can rest assured it will be safe. This will be achieved by broadening the scope and expanding the powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner to allow the commissioner to make and enforce a code of conduct that applies to approved providers and their workers, including governing persons. To support the commissioner in the mission to ensure the safety of aged-care recipients, this government will put into effect recommendation 103 of the royal commission. This will support the code of conduct by allowing the commissioner to enforce a new banning order regime for workers. These new regulatory arrangements will prevent unsuitable workers from entering or remaining in the aged-care sector and ensure that poor conduct is held to account. It will deter individuals who intend to put the safety of aged-care residents at risk by breaching the code of conduct. The Morrison government will develop the code of conduct in consultation with stakeholders and it will be brought into effect through supporting legislation. The code will be based on the current NDIS Code of Conduct, which has proven to be effective for NDIS recipients. Modifications will be made, of course, to ensure the code is fit for purpose and relevant to aged care.
Over the coming months consultations with stakeholders will provide the foundation for the content and operation of the draft code, including through a consultation paper and targeted stakeholder forums. There will be opportunities for aged-care providers, workers and consumers, as well as stakeholders from the broader care and support sector to contribute. We are safeguarding and fortifying Australia's position as a world leader in aged-care and broader support services.
It is important to note that this bill carries out structural and cultural changes deep within the aged-care sector—changes that are desperately needed. In the same breath thousands of nurses, aged-care workers and many others continue to uphold a high standard of care in the workplace. I can attest to that by having visited all of those aged-care facilitates in Moncrieff and seeing the absolute dedication of the staff that run those homes. The way they treat patients makes me proud—I am beaming with pride when I leave those homes. They're such kind and gentle people who are dedicated to our elderly citizens. We mustn't paint all aged-care workers with the same brush. This bill will highlight the great work of those who serve the sector with selflessness and compassion for all of our seniors.
It has become increasingly common for senior Australians to opt for aged-care services to be provided at home, rather than in a residential facility. As demand for at-home care has grown, many new providers have entered the market to provide care and support services. The Morrison government is extending, from 1 July 2022, the Serious Incident Response Scheme for residential care to home care and flexible care delivered in a home, in line with royal commission recommendation 100. Under the scheme, providers of in-home aged-care services will gain additional responsibility to identify, record, manage and resolve all incidents that occur. The Morrison government will expand the Serious Incident Response Scheme. This will reduce the risk of abuse and neglect and protect vulnerable older Australians receiving aged-care services in their home and in the community.
Competent and effective governance provides the basis on which the aged-care sector delivers its services. The proposed strengthening of legislative arrangements will greatly improve the governance of approved providers. These amendments align with royal commission recommendations 88 to 90, which note that good provider governance arrangements result in high-quality care for consumers. All of this will improve the financial resilience of the industry, improve service continuity and allow the government to identify at-risk providers sooner as well.
To finish—because I see I'm running out of time but I've got pages and pages of things that I could talk about—I will summarise for Australians: the $17.7 billion that this government is investing in aged care is for your future, your parents' future and your grandparents' future. I'm very proud to stand here and say that we are reforming the aged-care sector across those five key planks. We are dedicated to working for Australians—for your future and for your families' future.
[by video link] I listened closely to the contribution from the previous speaker, the member for Moncrieff. I thought it was really odd that she started off by complaining that Labor are all doom and gloom. I think anyone who has been paying attention to the question of aged care, particularly in the context of the royal commission, over the past term of parliament would understand the serious challenges and the reasons why, in fact, Labor have been so concerned about aged care and why we have been so consistent in pressing the government to take real action.
The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021, of course, arises from that royal commission. Like so many of the things that this government does, this bill seems to just fall short. That's the case with the government's actions generally and it's the case with the government's actions in relation to aged care. So I'd say to the member for Moncrieff: instead of trying to police the tone in which Labor is talking about aged care, perhaps take on board some of the criticisms—
Sorry, Member for Griffith; I'm taking a point of order.
Thanks, Deputy Speaker. I'd just ask that the member address her comments through the chair, not to the member for Moncrieff.
She's making them through the chair. It's fine. It's not a point of order, and I overrule you. Back to you, Member for Griffith.
She said 'the member for Moncrieff', Deputy Chair.
She was using the member's proper title in the course of a debate.
She was speaking to her.
No, she was using the member's title in the course of the debate. She is going through me. I am overruling you and I am giving the call back to the member for Griffith. Sorry for that interruption, Member for Griffith.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I would invite her, instead of trying to police the tone in which Labor talks about aged care, to really reflect on the substance of the serious issues that have been raised through the royal commission. I'm sure she remembers that the royal commission's interim report had a one-word title, and that word was 'neglect'.
We all know—everyone in this chamber is well aware—of the importance of aged care to our constituents, in our communities and in the course of our own lives. We also, I think, have all had experience with aged care. I'm certainly grateful to the people who took good care of my grandfather, who was in aged care until he passed away a few years ago. My uncle, who we lost only a couple of weeks ago, was in aged care in the Atherton Tablelands, and I say again to his immediate family how sorry I am for that loss. In my own case, my grandmother is presently in aged care in Far North Queensland. We're grateful to the carers.
I've met with so many aged-care workers, carers and nurses—the ones that my family has experienced—and I know how much the carers, nurses, other care staff and support staff in the facilities that are in my electorate and in the facilities all across this country really believe in what they're doing. They're doing this work because it's a vocation. They believe in the importance of caring for elderly Australians. They understand that the people who are in aged care are the people who really built the nation that we have today and who are really in need of good, appropriate, high-quality care. While we can all reflect on the importance of improvements in the aged-care system, of improvements in aged-care regulation and of developing proper responses to the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission, we should also make sure that we are acknowledging that the people working in this system are absolutely doing it because they care. Given some of the conditions, the workload and some of the remuneration conditions that people face, they wouldn't be there if they didn't absolutely believe in what they were doing and really have that vocation where they're drawn to care.
I say to all of the carers in our aged-care facilities, and particularly the ones in my electorate, thank you so much for the work that you are doing to look after people. I know that they've had a particularly tough time—they had a tough time during the royal commission and they had a tough time during COVID. I've spoken in the House before about one of the aged-care facilities in my electorate that was given a complete run-around in relation to the supply of vaccines for elderly residents. They were told there would be only a few, then it turned out there were about 45 vaccinations but they had about 90 residents, and then they had to work out who didn't get the chance to have the vaccination that day. It was absolute nonsense that occurred in relation to that facility, and I've covered it in the House before. But all across this electorate and across this country I know that aged-care facilities have had a really difficult time in relation to the vaccination rollout. Of course, it was one of Scott Morrison's two jobs, wasn't it? Scott Morrison as Prime Minister had two jobs—quarantine and the vaccine rollout—and he botched both. We certainly saw some of the consequences of that in aged-care facilities in my electorate, and even more strongly and upsettingly in aged-care facilities elsewhere.
It's important that we acknowledge that it has been a difficult time in relation to aged care. It's one of the reasons we so strongly support any action to fix the aged-care system, but it's also why we're concerned that this bill seems to fall short. As is so often the case with the Morrison government, they make big announcements but then they don't deliver. In this case, the situation is one where they have basically fobbed off, delayed or in some cases just outright rejected some of the key recommendations from the aged-care royal commission. Of the 148 recommendations, over half are not being implemented or aren't being implemented properly.
This bill is no different, with a number of items missing that came from the original royal commission recommendations it claims to be addressing. It's also really worrying that older Australians, aged-care peak bodies, providers, workers and unions were not consulted in the drafting of the bill that we're talking about today, despite the impacts that it will have on them in the sector. Residential aged-care funding, workforce screening, provider governance, banning orders and the code of conduct are not small changes and they need proper consultation.
It's Seniors Month this month, and I'm looking forward to holding a roundtable of stakeholders this coming Friday to talk about issues facing seniors. I expect that issue No. 1 will be aged care and the implementation of the recommendations from the aged-care royal commission.
I'm really looking forward to meeting with providers, with stakeholder groups, with senior citizens organisations and with representatives of other seniors groups in my electorate to get their views in relation to the aged-care royal commission, the way that it's been responded to and some of the moves that are included in this bill. I'm looking forward to doing my own consultation, but, of course, we're not the government. It's up to the government to consult on their proposed legislation, and there ought to have been significant consultation in relation to the drafting of this bill. It's disappointing that that has not been the case.
In my state, some of the best knowledge and experience in relation to aged care and the aged-care system—I'm sure this is true across the country—comes from the workforce who are at the front line of aged-care facilities, the people who, day in and day out, are managing the workload, are managing the demands, are dealing with people who are sometimes in distress or at least are vulnerable. Some of the best expertise and history comes from the people in that situation. In particular, when it comes to consultation, I have found it very valuable to meet with some of those frontline workers through the agency of the representative organisations—the union movement—whether that's people who are members of the United Workers Union, the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union or others. There are a range of organisations that have membership amongst people who are working in those frontline occupations and caring for older Australians. I want to give a shout-out to those unions and to say to them, 'Thank you for the work that you are doing.'
I have been fortunate to have had delegations from unions—and there are others in aged care, of course—across many years, visiting me to talk to me about the issues that they face in those sectors. I have also been very fortunate to do some work for some of those unions in my previous life as a lawyer. I know, Deputy Speaker Wallace, you were a barrister. You did a lot in the construction sector. I did some work in the construction sector as well, but I will always have a very special place in my heart for the legal work I did for members of those unions who were working in aged-care facilities and who could tell me, through the prism of what was happening in their lives, the direct impact of some of those systemic issues such as workload. I remember talking to someone who was saying to me, 'The facility is physically too big for the limited number of staff we have to get around to make sure'—she was talking about nursing—'there is sufficient support for those residents.'
I know that, as I said, the people we're talking to through the agency of their representative organisations and are doing this from a sense of vocation, from a sense of duty and from a sense of responsibility to their community. I want to acknowledge the work those unions are doing. It is the same with the national unions. We've certainly held briefings with union members in parliament. In fact, I think people might remember—I do because I started crying during it—the member for Grayndler's budget reply speech, in which he talked about aged care and aged-care workers. I remember looking up in the gallery, and there was a delegation of aged-care workers, and they were crying. I started crying. I'm sure there were lots of other tears in the House as well, because that's the level of emotion wrapped up in this question of what should be done to improve the aged-care facilities and system in this country. It's the level of emotion because a lot of the workers will tell you they feel like they're at breaking point. They feel like they need to know that they'll have a government that will actually make sure that the residents in their care—the people who we're all actually focused on—get the best possible care and a reasonable level of care. That's really something that I think we should all be able to agree on.
Those workers know that the residents in aged care rightly expect that the government will look after them when they're frail, when they're vulnerable in those later years. It's obvious that after eight long years of Liberal-National government in this country, you can't trust the Liberals and Nationals to fix the aged-care system and you can't trust them to deliver good-quality aged care in this country. We all need to see a government that will stand up for older Australians—that will make sure that we have a good, high-quality aged-care system and that people who are vulnerable, particularly, have their interests protected. That's why this bill is really important.
I really want to encourage everyone to take a close look at how the Morrison government is responding to the aged-care royal commission. As I said, I've got a number of concerns about the fact that the government is, yet again, falling short when it comes to the implementation of the recommendations. Some are being kicked off, some are being delayed and some are just being outright denied. We actually want to see a strong, sensible and considered approach to aged-care reform, as needed. Most importantly, I think we all want to see an aged-care system that puts residents, older Australians, at the heart of the system—one that's about care, protection and actually making sure that people have dignity towards the end of their lives. That's what I want to see.
I really encourage the government to engage with the community, to speak with stakeholders and to consult further in relation to their response to the aged-care royal commission, and I'll really be looking forward to meeting with local stakeholders when I hold a roundtable at the end of this week in relation to issues facing seniors and older Australians, including aged care.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021. This bill is part of our government's commitment to undertaking significant reform of the aged-care system to ensure that it meets the needs of senior Australians. The bill amends a number of acts to implement changes in response to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and delivers the second stage of reforms—
(Quorum formed) As I was saying, this bill amends a number of acts to implement changes in response to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and it delivers the second stage of reforms following the royal commission's final report. The bill will introduce a new subsidy calculation to fund approved providers, strengthen provider governance arrangements and financial accountability and expand the functions of the pricing authority. It also extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme, helps establish a nationally consistent preemployment screening process for aged-care workers, provides the basis for an enforceable code of conduct and enhances information sharing between the aged-care and disability sectors.
I want to touch on a small number of these changes in more detail, starting with reforms to the aged-care subsidy for providers. Currently, funding levels for residential aged-care services are determined using an outdated aged-care funding instrument. This doesn't effectively differentiate between residents in terms of the costs of delivering their care, it's resulted in volatile revenues for providers and it requires residential aged-care workers to dedicate time to assess residents for funding rather than actually focusing on providing the care and the support they need. The introduction of a new funding model and a new specialist assessment workforce will help to assist in addressing these issues. From 1 October next year, subsidies paid to providers for permanent residential care and respite care will consist of a fixed component to account for costs across all care recipients and a variable component based on each individual recipient's needs. These amendments will create an efficient, effective and stable funding approach to promote investment in residential aged-care refurbishment and expansion, boosting the sector and ensuring its long-term sustainability.
There are a number of aged-care providers in my electorate of Robertson and, indeed, right across the Central Coast. They provide a home to so many senior Australians who live locally in what I consider to be the very best region in the very best country in the world. Examples of some of our outstanding aged-care provider services includes Peninsula Village, a group of three retirement homes that care for many locals. Peninsula Village are an integral part of our local community. They are involved with a number of local organisations, including the outstanding Umina Beach Men's Shed, located alongside, who recently donated four sensory boards for residents with dementia or memory loss.
BlueWave Living is based in Woy Woy, and it operates not-for-profit residential aged-care services. One of the things I really appreciate about BlueWave is the absolutely beautiful and extraordinary Anzac Day service that they hold every single year at their venue. Residents contribute to a handknitted poppy wall which includes some purple poppies, reminding us of the sacrifice of the animals who also died in the war. It's a very poignant reminder. Contributions are made by residents every year. It is such a fitting tribute to those who have served our country, and many stay to chat afterwards, sharing stories of their own experiences when they were young. Aurrum, at Kincumber, is another great provider on the Central Coast. I visited the facility to have a look at some of the upgrades that have been completed and to look at their incredible community garden, which has really become a favourite among residents. It really is a lovely space and one that many residents are rightly very proud of. These are just a few examples of some of the many aged-care providers on the Central Coast.
To assist aged-care providers, the government has announced a substantial funding uplift to residential aged care in the 2021-22 budget. This includes $3.9 billion in increased funding from October next year to support providers to increase direct care for residents and to meet the new mandatory care time standards. A two-year $53.3 million transition fund will also be established to assist providers who may need support during the transition to the new model. I hope that these amendments will benefit providers across our region and enable them to continue to offer the very best quality care to local residents, because it's so important that we as a government ensure that every aged-care provider is delivering the world-leading care that every resident deserves. After all, these aren't just aged-care facilities. They are places that our senior Australians call their home, and each and every resident deserves to feel valued, supported and cared for in their home, because our senior Australians deserve the very best care. Their contribution to local communities around our nation have helped to craft Australia into the great nation that we are today, and we as the next generation are all better off because of their service and their commitment.
This bill also strengthens the legislative arrangements to improve the governance of providers, and the amendments will introduce new reporting responsibilities for approved providers and their governing bodies to improve transparency and accountability and drive cultural change from the top down. This will help to strike a balance between giving providers the resources they need and ensuring oversight and accountability so residents see improved outcomes. Another key amendment relates to regulating the aged-care workforce to ensure high standards of care are delivered to those who need it. These changes respond to the royal commission's recommendation to strengthen regulation of the personal care workforce. The bill will also help to establish nationally consistent pre-employment screening of aged-care workers by replacing existing police check obligations and provides the basis for a national database of cleared and excluded individuals.
The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner will be given powers to enforce a code of conduct that applies to approved providers and aged-care workers. The commissioner will be able to deal with alleged breaches of the code, including having the ability to apply for a civil penalty order and, in the case of individuals, imposing a banning order restricting them from being involved in the aged-care sector. These penalties ensure both providers and workers are held accountable for poor conduct and protect our vulnerable senior Australians. At the same time, the bill extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme to providers of home care to ensure action is taken to prevent incidents from reoccurring. There are currently no mandatory incident reporting requirements for providers of home care or flexible care delivered in the home and community, meaning there's no oversight of allegations of abuse and neglect of senior Australians receiving care in these settings. The bill introduces new responsibilities for providers of in-home services to identify, record, manage and resolve all incidents and the reporting of serious incidents. The focus of the scheme is on a provider's response to an incident and the supports that they put in place for those affected as well as the actions that they take to continuously improve and reduce the likelihood of incidents reoccurring. The commission will be notified of serious incidents and will be able to oversee the management of reported issues and ensure compliance with the scheme. They'll also be able to analyse reportable incidents based on a range of factors and use this data to drive education campaigns to address common issues.
All of these measures will assist in reducing the risk of harm arising from abuse and neglect of those receiving in-home aged-care services. I never, ever want to hear another story like some of the ones that we heard during the royal commission. We heard stories of some of our most vulnerable senior Australians being mistreated or neglected or not being afforded the respect that they deserve. After all, they are our mothers, our fathers, our grandfathers and our grandmothers. They're our great-grandparents and our great-great-grandparents who have cared for us deeply, who have contributed to this nation so strongly and who we all care about so much. We owe it to all of them to make sure that their senior years are filled with proper care and where their home is in a place with the highest standard of care and attention and the utmost respect and consideration. So I do commend this bill to the House, as it will help to deliver on the federal government's promise to reform the aged-care sector and to provide better care for our senior Australians.
[by video link] There have been 21 expert reports that said our aged-care system simply isn't good enough. There have been 21 reports that said that older people were suffering in aged care, but the problems haven't been fixed. There have been 21 reports, yet the Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, actually cut funding. Labor supports action to fix the aged-care system but is concerned that the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021, like much of the government's response to the aged-care crisis, falls short.
I don't want my parents to experience the horror stories we've heard through the royal commission, should they have to go into aged care one day. I fear for my parents and for anyone in my community that they may be subjected to some of the substandard aged-care system as it is. After eight years of this government decimating aged care, older people in my community cannot afford another three years. There is literally no time to waste. The government has fobbed off, delayed or outright rejected key recommendations from the aged-care royal commission. Of the 148 recommendations, more than half aren't being implemented or are being implemented only half-heartedly. This bill is no different, with alterations and a number of items missing from the original royal commission recommendations that it is claimed the bill would be addressing.
It's also concerning that older Australians, aged-care peak bodies, providers, workers and unions were not consulted in the drafting of this bill, despite the impact that this bill would have on all of them and across the sector. Residential aged-care funding, workforce screening, provider governance, banning orders and a code of conduct: no-one knows these issues better than those who have been working on the front line, who will not only be subject to these changes themselves but will be enforcing and implementing them. They are the experts. These are not small changes and they need proper consultation. The Morrison government's response to the royal commission into aged care falls well short of resolving this crisis. But, ultimately, workers tell me that they didn't need a royal commission to know that aged care in Australia is in crisis. You just have to ask them.
Ultimately, nothing will change without serious reform for the workforce, but the aged care royal commission recommended nothing to improve wages for overstretched, undervalued aged-care workers. Our aged-care workers are some of the most generous, kind-hearted and overworked individuals, and my community is home to many. It is vital, in the very first instance, that we improve wages for these overstretched and supremely undervalued aged-care workers. Many of these workers are earning less than $23 an hour. To put that in context, the typical Coles casual team member gets a salary of $24 an hour. What a complete slap in the face it is to those who look after some of our most vulnerable. These are workers who go above and beyond for their residents, who work extra hours and put in extra time because they know that, often, they are all their residents have. These are workers who become like family to their residents. These are humans that are affected by the loss of patients as if they were friends and family. Yet before they've had a chance to process those losses, there's a new resident in that bed, and workers are expected to just push on, with no opportunity for counselling and no time to debrief the loss.
A recent survey from the United Workers Union revealed that 37 per cent of aged-care workers are looking to leave the sector now. In regional areas, 45 per cent are looking to get out. Many organisations spend a great deal of time and money training new staff, but, when they get started, they get out as quickly as they can, appalled by what the industry is really like. How on earth are we going to encourage people to move into this industry out of school? In Western Australia alone, there will soon be more than 15,000 people aged over 60 years working in aged care. There is no-one to replace them when they retire. Remember: this often involves difficult physical work. You need a particular level of fitness to do this work. At this point, with workers treated the way they are, why on earth would you want to get into an aged-care career?
My community is also home to a number of great aged-care facilities. They are doing a lot with what they've got, which is sometimes very little. They rely heavily on the saints that are our large local aged-care workforce to keep things ticking over. All the independent assessors have said that there needs to be a minimum of a $10 billion investment into aged-care workers, and that's just the starting line, not the royal commission's recommendations. The Morrison government has decided to gift $3.2 billion to aged-care providers via the basic daily fee increase, but with no strings attached to ensure this actually goes to better care or better food for the residents. As it stands, it could easily end up as management bonuses or a new office fit-out.
The government has failed to clear the home-care package waiting list of 100,000 people. Only 80,000 packages were included in the budget over the next two years, and thousands will join the waiting list every year. Indeed, every year hundreds die while on the waiting list. The maths doesn't add up. It is inhumane. The Morrison government has also ignored the recommendation to require a nurse to be on duty—24 hours a day, seven days a week—in residential care. This is core to improving clinical care for frail Australians. After all, it is a medical facility that is home to many likely unwell residents. The fact that there isn't a nurse in aged-care facilities—24 hours a day, seven days a week—is appalling and is resulting in poor standards of clinical care, through no fault of the aged-care workers. Indeed, it leaves many waiting for hours, and it leaves families stressed, having to make sure that their relatives get the care they need. Some of the aged-care providers in my community tell me that they're constantly fighting just to stay afloat. They would love to employ more staff—indeed, a nurse. They'd love to pay them better and ensure there's a nurse available at all times, but there's simply not enough in the budget to make it happen under the current funding arrangements.
The Morrison government's promise of mandatory care minutes for each resident is also full of holes. It doesn't meet the royal commission recommendation, and we now know that cleaning and some administrative tasks will be included in these care minutes. These vital workers in aged-care facilities are equally as important as the hands-on staff in ensuring that there is a safe and clean environment for residents. But these are two very different types of work, and they should not all be lumped in together as care minutes.
There are a number of potential concerns with the bill as it stands, and we believe they must be examined further. Primarily, the consultation with stakeholders was absolutely appalling, with most telling us there was little to no consultation during the drafting of the bill. There are concerns with the idea of implementing worker screening rather than following the royal commission's actual recommendation of a national registration scheme. They are indeed not the same thing. The Morrison government's proposed nationally consistent pre-employment screening process will be introduced for aged-care workers and governing persons, which includes individuals responsible for executive decision-making, with authority or influence over planning, directing or controlling the activities of the provider. On the other hand, a registration scheme was proposed by the aged-care royal commission whereby the Australian government would establish a standard for the personal care workforce with the following features: mandatory qualifications, ongoing training requirements, minimum levels of English proficiency, criminal-history screening and a code of conduct through which necessary disciplinary action can be taken. That is very different to what this bill will do. Once again, this is not doing what is required to improve standards of care or to support the workforce at all.
The new governance standards put forward in this bill are also less prescriptive than those in the royal commission's recommendation, and the sector is concerned that regional providers may struggle to meet the standards as they are set out in the bill.
Currently providers are exempt from certain freedom of information requests. The royal commission recommended that this exemption be removed. Instead, this has been completely left out of this legislation. Workers have been included in a code of conduct and are subject to banning orders, which were originally recommended for the provider leadership. It is unclear why this has been directed to the workers. There are also concerns that the review process for challenging a banning order might be quite long and slow.
The bill will also change the funding and finance landscape for aged care in three important areas: the introduction of a new residential aged-care funding model, known as the Australian National Aged Care Classification; the introduction of new powers for the Department of Health and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to request information about loans made using refundable deposits; and the establishment of the Independent Hospital and Aged Care Pricing Authority, which replaces the existing Independent Hospital Pricing Authority.
Providers say that they are concerned about transition funding, but, frankly, they haven't been consulted to an appropriate extent to know if they should be concerned or not. There are simply too many questions being left unanswered by this bill. There must be greater consultation. A Senate inquiry would at least be a good start to getting to the bottom of how this legislation will actually affect the sector. The Morrison government must do more to fix the aged-care crisis under their watch and must do more than this bill will actually achieve.
I rise today to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021, which is the second response to the findings of the royal commission. Aged care, quite frankly, is about dignity. It's about providing our older Australians, who have given so much to our country— (Quorum formed)
The stories we've heard through the royal commission are shocking, to say the least, and now is the time to face the issues plaguing the industry and allow all Australians to age with dignity and respect. This government is striving to provide those Australians with a home and a hospital in one—the comfort and familiarity of a home with the care of a hospital. This vision is important, arguably, for every Australian, as ageing is a future we all face. Quite frankly, the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. This, along with the recognition that senior Australians need tailored approaches, forms a cornerstone of aged-care reform that will act to give comfort and security to our citizens. There is good reason that the Prime Minister called for this royal commission as one of his first acts the position of Prime Minister. This government cares. The bill before us today helps solidify concrete and effective policy that will serve the Australian people.
This bill acts as the second stage in the implementation of the government's $17.7 billion aged-care reform package. The reform focuses on ensuring older Australians can be at home for as long as possible before residential care may become a necessity. It's what Australians have told us they want. With aged-care residents ageing, it is more important than ever to provide high-quality clinical service that gives the dignity we all know our older Australians deserve. The bill stands to not only improve the governance of aged-care providers by increasing the influence of those with clinical experience but also restructures the funding model to ensure the individuality of not just the service provider but also the residents, to be treated with utmost importance in important decisions relating to finding. The royal commission exposed a lot of shortcomings in the sector, and the Morrison government sees this bill as one part of the efforts to increase the quality of this sector.
The first schedule acts to amend the Aged Care Act and the transitional act to enable the introduction of an Australian national aged-care classification. This new funding model aims to achieve more equitable funding by including three components: a fixed component relative to the type of service provided, a one-off entry payment and a variable payment depending on the individual needs of visitors. This funding model places focus on the individuality of the resident and the service offered, ensuring Australians can actually get the services they need. This makes sure funding is utilised effectively.
Schedule 8 closely acts with this, as it expands on the functions of the Independent Hospital and Aged Care Pricing Authority. The authority will now be responsible for providing advice to government for aged-care pricing and costing as well as conducting costing and other studies to inform advice given to the government. As the baby boom generation reaches 80-plus years in the next decade or so, this preparation is more important than ever. This will serve to ensure that the government is properly informed when making decisions regarding the quality of life of aged-care recipients—all part of our support for the sector.
At this juncture, I'd like to acknowledge and recognise the many wonderful aged-care workers in Higgins who have worked tirelessly to support our older Australians through the COVID pandemic. As we know, last year Victoria faced an incredible outbreak of COVID-19 with a very high mortality rate in our aged-care sector, since we know those aged over 70 were at most risk of dying from COVID. I'm pleased to say the vaccination rates across Australia for both aged-care workers and aged-care residents is well over 90 per cent, which means that that sector is very well supported and protected as we have had to deal with the delta outbreak this year.
I also want to thank the fantastic aged-care providers in my electorate of Higgins, including Arcare Morgan East, Regis Armadale, Samarinda in Ashburton, Brimley in Carnegie, Darnlee in Toorak and Emmy Monash, which is just across Dandenong Road. They have provided such a great service locally for many people in my electorate.
The second schedule relates to the manner in which aged-care workers are screened pre employment. Instead of existing police-check obligations, aged-care workers will be screened by a nationally consistent check specifically for them. This allows aged-care services to spend more time caring and less time burdened with paperwork.
The third schedule is closely related to this and serves to allow the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner to construct and enforce a code of conduct applying to all approved providers of aged-care services. The commissioner will be able to receive information and make informed decisions regarding enforcement actions in the case of substantive breaches. This gives the commissioner the necessary teeth to provide the necessary oversight. It directly addresses royal commission recommendation 77, which suggested the development of a code of conduct.
Moreover, recommendation 103 is addressed, since the commissioner will be able to issue banning orders against aged-care workers, prohibiting or restricting them from being involved in specific activities. This forms part of a key recommendation so that we can ensure not only that aged-care workers are checked to ensure that they do their role honestly but also that sanctions are provided in the case of misdeeds. Schedule 6 serves to add to this by acting to increase information sharing between Commonwealth bodies across aged care, disability services and veterans' affairs in relation to noncompliance of both providers and workers. This is so that aged-care residents' safety can be ensured, with efficiency, open reporting and information-sharing abilities.
Schedule 4 adds to the existing Serious Incident Response Scheme, also an initiative of the Morrison government, which I have spoken about on this floor before. The existing scheme is to be extended to cover at-home care, as well as flexible care, instead of simply covering residential care. We know Australians want to age at home. They want to be in their home for as long as possible, and the Morrison government has provided a significant injection of funds to increase home-care packages so that Australians can age at home for longer. In the last budget, 80,000 new home-care packages were provided, taking the number of aged-care home packages to many hundreds of thousands. The schedule in this bill will help to respond directly to recommendation 100—that the Serious Incident Response Scheme be extended to home care.
Of particular importance, under schedule 5 of this bill, approved providers of aged care will be required to ensure that their governing body is presided over by a majority of independent and non-executive members, as well as having at least one member with experience in providing clinical care. This is key because we know, as I said before, that residential care is being filled with more and more residents who are older when they enter into aged care. The good part about having more in-home care is that people are staying home longer. The difficulty is that the aged-care residences are being filled with people as they're getting older. The average age of someone in an aged-care residential facility has moved now from being in the 70s to being in the 80s—there has been an increase of the median age of residents by about a decade. This is quite significant because, as they're growing older, people are more likely to be frailer and they're also more likely to have comorbidities and other chronic conditions. That is why the aged-care facilities are finding that they're having to provide more clinical care.
People want to age in their homes, but they also want to age in an aged-care facility and not have to be shipped off to hospital. Increasing clinical care in the governing bodies of our aged-care facilities means that more attention will be paid to the clinical responsibilities of an aged-care provider. This schedule helps see the end of out-of-touch governing bodies in the industry, ensuring that the voices of those working on the ground are heard in every meeting and cannot be ignored. Moreover, schedule 7 strengthens the ability to punish providers for misuse of accommodation deposits made by residents. Both schedule 5 and schedule 7 will act to improve the quality of governance within the sector, which will of course help our ageing Australians.
This bill is a crucial step in the reformation of the industry, which is so damaged, as we have seen through the findings of the royal commission. This bill does not spell the end of the efforts, however. This acts as a key stage in returning dignity to older Australians. The bill before us today strengthens the regulations of industry and streamlines funding so that not only are the deserving provided with the right government support but the service itself is also improved.
Lastly, let's continue to work together to help make life better for older Australians. Providing dignity and respect for them is so important, because a society is judged by the way that it deals with those who cannot help themselves. We need to provide dignity and respect for ageing Australians and we need to provide hope for all of us that we ourselves will be given the same support, care, love and service that our older Australians have been given. It provides hope for all of us as we age that we will age with dignity and respect. I commend this bill to the House.
[by video link] I rise to speak to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021. When each of us reaches a ripe old age, we hope that we will be cared for. We hope that our parents and our loved ones will be cared for. But the sad reality is that, despite the care and compassion that our aged-care workers provide, the aged-care system, which is the responsibility of the Morrison government, is broken. No-one wants families to fear placing an elderly parent into an aged-care facility. We've all heard the horrific stories of abuse. Only now, on the cusp of an election, are we seeing a follow-up response from the government to the royal commission into aged care—a royal commission that revealed the systemic failures and abuse of so many older Australians.
While there are some worthy actions in this proposed legislation, it comes too late for all those who have tragically suffered from eight years of inaction by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The royal commission actually said that this federal government has been focused not on what should be done to address systemic failures in the aged-care sector but on 'the minimum commitment it could get away with'. They were the actual words of the royal commission—'minimum commitment'. And the response of the Morrison government has been minimal. After 21—that's 21—expert reports, this government knew older people were suffering in aged care and yet they didn't fix the problems. The Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, even cut funding to aged care. It's just unbelievable. But, true to form, the Morrison government is continuing with its minimum-commitment approach in this bill.
While I welcome this bill as a partial step towards correcting the mistakes of the government, as a full and compassionate response to the aged-care crisis it falls well short. The Prime Minister's well known tin ear is once again apparent. He has failed to hear the voices of those Australians who he should be listening to on this bill—those in aged care, their families and the hardworking staff on the front line. Where's the due diligence? Older Australians just don't appear to be a priority for the Morrison government. Only now are they rushing to ram through this bill simply to tick another box on the pre-election list of things to do. There was a lack of consultation, and as a result there is widespread frustration and anger across the aged-care sector. It is made worse because of the lack of consultation on the bill. The government apparently believes it's fine to sideline and ignore the experts—our older Australians, their families, advocates and aged-care workers. Yet these are the very people with the hands-on and lived experience who, surely, are entitled to be consulted on the bill that will impact them most.
This bill has profound ramifications for residential aged-care funding, workforce screening, provider governance and the code of conduct for the sector. Each of these matters deserves proper consideration. There's no better proof of the government's lack of consultation than its failure to establish two major bodies recommended by the royal commission. They should have been established by July this year, in time to consult on the drafting of this bill. In fact, of the aged care royal commission's 148 recommendations, over half either are not being implemented or are being implemented only in a half-hearted fashion.
How did we get here? It's worth recapping how we got this far. It took the brave words of individuals to force this government to even consider holding a royal commission. Six long years ago, the Australian Law Reform Commission made recommendations to the Liberal-National government to stop the overuse of physical and chemical restraints, labelling them as human rights abuse. But the reforms were ignored by this government, leaving our elderly at serious risk of mistreatment. For example, in January 2019 we saw footage of Terry Reeves. Terry had dementia and was regularly tied to his chair with a lap belt, sometimes for a total of 14 hours a day, and heavily sedated with psychotic drugs. Terry's daughter gave evidence at the royal commission of other residents with dementia being kept in small rooms and strapped to their chairs, just like her father.
Statistics speak loudly. In the final three months of 2019 residential aged-care services made 24,681 reports of intent to restrain and 62,800 reports of physical restraint devices. The stories were so shocking that the former Liberal aged-care minister announced that the government would consider introducing new legislation. Well, here we are, many months later, and we have before us a bill that is not fit for purpose. This bill is nowhere near what we need to overhaul a broken system—a system that is no longer trusted by Australians due to the inaction of the Morrison government. The government has fobbed off, delayed or rejected key recommendations of the royal commission, and a number of its other measures are flawed.
Change can't happen without the reform of the workforce. There is nothing in this bill to improve wages of undervalued and overworked aged-care workers. How can it be that workers in this female-dominated profession get paid less than someone stacking supermarket shelves? Instead of a robust aged-care workforce national registration scheme, as recommended by the royal commission, the government is opting for an inferior worker-screening process. Unlike this government, Labor values workers and the tireless dedication of aged-care workers, who daily go above and beyond for elderly people in their care. It's insulting to aged-care workers that the government has undervalued them so much.
We have an ageing population. It's estimated that to meet future demand for aged care, an additional 70,000 workers will need to be recruited by 2050. How does the government expect to recruit these workers if they don't make the industry attractive to them? It's quite literally that simple. On the other hand, the government is effectively gifting $3.2 billion to providers in the form of a daily basic fee increase, with nothing to ensure that it actually goes towards better care or improved food nutrition. Forgive me if I see comparisons between the lax governance around these handouts to aged-care providers and the ill-targeted JobKeeper handouts that allowed some big businesses to line their pockets during COVID. As far as Labor is concerned, every extra dollar spent on aged care should be going to care, not to a provider's profits. Labor will do things differently if elected. Labor will ensure that there is accountability and that people are put before profits.
The government has ignored the recommendation to require a nurse to be on duty 24/7 in residential care. This is surely a commonsense necessity to improve clinical care.
In the most practical of failures, the government hasn't cleared the home-care package waitlist, which is around 100,000. Only 80,000 packages were included in the budget over the next two years; yet thousands join the wait list every year. These packages are critical to allowing people to stay supported for longer in their own homes.
After everything the sector has been through, you might expect that greater transparency would be a government priority. It's quite the contrary. The government's bill fails to implement a royal commission recommendation to remove the existing freedom of information exemption for aged-care providers. The Morrison government has told the health department secretary to conduct reviews into the arrangements for the delivery of home care—and that's a good thing—and it wants you to believe this change will increase transparency, but there will be no requirement for the health department secretary to release these reports for public scrutiny. The government needs to follow more closely the recommendations from the aged-care royal commission to increase transparency and accountability measures.
Older Australians helped build this nation. They worked hard, paid taxes and raised their families. Yet the Morrison government has consistently let them down. Not only did this government have to be shamed into trying to fix the aged-care system; it reneged on implementing the fixes recommended by the royal commission it appointed. Older Australians and their families deserve so much better. They deserve respect, dignity and the knowledge that the federal government will ensure they are well looked after in their later years. I don't see enough of that in this bill. It goes part of the way, but it falls well short.
My electorate has a large proportion of elderly people. I've visited many in their homes, in retirement villages and in nursing homes. I've heard firsthand from elderly residents in my community the strength of opinion on this issue and on this bill. They are anxious and fearful. Many worry about their own welfare and the welfare of their loved ones. The government clearly underestimates the voice of our older Australians, but it does to at its peril.
Coming after almost a decade of a Liberal government, this bill gives little confidence that the Morrison government fully understands the needs, nor properly values the contributions, of older Australians. It seems the Morrison government's minimum commitment approach to aged care, as highlighted by the royal commission, will continue. We cannot let this happen. Our older citizens deserve better. We all deserve so much better.
The Morrison-Joyce government is dedicated to meeting the needs of our ageing population by undertaking the necessary and imperative reforms in aged care. The coalition government is acting to ensure that we are implementing these measures to develop and safeguard aged care in Australia. We not only look to tomorrow but we also look to five years from now and further ahead to 20 years and beyond. It is important that aged care in Australia is of the highest standard not just for now but also for my children and my grandchildren. This reform, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021, seeks to do just that.
Throughout my time serving as the member for Mallee I have always strived towards an Australia where the health status of our citizens is not determined by their postcode. This should also include our aged-care services. As the representative of some of the most rural constituents in Victoria, I have seen the challenges that face our older population. Many aged-care services in Mallee are stretched and under-resourced. As we get older, our health have raptly deteriorate and we cannot always plan for these things. In regional areas, too many are placed on lengthy waiting lists to receive essential services, including home care packages. Delays such as these are unacceptably part of our aged care in regional and rural Australia.
Another issue experienced in regional Australia is workforce shortage. This issue is not uncommon in most industries in Mallee and aged care is no different. Aged-care employers in my electorate do not have the luxury of a plethora of people lining up for job vacancies. The recent introduction of COVID vaccine requirements for employment in the aged-care industry have also created and additional strain on employers looking to recruit people to regional and remote areas, such as Cohuna, Horsham, Maryborough, Mildura and Warracknabeal.
The great news is that Australia's personal care workforce is being strengthened and increased under a $91.8 million Morrison-Joyce government initiative, helping older people live at home for longer. The government is committed to ensuring older Australians can remain in their homes and in the communities they know and love for as long as possible. In another comprehensive response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the Home Care Workforce Support Program will help administrators attract, train and retain approximately 13,000 new personal care workers by mid 2023. This is good news for Mallee. Making sure we have enough carers with the right skills to provide these services is vital as we expand the number of care packages and wipe out our waiting lists. Our reforms will ensure all senior Australians can access the care they want and need when they need it.
Under the legislation that is before the House, regional services will be allocated additional funding support to address the disadvantage of rurality. The new funding model will offer subsidies in accordance with the recipients AN-ACC level as well as the characteristics of the aged-care service. One of the notable characteristics would include service providers in regional locations. I support this reform and welcome the reprieve that it will bring for many rural and regional facilities in my electorate of Mallee. This implementation will provide peace of mind for residents in Mallee who, in the future, will utilise the aged-care services. These people can have added assurance that local service providers are resourced to be able to help keep up with the need for aged-care services. I have spoken with local leaders in aged-care services in my electorate and they have echoed this sentiment.
Princes Court is an aged-care facility and assisted living provider in Mildura, in the north of my electorate. I have worked with their chair Lyn Heaysman and CEO Jenny Garonne to address their concerns and advocate for this funding. Jenny and Lyn have told me of the challenges that regional communities face in providing aged-care services. Higher acuity residents are coming into aged care at a later stage and presenting with greater needs. This reality challenges facilities.
Debate interrupted.
[by video link] Young people across my electorate of Corangamite are passionate about climate change. Their enthusiasm and determination for a better future is inspiring, and we certainly need inspiration at a time when our government is doing so little to deliver real and meaningful change on climate action. It's a privilege to hear the voices of so many young people and take part in the Youth Voice in Parliament Week. As the Morrison-Joyce government argue amongst themselves about setting a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, young people across Australia are way out ahead of them.
When Prime Minister Morrison attends the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow at the end of the month, the eyes of young Australians will be on him—young Australians, like Evan Gavins, who are looking to their future; young Australians who are concerned about the environment that they will inherit from our generation. The significance of climate change and how we, as a nation, respond to that challenge is not lost on our young people.
I would like to read you the speech from nine-year-old Evan Gavins, of Anglesea: 'I am a nine-year-old and worried about the world I'm growing up in. We need to stop polluting this world. It is bad for our environment—destroying the atmosphere and making it unhealthy.'
'I think the best way to stop polluting is to do helpful things for our environment. There are loads of things we can do, including making and using renewable energy—such as solar—using electric cars and building up, not across.'
'Renewable energy reduces the use of fossil fuels that create carbon emissions and destroy our natural seas and land. Instead of using fossil fuel cars, we should use electric cars that rely on renewable energy. I think we should build up, not across, so we don't continue to destroy our natural environment. By building up, it means we don't use up farming land and destroy more trees. Trees are important for catching carbon emissions.'
'In conclusion, I strongly believe we should take more action to stop polluting and save our environment now. So please take action now for the people of my electorate.'
It is just amazing that Evan has written this beautiful speech for me. What it shows is that the young people in my electorate do really care. The other day I had other young women come to my office, including a young lady, Eviva Luna Fila, who is in year 7 at Oberon High School. Last Friday she drew a beautiful chalk artwork on the pavement outside my office, as part of the School Strike 4 Climate demonstration. She had a strong message for the Australian government: 'Take action urgently on climate change, or we will experience more extreme weather events—such as droughts, bushfires and floods—in the future and lose even more biodiversity.'
Aviva Luna is just one of many young Australians who are distressed about the planet they will inherit due to the irresponsible actions of the federal government. We must give our young people hope for a cleaner, brighter future and avoid catastrophic climate change. We can only do that by decarbonising our economy and investing heavily in renewable energy to contain temperature rises to less than 1.5 degrees. Unless we act quickly to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius will be exceeded by the 2030s.
The significance of climate change and how we, as a nation, respond to that challenge is not lost on children. I urge the Liberal-National government not to let our youth down, as they have repeatedly done over the last eight years, on climate and the environment.
I'd like to thank the young people of my electorate who have come and stood outside my office. They are the future. I stand with them and desperately urge this federal government to do so much more to ensure that they inherit an environment that they can be proud of.
On Saturday night the 2021 Cairns Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards were held. Since the inception of the awards in 2017, the BEX awards, as they are commonly known, showcase business excellence and the contributions businesses have made to the community of Cairns. With 10 categories, 200 nominees, 71 finalists and 14 judges, it's by no means a small event. Cairns Chamber of Commerce President Zoe Mlikota summed it up perfectly when she said:
After the 18 months we have had, this is a chance for us all to stop and reflect on the challenges and accomplishments and consider those in business and the wider community who have stepped up and not only survived but thrived. These awards are a great platform not only to recognise excellence but also for business owners to use the criteria to review their businesses.
I'd like to acknowledge each winner of their category. First of all, Professor Sandra Harding AO was presented with the Cairns Chamber of Commerce Legacy Award for her outstanding contribution to James Cook University. I personally have witnessed the contributions Professor Harding has made, and this award is well deserved. Mr Kyle Richardson was presented with the Emerging Leadership Award. He is a true Cairns resident who has grown FNQ Podiatry & Orthotics into the successful business that it is today. The People Management Excellence Award went to Wellness Embodied, who offer over 16 services on site in Cairns and in rural areas.
We all know how important it is to get our eight hours of sleep, and Sleep Right Sleep Tight provided their professional advice and took out the Excellence in Customer Service Award. Duncan Powersports won the Customer Service in Trade and Retail Award. If you're looking for fun and adventure on the weekends, head out to see them and their team at Duncan Powersports in Lyons Street, Cairns. Bad Fishy Jet Boating won the Marketing and Communications Excellence Award. You can't miss the big orange boat with massive teeth outside the Cairns Marina. It's a must-do for the kids to get out there and enjoy this experience. Congratulations also to Murrii Quu Couture and their creative and stylistically savvy designs in the Indigenous Business Excellence Award. Again, congratulations for a job absolutely well done.
The Cairns Dental Boutique was awarded the Community Contribution Award for their sustainable growth and investment in staff, training and cutting-edge technology to create the best practice one-stop shop for the community. Their corporate and social responsibilities are of an exceptionally high standard. Small World Journeys took out the Sustainability and Environment Award. I have to say that, given the challenges that we've had over an extended period with COVID-19 and closed borders, it's been businesses like Small World Journeys that have really copped it very, very hard because people have not been able to travel. If they're not able to use these services, of course it has a massive impact on the bottom line of these businesses. The team has gone well above and beyond to ensure that the customers were well looked after, and they were able to change their business model so that customers could experience the wonders of our region and learn about the importance of our natural environment. I particularly congratulate those from Small World Journeys. Last but not least is congratulations to Gathar, who connects those who love to cook with those who love to entertain. Gathar won both the Business Technology Award and the Innovation Award, quite an achievement.
In closing, congratulations to Patricia O'Neill, the CEO of the Cairns Chamber of Commerce, Simone, Laura and the board of Cairns Chamber of Commerce on a very successful evening. I say a big thank you to all those important sponsors that have stepped up and provided a lot of support to make this event happen. Finally, to all the 200 nominees and 71 finalists I say that every one of you was a winner. Thank you very much indeed for an outstanding effort.
I want to do two things in the adjournment debate. Firstly, we all represent many people in this House, including those who can't vote yet: young people. I want to give a voice to one particular young person in my electorate, Jayden Unon, who has been participating in the raise our voices campaign. I've chosen his speech to read into the Hansard and I think you'll see why. 'My name is Jaden Unon. I'm a 16-year-old student who resides in south Western Sydney. Within the next 20 years my vision for Australia is to be a component global leader in renewable energy. I envisage a country leading the world's shift to renewable resources use through advancements in engineering, technology and science. Undoubtedly this paradigm shift for Australia is critical. Not only does Australia have the abundance of resources available for such change, but it has the world-class scientific facilities available to facilitate such advancements. However, for too long, political discourse regarding climate change has been undermined through dangerous misinformation. It was just this year that a report released by the United Nations revealed Australia was ranked last out of 170 countries analysed for action on climate change. Why should Australia forfeit to a delay to climate action in exchange for fewer jobs, a foggy future and dying industries that do not promise Australia's next generation of workers a secure future? Our government, now more than ever, must take action in addressing the biggest existential crisis. It is clear that Australia's economy and stance on the international stage cannot progress without action on climate change.'
Well, it would be nice if we heard more speeches like Jayden's from the government. That is an excellent speech, recognising that the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. I'm very proud to have him as a constituent and to read his words into the Hansard.
The second thing I want to do is celebrate, in the House, something I've spoken about many times in the past, that is the defeat of two outrageous proposals for incinerators in my electorate. Again, I have spoken about this to the House on many occasions. I'm very pleased give due credit to the New South Wales Liberal government which has moved legislation to ban incinerators in metropolitan Sydney. This is a good thing. My community has campaigned tirelessly for this result. We've had two proposals for incinerators in my electorate near Minchinbury and they would've affected St Clair and Erskine Park. That was never on. We have fought and fought and fought. There have been rallies, protests and petitions that I've organised and that community groups have organised.
I want to, in the House, pay tribute to the No Incinerator for Western Sydney group which has led the campaign. It has been a pleasure to work with them. It's been tough. We've had to make many appearances at different hearings opposing these incinerators. I want to give tribute to all of them. I will run the risk of mentioning two names—always dangerous, Mr Speaker—but Kim Vernon and Colin Bosworth have been champions. The community of Western Sydney owes them a lot.
The government did not make it easy to submit your objections. You had to sign up through an online portal that had 21 steps you needed to take—bureaucracy gone mad—to make a submission opposing the incinerator. There were no postal submissions. People persevered. It shows how passionate the views were, and are, against these incinerators. Despite the 21 steps that people had to undertake, there were more than 600 submissions from individuals into the department of planning in response the cleanaway project. I had to circulate a flyer in my electorate with a QR code to let people know how to put a submission in—and even then it was difficult.
We got 600 submissions. Four supported the incinerator and 596 were against. This is a very good step. I want to say, we are not completely out of woods. I have heard rumours that the two proponents are going to seek some sort exemption from the legislation which would be absolutely outrageous. I wouldn't put it past them, because they have shown very little respect for the Western Sydney community thus far so I doubt that they are going to grow a great deal of respect now. But be warned, we will keep fighting if necessary. We celebrate this win, the legislation, but we will keep fighting.
I don't think anybody should have to put up with an a waste to energy incinerator. I'm all for waste to energy proponents which are environmentally friendly. Incinerators are the worst of them. They're not really proper waste to energy. I've looked at this matter very closely. I do join with the people of Minchinbury, St Clair and Erskine Park at least in taking this win. It's been a long, hard fight. It's been my honour to stand with the community against this. Again, I pay tribute to Jayden, in my electorate, for the excellent speech he submitted and it was my honour to read it to the House tonight.
The Australian dream is on life support. The promise that every Australian had a real opportunity of homeownership formed the foundations of our Commonwealth in 1901. Now, if you are under 40, you are less likely to own a home than at any time since 1947. When updated census data becomes available, it is likely to be any time since 1901. Let us be clear: this is a fundamental betrayal of one generation by the previous one. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue is in the midst of an inquiry to establish whether this dream should be condemned as an ideal of another century.
I want to raise this today because our children and our families must immediately stand up now. Harrison Jones, from Fitzroy North in Victoria, who is transitioning from university to full-time work and is starting to save for a home deposit says, 'I am dismayed at the housing market.' He simply wants the realistic opportunity to live somewhere he can call home, where he can leave home half an hour before work and make it on time, preferably on public transport. The opposition from local and state governments in Victoria to building medium-density housing, to infill in their suburbs, is frustrating and unfair. It's having a profound impact on our middle-aged demographic.
David Reiling and his wife, Sarah, are in their 30s. They live in an apartment in Woy Woy on the Central Coast of New South Wales. They've diligently saved thousands of dollars every month; however, they still can't afford a two- to three-bedroom home with a functioning bathroom and start their family. As he says:
Considering the rising cost of raising children, if we start a family will we ever be able to afford a home to raise the family in?
It's the fact that we don't offer any hope to those who are willing to sacrifice the most. Sarah Nelson became homeless at the age of 14, following a tumultuous upbringing. She has shown incredible strength and resilience since to build her life, including resitting her HSC and going on to reputable roles with full-time salaries. She's now a single mother with children and says the lack of opportunity to own her own home means she is always carrying the tension of being in fight-or-flight mode.
It's not often that a member of the Liberal Party will quote a French socialist economist; however, I feel compelled to quote Thomas Piketty, because he talks about wealth inequality across Western societies. He says that, without doubt, the inequality in our world is determined by homeownership. If you want to reduce inequality—and everyone in this place says they want to—you need to increase the number of people who own their own home. This issue is having a generational impact on the wellbeing of every single young Australian and not only the future of our economy but the very future of our nation.
We have the highest average weekly earnings in the world and we have the highest minimum wage in the world, by almost 50 per cent, yet we have the least affordable housing in the world. Across the nation, Sydney has the third most unaffordable houses on the planet. Melbourne has the sixth, Adelaide the 13th, Brisbane the 18th and Perth the 23rd—and the trend is not our friend. Some will say it's a lack of social and affordable housing, and, indeed, we need to address this matter. Some will say it's low interests rates, stamp duty, macroprudential regulation, government incentives, immigration, capital gains tax and, of course, negative gearing. All hold strong merit; all are worth looking at. Others will say the main cause of high prices is land use restrictions, often called 'planning' or 'zoning', and we have let the states and councils get away with overregulation, high contribution measures and high taxes for far too long. The New South Wales Productivity Commission says we are short by 100,000 houses. What is at stake here is the future of our nation.
I rise to again highlight the imperative and urgency for the people in the Northern Territory to get vaccinated against COVID. It's acutely important for people living in remote communities, where the general health of the population may make them particularly vulnerable and susceptible to COVID. Currently, there are no cases of COVID in the Northern Territory, and there have been no deaths to date. But, sadly, it is inevitable that COVID will penetrate the Territory's borders with the implementation of the national plan—much vaunted by the Prime Minister and others—and there will be subsequent pressure on the Northern Territory government to facilitate travel from parts of Australia where COVID is now endemic.
The NT government has done a great job in protecting the Territory from COVID thus far. As a result, apart from short lockdowns, the Territory population has had freedom that only existed in New South Wales and Victoria prior to COVID beginning in the first place. We have been dreadfully lucky. There has been great cooperation between the Northern Territory government, remote communities, the Aboriginal community controlled health services and the private Medicare organisations to try and promote COVID vaccinations across the Territory. At the moment the Northern Territory's overall vaccination rate is 81 per cent for the first dose and 70 per cent for the second dose. In the Northern Territory government clinics, it's 69 per cent first dose and 56 per cent second dose. However, there are some areas where the take-up is very poor. There are pockets of resistance. People are opposed to getting vaccinated, and it's not just about vaccine hesitancy. They've been told lies, and they believe the lies that have been peddled by those with extreme views, including faith based groups talking of the devil and saying that you're going to inject yourself with 5G or that you will die. These lies are a threat to the health of the whole community. They are wrong and they are malicious in their intent.
However, there are some really positive stories. In Central Australia, for example, at the NT government clinic at Mount Liebig, or Amunturrngu, 95 per cent of people have had their first dose, which is a terrific result, and 74 per cent have had their second dose. At Utju, or Areyonga, 95 per cent have had their first dose, and 74 per cent have had their second dose. This is at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress clinic, and these outcomes are because of local leadership at Utju. One major reason for the community success was the push by Sarah Gallagher, a long-term health worker in the community, encouraging residents to get the jab. Health workers who service the community have also credited strong male leadership in the community for the uptake success. Jonathan Dooley, who has lived at Utju for 20 years, said the community had felt the fear and uncertainty around COVID. Mr Dooley is quoted as saying:
Some are getting scared of this thing and some really aren't sure what they need to do. We're giving them the message and people will come to have the needle, have the thing.
The combined efforts of Ms Gallagher's commitment to her community and Mr Dooley's leadership have led to success, but the formula has proven difficult to replicate in other communities struggling to promote the vaccinations.
The experience of Utju is that vaccine hesitancy can be addressed if community leaders act as the key agents working with health professionals to get across the message of the need to vaccinate. The vast majority of remote Northern Territory government clinics have a permanent supply of vaccine. All remote Territorians can access the Pfizer vaccine. The vaccine is safe, free and incredibly effective at stopping the spread of the virus and preventing serious illness, hospitalisation and death. It is, as we know, everyone's best protection from COVID-19. I say to those people who are spreading those malicious lies about COVID and who are promoting antivaxxers that they are potentially doing incredible harm to a very susceptible part of our community. COVID will inevitably come into the Territory, and there will be deaths. I would ask what those people will say if those deaths are among people who are not vaccinated, because they've accepted the antivax message.
I've spoken a lot, here and in the Federation Chamber, about Oakey's past and the challenges that the town has faced and overcome, but tonight I want to focus on its future. It's very hard to look past the very difficult couple of years that Oakey has been through, with PFAS; the drought, which has been ongoing; flood-mapping issues, which have caused residents significant concerns; and, as I raise quite regularly, the end of the New Acland coalmine, which is bringing to an end over 100 years of mining in the region and stripping the region of its source of wealth—the economic activity that has underwritten Oakey and the Toowoomba region for so long. But there are huge opportunities ahead for Oakey and the whole Toowoomba region. I will start with Inland Rail.
Inland Rail is a fantastic project coming right through Toowoomba. It will make us the focal point and the distribution centre for South-East Queensland, bringing wonderful produce right up from Melbourne and sending it into Brisbane, along the wonderful Warrego Highway, which this government has invested in. This will bring jobs not just during the construction of the inland rail but for years to come, as Toowoomba becomes a transport hub, sending those goods into Brisbane. We've got $5 billion worth of investment going into the Toowoomba region, heading down into the seat of Wright. It's a fantastic investment. If it duplicates what we've seen in other parts of the Inland Rail project, we'll see something like 60 or 70 per cent of that investment going locally. That means local jobs, local businesses and local futures being secured by the government's investments. Inland Rail is a project I support very strongly.
Oakey has the skills to deliver Inland Rail. At its peak, the project will demand 950 jobs, and the recently appointed design-and-construct contractors have been tasked with engaging locally and driving as much of that government investment into the local economy. I met with the contractors on the design-and-construct contract, BHQ. I'm very confident that they understand the needs of our local economy, and I'm very confident that they, too, see the opportunity of investing in local businesses and local jobs.
Beyond Inland Rail, which is a fantastic opportunity, the other great opportunity in front of Oakey is expansion into the defence industry at the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, which I visited recently. It's very clear to see that the Oakey base has potential for expansion both physically, with a large amount of greenfield space available for development, and personnel wise, with a potential for greater collaboration with allied nations. This is already going very well, with the base's collaboration with the Republic of Singapore Air Force. They currently house five Chinook helicopters at the base, and it's their intention to increase that number to 10. I stood in the control tower, looking over the base and out at the wonderful flat lands that lay in front of it to the north. There are 56 landing bases at the Oakey base. In Singapore, there are only three for the helicopters, so it's very clear to see why they choose to come to Oakey and the opportunities that they have in front of them. There's the ability for them to train individually but also, more so, with us. We can absolutely increase our strategic influence in the region. It's very important to me to see the Oakey Army Aviation Centre continue. On a personal level, I'm very happy to have seen my father-in-law complete 47 years of service to the Army, finishing off at the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, as many do, in the maintenance and care operations there for the aircraft we have on site. It's a fantastic facility.
I've written to the defence minister, Peter Dutton, asking him to keep Oakey in mind for future discussions with our regional allies. Clearly, with the current state of affairs, we see that is where we're headed. We've already invested $31 million in the 2021-22 budget to refresh facilities at Swartz Barracks, with a new health facility that will open soon, as part of a $212.5 million investment in new and upgraded health facilities at defence premises across the nation. I'm very glad to see Oakey be a part of that. The construction programs include a range of new and upgraded facilities to provide primary health care services, including dental, pharmacy, mental health, physiotherapy and allied health services as well as rehabilitation.
I'd like to say to the people of Oakey: the future is bright. There are opportunities ahead, and I'll be with you every step of the way.
House adjourned at 20:00
I'm going to read out a speech written by Zoe, a young constituent of mine in my electorate, about her vision for Australia in 20 years. She submitted this speech as part of the Raise Your Voice campaign, aimed at raising young voices in our federal parliament.
'Hi, my name is Zoe. I am nine years old. In 20 years, for the world, I would like there to be no more COVID-19, a solution for global warming and a home for everyone. For me, and others with type 1 diabetes, I would like to see a cure. Diabetes is a very hard thing to deal with. It's not like a cold or the flu. It never, ever goes away. All day and night, I must monitor my blood sugar, and, every time I eat, I have to decide how much insulin to give. Sometimes I feel very tired and yucky because I'm low. This can happen anywhere, any time. I hate having lows at school, at night-time and on special occasions. Having diabetes is scary and, at times, makes me feel lonely and different. My life has been much better with the continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump. I can go to parties, I don't have lots of daily injections and my blood sugars are better. I'm worried that, when I'm older, I won't be able to afford a pump and CGM. So I speak for everyone to say that, by 20 years time, I would like pumps and CGMs to be free for everyone while we work towards a cure.
In 20 years, I hope everyone is in their own home, not worrying about COVID-19 or global warming and, for people with type 1 diabetes, there is a cure or free access to the technology they need. I hope I did that justice. Zoe!' Well done, Zoe!
I also want to acknowledge other constituents of mine and members of my local community. The people I represent, like Zoe, are passionate, they're caring, they think of others and they think of our community and our nation as a whole as well. My local meetings over the past month showed this, even though most of them were on Zoom. I spoke with the students, parents and teachers of Glenroy College in my electorate about the importance of them getting vaccinated. I met with some passionate teachers from Brunswick South-West Primary School on how they can help those fleeing from Afghanistan. I spoke with our Australian Lebanese Medical Association and with the local community about vaccination in that community and the risk of remaining unvaccinated, as well as the importance of combating disinformation that spreads within the community. I visited the Inner North Medical Clinic's paradise- and reggae-themed vaccination hub. If you look at the pictures, it makes vaccination look very fun, with pina coladas and pictures of palm trees. It was a lot of fun for the people getting vaccinated there at the Inner North Medical Clinic. And I visited Nourishing Neighbours in Coburg, a volunteer-run walk-in pantry for people— (Time expired)
I rise today to pay attribute to Jack Hopgood OAM, who passed away this past weekend after over 101 years of inspirational life lived. Jack was a softly spoken, humble man, who was never comfortable being the focus of attention. But it would be remiss of me not to honour his life in this place at his time of passing.
Jack Richard Hopgood was born in Mount Gambier in 1920. Jack enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force at the age of 19. On 1 April 1940 he was deployed overseas at the age of 20, leaving behind his job at his father's garage and his new bride, Jean. He served in Sumatra and was captured by the Japanese in Java. He was taken to Singapore as a prisoner of war in 1942. He was held by the Japanese for more than three years.
Upon returning home from war in 1945, Jack returned to his father's garage, eventually taking over the business upon his father's death.
He was an exceptional member of the Mount Gambier community and someone I was proud and extremely privileged to even know. Jack was involved in the Mount Gambier Aero Club and the Mount Gambier Veteran & Vintage Car Club, was a founding member of the Mount Gambier chamber, of course, and also served as President of the Mount Gambier RSL. An avid golfer, Jack was instrumental in the establishment of the Blue Lake Golf Club, as well as being largely responsible for the beautification of the lakes area in Mount Gambier.
Mr Hopgood was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in 2018 for his decades of service to the Mount Gambier community. Upon receiving this award, the ever-modest Mr Hopgood remarked: 'Well, when you've lived as long as me, you would hope that you've achieved something; otherwise, I suppose, you've spent a lot of time in bed.' While Jack was modest, many were in awe of not only what he endured but what he achieved, but, most importantly, his attitude to life.
Upon returning to Japan in 2017 as a guest of the Japanese government, Jack remarked: 'I don't hold any resentment. Hate is a useless emotion.' Jack spent an unimaginable three years as a prisoner of war and returned to life in the Mount Gambier community without resentment, at a time when it was pretty trendy to hate. Instead, he gave back to his community of Mount Gambier, and it's a better place for it.
This week, we mourn the loss of a great man, but we celebrate his life of difference that he made to so many. My condolences are extended to his children Peter, Duncan, Cathryn and their families. Vale, Jack Hopgood OAM.
It's my pleasure this morning to present a petition with 5,221 signatures requesting the House call on the minister for immigration to use his discretion to end the Murugappan family's misery by granting them permanent residency in Australia—indeed, to allow them to go home: home to Biloela, their Queensland home. This is a petition created by Dr Petrina Barson, a constituent of my electorate of Cooper and a member of the Centre for a Compassionate Society. Dr Barson, like so many of my constituents and the more than 5,000 people who signed the petition, has been horrified to watch the Morrison government's cruelty when it comes to this family. I know all of us on this side of the chamber share in this horror.
Priya and Nades and their girls, Kopika and Tharnicaa, are beloved members of their community in Biloela. They made a home in that small Queensland community. They had friends and supports. Nades had a job, and both he and Priya volunteered. And their two daughters were born here in Australia. When they were taken—whisked out of the community in a dawn raid from Border Force—their friends in their home town were outraged.
In the years since this family was taken from their home, the community of Biloela has not rested in calling for their return. This is a family who has done nothing wrong. They have sought Australia's protection from persecution, and Priya and Nades have told of horrific experiences in Sri Lanka—of a genuine fear that they could face violence or be killed. There has been nothing but cruelty from this government in response. It started with the dawn raid back in their home and it continued at the detention centres where this little family has been cruelly held. It went too far, even for this government, when Tharnicaa became seriously ill whilst in detention and they all but refused her proper medical treatment for far too long. Now the family has been released into the community on bridging visas, granted permission to be in Australia for another 12 months. But, rather than returning them to their home and to their community in Queensland, they have released them to community detention in Perth. Why? To keep them from their support networks? To add insult to the torment this government has put them through for the last four years? No-one truly believes at this stage that there is any genuine reasoning behind the misery the government is inflicting on them. Four years and $50 million later, there's been no benefit to the community in this family's detention. In fact, the Biloela community has been diminished; all of us in Australia have been diminished because of the cruelty and misery that has been wielded.
So I want to thank Dr Barson and everyone who signed the petition, and all of the activists in Biloela and around the country who continue to stand up for this little family. We won't stop fighting for you. Australia won't.
The petition read as follows—
Permanent residency for the Murugappan family
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, We, the undersigned, members and friends of the Centre for a Compassionate Society, respectfully request that the Murugappan family be given permanent residency, allowing them to return to their home in Biloela if they choose. Despite a negative determination for the protection claims of Priya, Nades and Kopeka, it is well-known that persecution of the Tamil minority continues in Sri Lanka. This family has suffered greatly at the hands of this government, being seized from their home, incarcerated for prolonged periods, attempts made to deport them, and inadequate treatment in detention of a serious illness of their youngest child. The Australian people have taken this family to their heart, and are appalled by the hardline treatment they have received from this government.
We therefore ask the House to call on The Minister for Immigration to use his discretion to end this family's misery by granting them permanent residency.
from 5,221 citizens (petition No.3130)
Professor Peter Leibman AO, director of the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, recently briefed me on a visionary proposal to develop a Western Australian comprehensive cancer centre which will bring together world-class multidisciplinary cancer care, innovative research and clinical trials for the WA community in one purpose-built iconic modern facility. It will be a not-for-profit centre that treats all types of cancer, integrating the translational cancer research and linear clinical trials.
Western Australian cancer patients receive excellent clinical care. However, unlike New South Wales and Victoria, there is no single facility dedicated to the treatment of all cancers. This means that cancer patients, including those living in my electorate, simply navigate multiple services to get the treatment they deserve. It is fragmented. An autonomous comprehensive care centre focused on a bench-to-bedside approach is needed with its own emergency department and intensive care unit. WA is the only mainland Australian state without a current or developing comprehensive cancer centre. The Chris O'Brien Lifehouse in Sydney and the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne are examples of leading centres in Australia. The facility being proposed for Western Australia consists of a 10-storey building occupying 75,000 square metres of gross flow area costing an estimated $750 million to build, with funding required to be sourced from the WA state government, the federal government and through corporate philanthropy.
I wish to formally place on the parliamentary record my strong support for a substantial federal funding contribution to be considered as part of the budget process for a comprehensive cancer centre to be built for the benefit of my fellow Western Australians, including those in my electorate. The benefits of having a comprehensive cancer centre based in Perth include improved patient survival and quality of life through improved access to the latest drugs via clinical trials. Total cancer care will be provided centrally, including diagnosis and treatment, imaging, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy, oncology, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, exercise and wellness treatments. The facility will also foster world-class translational research that attracts the best clinicians and researchers from across the world.
I rise to speak about the challenge facing regional and rural health services and urge the government to inject much-needed funds to assist in meeting the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. In my electorate of Indi, we are getting our first taste of the new COVID-normal world. After months of lockdowns and border closures we are opening up in line with the national plan and, as predicted under the plan, we are experiencing COVID-19 in the community, a first for many regional towns in my electorate. Across Indi, regional people have answered the call to get vaccinated. More than 94 per cent of people have had one dose and 74 per cent are fully vaccinated. Now with outbreaks in our border community, overwhelmingly, these people have answered the call to get tested so much so that the local testing sites in Wodonga were turning people away by 10 am yesterday. It's not the first time people in my community have faced waits of hours and hours only to be told to go home.
Importantly, this is not a criticism of local health services. They have diligently planned for this situation, working through outbreak scenarios, putting processes in place, working out contingencies and understanding what resources are needed. They are asking people to be patient. The dedicated health workforce are putting in long hours in really uncomfortable, heavy PPE, to keep people safe but they're looking for support and resources that simply aren't coming. The community is doing the right thing. The local health services are doing the right thing. Our health workers are doing the right thing. But where is the federal government? When the Deputy Prime Minister was asked what the federal government would do to support regional health services, he said, 'Thankfully we don't own a hospital.' Now that is appalling. We've seen hospitals in Melbourne and Sydney at capacity and struggling to care for patients with COVID-19, let alone the normal daily running of the hospital. I don't want that for our regional health services in my electorate or anywhere in regional Australia, where the challenges in finding staff and ageing infrastructure are so longstanding.
We know that rural people are 47 per cent more likely to have diabetes, 50 per cent more likely to have cancer and 20 per cent more likely to have kidney disease than our city cousins. Victorians living in regional areas have a four per cent lower cancer survival rate than those living in Melbourne, and as a former nurse and midwife I know regional health services are stretched on a good day. More than 2,500 people have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for proper investment for the future of regional health, and he needs to answer that call. I'll be meeting with him after I give this speech today to make sure he reads that letter and hears from regional Australians. The government needs to come to the table and properly fund regional health services to provide surge capacity for testing and to monitor COVID patients in their home. Now is the time to truly invest in regional health.
It will come as no surprise to the members of this place that Grey covers 92.4 per cent of the area of South Australia and is filled with vibrant communities. The BBRF program represents the regional areas of Australia. We have been great beneficiaries of it over a long period of time, and I'm pleased to report that this latest round is no exception.
In the Clare Valley, Clare Sports Club Inc have secured $2½ million, which is half of the value of developing a new complex and bringing the oval up to AFL standard. I want to tell a bit of a story about that. The Clare oval hosts the north Clare football and netball clubs and the south Clare football and netball clubs. If you know anything about country Australia—and I know you do, Deputy Speaker O'Brien—you know that the two clubs that sit closest geographically are always the most competitive because they're fighting over players. They've come together on this project and they're going to share the new facility. I think that's a great tick, and it's the kind of thing that gives me great confidence that it will be a huge success.
In Cleve, the Cleve Area School has had an agricultural program based on a bequest from a Mr Sims some 30 years ago when he left his farm to the school. They've developed an agricultural program which is drawing people in from right across the west and even the mid-north of South Australia, and their boarding house is full. They've also attracted the Motor Trade Association to set up an apprentice training facility. Their 10-room boarding facility is totally at class. As a result of a $2.2 million grant through the BBRF, they will now have a 35-place boarding facility for the whole region. That's a wonderful outcome not just for Cleve but for all of regional South Australia or certainly the north and west.
In Balaklava, their 50-year-old swimming pool was cracked and irreparably damaged by an earthquake. They get $1½ million to build themselves a new pool. In Roxby Downs, a town that often gets overlooked because of its mining wealth and being supported by BHP, I'm very pleased to see $2.7 million going towards the redevelopment of their sporting areas. Marion Bay, which is right down the bottom of Yorke Peninsula, where the toes are, is getting $118,000 for a playground. I met recently with the young women down there, the mothers that backed that program, and they are just delighted to have landed that grant. In Coffin Bay, the yacht club is getting a new floating pontoon jetty. Coffin Bay is a tourist mecca for South Australia, and I'm sure everyone in this room has tried Coffin Bay oysters at some stage. There's the Port Parham short-stay facility, and then three $20,000 developmental grants for Port Lincoln, Yorke Peninsula and up in the upper north at Lake Eyre.
This morning constituents in my electorate woke up to the alarming news that a train had derailed at Kembla Grange. The sight of a four-car train flipped onto its side is going to be confronting and concerning for the thousands of Illawarra residents who use that same service every week. Thankfully, injuries appear to be minor, with three people, the train driver and two passengers, taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. We send them our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I want to put on the record my thanks to the officers from the Lake Illawarra police command who were quickly on hand to assess the situation. They've now established a crime scene and have my full confidence in getting to the bottom of what has occurred and how lives were put at risk. A shout-out also to the NSW Ambulance personnel who worked quickly to free the 39-year-old train driver who was trapped in the wreckage for some period of time—a harrowing experience for him. I offer particular thanks to the ambulance inspector, Mr Norm Rees, who was on the scene to direct operations, getting the injured to hospital as well as the medical staff who looked after them.
Given the derailment happened at 4 am this morning, we can only shudder to think what would have happened if this incident had occurred just an hour or two later, when the trains are packed. Indeed, while we can be thankful that loss of life and serious injury have been avoided in this instance, this is a wake-up call. Our community is growing quickly as more and more of our fellow Australians locate to this area to take up the wonderful lifestyle and economic opportunities that it has to offer. Unfortunately, the pace of infrastructure growth has not kept up with population growth. I know this area well. West Dapto, the place where this incident occurred, was cow paddocks just a few years ago. The roads and the infrastructure that service these communities are fit for cow paddocks but not for a growing urban area.
I'm not going to pre-empt what the police investigation will find, but it is clear that the cause of the derailment is a collision with a transit van parked in the area. Thankfully, no-one was inside it. It's not too early to observe that clearly there is a need to provide better infrastructure in this area. We need to improve the roads and the rail crossings. There are three level rail crossings servicing the roads into the West Dapto area. They are not fit for purpose. We cannot just plonk suburbs in the middle of cow paddocks and think that these incidents will not occur. This is a wake-up call. We must listen to it. Better roads, better schools, safer crossings.
The Youth Voice in Parliament program asked, 'So, what do you want Australia to look like in 20 years?' and many young Goldstein residents answered to the call. All contributions were excellent, but two speeches stood out.
The first is by 14-year-old Ava Minovski, and it shares my commitments to national ambition. She wrote: 'Most recently Australian states and territories have been faced with immense disruption caused by a global pandemic. These events have had an profound impact on all Australians. They have challenged the decision-making and debate of our government and tested our nation's strength and resolve. Winston Churchill once said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. As we look towards our future, we must keep this idea in mind.
'Today, through the foundations of our democracy, we continue to address social and economic inequities. If this global pandemic has shown us anything, it has exemplified what we can achieve should we work together for the greater good of our Commonwealth. I can't imagine the challenges Australia will face 20 years from now, but my hope is that the strength of our democracy sustains with visionary leaders who reflect on past choices and decisions that have succeeded and failed in order to steer this great nation with its diverse people to be stronger, behaver and smarter. Twenty years from now I hope to see all Australians embarking on endeavours that are bold enough to benefit generations to come.' Congratulations, Ava.
The second is by 21-year-old Chris Webster and delves into the importance of freedom: 'In 20 years Australia will be the free country it once was. The COVID-19 pandemic has been tough on every person and every facet of life. Unfortunately, the collateral of this pandemic has been our civil liberties. It has highlighted the flaws in our state system which has cost and will keep costing billions of dollars. In 20 years we should be able to go about our lives without arbitrary laws dictating our every move. I believe over the past two decades, and especially since 2020, Australia, and Victoria in particular, has become more and more of a nanny state. Regardless of the pandemic there are too many laws which impinge on our very freedom, from local government all the way up to federal government.
'In 20 years Australia should go back to the free place it once was, without fear of being cancelled or hated on for not being 100 per cent politically correct. In 20 years Australia should be a free market with a thriving economy, as it once was. That is what I want Australia to be like in 20 years time.' And outstanding contribution, Chris. I also thank the other entrants: Jenson Galvin, Nicholas Alexopoulos, Cassie Barker, Christina Cushen, Shari Holden, Anya Hunt, Lili Mayer, Rand Riman, Isla Rood, Sophia Smith, Martha Stamatopoulos, Thomas Stamp and Chris Webster. All were outstanding contributions and I'm sorry we didn't have the chance to read them all into the Hansard. But, hopefully, your name and recognition honours your contribution. Of course, we encourage other participants to contribute to this great project and define the future of our country to come.
The lion's share of the consequences of the latest Sydney lockdown lie squarely at the feet of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who had two jobs this year: to get and roll out vaccines quickly and to set up national quarantine. He failed at both. His failures saw the virus spread through eastern Sydney and eventually make its way out west. The lack of access to vaccines led to 7,000 people that I represent catching COVID. Throughout this lockdown we saw the tale of two cities: the eastern suburbs of Sydney, which had one set of restrictions, and then the west with a completely different set. Police enforced curfews, there were helicopters over homes, five-kilometre travel restrictions and movement caps.
Throughout the lockdown, the area I represent needed the federal and state government on their side doing the right thing to help them. My office was getting regular calls from local residents who, despite being eligible for a COVID vaccine, were unable to get one because GPs had no vaccines or didn't have enough, and we had no mass vaccination hubs. People wanted to get vaccinated, which made it so infuriating to hear governments blaming low vaccination rates in our area on hesitancy. Not true! In July we wrote to the New South Wales government, offering community facilities for vaccination hubs. That fell on deaf ears. We wrote to the feds, asking for assistance from the ADF to help set up and run vaccination hubs to help with the vaccine rollout. That fell on deaf ears. The health minister said—remarkably, in our nation's parliament—that we didn't need them because GPs and pharmacists were there.
The reality was, and bear this in mind, that pharmacists were trained in February to administer this vaccine and they did not get their supply until August. That is the truth. And when was the time at which the vaccination rates in Western Sydney were celebrated widely? They skyrocketed from August. It was clear proof that lack of supply, not hesitancy, led to this. And 60 per cent of the deaths in Western and south-western Sydney were experienced in our area as a result of people catching COVID. It shouldn't have happened, people knew we could have avoided it and they didn't do it. It really irks me to hear how the federal government celebrates these huge vax rates when they were so sluggish and so inept, and unable to get the vaccines—to do their job and supply them to people in need, particularly in the vulnerable communities that I represent. It shouldn't have been that way.
But, while this has tested our community, I also want to recognise that it brought us closer together. I want to put on the record, the heartfelt gratitude of our community to the GPs, the pharmacists, the nurses, the pathologists and all the allied health staff, who did an incredible job in administering that vaccine under trying circumstances. They saved lives and we are eternally grateful.
I'd like to acknowledge Bob and Judith Little, who for over 40 years have owned and run the SPAR supermarket in Maclean and who are now retiring. The business has won numerous local and national awards for their store and customer service. In 2015 they won SPAR's eastern region store of the year, grocery department of the year and produce department of the year. In 2017 they won the excellence in retail category at the Northern Rivers Regional Business Awards. In 2018 they won the grocery excellence award again, the community and customer service excellence awards and the store investment award. For three consecutive years before that, they won the SPAR store of the year. In 2019 they won the Spiro Notaras Lifetime Achievement Award at the Clarence Valley Business Excellence Awards.
They're also wonderful community-spirited people. I was with them this year when they were given life membership of the Maclean Show. Bob and Judith are not only great business people but wonderful community people. Bob and Judith love Maclean and Maclean loves them. I wish them every enjoyment in retirement, but something tells me that they'll both still be very busy.
It was wonderful to watch our Olympians a couple of months ago at the Tokyo Olympics. It reminded me that my home is home to some of Australia's best athletes, including Athol McQueen, our very own international boxing champion from Kyogle. Athol had 86 fights. He won 70 and lost 16. Of the 16 losses, four of them were international or world championship bouts. He competed in the men's heavyweight event at the 1964 Summer Olympics in Japan. He defeated Tadayuki Maruyama of Japan, before losing to Joe Frazier of the United States in the quarterfinal. Athol was, famously, the first person to knock heavyweight champion Joe Frazier to the canvas. Athol personally knew greats from this period, like Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, just to name two. After his career, Athol had his own road construction business, a cream run from the local dairy farm, and later worked with National Parks and Wildlife. In 2009 he was inducted into the Queensland Boxing Hall of Fame. For many years, he remained involved in boxing in the local scene as a judge and referee. Married to Gloria, they had six children between them. Athol, you are a champion in many ways: you are a champion boxer and you are a champion for our community, and I thank you.
I'd like to recognise Mark Wilson who yesterday was acknowledged at the 2021 Northern Rivers Volunteer of the Year award. Mark was awarded Volunteer of the Year for 30 years and countless hours of managing the Friends of the Koala nursery. He has been involved in the organisation since the beginning. He has also been involved in organisations such as the Goonellabah-Wollongbar & Districts Lions Clubs, as has his partner Wendy. Mark, congratulations on your very well-earned award.
There being no objection, constituency statements will continue for a further 30 minutes. I call the honourable member for Canberra.
I rise today to speak about Raise our Voice Australia's Youth Voice in Parliament project, where young people under 21 from all around the country have sent a 90-second speech for their local MP to read in parliament. We have had over 40 members of the House of Representatives participate in this and heard some fantastic speeches from young people. I want to commend everyone that sent me a speech. It was really hard to make a decision, with some really brilliant, thoughtful and thought-provoking submissions from young people in my electorate, many of which I would like to draw attention to in social media over the coming weeks. The speech that I have chosen is by Nick Barker in my electorate, and he has written about youth homelessness. This is his speech.
'My name is Nick. I'm 18, from the Canberra electorate, and I am a former homeless youth. In 20 years, I hope that not one Australian youth has to wonder: "Where will I sleep tonight?" Unfortunately, too many youth right now are thinking that exact question, and it is also something I had to ask for over a year. No-one should have ever have to ask something so basic, so fundamental, let alone a youth. In 2016 the census reported that 27,680 young people aged 12 to 24 were homeless. There is no excuse for why that number of youth are currently experiencing homelessness. The thing that upsets me even more is how well our cities can hide these Australians. Take this statistic from the Salvation Army: for every homeless person you see on the streets, there are 13 other homeless people you don't see. The pathway to end homelessness won't be easy. It will involve more funding, more NGOs, more youth workers and overall more care for the tens of thousands of youth each and every night that face homelessness. But I truly believe that with these steps, and more, in 20 years no-one else like me will ever have to wonder: where will I sleep tonight?'
Thank you, Nick, for this brilliant speech. This is an incredibly important issue. I agree with Nick that it starts with the care from government about this issue. We can fix this. A country like Australia has no reason to have not only people sleeping on the streets but also people in unstable accommodation and without the permanent housing they need to build their lives and their future—let alone youth, as Nick says. More than 116,000 people are homeless in Australia according to the 2016 census, and this number is expected to rise due to recent events. We have already announced policies that an Albanese Labor government would adopt to address the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis in Australia.
[by video link] As the whole country looks to the future as we emerge from the pandemic, two recent projects in northern Tasmania are helping to cement the economic and creative future of the region. Recently I was thrilled to officially open the first 15 kilometres of the George Town mountain bike trails at Mount George. As the candidate for the seat of Bass in the 2019 election, I fought to secure the $4.4 million in funding needed. Design and construction of the Mount George trails, with 80 kilometres to build overall, has been undertaken by internationally renowned trail builders World Trail. From the feedback I've received from locals and other mountain bike enthusiasts from across Tasmania, the first 15 kilometres is certainly ticking all the right boxes.
Though our government has provided funding, these trails are collaboration between the government, the George Town Council and Bell Bay Aluminium. Bell Bay Aluminium, the largest employer in the municipality, continues to invest in the future of our community. I would like to thank them and, in particular, General Manager Shona Markham, for facilitating access to the land owned by the smelter for a significant portion of the trails. The trail is just 35 minutes from Launceston and, with the world-class Derby mountain bike trails in northern Tasmania, is another fantastic addition to the region's growing reputation as a premier destination for mountain biking enthusiasts.
Over in the West Tamar region, after years of work and due diligence behind the scenes, the state's first-ever fermentation hub is one big step closer to getting off the ground, after securing $7½ million through the most recent round of Building Better Regions Fund. A winner for agriculture and tourism, the hub will allow budding fermentation businesses to utilise the hub's equipment and research facilities, lowering development costs and fostering new products. The 1,899-square-metre purpose-built fermentation facility will be a hub of innovation, education and tourism across a wide range of fermented food and drink industries, including kimchi, kefir and kombucha and more traditional fermented industries, such as baking and cheesemaking.
The hub is a job generator for our region, with around 650 jobs expected to be created between now and 2030. It will also offer training and educational opportunities in fermentation skills and hands-on experiences for tourists. I have been a big supporter of the project for many years and would like to thank FermenTasmania chairperson Kim Seagram and CEO Karina Dambergs for their tireless work on the project and for not giving up on an idea that has been seven years in the making. I would also like to thank the West Tamar Council for providing the land.
Tasmania is a world leader in the production of fermented food and beverages, and I'm incredibly excited that our government has been able to support a project that will be a game changer for northern Tasmania.
[by video link] This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty, which anchors the current Antarctic Treaty System. Australia has played a critical role in creating and sustaining this architecture. But, if we want to play the same role over the next 60 years, greater investment and presence by Australia is needed.
This treaty designates Antarctica as a scientific preserve, prohibits military activity and provides that no action while the treaty is in force can enhance or diminish the legal basis of any territorial claims to the continent. Antarctica has experienced no military conflict so far, and we hope that it never will. However, the treaty preferred to defer, rather than resolve, the thorny issue of territorial claims, and the treaty has no enforcement mechanisms. The continent is increasingly becoming a new theatre of power politics, intimately linked to geopolitical contestation further north in the Indo-Pacific. China and Russia are bolstering their investment and military presence under the guise of 'scientific research' to press their influence and probe the treaty for weaknesses. This comes at a time when Australia and like-minded countries, such as the US and UK, have had to scale back our Antarctic programs to prioritise COVID-19 recovery. We need to be clear about Antarctica's value to states. It is enormous. It holds massive deposits of gold, copper, lead, zinc, and uranium, as well as 70 per cent of the world's fresh water. These resources aside, bases and ports in Antarctica enable force projection straight into the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans.
Australia has always had a direct interest in protecting Antarctica, and Labor has a proud history of protecting Antarctic wilderness. Australia claims 42 per cent of Antarctic territory, the largest territorial claim of any state. We formalised our claim in 1933. But it stretches all the way back to British claims from 1841, long before the Antarctic Treaty. For years Australia has been at the forefront of Antarctic science and exploration. These contributions have bought us real influence in international decision-making on Antarctica.
Ongoing cuts to science and research erode this critical source of Australian power. If we want the Australian Antarctic Territory to continue to be the integral part of Australia that we have always claimed it is, then we must make Antarctica a strategic priority for Australia. We cannot defend Australia's sovereignty without doing so.
[by video link] While the member for Solomon is, basically, freestyling in the Antarctic Territory there's a very important 10th Aboriginal Economic Development Forum happening in his own territory. These are key stakeholders from business, government and the non-profit sector committed to progressing Aboriginal economic develop in Alice Springs, starting today.
Sharing knowledge is critical. We need to look back over the last two decades and ask ourselves what both sides of government have achieved in Aboriginal self-determination, predominantly from economic independence. I think they're very important questions that we raise in Alice Springs, starting today: What is this work, as we define it? How far away should it be from country, where there is unquestionable connection? We need to know that Indigenous Australians are getting their share of economic activity in their regions, particularly that those opportunities are spread across all households, fairly and evenly, rather than just being enjoyed by one or two. We need to make sure that economic opportunity is to all age groups, not just working-age healthy adults. We shouldn't lose, for instance, those over the age of 40 or 50 as being too late to engage in the global economy.
This connection to country is extremely important. We understand the need for that connection, but it doesn't mean being trapped on country. We need to be asking questions about at what point business can exist in remote communities, particularly service provision that traditionally, between Indigenous Australians, hasn't been monetised necessarily. We know that in the mainstream around half of all employment is service provision. In the notion of global engagement, Indigenous Australia will have an increasing role, walking down both paths—the traditional Indigenous path but also the global economic one. These are vitally important, and goods and services will be showcased in Alice Springs over the next couple of days.
The big question is: where can this all lead? What will Indigenous communities look like in 10 or 20 years from now? Can we initiate a genuine socioeconomic conversation that preserves the best of Indigenous Australia but gives them a chance to do these things: have four out of five children not vulnerable, completing and enjoying school; and four out of five adults, at working age and healthy, engaged in the real economy outside of government jobs. These important questions are ones well worth hearing the answers to in Alice Springs.
Minister Ken Wyatt and, particularly, the Northern Territory government have done some exceptional work, both in Nhulunbuy, in East Arnhem Land, and down in the Barkly to trial some new models. We have to admit that much of what we've done hasn't worked. Now is the time for new ideas and to engage Indigenous Australia in making them reality.
Unfortunately, I was unable yesterday to speak on the motion moved by the Leader of the House in relation to the murder of Sir David Amess, so I will take this opportunity to reflect on this shocking act of violence against an elected representative to the British House of Commons. I offer my deepest sympathies to Sir David's family, his colleagues, those who knew him and all of his constituents of Southend West.
Sir David is the second British MP in the last five years to be killed meeting with his constituents. We remember, at this time, Ms Jo Cox was murdered by far Right terrorists in 2016. Sadly, Sir David was also a victim of terrorist violence. Both Ms Cox and Sir David were murdered meeting with people from their electorates. An integral part of the work of elected representatives, like all of us here in this place, is meeting with our constituents, those who may have voted for us and those who did not. Just last week, I held mobile office stalls on the Rockingham foreshore and at Secret Harbour followed by a very uplifting doorknock through this beautiful coastal suburb. But in the back of my mind, I could not help but think of the tragic events recently in Britain.
Like many here, my office has been the subject of intense harassment by a small number of constituents. Some people who seek to harass and intimidate MPs and their electorate office staff are clearly deeply disturbed and have not been able, for whatever reason, to address their challenges. Others seem to be simply at the end of their tether from the pressures of daily life. But others simply think they are entitled to behave in any manner they wish to members of parliament and their electorate office staff. While MPs are the focus of such aggression, and I can tell you can be frightening and deeply unsettling, we must always remember it is the good, hardworking electorate officers who bear the brunt of much of the harassment that is dealt out by so very few of our constituents. In any consideration in this place and elsewhere of the personal security of MPs and senators, we must always consider the people who act as electorate officers and ensure they too are kept safe.
Bringing to a civil end ongoing incidents of harassment and intimidation of electorate offices and those who work in them should be a clear priority. I want to make it very clear that I will not meet with people who are entirely uncivil or who harass my staff or who enter into my electorate office yelling out demands to see me and intimidating everyone present, including other constituents seeking my assistance. No-one should put up with that behaviour. I will not. I will not let other constituents endure such behaviour and I will do all that I can to ensure that my staff in my electorate office do not have to put up with it. I know everyone here, all elected representatives, will do all they can to ensure their staff—hardworking people representing our communities right across this nation—do not have to bear the brunt of abuse, intimidation and harassment by so very few people in our community.
As the Prime Minister has said, things have changed. There is now an economic transformation in progress around the world. Regardless of what might some may say, there is an economic inevitability to this transformation. We need to chart the best possible course. Building to this point has taken months and years of technological development and building of businesses, of developing trade partnerships and building new infrastructure. All of this takes time. What I'm talking about is the clean energy transformation.
As John Howard said, you can't fatten a pig on market day. So too for our clean energy technology transformation, a commitment to it can't happen overnight. We need a plan that is achievable, accountable and economically viable and that plan has been under development for years. It has resulted in the release of Australia's first low-emissions technology strategy and technology investment road map, with the next annual update due next week. We are making a shift to a long-term commitment to a net-zero future because we know we should and we know we can. We don't believe in offering false hope with hastily made targets on the run. If we commit, Australians can be confident that we will deliver.
We on this side are doing the hard work right across the economy—energy, transport, manufacturing and agriculture. Through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, we are investing in scalable, commercial clean-tech solutions to fuel our manufacturing and export sectors. Our five clean-tech commercial stretch targets, which, by the way, the US have incorporated, aim to get clean hydrogen under $2 a kilo, electricity from storage for under $100 per megawatt hour, green steel production under $900 per tonne, low-emissions aluminium under $2 per tonne, carbon capture and storage under $20 per tonne of CO2 and soil cover measurement under $3 her hectare per year. We are investing in electric vehicles infrastructure with $25 million already committed.
The significant amount of work from this government to build a plan for our future has reached a momentous point, not only for our environment but for our economy. I'm proud that since day 1 in this place I have been working hard each and every day inside the government for this. Even in my first speech I said climate change is real and it affects us all. It is not just an environmental imperative to act; it's an economic one and it's clearly now an economic inevitability. I look forward to the PM delivering the message to Glasgow. Australia is leaning into the clean-tech evolution, one I am confident we will help deliver for the world. This is a pivotal moment in our history.
I'd like to take a moment to share with the parliament a few of the voices of the young people in my electorate. Astrid raised with me issues of education: 'Imagine this. It's 2041 and Australia has one of the most equal education systems in the world. Australia is a place where a child's postcode, ethnicity or socioeconomics has no affect on their educational outcomes. We can create this future.' Jordan Spencer said, 'My vision for Australia in the next 20 years is that we'll have media outlets that report the news in a reliable, balanced and honest way.' Olivia Hedge, 13, raised with me: 'Australia is worth protecting. We only get one chance to protect it. Our iconic species are becoming extinct because of bushfires. Our corals are dying because of increased temperatures. We can be a country that saves our future and saves our future species.' Holly Sparrow, 17, raised with me: 'I believe that strength exists in our differences, rather than our similarities. As a nation, over the next 20 years we'll face many serious challenges and how we respond will define us. Australia is a wonderfully diverse and multicultural country. It is home to the oldest living culture in the world and currently three out of 10 Australians are born overseas. This is predicted to increase.' Finally, Ethan raised with me: 'I think Australia will be okay if everybody gets vaccinated, if everyone stays safe. If that happens, then we can get back to our norm lives—have fun with each other and go to friends' houses and go to parties.' Ethan, many of us agree with you, and we're getting to that stage.
I'm proud to say that in our part of the world vaccination rates are up over 95 per cent first dose and well on their way for second dose. We've done this because we've worked together, we've believed in the science and we've supported one another. Vaccines have been available in the last period, and there's no shortage of supply. It wasn't like that a while ago, but we're now there.
I 'd like to thank Ethan, Holly, Olivia, Jordan and Astrid for writing to me to share their experiences. It's important, as we start to open up and think of the future, that we think of the young people and how we can best represent them. These students have written to me and have raised the issues of the education, of diversity, of honesty in the media, of protecting our environment, of making sure that we respect one another and our multicultural history and, of course, of the pandemic and vaccines. These are young voices that reflect many of our own voices that we have in this place. I strongly urge the parliament to take on board their ideas when planning policy now and into the future.
Type 1 diabetes can happen to anyone. Triggered by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, it cannot be prevented and it does not have a cure. Diagnosis has a profound impact on the person and their loved ones. Unlike many other medical conditions, people with type 1 diabetes manage their medication themselves, injecting or pumping insulin into their bodies every day to regulate their blood glucose levels in order to stay alive.
I recently met, in my electorate, with Dr Debbie Smith and Ms Kari Musick of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. The foundation aims to raise awareness of the challenges faced by people with type 1 diabetes. Debbie and Kari were open, candid and generous in sharing their extensive knowledge and experience with me. They expressed their appreciation of all that the federal government has done—and I note this has been done with bipartisan support—to support those who have type 1 diabetes. This includes free access to the Continuous Glucose Monitoring Initiative for children under 21, concession status individuals and pregnant women. However, they also highlighted to me that access to life-saving and life-changing technologies that measure blood glucose and deliver insulin in response to need is inconsistent and incomplete in Australia and becomes more difficult for many juveniles after they reach adulthood.
The reality is that there's a significant financial burden for people living with type 1 diabetes, their carers and the broader Australian economy. Type 1 diabetes costs the economy a total of $2.9 billion annually through a range of direct and indirect costs. Direct costs resulting from providing health care, formal care, income support and welfare payments are estimated at $1 billion annually. The mental wellbeing of people affected by type 1 diabetes comprises part of the indirect costs of the condition, which is estimated as being a $1.9 billion cost to the economy. This is because people with type 1 diabetes are five times more likely to experience depression and 1.8 times more likely to experience anxiety than the general population. Of people with type 1 diabetes, 87 per cent describe their quality of life as negative. Parents and carers also present with higher rates of stress and mental illness.
The year 2021 marks a century since the discovery of insulin—a discovery which has undoubtedly been a lifesaver for those suffering from type 1 diabetes. However, there are still significant, and often unseen, challenges for people with type 1 diabetes, and it is clear that ongoing support from the government and providing access for all to life-changing diabetes technologies is the key to reducing burdens and improving wellbeing.
There are so many bright young minds in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales who are full of ideas about the future. They want to make the world a better place and they want change. But far too often their ideas are overlooked and their voices are ignored. That's why I decided to join this year's Raise Our Voice Australia campaign, to give young Coasties the chance to have their voices heard in parliament—a place where ideas can turn into action. I'm pleased to say that many young people in my community submitted a speech focused on the question: what do you want Australia to look like in 20 years? They were all excellent, but there was one speech that was a clear stand-out by a young man named Jacob. He wrote to me:
'Ngata. My name is Jacob Smeaton, I am freshly 18 years old and a proud Kerrup-Jmara man, a clan of the Gunditjmara,whose ancestral roots reside on Lake Condah, Victoria. I've been born and nurtured on beautiful Darkinjung Country in the Dobell electorate of the Central Coast and I am raising my voice so others' voices can be heard.
My vision for Australia in 20 years is a nation that truly honours the custodians that never ceded sovereignty of this land. This journey continues with a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament and true collaboration toward treaty-making and truth-telling of this country's history, and therefore reconciliation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This can be achieved through the Uluru Statement from the Heart gaining bipartisan commitment, the community being educated on the statement and a referendum being held. The statement proposes a constitutional voice being enshrined, empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have a say in law and policy affecting them, as well as the establishment of the makarrata commission to supervise agreement-making and influence truth-telling. The Uluru Statement being constitutionally enshrined will help heal the wounds of this country and truly reconcile.'
I thank Jacob for this speech and for speaking up about what matters to him and to so many people across Australia. I would also like to thank a few other people who submitted speeches. Phoebe, who is 17, wrote to me and said: 'In 20 years, arguably the near future, I hope to see empathy re-enacted and treated with great emphasis in this country. I hope to see a nation that views itself as a collective society as opposed to a collection of individuals; a nation where racial and gender equality are heavily championed, and climate justice is achieved.'
Then there's Sarah. Sarah told me: 'I would like to see equal rights being upheld for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in 20 years. The Indigenous youth suicide rate is more than double the rate of non-Indigenous youth. Indigenous Australians are more likely to be incarcerated and our First Nations peoples are experiencing higher rates of meant health concerns. I would like to see the government change this.'
Then there's Carlos. He told me: 'In 20 years I would want to see an Australia that runs sustainably. In 20 years I would want to see an Australia that stops relying on the fossil fuel industry and the cotton industry and all other industries that hurt the planet. In 20 years I want to see an Australia that has controlled the wildfires, and koalas that don't go instinct. In 20 years I want to see an Australia that I can confidently call home.'
I spoke on Monday about the importance of health breakthroughs to treat previously untreatable conditions. That we live in an age where we can turn so many conditions from death sentences into minimally intrusive chronic conditions is incredible. But not all medical breakthroughs solve problems for the first time; some just solve old problems better. A quicker, less invasive, safer procedure is always worth looking for and we have many companies in Bennelong which are doing just that. The treatment I would like to highlight today is called TAVI, which is the uncomplicated way of saying 'transcatheter aortic valve implantation'. This is a new and, frankly, better way of treating heart valve disease. Heart valve disease is a little known condition that we will be hearing more about in coming years. Quite simply, it's the degradation over time of your heart valves. It doesn't matter if you're fit or unhealthy; sometimes your valves just wear out. It's entirely non-preventable and can happen to anyone and, as our society is growing older, it will inevitably happen to more and more people. As Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Heart and Stroke Foundations, I launched a report into this alongside my friend and co-chair, the member for Calwell. The Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute's report, Our hidden ageing: time to listen to the heart found that more than half a million Australians have heart valve disease, and that 254,000 Australians have faulty heart valves and don't even know it. Left untreated, this can result in complications like heart failure, stroke and death. Currently, the treatment is open-heart surgery, one of the most dangerous surgeries around, involving the complete opening up of your chest and the obvious months of rehabilitation that follow. Every extra day spent in rehabilitation is more pain and inconvenience for patients, more delay to the system and more cost to the taxpayer.
Here's where TAVI comes in. It's a procedure that allows valve replacement to occur in a minimally invasive way. It's a keyhole procedure involving an artificial valve made of natural animal-heart tissue being implanted into the heart. It is less intrusive, cheaper, quicker and, critically, requires hardly any rehabilitation. At the report's launch, we heard from a 71-year-old patient, Phil Holmes, who was back exercising and at work within days of his surgery. So what's holding up the treatment? Unfortunately, we are! Currently, it is only available for high-risk patients in private hospitals. The Medical Services Advisory Committee has now recommended TAVI for both intermediate- and low-risk populations as well. But, as yet, the government hasn't funded it. If we did fund it, we could save time and money and give fruitful lives back to thousands of Australians with this condition. Let's just do it.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11 : 02