The SPEAKER (09:30): I present Report No. 27 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 15 March 2021 and the consideration of bills. 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 and the consideration of bills introduced 22 February 2021

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 23 February 2021.

2.   The Committee deliberated on items of private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 23 February 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 15 March 2021, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act1984, and for related purposes. (Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 23 February 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   Mr Falinski: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry highlighted widespread misconduct across the financial sector;

(b) the Commissioner, the Honourable Kenneth Madison Hayne AC QC, made clear that primary responsibility for misconduct in the financial sector lies with the institutions concerned and their boards and senior management;

(c) the final report made specific note that the transparency and internal governance processes of a number of financial institutions did not meet community standards;

(d) after a request from the Treasurer on 1 August 2019, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics has run an inquiry into the review of the four major banks and other financial institutions which seeks to review the financial sector's implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission; and

(e) IFM Investors is an Australian investment management company which is wholly owned by 27 Australian superannuation funds and which manages $148 billion as of September 2020;

(2) is disappointed that IFM Investors has refused to provide information to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, including the:

(a) reported $36 million bonus to a single fund manager;

(b) severance payment and terms for staff alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment; and

(c) details and terms of bonuses paid by IFM Investors to their executives and fund managers, paid from Australian's compulsory superannuation; and

(d) deliberate attempt to launder transparency and accountability of the use and misuse of Australian's compulsory superannuation by keeping information confidential from the Parliament of Australia; and

(3) calls upon the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to use its power to compel evidence and documents from IFM Investors to ensure transparency and accountability and to ensure that IFM Investors is acting in the best interests of ordinary Australians, not fund managers.

   (Notice given 23 February 2021.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Falinski—10 minutes.

Next Member speaking—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3   Dr Aly: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 12 March 2021 is the 100th anniversary of Edith Cowan's election to the seat of West Perth in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, making her the first woman elected to any Australian parliament;

(b) Edith Cowan was an extraordinary and tireless advocate for the rights of women and children, and she sought and won election to the Legislative Assembly in an effort to strengthen those rights; and

(c) in addition to her elected office, she was also a campaigner for women's suffrage, a major contributor to many social welfare organisations and a noted jurist;

(2) recognises Edith Cowan's remarkable legacy, which is commemorated in the names of Edith Cowan University and the federal electoral division of Cowan, as well as in artistic works such as the play, With Fire in her Heart: The Edith Cowan Story, a retelling of her life which premiered at the 2021 Perth Fringe Festival; and

(3) commits to upholding Edith Cowan's contributions to Australian civil society by working to further the rights of women and children in all spheres of Australian life.

   (Notice given 15 February 2021.)

Time allotted—45 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Dr Aly—10 minutes.

Next Member speaking—10 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

4   Ms Owens: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that Western Sydney is Australia's third largest economy, and accounted for more than half of Sydney's population growth from 2012 to 2018;

(2) notes that:

(a) jobs growth in Western Sydney has been increasingly limited to population-driven sectors like construction, which have been hit hard by COVID-19;

(b) there is a jobs deficit affecting Western Sydney's growing professional workforce, which is forced to commute long distances for employment;

(c) a fast, reliable internet connection is basic infrastructure that is needed to attract new businesses and industries, and therefore essential to promoting jobs growth in Western Sydney; and

(d) NBN's recent announcement of 130 'business fibre zones' includes four zones in suburbs on Sydney Harbour, but only one in Western Sydney, in Parramatta; and

(3) calls on the Government to urgently improve NBN connectivity for businesses and households to support sustainable jobs growth in Western Sydney.

   (Notice given 26 October 2020.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon

Speech time limits—

Ms Owens—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Mr Watts: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) video games are a large and growing market—Australians spent $3.6 billion on games in 2019, more than double the amount they spent in 2012;

(b) video gaming is a mainstream activity—two thirds of Australians play video games with an average age of 37; and

(c) globally, the video games industry generates more than double the revenue of the music and film industries combined; and

(2) recognises that:

(a) Australia is home to a talented community of game developers and publishers, but proportionately the Australian industry is much smaller than its peers in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom;

(b) video game development provides remote working opportunities and jobs for the regions—in the UK, 55 per cent of video game industry employment is outside of London and the south-east;

(c) the video game industry provides a variety of jobs—in Australia, 34 per cent are software programmers, 19 per cent are artists and 11 per cent are business or marketing professionals;

(d) the skills developed in our domestic video game industry are transferrable into roles in adjacent innovative and growth industries like cyber security, software engineering and data analytics; and

(e) video games could help drive the post-COVID economic recovery in Australia, creating jobs and expanding a significant export market.

   (Notice given 2 February 2021.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Watts—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2   Mr Entsch: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 24 March 2021 is World Tuberculosis (TB) Day, a day to commemorate precious lives lost and recognise the serious impacts COVID-19 is having on TB services globally;

(b) TB remains one of the world's deadliest airborne infectious diseases, killing more than 4,000 people every day, among them 700 children, and close to 15 million people in the last decade;

(c) COVID-19 is exacerbating inequalities, making it difficult to reach people with life-saving TB prevention and treatment;

(d) five to eight years of global progress in the fight against TB is likely to be lost due to disruption of services resulting from COVID-19—1.4 million more people are likely to die from TB in the next five years if urgent action is not taken;

(e) Australia committed to the targets agreed in the Political Declaration of the United Nations High Level Meeting (UNHLM) on TB in 2018; and

(f) the UN Secretary-General's 2020 report found that progress in meeting the UNHLM targets on TB is far too slow to meet the 2022 deadline;

(2) acknowledges that the:

(a) Government's series of announcements of $1.1 billion to support global and regional COVID‑19 response and recovery will save millions of lives;

(b) Government pledge of $242 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) will save millions of lives;

(c) investment of $13.3 million from the Government in 2019 will support antimicrobial resistance and drug-resistant TB research in Pacific island countries;

(d) Government's investment in TB research and development has resulted in the development of a new, 6 months, all-oral TB drug therapy thereby reducing the previous 18-month long treatment for drug resistant TB that consisted of multiple injections and thousands of pills; and

(e) Government's investments in multilateral agencies such as the Global Fund has supported countries' responses to the COVID-19 crisis; and

(3) calls on the Government to increase:

(a) our TB investment in the Asia Pacific region to sustain routine TB services and safeguard the progress made so far; and

(b) investment in TB research and development to meet the commitments made by Australia at the 2018 UNHLM on TB.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Entsch—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3   Mr Hill: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that after over 7 years of this Government, Australia is falling behind the rest of the world on numerous key measures of economic and social success;

(2) notes that, in relation to:

(a) the economy, even before the COVID-19 pandemic the Government had badly mismanaged the economy with reputable data and global rankings showing that:

(i) real wages in Australia were 0.7 per cent lower in 2019 compared to 2013, with Australia ranked third last out of 35 OECD countries to wage growth;

(ii) over 8 years of the current Government, Australia's productivity rate has been steadily declining, from 2013 when Australia ranked tenth among 34 OECD nations, to 2018 when Australia ranked fifth last;

(iii) Australian household debt as a share of GDP sits at 119.4 per cent of GDP, the second highest rate out of 41 countries assessed;

(iv) Australia is now the third most unaffordable housing market within the OECD; and

(v) Australia is lagging behind in the jobs recovery from this recession;

(b) education outcomes:

(i) Australian children's educational outcomes have slipped in both national and international terms, with Australia slipping in science and mathematics outcomes; and

(ii) OECD data confirms Australia has high tertiary tuition costs by global standards with the average annual borrowing by Australian students in tertiary programs rising by 36.7 per cent in just four years;

(c) environmental outcomes:

(i) Australia's rate of greenhouse gas emissions per capita has been the highest in the world;

(ii) Australia ranks second worst globally for government climate policy;

(iii) by 2018 Australia ranked 18 out of 25 of the world's top energy-consuming countries with sharp declines from 2014 and 2016; and

(iv) Australia has the second highest level of biodiversity deterioration in the world;

(d) numerous other measures, Australia is falling behind and ranks poorly, for instance:

(i) First Nations Australians have the lowest life expectancy amongst First Nations people globally;

(ii) Australia now ranks only 8 out of 11 high-income countries for healthcare affordability;

(iii) Australia now ranks sixth worst in the OECD for obesity rates;

(iv) Australia's global ranking for the proportion of women in the lower house of the national parliament fell from a high of thirty-second place in 2010 to forty-eighth place in 2019, noting that only 23 per cent of the entire coalition Government party room are women;

(v) Australia is ranked sixty-first globally for fixed broadband speeds;

(vi) investment in research and development in Australia has fallen significantly as a percentage of GDP under the current Government; and

(vii) Australia has become more corrupt under this Prime Minister, slipping to eleventh place on the Corruption Perception Index;

(3) acknowledges that with a possible federal election this year, Australians have a right to question:

(a) how well they are doing under this visionless Government; and

(b) whose side the Government is on; and

(4) condemns the Government for spending $1 billion of taxpayer funds on government advertising, racking up over one trillion dollars' worth of debt with nothing to show for it and wasting the economic recovery.

   (Notice given 16 February 2021.)

Time allotted—45 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Hill—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this mattter should continue on a future day.

4   Mr Ramsey: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that, gas:

(a) will be central to our ongoing economic recovery;

(b) is a crucial input in our manufacturing sector, which employs over 850,000 Australians; and

(c) provides the firmed electricity generation needed to balance Australia's record levels of renewable investment; and

(2) calls on all Members of the House to support the Australian gas sector and the important role it plays in creating jobs, providing affordable energy and reducing emissions.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm

Speech time limits—

Mr Ramsey—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

5   Mr Bandt: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) during the pandemic the wealth of Australia's billionaires grew by 25 per cent;

(b) the Prime Minister's 2020 Budget contained $99 billion a year in subsidies to big corporations and the very wealthy; and

(c) one in three big corporations in Australia pays no tax;

(2) calls on the Government to ensure the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share of tax.

   (Notice given 23 February 2021.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Bandt—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

6   Mr Conaghan: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Government is providing record funding for road safety measures around the nation through the:

(a) $2 billion Road Safety Program delivering low cost road safety improvements such as better road markings, shoulder sealing, new barriers, better signage and other technologies building on the $500 million Targeted Road Safety Works Program;

(b) $12 million for the Road Safety Innovation Fund to support road safety research and the development of new technologies;

(c) $4 million Road Safety Awareness and Enablers Fund, with 20 projects already underway to improve education and promotion of road safety matters;

(d) $8 million Driver Reviver Site Upgrades Program;

(e) $5.5 million for a new Road Safety Data Hub, to better collate data on a national level and inform future infrastructure investment decisions; and

(f) broader $110 billion infrastructure pipeline, upgrading roads across Australia; and

(2) recognises there is more to do but congratulates the Government for its commitment to improving road safety around the nation.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Conaghan—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

7   Ms Claydon: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) on 28 March 2021 the Government intends to cease the Jobkeeper scheme, despite widespread calls from economists and businesses alike to extend the scheme as the economy continues to suffer;

(b) travel agents have been pleading for more targeted support given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on their businesses, and the brutal reality that there is no snap-back for their industry;

(c) the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, the peak body representing the nation's travel industry, has highlighted multiple flaws in the Government's $128m support package for embattled travel agents, which has provoked confusion and uncertainty; and

(d) travel agents say they'll be forced to close because the Government's support package is so poorly designed it won't help them;

(2) acknowledges that Jobkeeper has been a lifeline for travel agents, and has allowed them to keep their doors open to continue to assist their clients with refund recoveries and those seeking to return home; and

(3) urges the Government to:

(a) listen to the travel sector and respond to their calls for more targeted support to help them survive the detrimental impacts of COVID-19; and

(b) extend ongoing support to those sectors of the Australian economy who are most impacted by COVID-19 and who will be amongst the last to recover.

   (Notice given 2 February 2021.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Claydon—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

8   Mr Zimmerman: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that in December 2020 the Government passed Australia's first ever national waste legislation, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, through the Parliament and that this legislation implemented a waste export ban; and

(b) measures introduced by the Government to increase recycling, including the Recycling Modernisation Fund and the National Waste Action Plan; and

(2) commends the Government for providing national leadership on this important issue and for working with state and territory governments and industry to boost onshore recycling processing, providing economic reform and effective environmental management.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—45 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Zimmerman—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1   Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 (MrPerrett): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from22February2021).

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm

Speech time limits—

All Members—5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3. The committee determined that the following referral of bills to a committee be made—

Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy:

Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021

Australian Local Power Agency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:

Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2021

THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

24 February 2021

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (09:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The internet has brought extraordinary economic, social and educational benefits, which each of us enjoy every day. However, these benefits will only be fully realised if Australians can engage confidently and safely in the online world.

In 2015 our government established the Children's eSafety Commissioner to support Australian children exposed to the risk of cyberbullying. In 2017 we expanded the commissioner's remit to include all Australians, renaming the office the eSafety Commissioner, and introduced a strong scheme to support victims of image based abuse. Over six years of operation the eSafety Commissioner has established a reputation as an effective regulator, providing swift, practical assistance to people who have been exposed to harm online.

This bill strengthens Australia's world-leading online safety framework by adopting and building on the effective elements of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. This bill also provides new powers for the eSafety Commissioner to tackle a range of emerging online harms within a flexible and adaptive framework.

This bill will establish a world-first cyberabuse take-down scheme for Australian adults, based on the success of our cyberbullying scheme for children. This new scheme provides a pathway for those experiencing the most seriously harmful online abuse to have this material removed from the internet.

The scheme will operate on the basis of complaints made to the eSafety Commissioner, where services have failed to remove abusive content. The scheme applies to the full range of online services used by Australians. The eSafety Commissioner will have the power to issue take-down notices directly to the services, and also to end-users responsible for the abusive content.

This new scheme does not override or supplant existing criminal provisions for abuse and harassment. Victims will still be able to go to the police. The eSafety Commissioner will work closely with law enforcement and hand over any evidence for criminal prosecutions.

The bill will expand our cyberbullying scheme for children. The eSafety Commissioner will now have the power to order the removal of material from the full range of online services where children are now spending time—such as games, websites, messaging and hosting services—and not just social media platforms.

The sharing of intimate images without consent is a terrible thing to do and causes great distress to victims. The government moved quickly to deal with this behaviour through legislation in 2018. We recognise that overwhelmingly victims simply want these images removed from the internet as quickly as possible.

The bill reduces the time frame within which intimate images must be removed following a notice from the eSafety Commissioner. The commissioner will retain the ability to issue notices to social media services, relevant electronic services, designated internet services and hosting services. The commissioner will also retain the ability to issue notices to end-users—those responsible for uploading intimate images—and will have access to infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. Civil penalties of up to $111,000 will continue to apply to individuals who post or threaten to post images, or who fail to comply with a removal notice issued by the eSafety Commissioner.

To have a safer online environment, we need to change the law. But that in itself is not enough. The digital sector must also step up. So this bill introduces a clear statement of what the Australian government—on behalf of all Australians—expects of business in the digital sector. We call this statement the 'Basic Online Safety Expectations'. They will apply to service providers, including social media services; relevant electronic services such as messaging apps and games; and designated internet services such as websites.

The bill allows the minister to determine the detail of these expectations by legislative instrument. The minister may also determine that the expectations apply to specific services. Here are some of the things we expect. We expect that service providers will take reasonable steps to ensure that Australians are able to use their services in a safe manner; we expect that services are not able to be used to bully, abuse or humiliate Australians.; and we expect that service providers will provide clear and readily identifiable mechanisms for users to report and lodge complaints about unacceptable use.

The bill provides for the eSafety Commissioner to publish statements about the performance of digital platforms in meeting the government's expectations. The intent is to drive an improvement in the online safety practices of digital platforms. Where they fall short, the statements will provide advice to the public to inform their use of these services.

The Australian government believes the digital industry must step up and do more to keep their users safe. That belief underpins the provisions of the bill. The bill will require new and updated industry codes to be developed. The bill includes examples of the matters that the government intends these new industry codes to address. These include preventing children from setting up online accounts without the consent of an adult; ensuring that customers have access to a filtered internet service should they choose to take it up; and providing information about online safety and procedures for dealing with prohibited and illegal online content. We expect that each section of the online industry will produce updated and strengthened industry codes within six months of commencement of this bill. The bill empowers the eSafety Commissioner to impose industry standards for those parts of the industry where this may be the best approach to improve online safety.

Australians continue to be concerned with the ease with which age-inappropriate or harmful content, such as pornography or violent material, can be accessed online. Online content is regulated in Australia through our Online Content Scheme. The scheme has successfully applied a complaints-based mechanism, managed by the eSafety Commissioner, with supporting industry codes to prevent prohibited online content from being hosted in Australia. The new legislation will retain all these elements. Because it is working effectively, changes to the Online Content Scheme in the new legislation are minimal.

The bill also empowers the eSafety Commissioner to act quickly in response to the 'worst of the worst' types of online content. The bill reforms the Online Content Scheme so that class 1 material, or material which is so abhorrent that it would be refused classification, will no longer need to be reviewed and classified by the Classification Board before the eSafety Commissioner can order its removal. This includes child sexual exploitation material. In addition, the bill provides the eSafety Commissioner with the power to issue take-down notices to providers of particularly egregious illegal content such as child sexual exploitation material which is hosted outside of Australia and which can be accessed by end users in Australia. The bill provides for civil penalties where services fail to remove this content within 24 hours of the receipt of such a notice.

This strengthened power for the eSafety Commissioner will complement existing international work underway through the WePROTECT Global Alliance, which is targeting and removing child sexual exploitation material no matter where it is hosted.

The bill also provides the eSafety Commissioner with the capability to prevent search engines from being the conduit to illegal online content. In the event that a search engine can be used by Australian end users to access class 1 material, the bill empowers the commissioner to issue a link deletion notice. The notice requests that the search engine cease providing a link to the material within 24 hours, and inform the eSafety Commissioner when this has occurred.

Further, the bill allows the eSafety Commissioner to issue app removal notices that will request that online app stores remove apps that facilitate the posting of class 1 material. Once again, the notices will request that app stores remove these within 24 hours, and inform the eSafety Commissioner when this has been completed.

The shocking live-streamed terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019 warranted a comprehensive response from government and industry. In the days following the attacks, the Prime Minister established the Australian Taskforce to Combat Terrorist and Extreme Violent Material Online. This taskforce, made up of digital platforms, internet service providers and government representatives, delivered a consensus report with recommendations to deny terrorists the ability to spread their propaganda and to incite further violence and acts of hate.

This bill delivers on one of the taskforce's key recommendations. It provides the eSafety Commissioner with a rapid website-blocking power that may be used during an online crisis event. The commissioner would need to consider the nature and likely reach of the material depicting, promoting, inciting or instructing in abhorrent violent conduct, and be satisfied that it would likely cause significant harm to the Australian community and that an urgent response is required. The notice power will only be used in these specific circumstances, to limit the exposure of Australians to terrorist or abhorrent violent material.

The government anticipates that a protocol already in place between the eSafety Commissioner and internet service providers will be updated to guide a swift response from industry in response to a blocking notice issued by the eSafety Commissioner. The government appreciates the support of internet service providers in this effort.

For too long, malicious actors have used anonymous online accounts to abuse, bully or humiliate others. All too frequently, this anonymous abuse is directed at women, victims of family violence or minority groups. Anonymous accounts are also used to exchange the 'worst of the worst' images and content.

The bill clarifies and strengthens the information gathering and investigative powers of the eSafety Commissioner to unmask the identities behind these anonymous accounts. The bill allows the eSafety Commissioner to require that social media services, relevant electronic services and designated internet services provide identity and contact information about end users in relation to cyberbullying, cyberabuse, image based abuse or prohibited online content. Civil penalties will apply to services who fail to comply with a written notice from the eSafety Commissioner.

We all enjoy standards of behaviour and civility in the town square that keep us safe, and there are appropriate mechanisms and sanctions for those who break these rules. The Australian government believes that the digital town square should also be a safe place, and that there should be consequences for those who use the internet to cause others harm. This bill contains a comprehensive set of measures designed in accordance with this belief. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (09:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill operates in conjunction with the Online Safety Bill 2021, which I have just introduced. Together, these bills will strengthen and extend Australia's world-leading online safety framework by adopting and building on the effective elements of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

This bill repeals the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 upon commencement of the new Online Safety Act. The Online Safety Bill will become the new enabling legislation for Australia's eSafety Commissioner, and will strengthen and extend the commissioner's powers to keep Australians safe online.

The bill will repeal schedule 5 and some sections of schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is the enabling legislation for regulation of online content, known as the Online Content Scheme. These functions will be transitioned to the new Online Safety Act. This will create a single act containing comprehensive measures.

The bill will give effect to the government's election commitment, made in the lead up to the 2019 election, to strengthen maximum penalties for use of a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. Accordingly, the bill increases the maximum penalty under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995from three years' imprisonment to five years' imprisonment.

The bill will also makes changes to section 474.17A and 474.17B of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to ensure that offenders who show a pattern of causing online harm through dissemination of private sexual material continue to be given a higher penalty than first-time offenders. These changes reflect the Australian public's expectation that the punishment for this type of conduct should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

The bill makes general amendments consequential to the enactment of the Online Safety Act. These include repealing redundant provisions, updating definitions and omitting and substituting references in other legislation that refers to the original legislation.

The bill also provides transitional provisions and consequential amendments for other acts arising from the enactment of this act to provide continuity for the operation of the eSafety Commissioner, associated administrative arrangements, legal proceedings, schemes and processes.

Both of the online safety bills have been developed following election commitments and substantial public and stakeholder consultation, including stakeholder workshops and an analysis of over 370 submissions received in response to an exposure draft of the Online Safety Bill that I released in December 2020.

This bill, together with the Online Safety Bill, will extend and strengthen Australia's already world-leading online safety arrangements. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (09:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian government has an ongoing commitment to supporting northern Australia to deliver on its potential. This bill positions the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (the NAIF) to deliver for northern Australia while it navigates the challenging economic conditions arising from the COVID‑19 pandemic.

The government released the Statutory Review of the NAIF in December last year. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all stakeholders who participated in the review's consultation processes. Those stakeholders said, loudly and clearly, that while the NAIF is delivering for northern Australia, it can and should do more. The Australian government has listened to that feedback. Today I introduce this bill to give effect to reforms arising from that review. The bill aims to make the NAIF more proactive in investment decisions and freeing up unnecessary administrative burdens to accelerate lending.

The bill extends the investment window of the NAIF for a further five years, until 30 June 2026. This will allow more time for project proponents to seek and secure financial assistance for investments that deliver economic or population growth for the north.

The bill also expands the scope of projects for which financial assistance can be provided, increasing the breadth of projects eligible for financial support. This means that, while the central objective of the NAIF remains building infrastructure, its support can now also go to additional elements of infrastructure development. These might include the purchase of equipment, leasing, training and the expansion of existing business operations. As it was put to the review by one stakeholder, the NAIF will be able to finance not just the building of a shed, but also the equipment you need to put in it.

The bill will support streamlining and simplification of the NAIF's processes, and reducing administrative burden. The NAIF will have greater freedom to decide how and under what conditions it provides financial assistance to project proponents.

Amendments to allow for direct lending to project proponents in certain circumstances reduce the burden on state and territory governments. The NAIF will also have the flexibility to invest through subsidiaries, on-lending partnerships and other investment vehicles. These changes allow greater flexibility in how the NAIF delivers financial assistance to the north.

The government recognises the significant contribution smaller businesses make to their regions. These reforms will allow the NAIF to partner with organisations experienced in working with small businesses to make NAIF finance more accessible. Under these arrangements, the NAIF will provide the capital, and their partner will support small businesses through the application process, providing opportunities for them to deliver projects and significantly benefit their regions.

By adding the Minister for Finance as jointly responsible for the NAIF investment mandate; introducing a government member to the NAIF board; and expanding the NAIF board's areas of expertise, the bill strengthens the NAIF's governance and supports its alignment with the Australian government's policy agenda.

Following passage of this bill, the government will issue a new investment mandate for the NAIF. The new mandate will provide direction on implementing the new functions and responsibilities provided for in this bill, including on making equity investments and supporting accessibility by small projects and businesses.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Dr ALY (Cowan) (09:54): I am in continuation. I was reflecting on what academic freedom means and, indeed, what freedom of speech means in the context of academic research, based on my years of experience working at universities in various capacities and in various research areas. Academic freedom means the freedom to pursue knowledge, and all knowledge is worthy of pursuit, whether in the sciences or the humanities. And, as I was reflecting the last time I spoke on this bill, the greatest threat to academic freedom comes from this government and this government's campaign against certain pursuits of knowledge—different types of pursuits of knowledge. There can be no greater example of that than when the previous minister for education vetoed more than $4 million worth of ARC grants, all in the humanities.

Here's what it takes to get an ARC grant. You have to have done a pilot project. You have to have a substantial body of research on which to build. You then have to write an application, and that application can run to 100 pages or so. You then have to have it assessed by a panel of experts. But the former minister for education put himself above that panel of experts in vetoing a number of ARC-approved research projects, all in the humanities.

Out there, being an expert is something you earn, and it's not based on having a staffer write you an op-ed or a staffer write your speeches for you or do your research for you. You actually have to be the one who's conducted the research. You actually have to be the one who's pursued that knowledge and accumulated that knowledge. To have a minister veto and go over and above decisions that were already made by an appointed panel of experts, people who are recognised in their field, is not just hubris; it is actually the very definition of an attack on academic freedom and indeed an attack on freedom of speech in higher education.

Researchers should be able to utilise their expertise to pursue pathways of knowledge that will add to the body of knowledge of expertise in this country. That is what academic freedom is all about. That is what we mean when we talk about the integrity of academic freedom. But that is not the only example of this government's attack on universities and on academic freedom.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

Dr ALY: The member opposite, the member for Goldstein, likes to interject. Unfortunately, Member for Goldstein, I have to speak out on this—10 years working in the university sector, and when I speak to my colleagues who are still in the university sector they are aghast at the level of interference in academic freedom and academic integrity that this government feels free to undertake. They are absolutely shocked by the decisions taken by the former minister for education in vetoing ARC grants and the current move around fee changes that is supposed to lead to more STEM places but has actually been completely counterproductive.

When we talk about academic freedom and freedom of speech, I think about a gentleman in my electorate of Cowan who called me the other day. He's a mature-age student wanting to go back to university to finish his first degree; he hasn't done a degree before. He's got three kids. He enrolled in a degree in history, because he's interested in history—interested in biblical history, interested in that body of knowledge that has a lot of relevance to how we conduct ourselves today. So he enrolled in a degree and studied his first semester. This semester he's been told that the cost of his degree has doubled, and he can no longer afford to continue studying in that degree. Who deemed that this man's pursuit of knowledge is not worthy? Who is it that deemed that there should be no academic freedom for this man to pursue a degree in history? Who is it that decides what young people get to choose to study? Who is it that decides what people who wish to return to university, or get a degree for the first time, in their 40s or 50s get to study?

The biggest threat to academic freedom is the actions of this government. They need to stop their protracted campaign against the universities, they need to stop the cuts to universities, they need to stop this ideological war against the humanities, and they need to demonstrate that they really are about freedom of speech and academic freedom. On this side of the House, we are about academic freedom. That's why we support this bill—because it makes sense. But I call on the government to do more than just this bill and to actually stand behind what they say about freedom of speech, academic freedom and the integrity of academic freedom.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:01): I always like to follow the member for Cowan, because, if nothing else, her substance and sass always contribute to the debate, in both her physical manifestation and her words. I note she's laughing and enjoying everything I'm saying. I do have a strong affection for her, because, if nothing else, she contributes and makes a contribution with passion and commitment.

That the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom Of Speech) Bill 2020 needs to be introduced is, frankly, embarrassing. It's embarrassing because it has got to a situation where universities are not the home of free and intellectual inquiry to pursue the advancement of our nation and our collective knowledge, scientific inquiry and humanity. In fact, when I served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, before being elected to this place, I wrote an article specifically looking at higher education and some of the issues that were faced, particularly where universities refused to accept centres focused on free and intellectual inquiry, and it finished with a joke: 'What is the opposite of diversity? Sadly, it has become university.'

That's why I say it's embarrassing. Universities should be the pillars on which we build the intellectual foundations of our country. They should be the pillars on which young minds, thirsty and enthusiastic, are challenged and confront difficult realities, where we hold a window up to our society—economically, socially, politically, environmentally and scientifically—and where matters are debated on the basis of their merit, not on the basis of their conformity to rigid ideology. That we are now faced with a number of examples where universities have been bullied, silenced or intimidated into silence should embarrass them. Where are the university councils and university senates standing up for their core purpose? Why is it that legislation needs to be introduced to tell them to do their core job—because this is their core job?

Take the kerfuffle that surrounded the establishment of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation to study the great works of our own culture and history. It is not the sole source or the font of all knowledge of our community and civilisation, and nobody is arguing that it is, but that some people seem to think that it's acceptable to exclude these works from academic inquiry because of the authors or the times, considering the incredible contribution they have made to the foundation of some of the most free and prosperous societies on earth, should embarrass universities. That universities in Western Australia rejected funding to support a centre that focused on how we can achieve consensus around issues like the science and policy of climate change should embarrass those universities. That we have activists that want to stand up against the bullying and intimidatory behaviour of Communist parties around the world and they find themselves in a position of sanction or censure should embarrass universities. Because that is not the basis in which free intellectual inquiry, research, activism and debate should be conducted in a free liberal democracy such as ours.

The legislation we have before us today should not be needed. But here we are. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will strengthen protections for freedom of speech and academic freedom on university campuses, and, by default, Australia. The legislation will bring the Higher Education Support Act 2003 into line with the French model code which all universities have agreed to adopt this year. The legislation is a culmination of a careful process, identifying what needs to be done to support free and open debate.

On 14 November 2018, the Minister for Education announced that the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert French, would review existing material regarding free speech on university campuses, which led to this process. The report concluded on 6 April 2019 that the protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom could be strengthened by the adoption of model codes embedded in higher education providers' institutional regulations or policies on a voluntary basis. There were minor amendments that were suggested and adopted. The amendments would align the language currently used around free intellectual inquiry with the proposed model code's identification of free speech and academic freedom, bringing greater clarity and consistency.

Since then, we've had universities considering and looking at different models that can be adopted. Of course, it's culminated in the situation where we have legislation which enables free intellectual inquiry in university campuses. But we should never lose sight of this moment and why it matters to pass this legislation—as reluctant, and frankly, as embarrassing as it may be—because, in the end, free and intellectual inquiry is critical to the foundations of our society. It's actually the wellspring where so much of our society succeeds, and we should never lose sight of that.

There are so many reasons for this—we can go through them and, if you wish to, you can read my speeches when I was Human Rights Commissioner—and we've got plenty of other great works, from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty through to discussions of the present day. But the principles remain consistent. The point of free speech is not just because it's the manifestation of people's freedom of conscience and the freedom to impart ideas—though it is that—it's also the opportunity to test, particularly in a university environment, bad ideas and have them exposed by the light of day. It's so that bigotry and prejudice within communities can be challenged and confronted, and we can see our common humanity. It's so bad ideas are tested against evidence so that our community and our society can progress.

As soon as you create a linear model of thinking, an ideological framework which constrains that debate, you set humanity and our country on a course against progress. You deny people the capacity to understand what is right and what is wrong on a path towards a made-perfect humanity. We want to ensure that future generations do not just carry the learned knowledge and history of our community and our civilisation and all of the bits that feed into it but can continue their journey in contributing to it to compound the success of future generations. When that's denied in an environment specifically to promote education, research and challenging people's thinking, as universities are, you don't just undermine education, although you do; you undermine the potential of future generations to succeed and to give their children the inheritance that we received and wish to give to them. There are plenty of societies in human history that have constrained free and open discussion because they thought they had the perfect solution, anchored on an ideological hubris that they somehow had reached a form of perfection for themselves. All that history showed, like democracy itself, is that it meant there were no safety valves to test that madness which undermined and corroded the very foundations of their society.

That's why freedom of speech goes to the core of liberalism itself. It's because it's necessary to progress society itself, the economy itself—community, culture, history and tradition themselves. It's about the decentralisation of power from the select few to the empowerment of millions of people and for truth to be spoken to power, including in this place. And it doesn't matter what the context or the setting is; we must always stand up for it and by it—not the selective representations that so many people make when people stand up for ideas that they agree with. It was misattributed to him, but the Voltairian principle, nonetheless, stays the same.

Sadly, too many people in this place, and outside this place—particularly those in the modern, progressive Left—make bold claims and commitments to free speech so long as it confirms to their world view. We have seen this before and we will see it again: they bastardise language with concepts like fair speech, which means that people's thought and expression should be anchored to their identity or that the limits in which they can express themselves are simply based on the recipient of the expression.

We know the history of free speech and that when you empower censorship you empower a censor—centralised power to dictate what people can say, what they can express and the circumstances in which they can do that. That suppresses the advancement of our species. That's what free speech is about: it's not just about the expression of ideas; it is about power. Censorship is about the centralisation of power at the expense of the individual and in favour of the privileged few. Free speech is about the empowerment of the many—for diversity, for debate and for the individual. No society has ever succeeded where it has sought to empower the few to dictate over the many. The only sustainable societies that exist today which continue to compound, grow and contribute, not just for themselves but to those beyond their borders, are those which empower individuals, families and communities as the foundation of the success of their country and their civilisation.

This legislation may be targeted specifically at issues related to higher education, but the reverberation and ripples which it sets extend far wider for the advancement of our society. We should never lose sight of that. Today is one of those moments when we have legislation before us which cannot have just an immediate effect but which can continue to contribute to the advancement of us as a people through the empowerment of individuals in their contributions to the progress of humanity.

Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (10:14): I, too, rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. Of course, Labor is supporting this bill—and why wouldn't we? We've always promulgated freedom of speech, which is one of the pillars of our democracy and something that we can pride ourselves on. Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental things you can have in a free society. So, therefore, there is no reason that Labor Party would not support this bill. In fact, history shows that on this side of the House we have always supported the ability to speak freely. Regardless of who's in government and what the government lines are, people should have freedom of speech to express themselves, to ensure that they can get their ideas across et cetera.

As I said, we support academic freedom. University students and researchers should absolutely be free to follow their intellectual curiosity, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, especially in universities. When we look at the history of our nation and some of the movements that have made changes to this country, the incubator, the hotbed, is the universities. Whether it be Vietnam conscription or refugees in detention, where we saw an outcry from universities and students and academics, it is always universities that are usually at the forefront. It is so important.

Gough Whitlam told us:

Academic freedom is the first requirement, the essential property of a free society. More than trade, more than strategic interests, more even than common systems of law or social or political structures, free and flourishing universities provide the true foundation of our western kinship, and define the true commonality of the democratic order.

That is as true today as it was when former prime minister Gough Whitlam made that statement.

We need to ensure that freedom of speech is freedom of speech across the board, not when it suits us or governments or particular organisations. Look at this government and the history of the last seven years. I'll give you a great example: when Simon Birmingham was minister for education, he alone vetoed more than $4 million of Australian Research Council grants because he 'didn't like the sound of them'; that's what was quoted at the time. It was an act that universities called 'abhorrent' and 'reprehensible' at the time, and which undermined the impartiality of the entire grant process. So freedom of speech should be across the board, not what we like or dislike ideologically. Former Chief Justice French himself says in the report:

From the available evidence however, claims of a freedom of speech crisis on Australian campuses are not substantiated.

We also have to remember why this bill is being introduced at this point in time. As I said at the beginning of my speech, when I stood up a few minutes ago, freedom of speech is the pillar of our democracy and is embedded in our laws and legislation. People should have the freedom to express themselves, to ensure that they have religious freedom and a whole range of things. But, if you look at the timing of this, it's very unfortunate that the reason this debate is before the House today is to do with previous bills that went through the parliament in the previous few sessions—that is, the increase in higher education costs. The government knew they couldn't get that bill through, so a deal was done with Pauline Hanson's party and a few others in the Senate to get it through, to increase fees for students. It's very unfortunate that the only reason we're debating this bill here today and putting it through is some sort of dirty deal that was done to get something through that universities, students and most of the public did not agree with—a hike in tertiary fees and university fees.

When we talk about expression of freedom and when we talk about the ability to express and explore ideas, especially in our think tanks—which are our universities—people need to have that ability. When you put pressure, through economic costs, on students getting their higher education degrees and when you put pressure on faculties and all the higher education system, it has an effect on freedom of speech and an effect on the students' mindset. If they're struggling to pay those fees and thinking about the day-to-day economics of their lives, they're less likely to be able to express themselves and feed ideas through to us from our tertiary education sector, which has been a hotbed of ideas for centuries. The bill that went through this House was criticised by many people.

When we talk about freedom of speech, we also need to keep in mind that freedom of speech is not about hurting others, vilifying others and bringing racism into it. That still must be our highest thought—to ensure that hate speech et cetera is not dressed up as freedom of speech. That's very important to remember, because lately we have seen many dressing up the term 'freedom of speech' and using it for their own purposes.

As I said earlier, the fee hikes are going to have a tremendous effect on education in this nation and on students and people wanting higher education. But, again, we shouldn't be surprised. We know the current government has continually sought to increase fees for university degrees. I call it the Americanisation of our education system. In the US, if you don't have a spare $200,000, you do not get a degree. Our year 12s have done it so tough this year with COVID. They've had to knuckle down and study from home when we don't even have the NBN working properly. Families have taken it in shifts when mum and dad are working from home. The internet is so slow that only one person can use it at a time.

If you want to talk about freedom of speech, that's great. It is within the pillars of our democracy, and it should be at the highest point. You also have to put mechanisms in place that give people the ability to think outside the square and to have their views heard. They should not have to struggle with debts. At the moment it costs, on average, $60,000 to get a basic degree. No Australian should miss out on the job they want or the education they need because they can't afford it. This is what's happening.

I'm raising this because we know that this bill is only here in this House today because of a deal done in the Senate to get higher education costs up. We should be encouraging young people to promulgate their views to ensure that their ideas get out there. We should also be encouraging as many students as possible to study at TAFE or university in order to get the skills they need to help rebuild our wonderful nation. This government's inaction has paralysed universities and left students in a very uncertain position. The government's university fee hikes have been built on perverse incentives.

All sorts of experts, including former Liberal education minister Julie Bishop, have expressed their concerns that the legislation will achieve the opposite of what the government says it will. It's going to discourage universities from offering STEM degrees, for example. Overall, the government's funding model is going to cut total funding for these degrees. The experts in science and technology, who have crunched the numbers, agree. They found that funding for STEM courses, such as maths and engineering courses, will fall because of the legislation and the deal that was done in the Senate. Universities across the country have advised that there will be similar results. What's more, students who choose to study courses that the government has deemed undesirable under its job-ready scheme will face skyrocketing fees. I don't believe it is right to penalise students for their dreams. You may say that this is all about the other bit of legislation that went through the House, but it has an effect on freedom of speech. It has an effect on the way students view their years of tertiary education. It puts pressure on them, not being able to express themselves. It puts pressure on them, dealing with the day-to-day grind of the economics of universities. That leads to the dumbing down of freedom of speech. It shouldn't be happening.

This year I met many, many students who, under COVID, were having all sorts of issues. One of them, for example, was Fleur, who lost her job because of COVID and because the government excluded universities from JobKeeper. She was a successful lecturer in theatre, performance and presentation skills. Last year, she won the Monash Student Association Teaching Excellence Award in the arts faculty and was short-listed for the university-wide Above and Beyond Award for her care of students during lockdown. At the same time as winning those accolades, she lost her job. After five years of dedication, of teaching hundreds of students, she was told that the university could not renew her contract without JobKeeper. We wrote to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, as did many of my colleagues and the shadow ministers, but it fell on deaf ears. Fleur contacted my office in absolute desperation. She stated, 'It feels like I am being punished just because the government did not pick my industry, didn't deem my career worthy of support in a pandemic.' She fears for her own future and much more—she fears that, without support, Australia will lose a generation of educators and researchers. Educators and researchers are the people who encourage our students to speak freely, to promulgate ideas, to get their views heard and to debate a whole range of things. These are the people we're losing. We're dumbing down our education system. I share my constituent Fleur's concerns. We want and need a well-educated society where people are encouraged and supported to follow their dreams. I don't think this government agrees.

As I said, we will not oppose this legislation, because freedom of speech is the pillar of our democracy and the pillar of the freedoms that we take for granted in this country. Strengthening academic freedoms in our universities is important, but you need to put all the other markers in place as well, to give students the ability not just to crunch the numbers, if they're doing maths, science or chemistry, but also to think as global citizens. We encourage that through freedom of speech. Unfortunately, we're dumbing down our system.

I'd also ask the Prime Minister and his government to make legislation that is in the best interests of our nation. The bill that went through the Senate previously, which dealt with higher tertiary education costs, is not in the best interests of our nation, our students or our tertiary education. In fact, it just makes it harder for people to study, to dream of their careers and to get expertise in a particular field. As we know, this was only done to appease One Nation so that they would support the government's abhorrent bill and pass its university fee hikes, which make it harder and more expensive for Australians to get a university education. When fewer people go to university, when it's harder for people to go to university and when the ones that do go have to struggle with their day-to-day finances, we dumb down freedom of speech.

We support this bill. It's important. Freedom of speech should always be raised to the highest level. But we know that this is being done just to appease those in the Senate, the One Nation Party, because they supported the legislation to increase university fees.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:29): The implications of the bill before the House today, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020, are profound. Freedom of speech in our universities is critical, of course, not only to the integrity of our academics themselves but for our economic and our political success. Our universities are the nurseries of Australia's intellectual future. They are the training grounds for our next leaders and the incubators of the ideas that will preserve our nation's prosperity.

However, the implications go beyond these boundaries and they touch all Australians. When academics and experts refuse to, or are unable to, make the rational, evidenced and nuanced arguments which exist on both sides of almost any debate, then, unfortunately, others will pick up where that vacuum is created. The floor is left to those whose views are more extreme. Australians are not stupid. They know when debate is being silenced and alternative perspectives are being suppressed. When the only voices expressing those alternative perspectives are those with an extreme agenda or, indeed, unbalanced views, unfortunately those are the only voices which are heard and all of us are left poorer as a result.

Sadly, it is clear that freedom of speech and academic inquiry is not currently adequately protected in our universities. In a paper released at the end of 2020 for the Business Council by the University of Sydney's Business School, their international economic director, John Shields, summed up the issue well when he described:

… a form of classroom monoculturalism in which ­encouraging students to embrace the values of academic integrity and free debate, and facilitating the development of core capabilities in critical thinking, effective English communication and cross-cultural competence, have become increasingly difficult.

We will all, no doubt, remember the 2018 case of the proposed course in Western civilisation supported by millions in guaranteed funding from the Ramsay Centre which was rejected by the Australian National University amid uproar from its so-called progressive academic staff. What was particularly striking in that case was the simple fact that opponents of a degree course in Western civilisation clearly believed any such course must present an uncritically positive view of its subject matter. It says a lot about these same academics' approach in teaching their own courses. Clearly at ANU to study a humanities subject is to be indoctrinated in whatever predominant position is supported by the donors. This is not education. It is indoctrination, plain and simple.

The opposition of staff at ANU to such a course is, sadly, made more understandable when you compare it to the same university's equivalent Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies. This centre is funded by the governments of the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Iran. It changed its name from the Centre for Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies immediately following a particularly large Emirati donation. The centre's former director, Amin Saikal, has made the outlandish statement that Iran:

… provides degree of mass participation, political pluralism and assurance of certain human rights and freedoms which do not exist in most of the Middle East.

However, ANU is not alone. In my own state, the University of Queensland pursued one young man last year with secretive and expensive disciplinary processes following his leadership of a large-scale protest against China's actions towards Hong Kong, alongside other on-campus activism. UQ students report that they've been criticised in assignment feedback for using words like 'mankind', for describing ships with the conventional pronoun 'she' or, most recently, for rightly referring to James Madison as one of the United States's 'founding fathers'. A 2019 survey of 500 Australian students by the Institute of Public Affairs found that 41 per cent felt they were sometimes unable to express their opinions at university, while 31 per cent had been made to feel uncomfortable by a lecturer for expressing their views.

Australia's universities, in fact, have accepted for themselves that they need to do more to guarantee freedom of speech and academic inquiry. Following the Hon. Justice Robert French's independent review in 2019, all Australian universities signed up to put in place the code that he had devised in order to avoid the eroding of fundamental freedom of speech, which is an essential element of academic freedom. However, more than a year on, and despite 33 Australian universities claiming to have made progress in implementing the French model code, by December only nine were found by former Deakin University vice-chancellor Sally Walker to have enacted codes which are consistent with it. The government, I know, will continue to work closely with universities to ensure that more of them are adopting the code. The Minister for Education and Youth has made it clear that he wishes to see that work completed as soon as possible.

In the meantime, the government is acting to ensure that the legislative framework under which universities operate reinforces these principles and forms a constant reminder to universities of their obligations. The bill before the House delivers stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia and, unlike so many of our universities to date, it gives effect to a key recommendation from the 2019 French review: it requires that universities have a policy which upholds freedom of speech and academic freedom. It requires universities to enshrine Justice French's new definitions of the principles which we all agree are an essential part of higher education for academic staff and students alike. It does this simply by amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

It also substitutes the terms 'freedom of speech' and 'academic freedom' for the existing term 'free intellectual inquiry' in the act. This not only aligns the language of those provisions with Justice French's proposed model; it also enshrines the principles of academic freedom espoused by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which states:

Academic freedom includes the liberty of individuals to express freely opinions about the institution or system in which they work, to fulfil their functions without discrimination or fear of repression by the State or any other actor …

Finally, by replacing the words 'free intellectual inquiry' in the act, the amendments draw an important distinction between the freedom of speech which we all have and the special aspects of freedom of speech most required to deliver true academic freedom. These include the freedom of academic staff to teach, to discuss, to research, and to disseminate and publish the results of their research. They include the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs and to contribute to public debate in relation to their subjects of study and research. In particular, as I mentioned, they include the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled, which can be critical in this era of universities as global business interests.

This debate is about one of the most fundamental principles that underlie our parliamentary democracy, but it is also about people—academics and ordinary students living in all of our electorates. In our privileged situation in this place, protected by the conventions that support the vigour of our own debates, we must always remember that our constituents do not enjoy those same privileged protections that we do whilst we sit in this place. Today in Australia, almost one-third of students have been discouraged from speaking their minds by those who are responsible for encouraging their intellectual curiosity. Some of our students have faced much worse. Our students and our academics are not extremists. They do not want to hurt anyone with their speech or their ideas. Around the country, we've seen in recent years that many of our people are feeling disenfranchised. Some of them are turning to so-called outsiders who seem to be able to say what they feel that they are prevented from saying themselves. For some, this feeling begins in our educational institutions, but, with the right guarantees, its solution can begin there, too.

Academics are, or should be, in a privileged position to overcome falsehood, prejudice and bias. They have the time, the resources, the skills, the evidence and the intellectual community at their fingertips to thoroughly examine new ideas and vigorously stress-test new claims and new ideas. They operate under an historical assumption of free academic inquiry. In some of our universities, politicisation, intellectual cowardice and ideological enforcement will result in nothing but a perpetuation of the fractures that exist in this country. However, academic freedom, open debate and a willingness to engage fearlessly with the evidence, however uncomfortable that may be, will help to ensure that all Australians feel heard and that the truth ultimately wins out. As we seek to recover from this COVID crisis, now more than ever we need inventive, cutting-edge thinkers—not drones for whom new ideas are a threat rather than an opportunity. We cannot afford to create even one generation of Australians who have been denied the chance to think for themselves. In a world where knowledge and innovation will be the economic drivers of our future, this has never been more important than it is right now.

Beyond economics, as Justice French observed in his review, even a limited number of incidents seen as affecting freedom of speech may have an adverse impact on public perception of the higher education sector, which can feed into the political sphere. Our political process and our economy can only deliver prosperity and opportunity for all Australians of every kind when our academics can express their views and contribute to the national conversation and when our students are encouraged to explore the answers to what are often uncomfortable questions. That's what this bill is about. That's what this bill will help to deliver, and I commend it to the House.

Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (10:43): I'm pleased to follow the member for Fisher, and I acknowledge that his contribution was thoughtful and considered and, in many parts, set out very clearly why freedom of speech and freedom of thought are very important. There is a 'but', however—

Mr Wallace interjecting—

Ms MURPHY: I agree with the member for Fisher: I was doing so well. My only 'however' to that speech is that it has to cut both ways. If we are to genuinely support freedom of speech in the way that the member for Fisher and the member for Goldstein put forward in their speeches, then everyone has to accept that people's views that are ideologically or politically different to theirs have the right to be put and to be debated, and accept the hypocrisy of advocating for freedom of speech for those you agree with but not for those you don't. The member for Goldstein talked about what he saw as the hypocrisy of the progressive Left. There is no doubt that there are some people, who may or may not fit the descriptor 'progressive Left', who go a very long way in their desire to stop speech that they see as hurtful or harmful to people in their world and who ask for words and phrases not to be used, in situations where others believe they have a right to use them. But to suggest that it's only people within the progressive Left who would like some limits on freedom of speech is in and of itself a hypocritical argument.

Freedom of speech does have limits, and I think everyone agrees with that. We teach children that from the day they're born. You might have the right to say things, but you shouldn't be using your freedom of speech in a way that is deliberately harmful, hurtful or offensive. There are limits. Even if you don't mean harm or offence or hurt, if what you are doing with your speech is causing those things then there are appropriate limits. I would say to those on the other side who rail against what they call 'cancel culture' and 'the progressive left' that I think what people are actually trying to say is: 'Can you listen to the way in which speech, even traditional forms of speaking, is actually hurting people? Can you put it into the current culture and lives of people and accept that your right to speak that way or use those words causes us hurt and harm, and can you perhaps not do it?' That was just a little tangent I thought I might go on after listening to the member for Fisher's speech.

What I want to do is agree, as everyone on my side and the other side of the chamber has, that it is uncontroversial that freedom of speech and intellectual experimentation and searching are absolutely fundamental to universities and to education. There is no doubt about that. But one of the issues we have in this country, which I think is quite well demonstrated by the different approaches to this legislation and the different speeches that people have given, is that we don't have an overarching human rights framework within which to debate and consider the rights and responsibilities of citizens and their relationship with their government. Since Federation, we have had a piecemeal and ad hoc legislative approach to rights and freedoms. Freedoms have had to be taken as implied in our Constitution, because they're not written there. That means that when the parliament comes to debate legislation such as this we don't have a framework, whether it's a charter or a bill of rights, within which to place this legislation. As a country and as a legislature, we've seen those problems in recent times. Marriage equality, the ongoing discussion of religious freedoms, and press and journalistic freedoms—the lack of which was highlighted last year when journalists Dan Oakes and Annika Smethurst were subject to AFP raids and very long investigations, with the threat of prosecution, for doing their job—are all dealt with as if they don't have any connection, as if rights and freedoms don't interact.

It's complicated—human rights law and the approach to rights and freedoms—and we are doing ourselves and the Australian public a disservice by continuing, as a parliament, to try to deal with these issues one by one. In 2001, in Papers on parliament No. 36, Professor George Williams wrote:

A gulf lies between Australians and their government. This stems in part from the longstanding failure to set out the rights and responsibilities of Australians within the political process. The lack of an Australian statement of rights undermines any claim Australia might have to a 'magnificent' human rights record. In any event, the record of human rights abuses, ranging from the Stolen Generation to Albert Langer to our treatment of refugees, shows clearly otherwise.

Professor Williams went on to write:

There is an obvious need for reform. Changes such as improved civics education are important, but we also need to reinvigorate our public life by beginning a process that will involve Australians more directly in the political system. We should draft an Australian statement of rights and freedoms. This should be in the form of a Bill of Rights enacted by parliament that would offer a coherent domestic means of addressing our many contemporary debates on individual liberty. This could start a long overdue dialogue between parliament, the courts and the people. We need to legislate for a Bill of Rights now.

Twenty years later, Professor Williams' words continue to ring true and to resonate.

We are one of the few jurisdictions in the Western world who haven't adopted a general bill of rights. For some time bills of rights were perhaps considered a European legislative initiative; however, we now look at Canada, New Zealand, the United States—they've had a bill of rights for a long time—and, domestically, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT. They have all developed bills of rights. Now, there are a lot of debates about what the exact form of a bill of rights might look like, what is effective and what is not, but we're not even having that debate in Australia's federal parliament or politics at the moment, and we should be.

The Australian Human Rights Commission said recently—2021—in Australia's third UPR that Australia does not have a federal human rights act, meaning that 'many fundamental human rights protections are not fully protected in Australia'. It said:

There are also minimal protections in place to ensure that the government considers our human rights as part of everyday law and policy making, and takes steps to prevent breaches before they occur. There are limited avenues to seek review of government decisions or actions that violate a person's human rights.

In the same paper, the Human Rights Commission also says: 'Australia's discrimination laws provide the main vehicle for implementing the human rights obligations. These laws are complex, do not provide comprehensive protection and are largely reactive, placing significant emphasis on individual complaints. There are limited regulatory mechanisms to ensure compliance and promote equality. The commission considers an effective anti-discrimination network should have more emphasis on prevention measures that will assist duty holders to comply with the law, and more effective enforcement mechanisms when they don't.' Governments in Australia have been reactive to issues of rights and freedom for too long, partly because we don't have that national framework of a bill or a charter of human rights.

Before I conclude, I want to return to where I started, which is: in order to stand up and talk about the importance of academic freedom of speech and be taken seriously, it's important that parliamentarians and governments practice what they preach. As some of my colleagues have already said in this debate, when Senator Birmingham was minister for education he vetoed about $4 million of Australian Research Council grants because he didn't like what they were doing. Universities called that 'reprehensible' and said that it undermined the impartiality of the entire grant process. And, listening to the speech that the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, gave, I can't imagine that he would approve of that either, given his commitment to freedom of inquiry at universities.

Former Chief Justice French said in the report:

From the available evidence however, claims of a freedom of speech crisis on Australian campuses are not substantiated.

But we know that this government has been doing deals with Pauline Hanson and One Nation in relation to higher education. However, I do accept that there are members on that side who have a deep interest in freedom of speech and in governments not dictating to civil society what they can and can't say. Nonetheless, this Liberal government has passed legislation which makes it an offence for a Eureka flag to be flown on a building site or for construction workers, plumbers and electricians to wear their union insignia on building sites—freedom of speech, freedom of association.

We regularly hear outcries about research that the government doesn't believe in. We all know, because we all have NGOs and charities in our electorates who are either explicitly or implicitly constrained in the advocacy they are able to undertake, because of the funding agreements and the grants from government—from environmental defenders' offices to health providers. These are the sorts of actions from government that don't support the basic rights and freedoms that most people in this chamber have said that they support. If we're going to talk about freedoms in institutions, we need to be consistent about it.

There is a growing tendency in our political world to label others who say things that one doesn't agree with as 'un-Australian'. One might not agree with changing the date of Australia Day, but surely those who believe in freedom of speech believe in the right of people to stand up and say that they do and why they do. One might not agree with views that people have expressed on Twitter and in other place, but the freedom-of-speech principle that's espoused by those people on the other side, who talk about the core values of libertarianism, surely says that those people have a right—as long as they're not advocating violence, the downthrow of government or criminal offences—to express views that they don't agree with and not be hounded out of the country, be called un-Australian or spark calls for the defunding of broadcasters.

So let's have this debate, but let's be honest about the positions that people are taking, and let's try to be consistent when we say that we believe in principles. One way that, as a parliament, we can bring the Australian people with us and bring about some of that consistency is to genuinely start the process of developing and implementing an Australian bill of rights.

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:58): I rise to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. In so doing, I just want to address comments made by the member for Dunkley about the need for an Australian bill of rights. I could not be more passionately opposed to an Australian bill of rights. A bill of rights does not protect individual citizens; it just transfers decisions from elected parliaments to unelected judges. Every tyrant in history has brought about a bill or rights that doesn't protect people, and it will surprise Australians that Victoria has a bill of rights. Despite all of the draconian laws that have been passed in Victoria over the last 12 months, they have done so with a bill of rights. A bill of rights provides an illusory protection to people.

I support this bill because the bill is designed to help universities be the best they can be and not be captured by ideologies and other distractions that threaten their reason for existence. I think undergraduates' impression of universities before they get there is often one that's very exciting. They imagine that they'll meet people who are deep experts in their field who'll engage in Socratic debate with their students. Students imagine that they have the chance to explore and test ideas with people, that they'll be able to freely inquire—I think of the great Edward Albee play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, where academics try to outwit each other. Students imagine a culture of learning and inquiry where they'll have a chance to develop their views and to properly explore and test their ideas.

I think what parents are hoping for is that their children will mature in their thinking but also develop a set of skills to make them ready for the workplace—a ticket for the future, and hopefully an opportunity to explore a better economic future than those parents themselves had. We regularly hear stories of the enormous pride that members of a family feel when the first generation attends university. The ceiling is lifted and new horizons open.

I believe in the idea of a university. I believe in the idea of a place of free and open discussion and debate. I believe in a university system that prepares people for the jobs of today and provides them with a set of skills that are adaptable for the jobs of tomorrow. I believe in a university system that can change people's lives and expose them to opportunities that their parents only dreamed of.

I want to give a couple of vignettes from my own education as an undergraduate arts and law student at UNSW. I was very lucky to undertake public law with Professor Rob Shelly. That class included a discussion of the 1975 constitutional crisis. Professor Shelly and I had very different views on it, but I didn't get marked down for having a politically incorrect view. He let me air my view, and although he disagreed with my stance he always tested my ideas and helped me put my best argument forward. I also remember the late, great Professor George Winterton. We were on opposite sides of the republic debate. We were both delegates at the Constitutional Convention and we became good friends. George was so widely read that he'd always give you the best proposition against his own argument.

In my school days I had some excellent teachers. I had a schoolteacher called Stu Johnston, who'd organised the Vietnam moratoriums and taught me history. Again, he completely disagreed with my politics, but he took the time to invest in me, to expose me to other ideas and to help me with my essay writing, because he saw that I'd need it over the course of my life. That's what truly great educators do.

In the three examples I've given, my education would have been poorer if I'd had to conform to some sort of politically correct idea or wasn't able to debate and have my own ideas challenged. Coming in with a preconception, hearing another view and refining, changing or solidifying one's own perspective is what a great education in the humanities should be all about. Unfortunately, too often the university system isn't allowing for that free inquiry and free debate and isn't properly equipping undergraduates for the jobs they're going on to. Unfortunately, I think a culture has increasingly developed in our universities—particularly, sadly, in our sandstone universities—where debate is not encouraged and where, in effect, the universities are not preparing graduates properly for a workforce where things are rapidly changing.

In our modern world, students need more traditional knowledge and hard skills than ever before. There's no point learning French history through how people collected firewood in the 18th century if you don't learn what French history says about the perception of France's place in the world today. There's no point learning a Marxist view of India's history which laments the British Empire but teaches nothing of Hindu culture, the rule of the Moguls or the glories of India's ancient civilisations. There's no point critiquing texts and ideas without first properly engaging in that text or idea itself. Too often we see great texts and ideas being talked about through the critique of today instead of being read on their own merits and then having rational debate applied to the ideas contained in them.

One of the hallmarks of Dan Tehan's period as Minister for Education was to focus on the question of free speech at universities. It's been nearly two years since former High Court Chief Justice Robert French recommended a national code to strengthen protections around academic freedom of expression. That code would ensure that freedom of lawful speech is treated as a paramount value and would affirm academic freedom. It would also make clear that there's no duty to protect staff and students from hurt by the lawful speech of another. Universities have been generally supportive of the idea. Universities committed to aligning their policies with the French model code. But unfortunately as of December last year only nine of Australia's 42 universities had adopted policies that align with the French model. Many have made a half-hearted effort; some have failed completely.

At the request of Minister Tehan, Professor Sally Walker last year reviewed the implementation of the model code. Unfortunately, what Professor Walker found doesn't come as too much of a surprise. Nine universities had taken these matters seriously, but the vast majority had not, with six universities continuing to have policies that are simply not aligned with the model code. This is not just a failure to do the paperwork. There are deeper problems with how some universities are handling matters relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom, and those problems can't go unchecked. This legislation is therefore necessary to ensure that universities actually do what they're supposed to do and adopt the code. This legislation is not an impermissible interference with university freedom. In fact, it is the very stuff of protecting their freedom.

In recent years we've seen the slow but very real erosion of public confidence in universities. Some have sought to monopolise the ideas expressed and to use universities as platforms for progressing particular agendas. Some of those agendas are ideological; others are actually threatening to Australia's security. Regardless of what form these agendas take, to allow universities to be overtaken by politics instead of learning would be a terrible mistake.

Over the past couple of years since the French review was announced, Labor and too many higher education providers have been trying to say to us, 'There's nothing to see here.' I find this argument staggering, especially after the real nature of the Confucius institutes have come to light. This is just one example of several that should make us wake up and ensure we are doing all we can to ensure universities can retain the character and freedom essential to their flourishing.

The failure of some universities to recognise that we have a problem is what concerns me most. Let me remind the House of some disturbing examples that have occurred in university campuses in recent years. In 2015 Colonel Richard Kemp was shouted down by students and a professor at the University of Sydney when he tried to speak about the ethical dilemmas of military tactics and dealing with non-state armed troops. He previously publicly defended the actions of the Israel Defense Forces, and yet for 20 minutes he was unable to speak. The protesters fought with security, who tried to have them removed. One of the protesters was a director of the University of Sydney's own Department of Peace and Conflict Studies.

In 2020 a student at the University of Queensland, Mr Drew Pavlou, was suspended from the university for two years after he was involved in protests against the Chinese Communist Party. Shockingly, last year the then Dean of Law at the University of Queensland, Professor Patrick Parkinson, an outstanding academic and thought leader in the field of family law, had a paper rejected by the University of Tasmania Law Review. Reasons given for the rejection of the paper included his use of 'offensive' terminology such as 'biological female' and 'opposite sex'. Parkinson had been asking important questions, based on years of experience in family law, about decisions that are currently being taken to define gender identity in new ways. His viewpoint deserves a hearing in an academic journal. If people like Professor Parkinson are being silenced, we're in a worse situation than I thought. Parkinson's referees seem to have objected to his politics, not his argument.

My own experience as a board member of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation also reflects why I have reason to be alert to this issue. The Ramsay Centre is a philanthropic gift from the late Paul Ramsay offering universities the opportunity to run fully funded courses and provide scholarships for great book study of the sort that prestigious universities around the world like Chicago and Columbia offer. Instead, the universities haven't clamoured to partner with Ramsay, and many have bowed to extraordinary pressure from academics and activists who've got no problem with similar centres being funded by the Chinese government.

One of the key opponents of the great books course is Dr Nick Riemer, an academic who encouraged the shouting down of Colonel Kemp. Another opponent is Professor Simon During, from the University of Queensland. He said that the Ramsay Centre's efforts are causing anxiety. He said one problem with the Ramsay Centre is that 'well-known cultural crusaders in defence of "Western civilization" have leaped to their defence so that there is a quite intense left resistance to the whole thing.' During also challenges the idea that books should be allowed to be read by students without 'mediation'—that is, a student would read books without having lecturers tell them they have to be read through the lens of 'biologisms, materialisms, politicizations of various kinds, cultural relativism'. For him the fact that books might be studied on their own merit is a threat to the university. One is left to assume that he would rather be able to tell students what to think as they read.

How can a university that caves into the pressure of Left resistance be seen to be fostering a culture of academic freedom and the exchange of ideas? Perhaps most alarming of all, without ensuring academic freedom, our universities will become vulnerable to foreign interests exploiting them. While the ANU was rejecting a course on Western civilisation, it was very happy to run a Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies with an advisory board that includes a member of a foreign government. The ANU was also happy to take donations from Dubai, Iran and Turkey. These are real problems that must be addressed. As a member of the PJCIS, I look forward to looking into these matters further through the inquiry into national security risks affecting the higher education and research sector.

We need to ensure that universities have in place policies that demonstrate their commitment to academic freedom, and that's what this bill will do. Over 1.6 million Australians are university students. Thousands of them are young people in my electorate. They put enormous trust in universities to teach them and to assist them in preparing for their career, and so do their families. Families encourage their children to attend universities not so they can learn to watch activists shout down lecturers but so they can learn to think and prepare themselves for the work ahead of them. Parents and students in my electorate are rightly alarmed when they hear news about campuses stifling free speech and meanwhile failing at their essential tasks. It's because of my deep commitment to higher education in this country that I believe this legislation is needed. As someone who worked in the higher education sector before becoming an MP, I have a great and deep commitment to the idea of what a university should do.

I'd like to take a moment to comment on one matter that has been raised with me by faith based providers in recent weeks, and that is the impact that this bill could have on the accreditation of faith based tertiary education providers such as theological colleges. They've identified that, while freedom of speech and academic freedom are something that should be protected, they also have a reasonable concern that the requirement that they have a code upholding free speech and academic freedom will risk giving broad protection to staff and students who may seek to undermine the faith basis and religious ethos of the institution—for example, claiming that a sacred text of that institution is actually a work of fiction. As the former Victorian Crown counsel Mark Sneddon wrote to me recently, 'The current Western secular notion of academic freedom used in the French report implicitly values knowledge derived through empirical, scientific and closed-universe knowledge rather than knowledge which is in part derived through faith traditions and revelation. That sets the scene for an academic staff member or a student to claim an academic freedom to deny the faith tradition and revelation on the basis of the empirical data and secular logic.'

As someone who has worked for faith based institution, including a Catholic university, I believe it is reasonable for faith based higher education providers to expect that academic staff will continue to work within the belief system of those institutions. This bill does not intend to make that more difficult for such institutions, but I believe, given the concerns expressed, that this may be an issue that needs to be looked at more closely in the Senate to ensure there are no unintended consequences in the bill, and that there may be merit in including a statement in the explanatory memorandum to clarify the point.

This bill is not an attack on higher education providers, but it is focused on making standards that are important to our democracy, to our education system, to our economic future, to the future of our children and to the future of our economy. All Australian universities are subject to enormous pressures, both domestically and internationally and both internally and externally, and that makes it easy for them to forget their central purpose and their primary commitments. But the primary commitment of a university is the preparation of the next generation of Australians for the jobs that are in the economy today and the jobs that will be there in the future. Their primary responsibility is the pushing out of new areas of knowledge and understanding, and one can only do that if one can have free and open debate and if ideas can be tested, refined and tested again. That's why this legislation, which is based on the work of two of our most eminent lawyers—the former Chief Justice of Australia, Bob French, and Professor Sally Walker, who was herself a great expert in defamation law before she became a vice-chancellor and who is also a former CEO of the Law Council of Australia—is so important, because this legislation is designed to protect the freedom of universities as institutions, the freedom of our children and the future students of the universities, and the reputation of an incredibly vibrant and important sector in the broader Australian economy. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (11:13): Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. This bill provides stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia and, in doing so, it strengthens a core pillar of our liberal democracy. In my view, it should shore up public confidence in the freedoms that exist on our university campuses today to hold robust intellectual inquiry and to host lively debates, as they should.

The history here, of course, is that in November 2018, following a number of troubling incidents across university campuses where the right to free speech was called into some question, an independent review into freedom of speech on university campuses was commissioned by the member for Wannon, the then Minister for Education, and undertaken by the former High Court Chief Justice Robert French. At the time, the member for Wannon said:

Universities are important institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure our universities are places that protect all free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging.

I think that is very much the sentiment that is sought to be expressed in this legislation. It brings to mind the well-known quote which I think is usually attributed to Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' This is the debate about the appropriate limits on free speech that has taken on a new life in the modern era, with the boundaries and limitations on free speech on digital platforms and in the virtual, as opposed to the physical, world—a topic of lively current debate. It's my view and, I expect, the view of many others here that, in the least case, the presumption of such instances should always be in favour of free speech and that the best antidote to speech that is disagreeable is usually more, rather than less, free speech.

That said, I accept that limits can and should be placed on free speech in societies where there is a compelling public policy justification, but such limits as societies choose to impose must be formulated, agreed and understood by those societies through a transparent and a democratic process. I think this is behind what has characterised some of the debate over the role of digital platforms in seeking to curate content on their sites or control the speech of people. No-one is necessarily disagreeing with the principle that some speech needs to be limited, but I think the standards and the methods by which you do that must have a measure of democratic accountability and legitimacy that comes from that. The French report, which was released in April 2019, found:

Reported incidents in Australia in recent times do not establish a systemic pattern of action by higher education providers or student representative bodies, adverse to freedom of speech or intellectual inquiry in the higher education sector.

I accept the finding that there is not evidence of a systemic pattern of action to suppress or otherwise interfere with freedom of speech, but the report goes on, and Justice French finds:

Nevertheless, even a limited number of incidents seen as affecting freedom of speech may have an adverse impact on public perception of the higher education sector which can feed into the political sphere,

And I think that's really the point of this legislation. Even if there have been only a small number of incidents and even if there is no evidence of a systemic attack or erosion of rights of free speech, the multiplying effect that that can have on discussions and conversation in other forums is particularly pronounced, given the privileged position that universities play in our society as the hosts of, usually, the most free speech and the most rigorous of debates.

The French report recommended the adoption of a model code embedded in higher education providers' institutional regulations or policies on a voluntary basis, and it also recommended amendments to the Higher Education Support Act—which is what we're discussing and debating here today—to align the language currently used around the concepts of free intellectual inquiry with the proposed model code's identification of free speech and with the language around academic freedom, to bring greater clarity and greater consistency. All Australian universities agreed to implement and adopt the model code, and, in August 2020, the Minister for Education announced the appointment of Professor Sally Walker AM to support the efforts of universities and to help ensure alignment of university policies with the model code. The bill before us today is addressing one element of the recommendations in the French report and that is to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide a new definition of 'academic freedom'. It's worth quoting that new definition in the bill before us, which stipulates:

academic freedom means the following:

(a) the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research;

(b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research;

(c) the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled;

(d) the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies;

(e) the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations;

(f) the autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted.

This definition in the bill before us aligns very closely with the definition recommended by the French review, with a minor technical modification recommended by the University Chancellors Council which was developed in consultation with former Chief Justice French. This modification excludes one element originally proposed by Mr French, which was the freedom of academic staff without constraint imposed by reason of their employment by the university to make lawful comment on any issue in their personal capacities, as this is more about broader freedom of speech than about academic freedom of such. This broader freedom of speech element for academics acting and speaking in a private capacity has been retained in the model code, which universities are now adopting.

I recently had a communication from the University of Sydney, which has enrolled many students who reside in my own electorate of Wentworth. In that letter from the vice-chancellor, Professor Stephen Garton AM, he confirmed the University of Sydney's support for the passage of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill, and he also described to me Sydney university's own steps in this regard. In December 2019 the university senate adopted a new charter of freedom of speech and academic freedom, which took effect on 1 January 2020. That charter drew upon Mr French's recommendations to clarify the university's expectations as a place where all people are free to express themselves and, also, free to protest and disagree, so long as they do so respectfully and in accordance with the law.

In their response to the French review and the model code, the University of Sydney's own charter emphasises that as an institutional community they greatly value courage, civility and respect and strive to promote a culture where people disagree well. I think this is really at the heart of this. There are elements we can legislate and seek to codify, but at the heart of any debate about free speech should be an expectation that people can disagree well—that is, they can disagree on the merits of issues but do so respectfully, and they can have heated arguments and debate but not descend into the personal or use other tactics in a debate that are considered beyond the pale. At its heart, the free contest of ideas and the free debate that accompanies that is to the betterment of our society, our country and our people. The University of Sydney charter also explicitly recognises the right to protest and the rights of all their staff, not just academic staff, to criticise the university within the limits imposed by their enterprise bargaining agreement and employment contracts.

In December 2020 the review undertaken by Professor Sally Walker, commissioned by the government to evaluate the universities' adoption of the model code, praised the University of Sydney, La Trobe University and RMIT as three exemplar institutions for their responses to the model code. I know the University of New South Wales is also undertaking work in this area, and I commend it for doing so. I want to mention in passing the vice-chancellor of the University of New South Wales, Professor Ian Jacobs, who is returning to the United Kingdom shortly. I commend him for his stewardship of that institution over the last several years. I know running a university, being the vice-chancellor of a university, is not an easy role. It's a difficult business enterprise to run, and one that attracts a high degree of public scrutiny—as it should. I'm conscious that the business model of universities, particularly the universities of New South Wales and Sydney, that have historically attracted a large number of foreign students is under pressure this year. I want to acknowledge Ian Jacobs's service to the University of New South Wales and to Australia more broadly and wish him well for his future and his return to the United Kingdom.

Returning to the bill, and to conclude, the amendments that we are discussing here today to the Higher Education Support Act proposed in the bill will help align the legislation and definitions with those contained in the model code developed by former Chief Justice French, along with adoption and implementation of the model code by universities, such as the University of Sydney, and supporting the work of institutions and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to monitor compliance with the relevant quality standards. These amendments form one of the three key elements of the government's commitment to strengthen protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian higher education.

Academic freedom and freedom of speech are not only foundation stones for Australian universities, they are also foundation stones for Australia itself and our way of life. This bill will take a small but important step towards ensuring that our universities remain robust places of intellectual debate and inquiry. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:25): I've played a prominent role in the matter of Drew Pavlou. This very heroic young man who has suffered for his beliefs and been punished for his beliefs stands as an outstanding example of martyrdom. I use that word with forethought. He's had three years of his life taken from him and destroyed. Why did he have three years of his life taken off him? He spent three years doing a university degree, and they abolished all his rights to those three years. They took three years off him. You could be imprisoned for three years for assault and battery, which brings me to the actual incident that brought him to national attention. I knew nothing about this whatsoever until my staff forced me to watch 60 Minutes, which showed a bunch of Chinese thugs bashing this fellow because he had a little forum of about 20 people in which they were talking about the Hong Kong students and what was going on in China. It's not the Chinese people. It is an imperialist dictatorial totalitarian regime. Don't have any illusions about what we're talking about here. I'm old enough to remember Communism, and there's not the slightest whiff of Communism in here, I can tell you. This is not the Communist class or the downtrodden workers and peasants rising up; this is the Mandarin class reasserting themselves. We're back to the days of brutal monarchy in China.

The last thing in the world you do with dictatorial, expansionist, imperialist people is appease them. Have we learnt nothing from the Second World War and the murder of six million Jews, amongst many other atrocities? For those of you who don't read history books—and it seems to me a lot of people in this place don't read history books—let me just refresh your memory. Hitler was given half of Czechoslovakia to appease him. That lightweight imbecile with the moustache and the upper-class English accent said: 'Peace in our time. I have brought peace in our time, by giving away half of Czechoslovakia—the Sudetenland.' He didn't say that. He said: 'I've got peace in our time. I've achieved it for you.' You only have to have the most cursory reading of history to know that the last thing you do with an aggressor is appease him. You make him stronger. You make him a hero in his homeland. You make them all xenophobic, beating their chests and saying, 'We are the greatest race on earth.' That's what you do.

These people who are ruling China and suppressing the Chinese people have picked a fight, and I want my nation to know we're not fighting alone here. The oppression of the Islamic people—a million people are missing in the Western Turkestan province. Have they gone to heaven? They probably have gone to heaven. A million people are missing. We have the aerial photographs of the concentration camps. How much evidence do you need before you wake up to yourself? How much evidence did they need in Germany?

I'm holding up a book called The Happiest Man on Earth by Eddie Jaku. He's 100 years old. He survived the concentration camps of Adolf Hitler. Those people who appeased him are condemned for all of history.

Are we appeasing China? China has cut off our coal. Have we done anything in retaliation? Nope. We've rolled over like mongrel dingoes. That's what we've done. We haven't taken one single action in retaliation. We're just going to accept it. They know they can come in and do what they like and get away with it.

Let me return to the specific case of the university, the cradle of thinking and the creation of thought. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were the foundations of university. They would talk to young men and try to impart their wisdom. The getting of wisdom was what universities were about. When I went there they argued politics and religion around the clock. You'd finish at five o'clock in the morning sometimes.

What happened to the University of Queensland? Twenty of them had a little meeting, demonstration or forum—whatever you want to call it. When they were talking about the suppression of their fellow students in Hong Kong a bunch of thugs bashed them up. It's on television. You can watch it. This person was clearly Chinese. He had a furious look on his face. It was really scary. He came straight at Pavlou and smashed him and smashed the gear. The other thugs were pushing, bashing and shoving. They closed down the meeting with brute force. It was clearly assault and battery. There's not the slightest question about that.

Were they punished? No. There was no action taken by the police for 13 months. I'll tell you why the police acted. Because there were enough people on the government side with the guts to say they were going to second the motion for an inquiry into what had occurred at the University of Queensland. There was going to be a proper inquiry at the throat of the University of Queensland Senate and at the throat of the vice-chancellor and his supporters, who sold their souls for a few thousand students from China. I might sell my soul, but I would sell it for a lot more than that. Obviously they're prostitutes—no, they're not prostitutes, because prostitutes sell only their body. These people sold their bodies, souls and minds to China.

Not only are they getting away with it but in Adelaide Simon Birmingham greeted Vice-Chancellor Hoj like he was a conquering hero. I was reading Mark Latham's book. Mark Latham, of all people, expressed in his book what he thought about Simon Birmingham. I enjoyed that section of his book immensely. But Simon Birmingham, a minister in this government, is out there touting for the infiltration of this nation

The Prime Minister himself when Treasurer said Global Switch was to be cut out from information access of the Australian Defence Force. As my colleague Andrew Wilkie said in the parliament, you couldn't make this up. That body holds the information that is to protect this nation, with key information as to where every soldier is at this moment, where every submarine is at this moment and where every fighter aircraft is at this moment. That information is in that computer system. The secretary of defence wrote us all a letter saying that we don't have to worry because they've got really tight security around the building, so no Australians can get into the building. But China owns the building! They are the information system! My honourable colleague Andrew Wilkie said, 'You couldn't make this up! No-one would believe it.'

They're still there. The government has taken no action on it. They have left the one nation on earth which is a rogue nation—well, its government is a rogue nation, not the people: a rogue government—in charge of the access to all our defence systems. They haven't even claimed to have firewalls in there. When the defence secretary wrote to all of us he didn't even claim that there were firewalls in there. But, if there were firewalls, they're just a joke. The most sophisticated secret services on earth are in China. Do we think a firewall is going to stop them or even slow them down? Of course not. But he didn't even claim that there was a firewall in there.

In Theophanous versus The Herald and Weekly Times, the High Court held unanimously that the free flow of information between citizens is the most basic precept of democracy. If you can cut off the flow of information then you're halfway to a totalitarian dictatorship. Those aren't my words, they're the words of the chief judicial people of high standing in this nation. Now, the person who most represents the suppression of freedom of speech in this country is Vice-Chancellor Hoj of The University of Queensland.

I want to make another point in passing here: when I was on campus I was president of the law faculty, president of my college and president of the combined colleges council, and I was vice president of the student's union for three years. If there was one thing that was alive and well at The University of Queensland then, it was freedom of speech. We were proud of that and we were proud of the fact that the emblem of The University of Queensland is actually the Maltese cross. That's where 740 knights of St John said: 'It's all over red rover for you Ottoman Turks. You've taken 50,000 Christian slaves a year and you've taken 10,000 little children, when they're 10 years of age, to become your Janissaries. Your harems speak Serb-Croat; they don't speak Turkish, because all of the women in there aren't Turks.'

If you doubt what I'm saying, the two great leaders of medieval history were the Peter the Great and Suleiman the Magnificent. You don't get called Suleiman the Magnificent unless you're pretty outstanding and you don't get called 'the Great' unless you're pretty outstanding. Both of them had very romantic love affairs with a wife. In Suleiman the Magnificent's case it was Roxanne. Both their wives were Christian slaves who had been freed—who they freed. That gives some idea of the extent of what was taking place.

So those 740 knights stood up against an invading army of 46,000 of the greatest troops on earth; they had defeated every single army in Europe at one time or another. But they said: 'We will stand up and show the courage. We believe in freedom and Malta will stay free from the suppression of the Islamic Ottoman Turks.' There were 245,000 people in Suleiman's armies. They had been besieging the capital of Europe, and guess who won? It was the 740 knights! When St Elmo went down there were 6½ thousand dead on the walls of St Elmo. When the commander looked up at the fortress of St Michael, he said, 'If the child cost us so much, what is the parent going to cost us?' And he cost them plenty!

But that is the symbol of The University of Queensland—a symbol for people of incredible bravery. When you see the Maltese cross, believe me—and I know who the person was who put that Maltese cross there—and you read that story, you will have never heard such a story of heroism as in the battle of Malta and the Maltese cross and the crusaders and the knights of St John.

Ironically, it is a symbol for a university in Australia that suppressed freedom, that punished a person who was there as an Australian talking and was bashed up by China. There was no action taken until— (Time expired)

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (11:40): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. This bill will provide stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in our universities. The amendments are a reflection of the recommendations made by Justice French in his 2019 inquiry into freedom of speech in higher education providers and the so-called model French code.

Freedom of speech in universities is what this bill is referring to, but there is an issue in broader society about freedom of speech as a whole. In Australian society and the Western world, freedom of speech is very topical. We live in a time of digital platforms which deliver the modern-day equivalent of the public square. When I was growing up, if you wanted to raise a big issue or topic, you wrote a letter to a newspaper or you turned up in the Domain in Sydney, hopped up a ladder and started ranting and raving about your issue of choice. But, now, digital platforms are a vehicle for public discourse. Unfortunately, these platforms that are meant to be neutral and just a platform for people to discuss things have become more like publishers, deplatforming people and taking them off their platforms. You've only got to look at what's happened recently with Facebook to see that in our negotiations over payment for intellectual property of news items. But I am digressing.

In the broader current maelstrom of Australian society, the phenomenon of deplatforming is alive and well. People get cancelled if they say anything outside of the accepted orthodoxy of various sides of political discourse in Australia. Particularly the Left tries to cancel or deplatform people. You see media pile-ons. You see people shouted down. You see the Twitterati attack people. You see trolls and real people attacking individuals who speak out about issues on either Facebook or other similar platforms.

These amendments go to the heart of ensuring that there is freedom of speech and also academic freedom in universities, which has been critical to the functioning of modern democracies in Australia and elsewhere. This bill will define 'academic freedom', enshrining in law, principles of expression which are essential for academic study and to allow hypotheses to be constructed and inquiries and discussion about those hypotheses.

Universities in Australia were essentially established by state and territory founding legislation. Generally already the terms of these founding pieces of legislation promote scholarship, research, free inquiry, interaction of research and teaching, and the search and striving for academic excellence. There is federal legislation apart from this bill. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 mandates that, to be registered as a university, a university must develop and maintain an institutional environment in which freedom of intellectual inquiry is upheld and protected. The higher education standards framework within that and in the HESA bill also insists that, in course design and in assessments, teachers and researchers must be committed to free inquiry and systematic advancement of knowledge.

Why, then, do we have this bill before the House? That's what I was just alluding to. Those thoughts and actions in public social media that I mentioned have infected university processes. The former speaker mentioned the experience of Drew Pavlou, a very brave and active university student at the University of Queensland who got shouted down and had charges brought against him. He was taken off the senate and suspended from the university, all because he was using his right of free speech to defend people demonstrating in Hong Kong and also the Uighurs in China. But a whole lot of trumped-up charges were brought against him and his life was made really unpleasant, as the member for Kennedy outlined. He had three years of his life pretty much destroyed. You've also got to look at what happened to Professor Peter Ridd at James Cook University. He went against the orthodoxy. He was a professor of physics and head of marine studies, but he crossed the line and criticised his university. That should be a right, and it will now be enshrined in these amendments. This bill is really important.

Throughout the rise of Western civilisation, during the Enlightenment, free speech was the vehicle that allowed the Age of Reason to come into being. If we hobble that right, we're cutting away one of the pillars and foundations of democracy. The Age of Reason led to the flourishing of human endeavour, the acquisition of knowledge and the building of science and all the other organs of pluralist, liberal, free democracies, and we have been taking it for granted for too long. Open discussion, critical debate, the free flow of information, the exchange of ideas, challenging accepted positions, putting a hypothesis forward and then proving it with evidence and experiments—all of this is fundamental to what happens in universities, and it should continue. Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights allows for the expression of opinions about educational institutions.

In these amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the phrase 'free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research' will be substituted with 'freedom of speech and academic freedom'. In his review of freedom of speech in higher education in Australia, Justice French noted that freedom of speech and freedom of intellectual inquiry would be subsets of and adjuncts to academic freedom. The amendments will therefore align with the terms of the so-called French model code. The first of these will establish the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research. It sounds pretty straightforward, but to have to put this in as a specific definition is a reflection of how far things have strayed from what has been accepted practice for centuries. The second is freedom of academic staff to engage in intellectual inquiry, express their opinions and beliefs and contribute to public debate in relation to their subjects of study and research. Similarly, the third ensures the freedom of academic staff and students, most importantly, to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider that they are enrolled in or employed by. There's also the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations and the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. That is a sine qua non of being involved in a university. But we are having to legislate these things because these principles, which fed the Enlightenment and developed the modern, democratic Free World, are being eaten away both in our society and in our premier research and teaching and training institutions. It's a sad reflection on where society has got to that we have to do this, but this is a really important bill.

Finally, the bill ensures the autonomy of the education provider to choose courses, offerings and research activities, as well as the ways in which they are taught. I want to register some of my concern about this. Educational bias is another sinister thing that can creep in. If you don't apply the rigours of true academic pursuit and judge it on hypotheses, proof, argument and debate, you can, in the way you structure a course, bias the teachings and learnings that the students have delivered to them, and students have to be smart and principled to try and rebut that. If you have a course director who is giving a skewed opinion, in a practical sense, you can get marked down if there is obvious educational bias.

These concerns reflect problems that were occurring in our universities. Now they're addressed in this bill, and I support the changes coming in. It's sad that we've had to reach this stage, as I've said, but it is a really important principle that our universities, which are internationally renowned, maintain that intellectual rigour, aren't afraid to allow debate within their halls, by both students and academics, and let thought, argument and the pursuit of true knowledge flourish. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (11:52): I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review of Freedom of Speech in Australian Higher Education Providers conducted in 2019 by the Hon. Robert French AC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

The amendments will provide a new legislative definition of 'academic freedom' that encompasses aspects of freedom of expression that are characteristic of the relationship of higher education institutions, academic staff and students. They will also enshrine the need for public universities to have a policy that upholds freedom of speech and academic freedom. These are fundamental tenets of Australian higher education, and this bill will provide stronger protections for both academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian higher education.

The central recommendation of Mr French's review was the adoption of a model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom. As outlined in the Walker review of progress towards this goal, which was released on 9 December 2020, 23 out of 42 institutions have either fully implemented the code or are mostly aligned, but there is more to be done by the remaining institutions.

The government encourages all universities to consider Professor Walker's evaluations and to take steps to respond to her recommendations. I acknowledge that the bill's definitions of 'freedom of speech' and 'academic freedom' do not seek to impinge on the beliefs and the religious ethos of an institution. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Moreton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (12:02): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:03): I rise to speak today on the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, and I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) the Government has damaged Australia's world-class higher education system, abandoning university workers during the pandemic, and threatening Australia's capacity to produce high-quality research; and

(2) the Government's actions will make it harder for Australia to recover from the COVID recession".

This bill is largely administrative. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001. It applies current indexation rates to existing appropriation amounts and inserts a new funding cap for the financial year commencing 1 July 2023. These amendments are part of the standard budget processes, but they do mean an increase in the amount of ARC funding provided in 2020, 2021 and 2022 to reflect anticipated inflation. The ARC administers funding for both primary and applied research through the National Competitive Grants Program's Discovery and Linkage programs. Grants are awarded competitively through a peer assessment process and are awarded primarily to universities. Although this increase in funding is really just keeping up with inflation, any increase in funding is good news for universities at a time like now when they are in crisis. I'll talk more about that a bit later in this speech.

Schedule 2 of this bill recategorises the University of Notre Dame as a Table A higher education provider from 2021. The University of Notre Dame is currently a Table B provider. That means they are self-accrediting and eligible for research funding but not for general Commonwealth supported places. However, Notre Dame are currently allocated some Commonwealth supported places in fields that are deemed national priorities by the Minister for Education. Notre Dame currently receives Commonwealth supported places in a number of fields, including education, nursing and law. Table A higher education providers are those typically thought of as the public universities. As a Table A provider Notre Dame will be eligible for all funding under the higher education support amendment act, including Commonwealth supported places.

The new categorisation will mean more rigorous grant conditions and reporting requirements. This amendment will mean that all non-medical domestic undergraduate students at the University of Notre Dame will have access to a Commonwealth supported place, including future students and eligible current full-fee-paying students. As a Table A provider Notre Dame will be eligible to receive Commonwealth contribution amounts, including from the new Indigenous, Regional and Low SES Attainment Fund and the National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund. I welcomed the decision to list the University of Notre Dame as a Table A university.

To that extent, this bill is uncontroversial and, as I said, largely administrative. But unfortunately the bill does nothing to address the serious erosion of research funding caused by the Morrison government's abandonment of Australian universities during the COVID-19 crisis. The bill does nothing to address the harm done to students by the government's job-ready graduates legislation, and it does nothing to help Australia recover from the COVID recession.

Since COVID-19 first appeared in Australia early last year, Australia's international borders have essentially been shut. International students who were planning to travel to Australia for the commencement of the academic year were unable to do so. As for the international students who were already here, the Prime Minister told them to 'go home'. Seriously, that's what our Prime Minister said. A Prime Minister who used to have a job in advertising, who had a job trying to recruit tourists to Australia, said to international students, 'Go home.' International students—guests—who were enrolled to attend our universities and who are one of the best advertisements for Australia when they return to their countries, taking back their knowledge of our universities and of our culture et cetera, were told to go home.

So, for the universities, a major income source dried up overnight when the Prime Minister closed the borders. Universities lost $1.8 billion just last year, and it's expected that by the end of this year they will have lost $3 billion, and these losses will continue for years to come. And what did the Morrison government do, faced with this devastating hit to Australia's fourth-largest export sector? The Morrison government abandoned universities. And they not only abandoned universities but also changed the rules of JobKeeper three times to exclude universities so that they'd be cut off from receiving any support. More than 17,300 university workers have lost their jobs. That's 13 per cent of the pre-COVID university workforce, more than one in 10 university jobs—gone.

Many of these 17,300 university workers obviously have families, have mortgages, have bills to pay. These workers are researchers, tutors and lecturers, as well as cleaners, groundspeople, counsellors, gardeners and admin staff. In regional areas these job losses will hit hard. Often the university is the biggest source of jobs and economic activity in regional towns, and regional kids will miss out as well. Often universities use the income from international students' fees at their city campuses to support the kids attending their regional campuses, which aren't as economically viable. We've already seen campuses close in the regions, in Yeppoon, the Sunshine Coast and Biloela—three examples from Queensland that have been hit hard by Morrison government decisions.

It's unbelievable that the Morrison government not only did not step up to help universities but went out of their way to make sure they could not access any government help. If there is one group of people who we have valued in the last year more than ever before, it is our incredibly talented researchers. They've worked tirelessly to find a vaccine, and at the University of Queensland, they came oh so close to beating the rest of the world—but I do thank them for their efforts and their research that will be utilised in other endeavours. Sadly, it's a fact that a major source of research funding in Australian universities is international student fees, and they have all but dried up. We learned from a report late last year that another 7,000 researchers will lose their jobs in the first six months of this year. Many of those will be early-career researchers whose careers in research may never recover. Sadly, Australia will forever lose the benefits of their scientific endeavours, their developments, their innovation, their inventions and the commercialisation that might have flowed from their research. This is a national travesty—an international travesty—and it's short-term, reckless economic management by the Morrison government. University research is an engine of economic growth. For every dollar invested in university research, there is a $5 return to the Australian economy.

There will be more Commonwealth supported places for students at the University of Notre Dame now that they're a table A university, but that will not make up for the harm done by the Morrison government's Job-ready Graduates legislation, which makes it harder and more expensive for Australian students to go to university. Students studying degrees including law, commerce, accountancy, economics and communications—about 40 per cent of students—will have their fees increased to $14,500 per year. Students studying some humanities will see their fees double. Australian students will graduate with American-style debt, and that debt will have lasting consequences for their lives, including whether they can save for a home.

This is a devastating hit to students, particularly the pandemic class of 2020, who surely had one of the worst final years for decades and decades and now, coming out of that, are going into university to embrace a lifetime of debt. The last thing the class of 2020 needed was the Liberals making it harder and more expensive for them to go to university. For some, this Morrison government policy completely smashed their dreams. I took the shadow education minister to meet some graduating year 12 students from my electorate last year, and they told me of how they'd had to change courses. I think the government can sometimes forget that the policy decisions they make then have real-life consequences. I spoke to students and looked them in the eyes as they told me how their dreams were crushed.

And for what? There is no evidence that studying these degrees will make you less job-ready than any other degree. I would suggest there is evidence to say that some of the humanities subjects do make people ready to go, as we can see from the government frontbenchers. For humanities students, their employment prospects are very healthy. Research from Victoria University found that people with humanities degrees have higher employment rates than science or maths graduates. Australia needs skilled workers to get us out of this COVID recession. Making it harder and more expensive for students to go to university is not going to achieve that. In fact, that will achieve the opposite.

Labor believes that education and jobs go hand in hand. When Labor was last in government, we opened up universities and an additional 190,000 people obtained university places. Labor boosted investment from $8 billion in 2007, after 12 years of the Howard government, to $14 billion in 2013, when Tony Abbott came into office. Labor made it possible for students from poorer backgrounds, Indigenous students, students with a disability and—just to step in where the National Party deserted the bush—students from country areas to go to university. That's good education policy. It's education policy that will drive our economy and give Australia a skilled workforce, and it's education policy that's aspirational. Labor will support the administrative changes in this legislation, and we welcome Notre Dame becoming a table A university, but it's time for the Morrison government to stop the harm they're inflicting on people's lives and on our economy by abandoning universities and research at this time of crisis.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Clare: It is, and I'm happy to reserve my right to speak.

Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (12:14): This morning, in the Federation Chamber, I spoke about opportunity in adversity, and this bill reflects exactly what I was talking about. This nation is in an adverse position because of COVID, and we have many issues confronting us. I outlined some of those issues today, as to how Australia should respond and take the opportunities that may present themselves in the adversity that the nation faces.

The Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure the Australian Research Council, the ARC, can continue to support and serve Australia's vibrant research community. The Australian Research Council is fundamental to the support of both blue-sky and applied research, and its peer-reviewed competitive funding schemes are the essence of many of the most significant research endeavours in the country. This appropriation bill increases the Australian Research Council's funding caps in line with inflation and ensures that government support for thousands of research projects does not weaken. If we are to address the great challenges of our time to improve the quality of people's lives, to support the development of new industries and to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy, then we need a strong research community. This bill is underwriting that strength.

Although routine in nature, the Australian Research Council Act is updated annually. In the past, the ARC amendment bill has proven non-controversial and forms part of the standard budget process. There has been continued and repeated bipartisan support and recognition for all schemes under the National Competitive Grants Program, which will support the Australian higher education system and strengthen Australia's research workforce. The bill makes funding adjustments to the Australian Research Council Act in order to: (1) facilitate the ongoing operation of the Australian Research Council; (2) update the special appropriation funding cap administered by the ARC to include policy approvals and indexation adjustments; and (3) extend the forward estimates through to June 2024 for existing schemes within the National Competitive Grants Program to allow continued funding of quality research in Australia.

This routine update to the Australian Research Council funding caps provides inflationary growth so that the government can continue to support thousands of individual research projects. These projects represent the cutting edge of Australia's research effort undertaken in universities and research institutes across the country. These efforts have also been part of the Australian response to the COVID virus. In July last year, a research team from Monash University and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science and Technology developed a test to detect positive COVID cases in about 20 minutes and identify whether someone has contracted the virus. As early as March last year, research teams at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research developed the first wide-ranging global assessment of the effects of the COVID virus to help policymakers prepare a coordinated response to the economic costs of a pandemic as the virus evolves. These Australian Research Council funded research examples are helping us to qualify and understand the transformative effect that COVID is having on people's lives and workplaces, not to mention the thousands of other projects funded by the ARC. Any delay in passing this bill will negatively impact on the ARC's available funding envelope and will influence new grant payments moving forward.

This is an important legislative bid which will advance our efforts to build a more prosperous Australia through innovation. Excellent researchers across all areas of the university system rely on the ongoing nature of ARC funding and must be able to compete, with some certainty, for funding if we are to keep world-class academics in Australia working in our universities and teaching the next generation of researchers.

The Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to swiftly implement the government's 2020-21 MYEFO decision to recategorise the University of Notre Dame as a table A provider. Providers listed in table A of the act are eligible for all Australian government grants, and their students can receive all forms of assistance under the act. This recategorisation will allow UNDA—the University of Notre Dame—to better serve its students, as they currently perform on a par with table A providers: (1) the UNDA's domestic bachelor student load has been similar to or greater than that of other table A providers; and (2) according to a 2018 to 2020 graduate outcomes survey, 88.7 per cent of the University of Notre Dame's graduates found employment within four months of graduation, exceeding the national average of 86.3 per cent. In a 2019-20 course experience questionnaire, the University of Notre Dame also rated significantly higher for graduate satisfaction, at 91 per cent, versus the national average of 80.4 per cent.

With the UNDA as a table A provider, all non-medical domestic undergraduate students at the UNDA will have access to Commonwealth supported places. The University of Notre Dame will also have access to the Job-Ready Graduates package; to reforms such as the National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund, which will support better university-industry engagement; to demand-driven funding for its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; and to Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program funding. This funding helps to improve access for people from regional and remote Australia, people with low-SES backgrounds and Indigenous students—all of whom, of course, are close to my heart. HEPPP also helps to improve the retention and completion rates of those students. These changes will be in place from 2021. In the MYEFO 2020-21, the government committed to investing $27.2 million over the four years from 2020-21 and $133.3 million over the 10 years to 2029-30, to support the University of Notre Dame 's current and future students.

The university and its community fully support the recategorisation of this university as a table A provider. Until this legislation passes, I'm putting transitional arrangements in place to ensure that UNDA students have access to Commonwealth-supported places in time for semester 1 of 2021. However, this bill needs to be introduced in autumn 2021's sitting period to give the University of Notre Dame access to the full Job-Ready Graduates reforms as soon as possible in 2021. This will better position the university to serve its community and meet the challenges of the future.

On that last line—meeting the challenges of the future—for the last 25 years Australia's had a pretty good run. Our universities have had a good run. Our economy has been a powerhouse that has led the world in many aspects of what we're doing, and this government has been able to capitalise, on behalf of the Australian people, on that general benefit that came to this nation. However, we hit a T-intersection last year and it was called COVID-19. The government acted quickly to move on every front it possibly could for the benefit, wholly, of the Australian people, of the nation. But now we have a challenge before us, and part of this legislation that outlines research capacity means that these researchers are on the front line for our recovery. They're on the frontline for our future. We need every researcher working for us, on behalf of us.

There were times when we as a nation found ourselves not able to deliver for our people the way we should have been able to because of our reliance on international supply chain deliveries. I just name drugs for one. For the common drugs that we need—for instance, blood pressure drugs and all sorts of normal-activity drugs that make life better for older Australians and some younger Australians—we found that all those generic drugs were being produced somewhere else. These researchers can take us to a place where we as a nation will become far more resilient, with the supply chains that we need within the nation so we can deliver to other countries in times of stress, such as now.

It flows on even to other things. We found that we were relying on other nations for our merchant shipping. It is time for us to have our own fleet. It is time for us to look to ourselves through these research programs and through lots of other measures and activities. I'm sure the innovative and inventive nature of Australians and the research that we undertake will make a huge difference to how we recover and where we find ourselves in five, 10, 20 and 30 years. We as a nation have the responsibility as people with our backs to the wall to do what our forefathers did. Our forefathers were innovative and creative and they gave us this amazing nation we have today which is more resilient because of these researchers than we would otherwise be. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:26): As a former professor at the Australian National University, I hadn't expected that I would have the opportunity of being in a parliament when two higher education bills were being debated consecutively, this one being the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. It's indeed an exciting day for higher education to have received so much focused attention from the parliament. But there is some slight tension between these two bills. We have just finished debate on a bill ostensibly about academic freedom of speech and we are now debating the Australian Research Council, a body in which the coalition has meddled, thereby reducing the freedom of speech of academics and reducing the tradition of careful, impartial scholarship and independent peer review.

Academic freedom of speech is a great thing. It was Gough Whitlam who said:

Academic freedom is the first requirement, the essential property of a free society. More than trade, more than strategic interests, more even than common systems of law or social or political structures, free and flourishing universities provide the true foundation of our western kinship, and define the true commonality of the democratic order.

Just imagine how much more significant those words would have sounded delivered in Whitlam's mellifluous baritone.

Is there a free speech crisis in Australian universities? The government sent former Chief Justice Robert French to investigate, and he came back and said:

From the available evidence however, claims of a freedom of speech crisis on Australian campuses are not substantiated.

The only reason we had the former bill before the House was that the government did a dirty deal with Senator Hanson and One Nation to pass laws to cut universities and jack up fees.

And yet, when it comes to the Australian Research Council, the government has been unwilling to follow through on the principles of freedom of speech and academic integrity that demand that the Australian Research Council not be politicised. As a former academic, I spent many hours putting together Australian Research Council grants, of which I'm grateful to say a number were successful, and a number of hours also assessing the grants of others. It's a painstaking process. There is committee upon committee set up to carefully ensure that, when a grant is put forward to the Australian Research Council, it is scrutinised by Australian and sometimes overseas assessors to ensure that it is operating to the best standards of scholarships. Australian Research Council grants are difficult to get. The rejection rate is high. Many good applications are not funded. What scholars expect is that when they put forward a grant proposal their track record and the ideas they put forward will be appropriately scrutinised by their peers. What they do not expect is a process that comes in from left field and knocks them out.

This occurred in 2005, when the then education minister, Brendan Nelson, set up a secret committee at the instigation of the then Quadrant editor, PP McGuinness, to scrutinise grants to work out whether they accorded with the secret committee's views. That resulted in at least three grants—perhaps as many as 20; we still don't know the number—being knocked out by then minister Brendan Nelson. It was a travesty. It went against the principles of academic freedom, intellectual integrity and the independence of the Australian Research Council. Yet 13 years later Senator Birmingham did it again—with, it must be said, the connivance of the Australian Research Council; he ensured that a number of grants were knocked out. These included early career awards on 'Price, medals and materials in the global exchange', 'Legal secularism in Australia', and 'Soviet cinema in Hollywood before the blacklist 1917-1950'. It saw the rejection of future fellowships on 'The music of nature and the nature of music' and 'Writing the struggle for Sioux modernity'. It saw the rejection of discovery project grants on 'Music heritage and cultural justice in the post-industrial legacy city' and 'Greening media sport'.

The victims of this partisan political meddling by Senator Birmingham were overwhelmingly in the humanities, but those who spoke up came from across academia. There was outrage, naturally, from the Australian Academy of the Humanities, with Joy Damousi saying:

The Australian research funding system is highly respected around the world for its rigour and integrity … This interference damages Australia's reputation on the world stage. Withdrawing funding by stealth threatens the survival of a strong humanities teaching and research sector, something no democratic society can do without.

There was also criticism from the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, saying 'the integrity of the research funding system relies on a robust, independent peer review process'.

John Shine, from the Australian Academy of Science, said:

Much of the value provided by research to policy makers and the public is due to its unbiased and independent nature and this should not be eroded.

Mike Ewing, from the Australian Business Deans Council, said:

The intervention disregarded, and undermined the integrity of, a world-class peer-review process in favour of a politicised agenda.

We heard from Catriona Jackson, the CEO of Universities Australia:

The current system is internationally-recognised as the best practice process for awarding research grants. Political interference in funding decisions undermines the integrity of the system.

Colin Sterling, the chair of Innovative Research Universities, said:

We have heard many calls in recent weeks for universities to defend intellectual freedom on campus. This includes the freedom for academics to pursue and express ideas without fear of political interference or retribution. It seems that we must redouble our efforts in defence of the humanities, arts and the social sciences.

Likewise, from Vicki Thomson of the Group of Eight:

This is a government that demands freedom of speech on campus but at the same time walks all over academic freedom; a government that, without transparency or explanation secretly vetoes some $4 million in research projects that have undergone a rigorous peer review process and have been judged worthy for recommendation to the minister by the ARC.

The analogy from Catriona Jackson is apt:

You don't expect the federal sports minister to choose Australia's Olympic team. In the same way, we rely on subject experts to judge the best research in their field, not politicians.

I know from speaking to former colleagues at the Australian National University and other universities how dispiriting it was for those who had pored over grant applications for hours, who had flown to the consideration meetings and spent time in airless rooms eating stale pastries and sipping coffee as they worked through hundreds of applications for grants, winnowing out those they felt were just not quite as good as the very best grants—then to have them knocked off by a minister who probably didn't even read the applications, a minister who probably just looked at the titles and decided to knock them off.

Minister Fletcher, who is at the table, is chuckling away. For him, this is just a laughing matter. He doesn't mind that his government wasted the time of academics. He doesn't mind that his government got in the way of the independent peer review process.

As Brett Hutchins and Libby Lester, a pair of applicants whose grant was rejected, said:

One cannot help but wonder: did the minister or any of his staff read our application or any of the other ten he chose to reject?

They pointed out that they had been told by the Monash Research Office:

This proposal is in the Top 10% of unsuccessful proposals within the discipline panel.

But that was not the case. It was not the decision of the Australian Research Council. The Australian Research Council, in fact, recommended that their grant proposal, 'Greening media sport', be funded. It was the minister who decided to knock it off.

I think it is particularly disappointing that the Australian Research Council connived in the cover-up of how these grants were knocked off. As an independent body, the Australian Research Council should have had the gumption to say very clearly, 'These 11 grants were recommended by us and knocked off by the minister.' They pretended to applicants that their grants were not sufficiently meritorious. That was a lie. It just wasn't true. The Australian Research Council should not have done that. They should have been very clear with applicants that those applications were successful on the grounds and criteria under which they had been submitted and they were knocked off by the minister.

It does speak to the lack of any sensible process on this that Minister Tehan, when he succeeded Minister Birmingham, made the decision to backflip on a number of these grants. He said, 'The projects are now markedly different.' I suspect the only thing that was markedly different was the minister. We moved from one minister to another and caprice from one turned into a modicum of generosity from another. The decision by Minister Tehan was the right one. It recognised the importance of the Australian Research Council grants process being upheld.

It would make far more sense to simply rein in the ministerial veto—either to have no process for the minister to veto grants and to have the Australian Research Council's independence entrenched in legislation in a way that would prevent future ministers from meddling in grants when they didn't like the title or, at the very least, to require a minister who knocks off grants to tough it out and give a statement to the parliament—to be absolutely honest to this parliament—as to why they're not listening to the advice of their own independent body. Why would we waste the time of academics reviewing independent research grants and setting up a process that ultimately the government doesn't follow?

My personal view is that there shouldn't be ministerial veto. The Australian Research Council process should be respected. We don't have this sort of meddling with other grant-giving bodies, such as the National Health and Medical Research Council. We haven't seen it in the past in the allocation of science grants. There's no reason that we ought to see it in the case of grants in the area of the humanities and social sciences. It would give much greater integrity to the process and it would give greater strength to the Australian Research Council if it had formal independence. But, if we can't have formal independence, let us at least have some honesty and transparency from ministers, like Minister Nelson and Minister Birmingham, who have chosen to knock off grants because they didn't like the titles.

Academic integrity is of supreme importance. It matters not just to universities but to us as a society. We are better off for having academics who are able to pursue projects based on the rigour and the importance of those issues within their discipline. We can never be sure where particular lines of academic inquiry will lead. Think of the development of wi-fi in the CSIRO. It was developed not because the CSIRO were looking to create a technology that would some day be used in all our homes and our smartphones but because they were interested in the mathematics of fast Fourier transforms. That mathematical inquiry led to a technology which sits in all of our pockets. In the same way, allowing free academic inquiry has led to breakthroughs in every discipline one can think of. It is a key principle of a strong democratic society, and it should be respected wherever you stand on the political spectrum. Robert Menzies and Gough Whitlam knew of the importance of universities. They recognised not only how universities add to our productivity and make us wealthier and more egalitarian but also the power of universities to change minds and allow us to better understand the human condition.

We are currently engaged in a world in which we face significant challenges ranging from climate change to China and to consideration of our national identity. We've seen a significant debate over Australia Day this year. We have conversations in this place which are informed by academic research. We have conversations in the public arena where academics play a critical role. Encouraging the integrity of the academic process is fundamental to a strong, vigorous and exciting society. It is critical to Australia better understanding ourselves and better understanding the world in which we live.

Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (12:41): Research, development and implementation are key to the future of Australia, and you would be hard pressed in this House to find anyone who doesn't agree with that statement. I am passionate about higher education and I'm passionate about supporting a strong research community in this country. As a PhD myself, I've spent my fair share of time at university and I understand the value that academic research has in our society at large. The bill currently before the House is underwriting the strength of our research community, and that's why I support this bill. The Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure that the Australian Research Council, ARC, can continue to support and serve Australia's vibrant research community.

As with many parts of the economy, we know that universities and other higher education providers are facing extreme difficulties due to the outbreak of COVID-19. That's why it's so important to support higher education providers to increase their offerings and protect students at this difficult time. A highly educated, well-trained and skilful population is a key element of Australia's strength as a democratic nation and will be instrumental to our economic recovery on the other side of the coronavirus pandemic. We need highly educated minds to build, restore, innovate and grow. The delivery of priority infrastructure projects announced in this year's budget, the Technology Investment Roadmap in the energy sector and the implementation of the Modern Manufacturing Strategy will deliver enormous economic benefits to our country. This is why it's so important that the government, through measures such as those contained in bills, support the higher education sector and the invaluable research that is conducted at university.

In regional areas such as my electorate of Mallee, there is also an ever-growing need for healthcare professionals, and the current crisis has laid bare the extent of this need. Delivering sufficient healthcare service provision for Mallee is a key priority for me. In Mallee, we face shortages of general practitioners, nurses and primary and allied healthcare professionals. In 2017, work was completed by the Victorian Skills Commissioner in the northern half of my electorate to identify the future workforce demands of the region. The Mallee Regional Skills Demand Profile estimated that, between 2017 and 2020, up to 4,400 new workers would be needed to support growth in the region. The report identified that almost one-quarter of these workers would be needed in the healthcare sector.

It's been incredibly encouraging that La Trobe University has been investing in regional health qualifications through a number of initiatives to meet the expected demand. Since being elected, I've been working closely with the vice-chancellor of La Trobe University, Professor John Dewar, to support La Trobe's Mildura campus and build on their offerings for regional students. La Trobe is doing a fantastic job with their Rural Medical Pathway program in partnership with the University of Melbourne. This program is the first to commence as part of the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network, an initiative announced in the 2018 Commonwealth budget. Under this program, 15 students from regional and rural areas begin their studies at either of La Trobe's Bendigo or Albury-Wodonga campuses and undertake a three-year Bachelor of Biomedical Science degree before going on to study a four-year Doctor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne's Shepparton campus.

The Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network is one part of the $95 million investment to set up the Train in the Regions, Stay in the Regions program. The guiding logic behind this program is to train local to stay local. We know that people from a regional city or town who learn in a regional place have the best possible chance of graduating and staying in the regions to work. There are seven Mallee students undertaking this program in 2020: Alfred, Isabella, Abdo, Abigail, Kunind, Madeline and Oscar. When I met these students virtually, all indicated that they aspire to work in regional and rural areas after completing their study. Alfred, who was born in India, says he wants to travel Australia, work in remote communities and ultimately return to Mildura to work locally. Kunind wants to pursue a career in craniofacial surgery and hopes to bring this area of medicine to areas of rural Victoria.

I have asked La Trobe to go further with this program, and they have now developed a proposal to extend their highly successful Rural Medical Pathway to Mildura, giving students more options to train regionally. This proposal will bring the Bachelor of Biomedical Science to Mildura, which is incredibly exciting. La Trobe is seeking funding to establish this degree and to construct a wet lab at its Mildura campus. The La Trobe Rural Medical Pathway is end-to-end and maximises opportunities for people with rural backgrounds interested in practising medicine in rural and regional areas. It flips the current city-centric medical training model, with the majority of medical training undertaken in the regions. It's a brilliant proposal, and Professor Dewar and I have taken it to Minister Tudge for his support.

Over the past 30 years, La Trobe has become integral to the Mallee community. Eighty-seven per cent of students that graduate from the Mildura campus stay and work locally, and there are around 1,600 La Trobe graduates working in the region. The importance of this university to our region cannot be underestimated.

I've also been speaking with Professor Geoffrey Lord, the head of Federation University's Wimmera campus in Horsham. Professor Lord, together with the Wimmera Health Care Group, has a proposal that aims to reintroduce a Bachelor of Nursing to the Wimmera campus. Although the campus provides a Diploma of Nursing to around 75 students per year, Professor Lord and the community see the need and the demand for higher levels of nursing training through a bachelor program. Federation University is seeking funding to accelerate its plans for a state-of-the-art bachelor and graduate education and training facility in Horsham to house the Bachelor of Nursing. A program such as this would support the health workforce needs of the area and support the economic and population stability in the Wimmera Southern Mallee.

To support ideas such as these proposed by Federation University and La Trobe University, we need to allocate more Commonwealth support places for degrees based in regional areas. The government has made recent changes to give universities greater flexibility to use their Commonwealth support places for postgraduate courses, but new places need to be allocated to allow for the expansion of higher education in the regions. I have been advocating strongly for this.

There are many more reasons why higher education is so important for Mallee. Recently I also spoke about the need to improve access to vocational education and training opportunities to meet the rising need for skilled local jobs in Mallee due to a number of emerging industries with massive growth potential. In Mallee, we have seen extensive investment and growth in solar energy. We are becoming increasingly reliant on new technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics in agriculture and horticulture, and we are pushing for more value-driven innovation and value-adding manufacturing. I believe Mallee can be a leader for 21st century innovation, but bright minds will be required to lead these developments into the future. Again, the 'train local, stay local' approach will be crucial to supporting this growth and development. I am eager to see increased opportunities to be offered in STEM degrees in regional areas, similar to what we've seen with the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network and the Rural Medical Pathway program by La Trobe University and the University of Melbourne. Supporting higher education providers to increase their offerings and making it easier for students to take up these opportunities will improve outcomes for regional areas and will help regions like Mallee meet and make their full potential.

I also wanted to take this opportunity to speak to another bill introduced by the government which is aimed at providing stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 is important for fairness and equality at our academic institutions. The issue of free speech is essential in an educational context. I believe that robust debate is critical in the academic experience. Presenting ideas and being open to challenges on those ideas are essential to teaching and learning. Freedom of speech is crucial to our democracy, which is why it must be protected.

Clearly, there are circumstances where freedom of speech must be limited in order to prevent harm. Recently I've spoken about such situations in the context of social media platforms. Social media is an incredible tool for global communication, but it can also be used as a tool to abuse, harass, bully and defame. We need to develop certain limitations in the social media context to deal with these negative aspects of the platforms. The Parliamentary Friends of Making Social Media Safe, chaired by myself and the member for Newcastle, Sharon Claydon, aims to consider these ideas and continue this important discussion.

Limiting free speech in any context will always be a challenge, and this is especially true for universities. I believe that students need to feel comfortable expressing themselves, regardless of their opinions. Other students should also feel confident challenging these ideas with respectful debate. This is the best way for students to learn from each other, formulate their opinions on certain topics and learn how to convince other people of their perspectives. I fear that we have arrived at a point where students are no longer comfortable expressing themselves for fear of recrimination. Discourse has become binary with an us-and-them, left-and-right, black-and-white mentality, where the grey sits uncomfortably. This fissure is not helpful for either side and only serves to further entrench biases. Recently I read that the Australian National University published a gender inclusive handbook which recommends that staff replace the terms 'mother' and 'father' with 'gestational' parent and 'nongestational' parent. This type of recommendation leads to a culture of fear of saying the wrong thing. If a student or teacher is to be worried about saying something so simple as the word 'mother', one can only imagine what else a student might be worried about expressing. I believe that if academics are constantly worried about saying the wrong thing robust debate cannot take place, diminishing the overall learning experience for all involved.

Through several measures, including those outlined in the bill before the House, the Commonwealth government is supporting the quality and sustainability of higher education in Australia. Whether it's through ongoing support to Australia's vibrant research community or through measures to protect freedom of speech on campuses across the country, the Morrison-McCormack government is delivering for students and universities.

Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:53): It is with great pride that I get to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 today. One of the things that this bill addresses is the University of Notre Dame Australia; I believe that I am the only graduate and undergraduate of that university in this parliament. So it is fantastic to see what is actually happening in this legislation, and I'm very proud to be able to support it today. Universities obviously hold a very important place in our education ecosystem, and a university like Notre Dame expands on that ecosystem by providing a different style of education—one that is certainly targeted towards smaller class sizes. As part of the university ecosystem in which it sits, it strives to be part of that ever ongoing search for truth.

Notre Dame, under this legislation, will be elevated to be a Table A provider, which will put it on a more equal playing field with the other universities around Australia. Notre Dame Australia has a proven track record on delivering high-quality teaching and outcomes for its graduates. Notre Dame has a great track record, averaging almost 89 per cent of graduates finding employment within four months of graduation over recent years. Indeed, it ranks No. 1 for overall university experience, with a five-star rating for overall experience, teaching quality and skills development for the last 13 years.

Currently, The University of Notre Dame Australia receives a limited amount of Commonwealth supported places due to its status as a Table B provider. The number of places has not increased since 2015. This presents a huge equity problem. It means that many students, who clearly have qualified to study at the university, are not able to access a Commonwealth funded place for that study. It means that those students have to find the funds to pay for a full-fee place at the university. Indeed, it wasn't even possible to find any Commonwealth support to support those fees at all at the time I went to the university. We had to access the private NAB-run deferral of fees scheme which, unlike HECS, required repayment regardless of whether you landed a job and what your income was after university.

So the movement of Notre Dame into Table A is a fundamental part of providing equity to students at that university. It's about providing greater access to university education to students across Western Australia and New South Wales. And that's not just in metropolitan Perth but also in Broome, with its remote campus up there. It's one of the few campuses still operating remotely in Western Australia after a number of other universities have closed their satellite campuses. Obviously, that provides an enormous equity role in being able to provide the opportunity, particularly for Aboriginal students, to get access to a tertiary university education near country and on country for them. That's particularly around the very important areas of teaching and nursing. Also, expanding the opportunities in Fremantle and in Sydney will mean that more students have the opportunity not just of a university education but also of choice on the type of university education. That's choice which we have been providing across this country now for approximately 70 years when it comes to our school education and that will be better provided by moving Notre Dame into Table A. The bill before us will mean that those current full-fee-paying students and future students will have access to Commonwealth funded places. There won't be the requirement to pay for a full-fee place. As I said, that certainly beats having to use a fee deferral scheme through a private bank. This will be a $133 million investment over the next 10 years and it will go a long way to improving diversity of and access to education in Perth, Sydney and Broome.

As I said when I started, universities are a very important part of our overall education ecosystem. They're no more important than our TAFE system and our VET sector, and they're no more important than our schools' early childhood education. They all stand together as part of our education ecosystem. But one of the important things about university is the opportunity to challenge ourselves and to challenge ideas. Part of that comes from the opportunity we get not just in the formal lectures or in the tutorials and discussions but in the discussions that happen in the cafes, taverns and bars around our universities as well. Putting forward ideas and having them slapped down by your friends—and, sometimes, by your intellectual enemies—at the university is a very important part of your education. So as part of my commending this bill to the House, can I say to those people who I knocked around with at Fremantle campus of Notre Dame—known as 'the gang'—it was a pleasure to spend my university years with you. It's all your own fault that I am like this, with one exception—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

Mr KEOGH: Here we go! The member for Hunter is already heckling me on a bill about my alma mater. Here we go!

Mr Fitzgibbon: Sorry!

Mr KEOGH: I especially want to give a shout out to Lindsay Dodd; his 40th birthday is today. He's a great graduate of the Notre Dame campus at Fremantle. For anything that anyone has any concern with about my education I refer them to the member for Curtin, who admitted me to the university and lectured me in two of my units of law.

Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:00): I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, obviously in strong support of the substantive bill because of the very important role it will play in assisting Australia's research community. The bill increases the Australian Research Council's funding caps in line with inflation, which will provide much-needed certainty and support to thousands of research projects. After the year we had last year, with COVID-19, certainty is what is most needed at this time. The bill makes important funding adjustments to the ARC Act in order to facilitate the ongoing operation of the ARC, updates the special appropriation funding cap administered by the ARC to include policy approvals and indexation adjustments, and extends the forward estimates through June 2024 for existing schemes within the Commonwealth National Competitive Grants Program to allow continued funding of quality research in Australia—and what incredible and quality research we do here in Australia.

I want to take the opportunity to speak about some of this research we are doing, and why it is important, and to give some examples, particularly in our home electorate of Ryan. We are very, very lucky in the electorate of Ryan to have within our boundaries the University of Queensland, one of the most eminent research institutions in the whole of Australia. I speak with absolute confidence, with not a hint of bias, when I say that UQ is absolutely top notch when it comes to research, if not producing research of the highest quality in this country. It certainly has some of the sharpest minds in our country, and I've had the pleasure of meeting many of them at the university to find out about the work they're doing and, in particular, to hear about the incredible passion they have for their work.

I have to say, to apply for funding through the ARC is no small feat for these researchers. It takes an incredible amount of work. It takes in some cases many years of preparation and preparatory research in order to facilitate these long-term funding agreements. They have a passion for what they do, and they have fleshed out their research in a way that allows them to cover ground that nobody has covered before and to really drill down into some important research propositions for our nation. It's because of the ARC funding that these very, very passionate people are doing some vital research that is changing and indeed bettering the way we do things right across the nation, whether that be for families or for farmers. The innovation work being driven by UQ is outstanding.

I want to go through a few of these projects, because certainly UQ punch above their weight in terms of getting access to these grants and establishing these centres of excellence around their specific streams of research. I had the pleasure of announcing a project being undertaken through the Morrison government's funding, and speaking with the researchers involved, which was establishing the Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course, which is being led by Professor Janeen Baxter and is based at UQ. Importantly, the research is looking at new ways to tackle disadvantage and to better Australian families. This was actually all established prior to COVID-19 and its associated health and economic impacts on Australian families as a result of lockdowns, often snap lockdowns, which have kept children away from schooling for long periods and have kept children in family situations that are disadvantaged. The centre was established before all that, and it's never been more vital than it is now. The centre is using new methods and enhanced data to enable it to present a deep understanding that shapes and informs programs targeted at supporting families.

So, as we institute new programs that support families—and as a government we put a lot of money into this space—it's going to be informed by the very best research that is not only coming out of an ARC centre of excellence but coming out of our very own University of Queensland. It's working towards the Morrison government's commitment to break down those barriers Australians may face in gaining greater independence and choices and a better future for themselves and their families, because at the end of the day that's what we're here to ensure. I often speak in this place about the fact that supporting Australian families is absolutely a front and centre priority for me, as I'm sure it is for many in this place, and I'm incredibly proud to have this investment and work being done within the electorate of Ryan at the University of Queensland.

Another ARC centre of excellence at the University of Queensland is embarking on research that will boost Australia's agricultural industry. This is a space I don't have as much familiarity with, but, in speaking to these researchers, it is quite clear that not only are they passionate about what they do, but that they are at the absolute forefront of this—and not just in Australia, but right around the world. The Centre of Excellence for Plant Success in Nature and Agriculture is led by Christine Beveridge at the University of Queensland. Again, as a government, we are continually speaking of the importance of new technologies and innovating the way that we do things. We are continually talking about international competition and how we want to fund farmers to be at the very forefront of international agricultural practices.

We know that, post-COVID, the jobs of the future are going to be different. There are going to be different problems that we face, that we have to overcome, including in the agricultural sector, and this research is going to benefit our farmers in helping them to overcome these challenges and to further demonstrate the incredible resilience that Australian farmers already have in spades. Professor Beveridge and her team are identifying nature success stories within plants and translating these opportunities into a way to enhance yield and resilience within our crops. It's this kind of world-leading research—absolutely world-leading—using cutting-edge technology, that will help agriculture, which is a $100 billion industry, and create thousands of jobs for Australians.

They're just two examples. So when I say    there truly are some of the sharpest minds in Australia in Ryan, at the University of Queensland, doing that sort of work thanks to these grant and this funding, I know this bill ensures there is certainty for them, and this is no understatement. I have no doubt that the team of researchers at the University of Queensland will be a driving force in ensuring that Australia's research capacity and innovation capacity continues to be recognised on the world stage.

You don't want to talk too much about the positives that come out of COVID, because it has been a time of terrible stress for so many, but where there are a few positives to be seen then I think it's worth calling them out. One of the positives to come out of COVID-19 and the exceptional way that the Australian government and the Australian people have handled COVID is that we have, in fact, seen some of our best and brightest minds in research coming back to Australia or securing their future in Australia. When it comes to these incredibly talented researchers who are incredibly well-educated, there is obviously worldwide competition for their services. There's no end of governments who are willing to throw a lot of money at them to secure their services. But what we have seen is the fact that, beyond just the financial incentives, Australian researchers are seeing the value in the environment that we are creating here in Australia and the security that it's providing for their families. They're certainly coming back for the health security and also the economic security. They are coming back here to either re-establish their research fields and undertake their research fields in Australia, having previously been in international institutions, or they are looking at how they secure their research focus in the years ahead in Australia rather than looking to overseas for the next research opportunity. I think that's really, really encouraging for Australia. It gives us an incredible opportunity to leverage off their success, to leverage off their knowledge and to leverage off the incredible innovations that they are going to achieve.

With a bit of indulgence, while I am on the topic of research at the University of Queensland, I can't go past it without thanking those 100-plus researchers at the University of Queensland who were involved in the COVID-19 vaccine project thanks to this funding. I know they were bitterly disappointed that they didn't quite get there. They spent many, many hours—a lot of time away from their families—bunkering down so that they could go as fast as possible and try to make the COVID vaccine an Australian innovation. Despite their disappointment, we are not disappointed at them. We are certainly not disappointed at their efforts—in fact, we marvel at their efforts and we thank them very much for putting in the work that they have. I know, from speaking with them, that their efforts have not been in vain and that, in fact, an enormous amount of the work that they've put into the COVID vaccine will be reused and will put us at the forefront of vaccine innovation going forward—not only in Australia and not only at the University of Queensland but in the electorate of Ryan—and that is an incredibly powerful thing. That vaccine team have forged connections across the world, with counterparts in all four corners of the globe—connections that they simply didn't have before. They've forged those partnerships because of the way that COVID brought the international medical research community together, and they'll be able to leverage those partnerships for decades to come.

I want to take this opportunity, while I am on my feet in this House, to thank every one of those 100 people involved in those projects—not just the ones in the lab coats but all the support staff who made it happen, all the ones who applied for funding, all the ones who provided administrative support. To every single person who was involved in facilitating those long hours that those researchers were able to do to put Australia at the forefront of vaccine development going forward, we are so very proud of your efforts and we thank you very much.

I'm obviously in strong support of this substantive bill. It's going to help secure research funding going forward. It demonstrates, yet again, how the Morrison government is delivering for universities and, in particular, world-leading researchers. We know your value. We know the value of the innovations and talents that you're bringing to your selected fields. I hope that this bill's securing of funding going forward is a demonstration of how much we value your efforts. Please continue to do the great work you're doing on behalf of all Australians.

Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (13:12): I'm delighted to speak today in support of the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, because I have two fantastic universities within my electorate. I'm very privileged to be the member for Boothby, which is a suburban electorate with not one but two wonderful institutions that do a lot of fantastic work for the South Australian community, the South Australian economy and the nation. They both make an international contribution, as well.

So I am delighted that our bill today will see funding going to the Australian Research Council and will demonstrate our continued support for the ARC. The bill will make sure that the ARC can continue to operate. It will update the special appropriation funding cap administered by the ARC to include policy approvals and indexation adjustments. The bill will also extend the forward estimates through to June 2024 for existing schemes within the National Competitive Grants Program, to allow for continued funding of quality research in Australia. Today I want to talk about some of that fantastic research that's going on right in the middle of my electorate and particularly at Flinders University.

I have spent a lot of time at Flinders University, because that's where I attended university and did my law degree and my arts degree. I was very privileged to study under incredible professors like Andrew Parkin, Dean Jaensch and Haydon Manning, who very much formed my views on policy and policymaking, taught me how to be a fantastic researcher and inspired me to be interested in politics, which is, in large part, how I ended up here.

I'm so lucky to be able to spend a lot of time at Flinders, talking to researchers and meeting with their wonderful vice-chancellor, Colin Sterling, who is a dynamic force and has done a wonderful job in his leadership of Flinders. Some of the projects that they currently have going have been made possible by Australian Research Council grants and include an interesting project between the College of Medicine and Public Health, at Flinders University, and Macquarie University. It will be looking at how hover flies and honeybees, with tiny brains and sensory systems, excel at making fast and accurate decisions while flying. It might sound like a quirky project. However, they are going to use the information that they gather from looking at brain recordings, flight analyses and modelling to generate new knowledge on how animals may utilise movements to simplify the way they sample information. The reason that they're doing this is so that they can extrapolate and learn from these very clever animals. They can then apply those learnings to neuroscience to look at how we can enhance the performance of autonomous robotic systems operating in challenging environments, such as disaster relief, mining and remote exploration. That's the kind of cutting-edge, very interesting work that's going on right in my electorate.

These projects also demonstrate the beauty of the ARC system, which brings together researchers from around Australia to work on projects of common interest. At Flinders University, in the College of Science and Engineering, they're researching coatings to control and eradicate unwanted marine biofilms. Biofilms grow on all surfaces and environments. They pose environmental threats and involve costly eradication efforts. This discovery project aims to develop novel electrically conducting carbon based paints that are stable in marine environments and to investigate how marine biofilms respond to these coatings. This could result in a green solution for controlling the biofouling of surfaces immersed in oceans.

South Australia has a fantastic and very strong fishing industry. We are very proud of the fact that we were one of the first jurisdictions in the world—I believe—to protect our marine environment and to implement quotas for things like the southern rock lobster so that wild caught fish were not overfished. We have a very strong sense of commitment to environmental responsibility, to sustainability and to making sure that we can go on to have strong, thriving fishing industries forever. As we have such a strong fishing industry and so many passionate recreational fishers, this project will be of great interest to anyone who spends time in the ocean, whether that's professionally or for leisure.

The Flinders University College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences and the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work are undertaking a very important project on the issue of domestic and family violence, which I know is of great interest and importance to everyone in this place. The project looks at how we can better support the workforce that deals with people who have endured enormous trauma. This project will generate evidence based research on the nature of work within the domestic and family violence sector and look at the implications for the domestic and family violence workforce across victim, perpetrator and Aboriginal specialist services. The expected outcomes include workforce development strategies that best respond to the needs of this workforce. I'm sure everyone in this place would like to extend their thanks to everyone who works in the domestic and family violence sector, which supports people at their most vulnerable moments and tries to get them the support, safety and assistance they need to rebuild their lives.

The College of Medicine and Public Health is investigating a novel metabolic pathway in intestinal stem cells. This discovery project recognises that the gut is the most rapidly renewing tissue in the body. It is driven by a highly active stem cell niche that is critically regulated by bile acids. The disruption of bile acid has profoundly adverse effects on intestinal renewal and hence gut health. This project aims to look at how medical professionals and specialists can best assist people to look after their intestinal health.

As I mentioned before, the beauty of the ARC system is that it brings researchers together from around the nation. Flinders is partnering with a range of other universities. The College of Medicine and Public Health is also working with the ANU to look at understanding engagement to regulate the commercial determinants of health. The College of Science and Engineering is working with Adelaide university to look at the impacts of fire and rain on deep-time ecosystem assembly in Australia. The College of Science and Engineering is working with the University of Western Australia on saving seagrass from climate change. As I mentioned, South Australia has a strong and very beautiful stretch of coastline, seagrass and marine environment, and its health is of absolute importance to everybody in SA. The College of Science and Engineering is working on a University of Newcastle discovery project on bacterial polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon transport and degradation. The College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences is working with the University of New South Wales on a project titled 'Antipodean Geology: A Modern History of Southern Hemisphere Earth', and the College of Medicine and Public Health is working with the University of Western Australia on social practices of oral health in Australian preschool children.

We have a new vice-chancellor at the University of Adelaide, Peter Hoj, who I'm looking forward to working with. He has come back to South Australia, which is wonderful. The Waite Research Institute is one of the most unique campuses in the nation and even in the Southern Hemisphere, because it has the largest concentration of agriculture and wine research in the Southern Hemisphere. It's just on the edge of the city—it takes about 10 minutes to get there from the CBD—and it sits on 184 hectares. It is a unique and beautiful site, and we are so lucky to have such an incredible agriculture and wine research precinct. It works with CSIRO and with industry bodies to do research on wine, horticulture, plant biotechnology, cereal breeding and food and agriculture. The very historic site also includes the beautiful Urrbrae House—and I say hello to all of the wonderful friends of Urrbrae House—and the Waite Arboretum. I have a lot of amazing volunteers in my community that interact with the campus.

While the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide is not purely about research, it does have some wonderful Australian Research Council projects currently underway, including the ARC Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production. This is a really important project. Obviously we have a lot of climate challenges here in Australia, and we have long been a world leader when it comes to wine production, research, minimising water use, and the best vineyard and winemaking practices. The project will tackle new and age-old challenges to wine production through innovative, multidisciplinary research over the next five years. Through this project, the University of Adelaide, supported by Wine Australia, is bringing together wineries, vignerons, the Australian Wine Research Institute, the Australian Genome Research Facility, Charles Sturt University—again, partnering with another university—CSIRO and lots of other wonderful companies and groups, making this a very important project. The interests and capabilities of these groups extend from grape to glass, so it's about the entire production cycle of wine. They will be looking at industry challenges and, importantly, how to increase industry profitability. I will monitor this wonderful project with interest, as it looks at viticultural management, oneology—wine microbiology and wine chemistry—sensory science and winery process optimisation.

There are also some other wonderful projects going on at and around the Waite. Through the University of Adelaide's Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, they are involved in the ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology. This project is looking at the ability of cells to move and maintain proper shape, which is very important for development, repair and survival in multicellular organisms. The University of Adelaide is also working with the Australia-China Joint Research Centre of Grains for Health, which is looking at the growth of seeds. They expect to provide economic benefits by increasing the yield of agricultural crops during increasingly challenging conditions. These are just a few of the many brilliant and wonderful research projects going on in my part of the world, at both Flinders University and the University of Adelaide, and they are all enabled by the Australian Research Council and the Australian Research Council Act 2001. I'm very pleased to support this bill today so that we can continue to make sure the university sector and our wonderful researchers continue to be supported to do this groundbreaking research, partnering with people around the nation and around the world.

Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Assistant Minister for Children and Families and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:25): I thank all members who have spoken in relation to the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. This bill amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001, to ensure continuity of funding to Australia's research community through the funding schemes of the Australian Research Council, or ARC. The bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to swiftly implement the government's 2020 to 2021 MYEFO decision to re-categorise The University of Notre Dame—the UNDA—as a Table A provider.

This bill is necessary so that there is no disruption to the funding support to Australia's best and brightest researchers, who are leading the country's effort to provide the highest quality fundamental and applied research. This bill places UNDA on a more equal footing with Table A universities. It will better serve UNDA students and will continue to achieve comparable outcomes to other Table A providers.

This bill will increase the ARC funding caps by $855 million over the period 2020-21 to 2023-24 to support hundreds of new research projects every year through the ARC's National Competitive Grants Program. These grants are for research and research training in all fields of research, including science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as the humanities, arts and social sciences.

I thank members for their contributions in debating these measures, supporting the government's continued commitment to the higher education and research sector. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Moreton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The SPEAKER (13:34): It being past 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (16:27): I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights second scrutiny report of 2021.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Dr WEBSTER: by leave—I was honoured last week to be elected chair of this important committee, after having served as a member since the start of this parliament. As members are no doubt aware, this joint committee has a unique statutory mandate. It examines all bills and legislative instruments that come before either house of the parliament for compatibility with Australia's human rights obligations under the seven international human rights treaties ratified by Australia. The committee's scrutiny reports provide a technical examination of legislation assessed against Australia's human rights treaty obligations. They do not consider the policy merits of the legislation, which is best left to other parliamentary committees and the parliament itself to consider.

In undertaking this technical scrutiny work, the committee considers the advice of an external legal adviser who is a specialist in international human rights law. Each committee member brings their own unique experiences to the table when considering this advice. In my case, while I am not a lawyer, my background as a social worker and non-profit executive informs my consideration of these important issues. The question of compatibility with human rights generally turns on the extent to which a proposed limitation on rights is permissible—that is, whether it addresses some compelling social purpose and whether the limitation is effective to achieve this objective and is reasonable, necessary and proportionate. I believe that, having been provided with the international human rights law advice, these are judgements that we as parliamentarians are very well equipped to make.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has existed now for nine years and its evolving impact is broad reaching and often unseen. The committee's reports educate the parliament, public servants and the community on the importance of human rights. In addition, committee members themselves gain a greater understanding of human rights law and can use that knowledge to inform debate and educate others. In particular, the committee's scrutiny work seeks to embed a culture of human rights in the development of legislation.

The committee considers every bill and legislative instrument, nearly all of which must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility with human rights. These statements are the starting point for the committee to assess the human rights compatibility of a bill or legislative instrument. The committee will always look beyond the statement of compatibility and consider the likely effect of legislation. But a statement of compatibility itself must identify and justify any limitation on a human right, according to the committee's framework for determining whether a limitation is permissible.

Statements of compatibility have the potential to instil a culture of human rights in the public sector at the policy development stage. However, while there are some excellent examples of this, unfortunately far too many statements of compatibility are insufficient, indicating there is still considerable scope to integrate human rights considerations at the early stages of policy development. Where statements of compatibility are insufficient, the committee will seek more information from ministers in order to inform its assessment of the legislation. As such, in this report the committee is seeking further information with respect to three bills and one legislative instrument, and has made some comments in relation to two other instruments.

As the chair, I look forward to working with all members of this important committee. With these comments, I commend the report to the chamber.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (16:32): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (16:33): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021. I indicate that Labor will be supporting this bill. So far as the bill goes it is worthy legislation, but I do make the point 'only so far as it goes'. There still remains much to be done in the emerging area of the therapeutic use of medicinal cannabis. Frankly the government doesn't appear to be doing much in that area, particularly in the area of improving access for patients across the country to safe, affordable and effective medicinal cannabis products. The government has been dragging its feet for years in this area, most notably when it continued to resist the opposition's calls in the other place for a Senate inquiry into barriers against patient access to those safe, effective and affordable medicinal cannabis products. I foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment at the conclusion of my remarks to draw attention to those deficits in this bill.

As I indicated, though, we will be supporting this legislation. The legislation implements a number of recommendations from the McMillan review of the original legislation that was passed in this place in 2016. That review was delivered in 2019, the year before last. It was a review that had been built into the 2016 legislation, which for the first time put in place a legal framework in Australia for the use of medicinal cannabis. Essentially, this bill streamlines various processes for industry participants. The hope is that that will have some downstream impact on patients, and there's something to say for that, but the bill is relatively limited in terms of the impacts for patients we can glean in the foreseeable future.

The first thing of note that the bill does is to consolidate the existing structure of three separate industry licences into a single licence. Currently, there are three separate licences under the original 2016 medicinal cannabis legislation: one for cultivation, one for production and one for manufacture. One of the recommendations of the McMillan review was that those three licences be consolidated into a single licence. Obviously, I think it goes without saying even if you're not particularly familiar with this industry that, for those industry participants who are integrated vertically and who do cultivation, production and manufacture, having a single licensing system will be a substantial efficiency measure, and that should flow on to patients. We support that measure. As I said, it was a recommendation from the McMillan review.

The second and perhaps slightly less impactful but nonetheless important provision in this bill is to relocate the timing of formal assessments of supply chains to a later period in the development of a business. This is so that the assessment of a supply chain will be undertaken at a time when an application for an actual payment is made, rather than at the earlier licensing stage. This means that the assessment will happen when a business is more fully formed and therefore the assessment can be more meaningful. Again, that's a provision we support. It was a recommendation from the McMillan review.

The bill also creates a perpetual, but revokable, licence. Currently, industry participants are only able to obtain a fixed-term licence for five years. If you're a good industry participant, which we can expect the vast majority of participants to be, then you have to go through the rigmarole of renewing a licence. The bill puts in place a perpetual licence which, obviously, can be revoked if there are grounds to do so. This avoids the need for regular applications to essentially relicence reputable operations. All of that, as I said on behalf of the opposition, is worthy reform.

The bill also inserts what it describes as an object to the act to reflect the first recommendation, recommendation 1 of the McMillan review, which, thankfully, was focused on patients—it focused directly on the needs of patients. As far as it goes, there's nothing to argue against it, but the concern is that simply putting a change into the objects of the legislation which says that patient access is important runs the risk of being mere symbolism if it is not accompanied by substantive reform to deal with what I think every member in this House understands are really substantial barriers to access. I'll talk a bit more about those barriers to access later in my remarks.

The concern that this provision is mere symbolism and the concern that this legislation really just deals with some worthy but pretty modest streamlining of measures that were imposed by the original legislation upon industry participants is not just a view of the opposition. It's been a view expressed by a number of patient advocate groups through the McMillan review process and as this bill has been out for consultation. Mills Oakley, for example, said in its submission, 'In our view, the most significant disappointment in the bill is its lack of real measures to improve patient access to affordable and domestically sourced medicinal cannabis.' The well-known patient advocacy group United in Compassion was a little bit more forthright in its view, indicating: 'From a patient's perspective, it'—the framework from the 2016 act—'has been a catastrophic failure. The illicit market is booming. Patients are still being locked up because they cannot afford or achieve legal access.' I think I'm right in saying these are concerns that all members of this place, on both sides of the House, would be receiving from patients across the country and across a very diverse group of patient cohorts.

Medicinal cannabis is a very fast-developing therapeutic product not just here in Australia but across the world—a product derived from the cannabis plant, which has some 80 to 100 different cannabinoids, only two of which are used for medicinal or therapeutic purposes as opposed to recreation. The first is formally called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and is better known as THC. This is the cannabinoid in the cannabis plant that gives you the high, has the psychoactive and is generally the reason for people using this plant recreationally. But it also has medicinal or therapeutic uses and applications. The more predominant cannabinoid from the plant for medicinal purposes is technically called cannabidiol, or CBD. That is the one that most patients will be seeking to access through the framework that was created in 2016.

As I think all members of this place know and as we've had reinforced through the course of this pandemic, our outstanding medicines approvals authority, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, has responsibility for assessing and then approving therapeutic goods and registering those goods on the ARTG, the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. There is currently only one medicinal cannabis product that is actually registered on the ARTG and has been approved by the TGA, and that is Sativex, which is only approved for very limited use, particularly to deal with spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis. Other than that, there is no approved medicinal cannabis product under the TGA's regime, in spite of medicinal cannabis now being very widely used for a range of different purposes through the community.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—funded, obviously, by the Commonwealth—conducts a regular National Drug Strategy Household Survey. It reported last year that as many as 600,000 Australians use cannabis for medicinal purposes—not recreational purposes but medicinal purposes. The institute further reported that less than four per cent of those 600,000 Australians are obtaining their medicinal cannabis product through legal pathways. That is a major concern. More than 96 per cent of the hundreds of thousands of Australians using medicinal cannabis are obtaining those products other than through the legal pathways established by this legislation, by the originating 2016 legislation and by the general TGA framework.

The only ways in which, at the moment, an Australian can obtain a medicinal cannabis product through the legal pathways are under two separate schemes operated by the TGA: the Special Access Scheme, which I'll come back to, and the authorised prescriber scheme. The authorised prescriber scheme, or the AP scheme, can involve the TGA approving a particular individual prescriber or medical practitioner and granting that practitioner authority to prescribe medicinal cannabis products for a class of person—not just an individual patient but a class of person. The usual example given is a paediatric neurologist who can prescribe medicinal cannabis products for children with very severe epilepsy, for example. This is not a part of the TGA's scheme that is commonly used, but it is open to some areas of medical practice.

The more common method is the Special Access Scheme. The Special Access Scheme, under the TGA framework, is there for what's described generally as exceptional clinical circumstances. This is where a medical practitioner takes a decision that there is no alternative therapeutic good available to their individual patient and so makes the clinical decision to give that patient a product that is not on the ARTG—one that has not been approved by the TGA for general prescription. This is a relatively cumbersome process in that a medical practitioner has to submit an individual application to the TGA for every individual patient. There's a reasonably quick turnaround here, but every doctor has to submit an individual application to the TGA for every single patient—whether that's a parent with an epileptic child, a terminally ill patient in excruciating pain or a patient with a condition for which there is emerging evidence that medicinal cannabis products can do good, and there are a range of those conditions, as most members of this House know.

At the end of 2019, there were some 18,000 patients in Australia who had received medicinal cannabis products through the Special Access Scheme. That sounds like a lot, but out of the 600,000 Australians that are using these products it's not many really. The TGA has its approval processes down to a much quicker turnaround. Those numbers have been climbing. I read a piece in the Australian Prescriber journal over the last couple of days which indicated that by the middle of last year there were about 4,500 approvals being granted by the TGA every month for the Special Access Scheme provision of medicinal cannabis products by a single medical practitioner to a single patient.

This does come with substantial cost to the patients. Not only are these products not on the ARTG; ipso facto they are obviously not on the PBS. The patients are paying for these products out of their own pocket. In that same study I described, in the Australian Prescriber, it was indicated that the average cost is somewhere between $5 and $15 per day for patients accessing medicinal cannabis products through the Special Access Scheme. That is an average. If you have conditions, such as epilepsy, that require relatively high doses of CBD, or medicinal cannabis, in your therapeutic good, then you are paying substantially more than $15 per day, day in, day out. This is a very substantial impost on families and patients across the country. The TGA, to their credit, have for some time been considering alternative ways of granting access to these products, through some sort of legal framework. Through the course of last year they had a consultation process underway around what is described as down-scheduling. That would mean that medicinal cannabis products would be available not just through schedule 4 of the TGA scheme, which requires an individual prescription by an authorised medical practitioner, but also through schedule 3, which is generally known as OTC, or over-the-counter, products at a pharmacy. They're generally behind the counter. You'll know them. They're not on the shelves at the front of the pharmacy, which is schedule 2. They're 'pharmacist only', so they're generally behind the counter. As with things like pseudoephedrine and ventolin, they generally involve a discussion between the customer and the pharmacist about the product.

A decision was taken by the TGA, after a draft decision and then a further consultation process in December last year, to down-schedule registered CBD products only—not THC products, which have a psychoactive element, but the CBD-only products, which would only be allowed to be, at a maximum, one per cent THC. The decision also indicated that only adults would be able to access a product through this schedule, schedule 3, and only up to 150 milligrams a day. That was an increase on the initial draft decision that limited it to 60 milligrams a day. They lifted it to 150 milligrams a day. A range of patient advocacy groups have indicated that that is a subtherapeutic dose. For many, many conditions 150 milligrams a day simply won't do the job. I make no criticism of the TGA for this. They work in a framework that requires them to assess the safety of a product and they have taken the view that that is the level at which they can be confident there are no safety concerns. All I do is make the observation that that simply doesn't do the job for many thousands of patients across the country. So that's the first point I'd make. It's potentially a subtherapeutic dose for many, many patients.

The other point I'd make is that, even though this decision has now been made and is in operation, there are actually no products on the register that activate the decision. There actually are no approved products that would be able to be sold by a pharmacist to a patient in accordance with this decision. So, until there is, this is very much an abstract decision of no particular impact for patients across Australia.

To get a product approved and put onto the ARTG and then to activate that ability to get it over the counter under schedule 3, subject to that dose limit of 150 milligrams a day, a company is going to have to put a product to the TGA for assessment. That will, under the existing framework, for very good reason, require substantial evidence of the efficacy and safety of that product. That potentially takes years of evidence gathering and clinical trials and many, many dollars, sometimes running to tens of millions of dollars, by the proponent company. So it is difficult to see products being approved by the TGA any time soon that will actually make that down-scheduling decision by the TGA something of real moment or of practical application for patients. I make the point that the TGA has been trying to make some changes that will accommodate the needs of patients, but it hasn't really been able to do anything that I think will have a real-world impact for those many hundreds of thousands of Australians who are using these products every day.

I acknowledge that the AMA has been critical of the down-scheduling decision, even though it won't have any practical implications for patients right now. I acknowledge the AMA takes the view that it's not optimal that patients will go directly to pharmacists for these therapeutic goods, if they ever come onto the market, instead of going to their doctor. The AMA is concerned that patients with potentially very serious conditions—because people with a range of very serious neurological conditions or painful conditions access MC products—might not end up going to their doctor and might instead go to the pharmacist. I think those concerns from the AMA and, to a lesser extent, perhaps, the College of GPs are concerns that need to be a prominent part of this debate as we move forward.

But I do make the point that these processes and the lack of affordable, safe, approved products available as part of the existing legal framework of the TGA and this legislation are all leading to the vast bulk of Australians using medicinal cannabis products to access them outside the legal framework. As I said, according to the AIHW, more than 95 per cent of the 600,000 Australians using these products are accessing them outside the legal framework. We've all heard these stories in our electorates. We've heard stories of veterans seeking medicinal cannabis products to help deal with PTSD. I'm sure all of us have heard stories of parents seeking to access medicinal cannabis products to help children with epilepsy in particular but other conditions as well. We've all heard stories of patients with excruciating and chronic pain caused by a range of conditions, some of them terminal, seeking to access medicinal cannabis products and far too often getting into trouble with the law because of the lack of a dependable supply of safe, affordable and effective products.

Now, I don't pretend this is easy. This is a relatively new product not just in Australia but across a range of jurisdictions across the world. There is still only an emerging base of clinical evidence. I don't pretend you can fix this overnight, but I do make the criticism, on behalf of the opposition, that the government seems too flat-footed on this issue. Other jurisdictions are ahead of where we are in trying to deal with these admittedly very tricky issues. As Olivia Newton-John said last year:

"Why not make it easier for people to get, particularly those suffering with pain? Why not make their lives a bit easier?"

In summing up, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House urges the Government to implement reforms to significantly improve patient access to medicinal cannabis".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the motion seconded?

Ms Burney: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:56): I suggest the member for Hindmarsh is desperately looking for something to complain about here. He's right on one count, and that is the demand for medicinal cannabis in this country is significant and cannot currently be met by supply. He's also right that there is too high a number of people seeking access to medicinal cannabis outside the legal framework. However, what the member for Hindmarsh failed to say to the chamber was that it actually took a coalition government, in 2016, to introduce legislation in this chamber that brought about a regime in Australia in which licences and permits for the cultivation and production of medicinal cannabis would be made legal.

Now, the demand for medicinal cannabis wasn't suddenly new in 2016. It has been around for years. But, again, it took a coalition government to move forward and to take action. It's all well and good for the member for Hindmarsh to suggest the coalition is 'flat-footed', to use his words, despite previous Labor governments making no move in this regard. But we are talking, after all, about a drug that needs to be safe. We are talking about the TGA needing to ensure that the efficacy of this drug is safe for the Australian people. We also have an entire suite of international laws with which our country must comply. So does this take time? Well, it does. So if the opposition seem to have some crazy idea to rush through medicinal cannabis products without due diligence, I'd ask them to be more specific rather than making these motherhood statements of flat-footedness.

When we, as a government, introduced the law in 2016, we rightly inserted the need for a review. That review, the McMillan review, was tabled in this parliament in 2019. What we see today in the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 is the implementation of the recommendations from that review. Two measures in particular are worth noting. The first measure is the consolidation of the licensing structure that will come under just one single framework rather than the existing three separate licences with which those in the supply chain now have to deal. The second measure relates to the creation of a perpetual licence and permit structure. As a bill—and it's something, again, that the member for Hindmarsh failed to recognise—it strikes a balance between the need for safety and international legal compliance and the need to ensure that the supply chain is free to be productive and grow. Those who are operating within the relatively new medicinal cannabis sector in Australia are dealing with an embryonic industry. They need to have the room to grow. They need to be able to be productive. What we see with the consolidation of licences is a removal of the burden of red tape. What we see with perpetual licences is an opportunity for investors to take a longer-term view and therefore invest more. It's a pretty simple formula. The less red tape and the more investment, the greater the focus on this industry and the more it can grow, be productive and get products to patients who are in need.

We all know that the proponents of medicinal cannabis point to some pretty compelling evidence. I'm no doctor, so I won't make any claims, but what medicinal cannabis seems to be able to do in the areas of cancer, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy is quite extraordinary. This is why we need to do what we continue to do as a government—to free up this industry in a responsible fashion so it can attract investment and we can have product going to market. Let us not forget that medicinal cannabis, as an industry, should be within Australia's sweet spot. It comes to the intersection of two of our greatest strengths: agriculture and health care. It is within that sweet spot, within that intersection, that medicinal cannabis is being cultivated and produced for both medicinal and scientific purposes in this country. As a Queenslander, I'm proud to say that the greatest number of prescriptions are coming from our state. As the member for Fairfax, I'm also proud of MEDIFARM, which is one of the companies that are taking a lead in this space in Australia. This is not just a market for us domestically. It's an international market with exponential growth potential for Australian products overseas. I am delighted to commend the bill to the House.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (17:03): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021. In my personal view, the current system for patients needing to access medicinal cannabis is far too complicated, and it has been for too many years. Hurdles have been put in the way of accessing this treatment that have been entirely unnecessary and served little purpose, other than to burden people with costs and inconvenience. We know that medicinal cannabis is already being used by hundreds of thousands of Australians to treat conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain and to reduce the effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Those are just a few examples. The anecdotal evidence from the people suffering these conditions is overwhelmingly positive. Yet we, as legislators, and the medical community, as regulators, have continued to disbelieve those people for too long. 'Show us the evidence!' we demand when they tell us, straight to our faces, that medicinal cannabis has changed their lives and the lives of their loved ones for the better.

This bill implements recommendations of the McMillan review. It's another step in the right direction, at least. The final report of the review was tabled in parliament in September 2019 and contained 26 recommendations to 'improve the regulatory framework for the cultivation, production and manufacture of medicinal cannabis in Australia'. A key finding of the report was that industry participants, including producers and researchers, encountered numerous barriers to supplying legal medicinal cannabis under the current regulatory and licensing regime. Significant barriers remain to the development of an efficient and transparent research and manufacturing industry. These barriers increase risks and costs for Australian companies seeking to manufacture medicinal cannabis and delay the widespread availability of an affordable Australian-made treatment for patients. This bill aims to address these issues and that's why Labor is supporting it.

The two main measures in the bill are: (1) to consolidate the licensing structure into a single licence framework instead of the current three-licence structure to reduce regulatory burden on an industry which often undertakes activities across the three areas of cultivation, production and manufacture; and (2) to undertake assessments relating to supply chains later in the application process, at the consideration of application for a permit rather than at the earlier licensing stage. This is to support business investment certainty while maintaining regulatory oversight.

The amendments in the bill seek to strike a balance between mitigating the risk of diversion of cannabis to non-medical uses—that's a bit of a euphemism!—and Australia's obligations under international law, as outdated and burdensome as some of that international law now is. There is a need to ensure that medicinal cannabis regulation in Australia facilitates ease of compliance for industry participants; does not impede growth and productivity in the industry; and supports secure, local and affordable supply.

What this bill does not do is directly address the issue of patient access. The Morrison government is, quite frankly, dragging its flat feet on an issue that could make a real difference to the lives of Australians suffering from illness and chronic pain. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs conducted an inquiry into barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia which reported in March 2020. The government has had nearly a year to respond to the inquiry's recommendations, which are supported by patient advocates, but it has not done so. Some patient advocacy groups, such as United In Compassion, see the government's silence on this as evidence it's not serious about addressing patient access issues.

In my home state of Tasmania it's particularly difficult for patients to access medicinal cannabis products. In response to an online plea from 75-year-old Peter Fielding about the inhumane lack of availability of medicinal cannabis, a Tasmanian government spokesperson said that medicinal cannabis products were 'unproven'. Mr Fielding, who suffers terminal cancer, described his own experience in using medicinal cannabis: saying, 'Almost overnight I could eat again and my speech improved. Before medicinal cannabis, my pain level was eight out of 10. After cannabis, there were many days when I felt no pain at all.' When a patient tells us to our faces that the treatment transforms their life, who are we to state that the treatment is 'unproven'? The arrogance of such a position is astounding.

Under Tasmania's controlled access scheme there are currently fewer than 20 patients approved for the use of medicinal cannabis, despite thousands of Tasmanians wanting to access it. Getting approval is a burdensome process. You need to see a GP, who sends you to a specialist, who writes off for approval and, then, if it's approved, the specialist can provide a prescription. And if you're on the public waiting list to see a specialist, good luck on getting an appointment within months. Many Tasmanians have no option other than to break the law in order to access a product that improves their quality of life or the quality of life of loved ones in their care without the risk of addiction that exists with pharmaceutical painkillers—which are, ironically, much easier to access.

I have written to the Tasmanian Minister for Health on behalf of constituents who have been unable to access medicinal cannabis, despite it being recommended by their treating specialist. One constituent, Rosie, had her request straight-out denied by her GP, who refused to refer her to a specialist to seek a prescription. Instead, she's out of pocket by almost $300 every six weeks to cover the cost of the telehealth appointment with an interstate doctor to get a prescription for the cannabis oil product that she relies on for relief from chronic pain.

I do note that the Therapeutic Goods Administration recently approved low-dose cannabis oil to be bought over the counter at pharmacies. Again, this is a welcome step. Theoretically, it will mean that patients will no longer require a referral, specialist approval or a prescription to be able to legally acquire and use low-dose CBD. While this is a welcome change, it does not necessarily solve the wider problem of access. With no products approved to date for over-the-counter use, it could be another 12 months before patients are buying medicinal cannabis products from their local pharmacy.

I also note that, as far as I understand, it's a very expensive and time-consuming process for companies wanting to get on the approved list. By all means, we need to make sure that what's being sold is safe, but I have been told it can be in the millions of dollars just to get on the list to be approved. So companies in this field have to make the economic decision of whether is it worth their while to provide a product for which there may be a fairly low volume of sales.

I have two facilities in my electorate producing medicinal cannabis: Extractas Bioscience, a Tasmanian Alkaloids plant in the north of the state, and Tasmanian Botanics, in the south. The facility at Tasmanian Alkaloids was opened in mid-2020 and will produce nine million bottles of cannabidiol each year. It covers all aspects of the cultivation, extraction and bottling of medicinal cannabis. Tasmanian Botanics, similarly, produces a range of liquid products of various strengths and cannabinoid combinations. The security and stringent quality controls at these plants are something to behold. They is absolutely world class. However, the bulk of the products from both facilities serve the national and international markets, despite originating in a state where those who desperately want to access this product remain unable to do so with ease. It seems to me that both the Tasmanian government and the federal government are missing the potential and opportunity of medicinal cannabis both as a treatment to improve lives and as an economic contributor, particularly in the regions.

Australia, quite frankly, is way behind the eight ball. Our international competitors are leaping ahead in the development of medicinal cannabis and reaping the economic rewards as a result. It is long past time that we took off the blinkers, removed the barriers and allowed this industry to properly flourish. As I say, this bill is one step in that process, but it's taking far too long. I take the point the member for Fairfax made in his contribution that the coalition got the ball rolling in 2016, but I can only imagine what the reaction would have been from the coalition if a Labor government, prior to 2013, had tried to legislate for medicinal cannabis. I can only imagine what the political environment would have been like. Would it have been as reasonable as we, a Labor opposition, have allowed this to be? You haven't had any nonsense on our side of the chamber about legalising drugs, for instance, and that sort of ridiculous political showmanship that goes on. I am not sure that the same would have been able to be said if a Labor government had tried to legislate in this sphere before 2013, particularly with Tony Abbott as the then opposition leader. If a Labor government had been trying to legislate medicinal cannabis in that environment, would we have seen the sensible outcomes that we have allowed this government to proceed with? We know this should be a matter of science and medicine and economic contribution, not something to be caught up in the silly rhetoric of the so-called drug wars of the past. On that, I commend the bill to the House and look forward to further development in this area.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (17:14): The Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 amends the Narcotic Drugs Acts 1967, which makes provision in relation to narcotic drugs in accordance with Australia's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. In 2016, the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 was amended to provide a framework for regulating cannabis cultivation, cannabis production, and manufacture and research, with the ultimate aim of providing Australian patients with access to medicinal cannabis for therapeutic purposes, which is what we're discussing here today. The 2016 amendments included a requirement for a review of the operation of the medicinal cannabis scheme after two years, and it was the health minister, the member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, who appointed Professor John McMillan AO to conduct the review, on which he reported in 2019. The McMillan review made 26 recommendations, and some of those were implemented in stage 1 revisions of the Narcotic Drugs Regulation 2016, and these amendments that we are discussing today are part of stage 2 of adopting Professor McMillan's recommendations.

This bill is intended to support the development of an Australian medicinal cannabis industry for the benefit of Australian patients, and, importantly, the bill also includes a clear statement of its purpose in that regard and an assurance that medicinal cannabis products will be available to patients in Australia for therapeutic purposes. I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Lyons in which he talked about constituents in his own electorate and elsewhere in Tasmania who have benefited from such products or have been told they would benefit from such products. I expect many members here have heard similar stories. I haven't had any personal experience with medicinal cannabis, but when I was the Australian ambassador to Israel I got to know someone who is known as one of the fathers of medicinal cannabis, Professor Raphael Mechoulam, who, at the Hebrew University in the 1960s and 1970s, helped to first isolate, structurally elucidate and then synthesise the main active principles of cannabis. Professor Mechoulam is now 90 years old. He is still in good health and still teaching from time to time at Hebrew University. He was seen as one of the gurus, if you like, or one of the go-tos for this industry.

I recall that, when I hosted a visit by the then New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, he brought with him Professor Mary O'Kane, who was then the New South Wales Chief Scientist, and they wanted to seek out Professor Mechoulam because of some of the stories that Premier Mike Baird had heard directly from constituents, particularly those who were suffering from cancer but also others who wanted to be able to access medicinal cannabis for therapeutic purposes and were frustrated about the inability to do so in Australia. I hope this bill goes some way towards addressing that. I know it moves the ball further down the field, perhaps not as far as some would like. I acknowledge the frustrations that the member for Lyons articulated, but I think the bill does get us closer to the purpose and seeks to strike a balance between facilitating not only the cultivation, production and manufacture of a cannabis drug but also ensuring that medicinal cannabis products are available to Australians with our obligations under international instruments, such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to safeguard against illegal practices and to provide for safe and sustainable pathways for patient access to medicinal cannabis therapies.

This bill does a number of things to benefit Australian patients and improve access to medicinal cannabis. Firstly, it seeks to reduce the burden of regulation in the licence assessment process. It will replace the obligation for separate licences for any cultivation, production, manufacture and research activity with a single licence. Significantly, the majority of these single licences will be perpetual—that is, not requiring renewal, thus reducing the regulatory burden. So, rather than a business having to go through a regular licence renewal application and assessment process every few years for, potentially, multiple licences governing the cultivation, production, manufacture and research activity, they can do it once and it will be perpetual. This will help allow licence applicants and holders to appropriately manage their business investment and planning decisions, and the obligation to hold a permit for day-to-day operations, including specification of the allowed quantity of medicinal cannabis, will provide sufficient oversight. A number of businesses are interested in the cultivation and production of medicinal cannabis in Australia. In fact, as an agricultural producer and given our climate, terrain and topography, we're quite well suited to this. A number of producers in this area are interested in establishing operations in Australia, and this bill will help to facilitate that.

The bill maintains the current specified supply pathways for medicinal cannabis, including for clinical trials under the Therapeutic Goods Act and approvals and authorities under that act. These are supplemented by additional pathways for medical and scientific research additional to clinical trials, provided it does not involve administration to humans, and the development of a reference standard. There is also a separate regulation-making power to prescribe additional supply pathways anticipated to ensure compliance with the good manufacturing requirements under the Therapeutic Goods Act.

In addition to helping provide greater certainty to businesses and reducing duplicative processes with amendments to the licence regime, the bill reaffirms the government's commitment to patient availability of a safe, legal and sustainable supply of cannabis derived medicines. In doing so, as I said earlier, it seeks to strike a balance to ensure that medicinal cannabis products are available to patients for therapeutic purposes and make sure that Australia continues to honour our international obligations and we don't unwittingly create an industry in cannabis products for non-medicinal and unlawful purposes.

I am also aware that there are a number of patient classes. Cancer and palliative patients are an obvious class or category. For sufferers from epilepsy there have been medical trials, medical evidence and peer-reviewed papers to the effect that medicinal cannabis can help to reduce the frequency and lessen the severity of epileptic seizures as well. I have family friends with children who have suffered from epilepsy, and they are keen to get this approved.

With that, I think this bill strikes the right balance between helping improve patient access to medicinal cannabis, helping to allow an Australian industry to develop itself, helping to reduce the regulatory burden, and maintaining important safeguards and checks and balances to ensure that this industry is used for its proper purpose. I command this bill to the House.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:22): I rise to speak on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021. The Greens were part of the push in this place to start treating medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic drug. We worked together with other MPs across party lines—and I want to pay tribute here to our former leader, Richard Di Natale—because we know that medicinal cannabis is an important drug. It's an important drug that is used to treat or alleviate many health conditions, including, as has been mentioned, epilepsy in children and adults, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, chemotherapy induced nausea and, of course, palliative care. We knew that Australia needed to make this drug available as a therapeutic drug.

Despite the steps that have been taken by the government and despite the limited amendments that have been put in this bill, most Australians who need medicinal cannabis still have no real way to access it. There is still a big black market in medicinal cannabis because the government has not taken the necessary steps to make it fully available and treat it as a legitimate therapeutic drug. The Greens will support this bill because it goes some small way to implementing a number of the recommendations from the review of the medicinal cannabis scheme that was undertaken by Professor John McMillan in 2019. But what the government has failed to address is the spotlight that has been shone on the government's current scheme by this parliament, which has suggested a number of very clear reforms that the government is refusing to implement.

The Senate Community Affairs Committee's inquiry into the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia reported in March last year, almost a year ago. During that inquiry the parliament heard from patients across the country who are unable to access the medicinal cannabis treatments they need due to regulatory barriers and enormous cost. Cost is a hugely prohibitive factor for patients needing access to medicinal cannabis; they just can't afford it. Although the government has said, 'Look, we accept that it has therapeutic benefits and we will allow it to be placed on the register,' the cost is still so high that the people who need it just can't get it. It is completely unacceptable that people can be out of pocket thousands of dollars when trying to access legal medicinal cannabis products through a regulated system when the black market is far cheaper. Imagine if this were being done with respect to any other drug that the government had approved—a different drug that treats cancer or some other condition. If the government deliberately kept the cost of that drug so high, knowing that people would instead go onto the black market, there would be outrage. It would be a scandal. But that's what they're doing with medicinal cannabis.

The complexities in the system mean that, as the Senate committee heard, doctors are turning patients away because of the complexities of prescribing medicinal cannabis and their lack of knowledge. The parliament was told that last year when the Senate inquiry reported, but nothing has progressed to improve patient access to medicinal cannabis since the Senate inquiry reported. Despite it being almost 12 months, we still haven't seen the government's response to the report. The government hasn't even responded to that report. The committee said 12 months ago, 'The situation is so dire that, if it doesn't improve enough in 12 months, the government should consider establishing an independent regulator of medicinal cannabis.'

So we have the experts, the public and the majority of the Senate committee itself saying: 'We need to take action. We need to set up an independent regulator if you don't improve access. It is too expensive. It is too complex. People aren't getting these drugs that you've supposedly given the tick to but are basically keeping in a locked box so that people have no option other than to go onto the black market.' The government have been told, 'You need to fix the problem,' and they're not doing it. As a result, people are suffering. The system at the moment is broken, and it's the patients who are paying the price.

If medicinal cannabis works, as the government has admitted it does, it should make it available to people. You can't say, 'Yes, we accept that it works,' and then force people to spend thousands of dollars or go onto the black market. I repeat: imagine if you were doing that with any other drug that addressed cancer—if you said, 'We know this drug works, but we're going to force you to go onto the black market by keeping the price high and the system so complex.' That is what the government is doing, and it is causing pain. It is causing unnecessary pain.

We'll speak further on this when this bill reaches the Senate. Our health spokesperson, Senator Siewert, will address this in more detail. But one thing is crystal clear: although this bill could be supported for going some small way, what the government really needs to do is implement all of the recommendations of the Senate inquiry. Then we will ensure that everyone in this country has access to the medicinal cannabis that they need and doesn't have to go onto the black market.

Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (17:28): I'm happy to speak on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021, but I note the member for Lyons's comments earlier. He raised a hypothetical and wondered how, if Labor had put this bill before the House back in 2013, the coalition would have received it. I was thinking that I would hope, and I would be sure, that the coalition would have taken a bipartisan approach to this, because I'm sure that we have all, in our other lives, come across people who have been in desperate need of medicinal cannabis—people who have children with cerebral palsy or epilepsy or know somebody who has been injured or has a chronic illness and who, since 2016, has been assisted by the introduction of the legislation allowing medicinal cannabis. So, if the member for Lyons is listening, I say to him: I understand some of your frustration as to the rollout and the extent that this bill goes to, but I am pleased to speak to it, because it does several things that will make life easier for those who are in need of this quite often life-changing medicinal cannabis.

In short, the recommendations are, firstly, to streamline the licensing structure in the act into a single licence, replacing the current three-licence structure, to reduce the regulatory burden for industry participants undertaking cultivation, production, manufacture and research; secondly, to create a perpetual licence and periodic permit structure to support the long-term nature of business investment decisions; and, thirdly, to reaffirm the government's commitment to patient availability of medicinal cannabis. What does that mean in the real world? What does that mean to the layperson, the person who is on the waiting list and the person trying to get medicinal cannabis through a doctor? It means certainty. It creates certainty for investors, it creates certainty for the agriculture industry or the growers and, most importantly, it creates certainty for the patient. They are all as important as each other and all are reliant on each other.

At a time when this government is talking about sovereignty in manufacturing and moving into manufacturing it is the perfect time to provide that certainty. It's the perfect time to say to a startup, 'We're reducing the red tape.' It's saying to someone who is going to invest in these types of businesses, 'We're cutting the red tape so you have certainty in what you're investing in.' It's also saying to those who rely on medicinal cannabis now: 'It will be there. The supply chain will be there in the future.' It gives confidence to investors and confidence to startups. There will be confidence in the supply and in the longevity and future of this industry, which could be not only nationwide but international. We could lead that international industry.

These small changes do a few things, but these are the two most important things. Certainty of supply means that people don't have to look elsewhere. I saw that firsthand prior to 2016. In my previous life I acted as a lawyer for a man who had never been in trouble. He was pulled over by the police and he had a bag of cannabis in his car. He was a farmer. He had been involved in a tractor rollover accident and had chronic pain. He had been addicted to the opioids he took to get over the pain. He made the decision that they didn't work and were not beneficial for his health. Somebody showed him how to make cannabis cookies. He said he would take only half a cookie at night because it did what it needed to do. It wasn't making him high and putting him into a different atmosphere; it was getting rid of the pain.

He told the police that that was what it was for, but he was still charged and put before the court. I'll give you insight into his character. He was so honest that the next day he took to the police station the cookies he already had and said: 'I'm telling you the truth. Here are the cookies.' Unfortunately, he then found himself on the other side of the charge desk. Even though the legislation hadn't come in, the magistrate understood the need for, and the importance of, medicinal cannabis. It was so pleasing back in 2016, when I was a defence lawyer, to see that the government recognised that as well. So that's one of the issues and the red tape that has been cleared that will allow the certainty of supply and the certainty for the consumer or the patient.

The other issue—and this is, again, a personal story—is a family who had a young child with cerebral palsy who would have severe epileptic fits every single day. Once this legislation was passed, it changed everything not just for that child but for that family in not having to see their child go through those fits hour after hour, day after day. By removing this red tape and creating that certainty, it alleviates any fear, any worry, that those families have—and those families are across Australia.

I hear the member for Melbourne's comments that some are still unable to access it. There is still work to do. But these few amendments go some way to abolishing the red tape and some way to being able to provide that service, provide that medicinal cannabis and provide that need for those people who have chronic pain or who need this to just get through life. I commend it to the House.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:36): I rise to speak on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 and I rise to support this bill. This bill aims to cut red tape and reduce the regulatory burden for those who grow, produce, manufacture and conduct research regarding medicinal cannabis. It implements in part recommendations made by Professor John McMillan in the final report on Australia's medicinal cannabis regulatory framework under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, which was tabled way back on 5 September 2019.

If this bill passes—and I am hopeful it will—these businesses will face less duplication and require a single, ongoing medicinal cannabis licence. Permits required for day-to-day operations will ensure continued, proportionate and appropriate oversight of the industry. This change will assist businesses by streamlining and simplifying regulatory arrangements. Most importantly, it may indirectly help to reduce some of the costs which remain a barrier to access for some patients—in fact, many patients. These are people who need access to medicinal cannabis products to help manage chronic pain conditions such as multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and nausea induced by chemotherapy, and those who are, sadly, in palliative care settings.

What we know at the moment is that for many people the only things that are affordable are highly addictive opioids. They are on the PBS, with horrific side effects for many and, as I said, highly addictive. Cost is an important issue for some of my constituents who have written to me and who I have met with, because they cannot always afford medicinal cannabis products. One lovely gentleman that I sat down with advises me that these products help him to live with the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, which he was diagnosed with around a decade ago. When he has medicinal cannabis he is still able to work, but he can only take around one-third of what he needs and what is prescribed to him. That costs around $200 a week, around $800 a month or $10,000 a year as a participant in the NDIS. He can only afford a third of it and so he's not getting the true benefit simply because of cost. That is why this must be on the PBS.

I have also heard from constituents who are loving grandparents advocating for their granddaughter to have her medicinal cannabis, CBD, subsidised by the PBS so the family can afford treatment for her seizures. The little girl's name is Evelyn, the same as my daughter, and she is only four years old. She should be able to enjoy preschool without being disrupted by an upsetting seizure almost every day. Her grandparents tell me that these seizures have occurred at a remarkably lesser rate since Evelyn was prescribed medicinal cannabis oil. They have reduced to once every few months with this treatment. This is extraordinary. But purchasing the oil costs her parents around $180 every 10 days, or approximately $6½ thousand every year. This represents a huge cost burden for this family—and for any family in that situation. This is compounded by the need to care for Evelyn at home, at times, for health reasons.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee considered putting medicinal cannabis on the PBS back in August last year, particularly products for use in such things as the treatment of paediatric epilepsy. The PBAC deferred its decision, to seek further clarity on the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and financial implications. While we all respect that the PBS sits well outside of this place and the responsibilities of the minister, we know that so many Australians are prohibited from having really life-changing health outcomes without this being on the PBS. I know that so many people are very hopeful that this can be on the PBS soon.

Sadly, my constituents are not alone in their hope or, indeed, their experiences. There was the recent Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry, which reported last March on the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia. The committee's recommendations included education and public awareness to reduce stigma associated with the use of medicinal cannabis; better resources for patients; training for health professionals; compassionate pricing models or subsidies charged through the PBS; and other changes.

I am therefore pleased to see that the government is taking a step towards better supporting an innovative Australian medical cannabis industry by amending and streamlining the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. I reiterate my support for this bill and I also encourage further work to implement last year's Senate committee recommendations in order to further improve safe and appropriate access and regulated patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia.

Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (17:42): The Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 is relevant to Moncrieff on the Gold Coast not just because of the importance of the pharmaceutical needs of Australians but also because we have a medicinal cannabis facility operating at Southport in my electorate. It's called the THC Global Group. The health minister visited Moncrieff back in late August in 2019 and we toured that facility. Indeed, we opened that facility. It was great to have the health minister on the Gold Coast at that time.

The medicinal cannabis industry can grow in Australia—that pun was intended; I can see you smiling, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie! The industry can achieve better availability of important medicines for patients in Australia. A few statistics: as of 31 December 2020, 151 licences to cultivate, produce or manufacture medicinal cannabis in Australia have been granted since October 2016, 138 of which are currently in effect. Of the licences currently in force, there are 58 licences for cultivation of cannabis for medicinal use, 28 for cultivation for research and 52 for manufacture of medicinal cannabis products.

As I said, in August 2019 the health minister visited THC Global to listen to their industry insights. I welcome their continued success and, of course, the improved regulation of the sector that will be achieved by this bill. There were also the jobs that were delivered by the opening of that plant.

This bill makes a number of amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, otherwise known as the ND Act. The Morrison government is delivering in response to the final report of the McMillan review, by Professor John McMillan AO, into the regulation of medicinal cannabis. The government's approach, as it is in other portfolios, is to maintain the good outcomes which the Australian community expects from regulation, whilst minimising the burden that regulations place on business and other organisations.

The government is implementing a second stage of reforms with this bill which will achieve a more efficient licensing structure in the ND Act, with one licence type rather than three. This is so that industry participants can undertake cultivation, production, manufacture and research under a single licence type. So it's cutting red tape. The long-term nature of business investment decisions in this area will be recognised with greater certainty in a licensing system. The bill will create a perpetual licence and periodic permit structure for the majority of activities for which a medicinal cannabis licence is required. Appropriate regulatory oversight, of course, will be maintained.

The Morrison government is committed to availability of a safe, legal and sustainable supply of cannabis derived medicines to patients. That's good news for Australians who need to access those medicines. To achieve that, the Department of Health needs suitable flexibility in administering this legislation, and unnecessary regulations must be removed. This is the kind of reform that makes Australia a better place to live and a better place to do business.

One of the efficiencies introduced in this bill is ensuring that risk assessments are timed right to avoid repetitive processes. Again, this is cutting red tape. Minor amendments to the ND Act will address issues identified through the administration of the scheme and the process of implementation of the recommendations, as I said earlier, of the McMillan review. Other recommendations from the McMillan review are also being implemented administratively and through business process reforms by the Department of Health. This includes reviewing and reforming medicinal cannabis permits issued under the ND Act, which can be done without legislative amendment. The medicinal cannabis industry also supports these changes, as recommended by the McMillan review.

I will just give some background on this bill. The Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 makes provision in relation to narcotic drugs in accordance with Australia's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. In 2016, the act was amended to provide a framework for regulating cannabis cultivation, production, manufacture and research, with the ultimate aim of providing Australian patients with access to cannabis for therapeutic purposes. This is really important to a lot of Australians out there who may be suffering from pain.

Those amendments included a requirement for a review of the operation of the medicinal cannabis scheme after two years, and Minister Hunt appointed Professor John McMillan AO to conduct this review, on which he reported in 2019. The review made 26 recommendations, and some of those recommendations were implemented in stage 1 revisions to the Narcotic Drugs Regulation 2016. These amendments are part of stage 2 of adopting these recommendations.

The key change is the adoption of, as I said, a single and perpetual licence. The experience in the first years of the scheme has been that the requirement to have three separate licences to operate an integrated business has created unnecessary duplication. That was outlined to Minister Hunt and me when we visited THC Global Group back in 2019. This is both for industry and for government. While this would have worked well in a highly specialised industry, in reality most cannabis operators are integrated and involved in multiple licence areas.

Some of the recommendations will also be implemented in an alternative way through further changes to the regulation and administrative practice. For example, the recommendation relating to notified variations will be resolved by making the permit simpler and thus reducing the requirement for variations.

Finally, the bill makes a variety of technical and minor amendments to ensure that the administration of the act will be practical. Through the drafting process, some issues with the provisions which were not covered by the review were also identified and some of these will be addressed in the act. Some further issues will be addressed in the regulations themselves.

So the purpose of this bill is to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, to implement a number of these recommendations. The amendments will take effect on a date to be set by proclamation, but no longer than six months after royal assent. A delay in commencement is required to make the necessary changes to the Narcotic Drugs Regulation 2016 and to prepare administratively for the new framework.

The current plan is for commencement on 1 July this year. However, if passage of this bill is delayed until later, the ability to delay commencement will allow another date to be set. As licences run from various times there's no critical requirement for commencement to occur from the start of the financial or calendar year. It's not anticipated that the full six months would be required, and if 1 July is not feasible then another date will be determined at that time. The main change is to adopt, as I said, one single licence—this government is all about cutting red tape—which will make it easier for those in business. There are also some measures which implement other review recommendations as well as some minor amendments to ensure that the framework operates effectively and efficiently.

A question from the Australian public might be: will the changes make it easier for patients to get access to cannabis? At a Commonwealth level, patient access is regulated primarily through the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, whereas the Narcotic Drugs Act regulates the source material that can be used in medicinal cannabis products. The changes in this bill will streamline and reduce regulatory burden on licences, which will improve the supply of source material. The single licence framework will replace what is currently there, which is three licences under that act. I can't stress enough how that will make it easier for medicinal cannabis producers to do business in this country. It will basically take away the duplication process for them and make it easier not just for them to do business but for patients to access their products.

I'd like to explain a little bit more about the perpetual licence and what that is. Currently a licence is granted for a fixed period of time, combined with the periods of time required to set up and commence an operation. This has led to the need for licences to be extended even before operations have begun. Reflecting that the licence is more about the suitability of a licence holder and their arrangements and that actual day-to-day activities are controlled by permits, a licence will be granted on a perpetual basis except for particular research licences. Instead of examining whether a licence holder is still suitable to hold a licence at a renewable stage, a continual monitoring and audit process will identify any issues. If necessary, compliance action, including the suspension or revocation of that licence, will be taken. It should be noted, however, that licences that authorise non-commercial research will be time limited.

You might ask what changes will be made to possible supply pathways for manufactured cannabis drugs. Under the revised approach to permitted supplies for manufactured cannabis drugs, such drugs will now be supplied for research other than a clinical trial. That, again, is good news for Australians who may be suffering from pain, and these products will assist them. Licensees will be able to more readily access testing services, reference standards may be developed and supplied, and scientific research which does not involve administration to humans may now be conducted, which is great. However, as per the current legislation, supply to pharmacists for compounding or supply under Special Access Scheme A and supply for therapeutic veterinary use is not permitted.

Just to finish, I will answer the question as to whether cannabis will now be supplied for scientific research. Licensees will now be authorised to supply medicinal cannabis for research purposes such as for reference standards and other research activities where cannabis is not administered to humans. This will reduce the reliance on imported cannabis which is currently being used for these purposes. I support this amendment bill and I commend it to the House.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:54): I want to talk about the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 in human terms, with the experience of one family in my electorate as an example. Stephen Taylor has two daughters now in their 20s, Morgan and Ariel, who both suffer from the chronic autoimmune condition Crohn's disease. Mr Taylor and his wife, Karen, spent many years watching their suffering, before he made the decision to grow cannabis in his backyard to help his daughters.

The sisters had been repeatedly hospitalised with Crohn's disease. They had serious side effects from the pharmaceutical drugs. Ariel had her colon removed, and Morgan had a stoma bag attached to her small intestine at the time of the court case—he did grow the cannabis, and he did get charged. He entered a not guilty plea and, without spoiling the end to the story, I want to say that he was given a good behaviour bond and didn't face any jail time. But the point is that he could have, and he spent many, many months, and his family—I had discussions with his daughter Morgan about it—were in absolute horror at what the consequences might have been, when he was doing something that was in the medical best interests of his daughters. When he was defending the case he said: 'I honestly believe it's our human right. It's proven worldwide, and there are so many other families who are hoping to access cannabis. That's what we're fighting for. We will get to the truth behind it.'

Stephen and his wife had started researching the uses of medicinal cannabis when they couldn't find a doctor willing to take on the extensive TGA process to legally access medicinal cannabis. They both saw this as the only thing they could do, and they chose juicing because it is associated with greater access to the healing cannabinoids than more common forms of medicating. So it was done by looking at the best research they could get their hands on. They also saw really terrific effects on their daughters, and they continued using it.

I tell that story because it is just an example of what many families go through in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. They still don't feel it's something that is necessarily widely understood or accepted, because there is still such a stigma around people accessing cannabis. It shouldn't be hard. This should be like any other medicine, used for its therapeutic purpose in the form that works best. But unfortunately this legislation does very little to increase access, which is why I support the amendment moved by the shadow health minister, Mark Butler, to highlight our concerns about the slow pace at which this government is moving on something so fundamental—in Mr Taylor's words, a human right to access a medication that can alleviate symptoms.

I first got to understand how medicinal cannabis works thanks to another constituent in my electorate, who happens to be one of the leading experts working at the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics at Sydney university, Professor Iain McGregor. I was privileged to be able to work with the Lambert institute team when they were just establishing, a few years ago, thanks to a very generous legacy that they were given by the Lambert family. Professor Iain McGregor estimates that as many as 100,000 people in the country may be using illegal cannabis for medical problems because it is so hard to access legally. He describes a massive discrepancy between what Australians are doing covertly and the overt approved system.

I was on a Zoom with a group of people a couple of weeks ago. The words that were said about this issue several years ago still apply today. Cannabis is still very difficult to access. I want to go through some of the things that are proving problematic. Professor McGregor makes it very clear that juicing cannabis gives a very different cannabinoid profile than smoking cannabis. There might be some people who still don't quite see the difference. One is administering, often as a liquid, for medicinal purpose, as opposed to recreational use, and of course this legislation is not about that. We are talking about this in the context of medicinal cannabis. The science behind it, as Professor McGregor says, is that juicing is a positive thing to do, because you don't get nearly as much of the intoxicating element, which is the THC, and you get another component of the cannabinoid, which is the THCA, which has very strong anti-inflammatory properties in the gut. I don't think anyone should be in any doubt as to the variety of medicinal effects that medicinal cannabis can have. There is ongoing research, and I would absolutely hold the view that we need to keep researching and keep investing in research so that we continue to understand the what and where of how this can best alleviate pain and discomfort—and we're talking for people whom, often, nothing else will help.

Since 2016, when we first had a framework around medicinal cannabis, industry members have said that they have encountered a number of challenges with the licence and permit scheme. Only a very small part of that issue is addressed here today, with the single licence for production. There are organisations still who have had applications pending for years—some for more than two years—and industry members have reported delays, inconsistencies and an overall lack of transparency in the process. So they're the big systemic issues, and they have made it much harder and, more importantly, more expensive and riskier for Australian companies to cultivate and manufacture medicinal cannabis. These issues have delayed the widespread availability of an affordable Australian-made product.

If this legislation takes a tiny step towards making it more accessible and more affordable to grow and produce, that's a good thing, but there are so many other elements that need to be fixed. Fixing the licensing issues, by making it easier for companies to operate, should ultimately translate into a higher-quality and lower-cost medicine for Australian patients. But that doesn't mean that patients will be easily able to access it. At this stage, until products are approved, there's the Special Access Scheme—I think it's called the Special Access Scheme because you have to be pretty special to be able to work your way through it, for a start. It's described as being for, I think, exceptional circumstances, and all approved options have to be exhausted before doctors can even apply for access to the product.

The powerful words that have been used when there have been hearings and reports on this come from a mother—from Lucy Haslam, the director and co-founder of United in Compassion. Her experience is a lived experience; it comes from the experience of her son Dan. She talks about things that we all know:

The process is too protracted, the products are shrouded in mystery, doctors can't advertise they're prepared to prescribe and patients still find it easier to go to the black market.

That is not something that any of us here would be wanting to see happen, so to put things in place to make that not the case is absolutely vital. Her criticism of the government is that it does talk big about this being a potential export industry, saying that we could be potentially one of the biggest exporters, but you have to make it so that your own patients in Australia can have an easy path to access it. We shouldn't make it easier to export it than to allow access to it here.

The issue around access is really—and I think we are seeing it in this bill—the government dragging its feet on it. I would certainly like to see it made much easier. It is disturbing when you talk to people working in this area and they tell you that the illicit market is booming and that patients are still being locked up because they can't afford to access it or can't achieve legal status to access it. There is a view that some specialist clinics are essentially extorting patients, because they have made a business out of doing the applications that most GPs are not necessarily equipped to do or find very challenging to do in the time they have available. That won't be the case with every GP, but it is certainly a specialist area. Until GPs are given the support they need to be able to go through the process, it is a complex route, and supply to patients through the legal route is inconsistent. As Lucy Haslam says, she is fairly certain that, were it any other medication, it would be immediately addressed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration at the behest of the government.

There is another group of people for whom this can be a really useful medicine, and that is veterans who are suffering PTSD. Lucy Haslam made the point in the United in Compassion submission that she is still contacted by veterans who cannot got DVA to cover the cost of legally prescribed cannabis where it's prescribed for PTSD. DVA will sometimes fund it, if it's prescribed for pain, but not for PTSD. This is a very narrow way of thinking what a medicine is for and what it is not for. The consequence of that is that veterans are being charged with illicit use or, worse still, with criminal convictions for doing what they have to do. They are doing what they have to do to try and deal with the consequences of what they experienced in their service to this country. The very least we can do is ensure a legal pathway for the alleviation of their symptoms where medicinal cannabis is effective for that.

There is another group, and I don't think I'm the only one who has had contact with them—that is, the parents of children with epilepsy. There are so many stories and examples of young children, particularly those with intractable forms of epilepsy, who actually rely on a friendly market supplier because the hospital system just doesn't know how to fund and access the product, other than a very few deals that have been done. It isn't one-size-fits-all.

The work of the Lambert institute is so important in identifying the different forms that medicinal cannabis can take. It's really looking at the quantities, the type, the method of administration—all of those sorts of things we're building a body of research up about—but we need that to be reflected in the legislation that we pass here. And we need access to be made easy so that, as science develops, people don't have to come back to us for additional legislative support. We need something that is forward-thinking in the way that it looks at things so that over time, as we learn more about medicinal cannabis, we know that patients' needs can be met.

At the end of the day, the problem that I see with this bill is that it doesn't address directly these issues of patient access or even of some of the stakeholders who are involved in that process. I was hoping we would see a bill that would make it easier for patients to access it. For those who have advocated for this—those who, like Mr Taylor, have spoken out about their family circumstances, have revealed really private, personal details about what they have experienced, who have actually been willing to be out there and be test cases in the courts on this stuff—you would really hope that we could do better by them than just a few administrative things. It is time to do something comprehensive. I know I am probably asking a lot from those opposite, but it's time for some forward-looking vision. I don't see a lot of that from them, but surely this is one occasion where we can really put the needs of patients ahead our ability to be able to say, 'We've got rid of a bit of red tape.' Let's not just get rid of a tiny bit of red tape. Let's make it so that people who need this medicine can access it when they need it without jumping through a million hoops, without having to turn to the black market, without having to grow it themselves and put their families at risk.

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (18:08): I acknowledge all of the contributions that were made in this House today on this debate, and I offer a local contribution. I have in my electorate a gentleman in his late 70s who is suffering from Parkinson's disease. He's highly intelligent. Now, there are many forms of intelligence. On the academic intelligence side, he is extremely well read. He is held in high regard. He does an enormous amount of work for universities. He has a special interest in logistics with Defence. Unfortunately, whilst his mind is sharp, his body is failing him in the way of this degenerative disease. The shaking, which is a symptom of Parkinson's disease, is off-putting to the point he tends to become more recluse. We have the fortune of hearing him through the telephone. One of the previous speakers mentioned the black market. He may or may not get access to some medicinal cannabis, but you can see within an hour a marked improvement.

I would have been one of the first spear-chuckers to defend the medical fraternity in this space and to make sure we go through the appropriate trials, and we will. Deputy Speaker Gillespie knows full well what some of those concerns are. But, as far as the government are concerned, we do want to reduce the red tape to allow people to progress. Part of that are the people who are going to make capital investments in this area. I suggest to the people who have made a contribution to this debate that some of those investments will be to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars to advance the medicinal cannabis sector. All strength to their arm. I appreciate the support that has come from the other side of the chamber.

The Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 amends the Narcotic Drugs Act to support and innovate the Australian medicinal cannabis industry for the benefit of Australians and patients by implementing three specific factors. The first measure is reducing the burden of regulation and the licensing assessment process, which is very important, by providing a single medicinal cannabis licence to replace the current suite of licences required for cultivation, production, manufacturing and research. Those will be bundled and replaced with one licence. The second measure is providing greater certainty to businesses and reducing duplicate processes by providing for the single licence to be permanent rather than recurring. The third measure is reaffirming the Australian government's commitment to patients of a safe, legal and sustainable supply of cannabis derived medicines, which will be in either liquid form or capsule form.

These changes maintain the careful balance the act strikes between facilitating cultivation, production and manufacturing of medicinal cannabis and implementing Australia's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to safeguard against illegal practices and to provide for safe and sustainable pathways for patients to access medicinal cannabis therapies. I thank the members for their contributions to this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hindmarsh has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (18:13): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (18:14): The Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020 is based on an initiative of the former Labor government called the Clearer Laws Project. The purpose of that project was to simplify and streamline the Commonwealth's statute books to make it easier for individuals and businesses to access and understand the law. Another key objective of the standardisation project that we commenced when last in government was to reduce the compliance burden for individuals and businesses subject to multiple regulatory regimes by reducing unnecessary differences in equivalent provisions of multiple Commonwealth acts.

The Clearer Laws Project was given effect in legislation prepared and introduced by Labor in 2012 and was finally passed in 2014 in legislation called the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act. The fact that this Labor project was passed by a government that was notoriously hostile to just about everything Labor sought to achieve, even if they now claim it as their own, says a lot about just how worthy and beneficial this project has been.

Under this regime, the standardised powers set out in the 2014 act are only available to a regulatory agency if their governing legislation expressly engages those powers in whole or in part. That's what this bill achieves, by amending the following six Commonwealth acts to apply the standardised regulatory provisions: the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 and the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011.

When the 2014 act was introduced, Labor noted that, while there are clear benefits in standardising regulatory regimes across the Commonwealth statute book, not all of the standardised regulatory powers set out in the bill are required for all regimes. And there are other Commonwealth agencies with specialised roles, such as ASIO, which will not use the standardised regime, because of their need for specialised powers unique to their particular roles.

Given the importance of ensuring that regulatory regimes under any given act are fit for purpose and that no unintended adverse consequences arise from the replacement of the specific regime in the relevant act with the standardised regime, this bill was rightly the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It was through that inquiry that some problems with this bill came to light. The Law Council raised a particular concern about the manner in which schedule 1 of the present bill extends the circumstances for which the monitoring provisions of the standardised regime may be exercised in relation to 'other matters to which an act or legislative instrument relates'. The Law Council suggested that the term 'other matters' is too broadly worded and that this could lead to significantly broadening the scope of standardised regulatory monitoring powers. We endorse these suggestions of the Law Council in this regard and restate the view of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the government should clearly define which 'matters' are subject to the powers in triggering acts so as to ensure that there is certainty regarding their scope and application. These concerns were acknowledged by the committee, which, while declining to make a specific recommendation, said that it 'encourages the government to clearly define … matters … the subject of these powers in triggering acts to ensure that there is certainty in their scope and application'.

Labor endorses that statement and the Law Council's recommendations that the government provide a greater degree of transparency and clarity around any amendments to the standard provisions of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. This is particularly important because any change to the 2014 act impacts all the subordinate regimes that engage that standardised regime.

I also note that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills sought further information from the Attorney-General in relation to a number of aspects of this bill, including the issue I have just discussed. These questions included, firstly, the justification for expanding the application of the monitoring powers in the Regulatory Powers (Standing Provisions) Act 2014 to allow them to be exercised in relation to 'a matter'; secondly, the justification for the proposed amendment to section 93 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to provide that the offence will be a strict liability offence with reference to the principles set out in the Guide to framing Commonwealth offences; thirdly, the training, qualifications or experience of the various authorised officers who are authorised to use force against things under the bill; fourthly, why it is necessary to confer powers to use force against things on any other person to assist an authorised person; fifthly, whether the bill can be amended to require that all persons authorised to use force must have appropriate expertise and training; sixthly, why it is considered necessary and appropriate to allow any other person to assist an authorised person in exercising monitoring and investigatory powers; and, seventhly, whether the bill can be amended to require that any person assisting an authorised person have the expertise appropriate to the function or power being carried out.

Despite this bill being scheduled for debate last week, I note that at the time the committee finalised its report last week the Attorney-General had not provided a response to these questions. For the reasons I have discussed, Labor is concerned at the potential for the changes to the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 made by schedule 1 of this bill to extend the scope of regulatory powers under Commonwealth legislation in a manner that appears to be unnecessary in scope and uncertain in effect. In doing so, this bill has the potential to work against a key purpose of the standardisation regime, which is to harmonise and simplify Commonwealth laws and thereby reduce the regulatory burden imposed by those laws. As I have said, the aim of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 is to harmonise Commonwealth regulatory regimes and, in so doing, to provide greater clarity for agencies that utilise regulatory powers and greater clarity to Australians and Australian businesses that are the subject of those regimes.

Other than the concerns I have expressed today regarding the need for better justification and clarity regarding some of the changes to the standardised regime made by schedule 1 of the current bill and the need for the government to respond to these concerns, Labor supports the process of regulatory standardisation under the 2014 act and we support the changes to the six acts made by this bill as appropriate to that purpose.

I commend this bill to the House and I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:

(1) ensure that:

(a) there is certainty around the scope and application of the standardised regime set out in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, particularly with respect to the changes that Schedule 1 of this bill makes to that Act;

(b) any future changes to the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 are carried out following appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders, are drafted so as to ensure certainty regarding their scope and application, and are properly justified by the Government in the explanatory memorandum to any future bill; and

(c) all Commonwealth regulations are fit for purpose and that all Commonwealth regulators are properly resourced; and

(2) monitor the impact of the changes to the regulatory regimes affected by this bill to ensure there are no adverse unintended consequences".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Collins: It is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak, Speaker.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:24): I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020. When it comes to legislation, it doesn't get much better than this. I'll give a general warning to anybody who may be watching or listening to this: you should probably pull over to the side of the road, lest you fall asleep. There's the general warning!

This is not what you would call the most exciting piece of legislation, but it's an important piece of legislation nonetheless, and I don't want to diminish it. There are some very important aspects of this. The Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act provides for a standard suite of provisions in relation to monitoring and investigation powers as well as enforcement provisions through the use of civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. These provisions are designed to simplify and streamline regulatory powers across the Commonwealth statute book, and they represent best-practice legislation. The Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act commenced on 1 October 2014. It only has effect where Commonwealth acts are drafted or amended to trigger its provisions. This standardisation project is the second of its kind. It follows the Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Act 2017, which amended 15 Commonwealth acts to repeal existing provisions providing for regulatory regimes in those acts and instead trigger the standard provisions of the regulatory powers act. It's all very fascinating.

The bill amends the following Commonwealth acts to trigger the standard provisions: the Defence Force Discipline Act, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act, the Fisheries Management Act, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act and the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. Some of these acts contain existing regulatory regimes. This bill replaces these with the standard provisions to align the acts' regulatory regimes with the standard provisions. I note that the member for Berowra has come into the chamber. He also wants a piece of the action, to talk about this extremely important piece of legislation. The bill provides additional powers for current regulatory regimes in some acts to ensure that they are robust and align with best practice. The bill also provides some regulatory powers to acts which do not currently contain regulatory regimes but require regulatory powers to ensure a robust compliance and enforcement scheme. Modifications to the standard powers are included where necessary for effective regulation in the context of each act. The bill also makes minor amendments to the regulatory powers act to ensure that the regulatory requirements and underlying penalty and offence provisions of acts that trigger the regulatory powers act can be effectively enforced.

I want to talk a little bit about the specific acts that this bill impacts upon. The Fisheries Management Act is a very, very important piece of legislation. It's very important for my constituents and for the commercial fishers in Fisher. It's not a particularly well-known fact that the good seat of Fisher, on the glorious Sunshine Coast, is home to the largest commercial fishing fleet on the eastern seaboard of Australia for tuna and prawns. We have some absolutely fantastic local businesses in Fisher, like Walker Seafoods, which operates out of Mooloolaba. At the end of the day, what this government is all about is deregulation and making life simpler for small businesses. I get very excited when I can point to legislation—the member for Berowra is going to throw me off track here—which makes life easier for the businesses in my electorate and reduces the legislative burden upon them. This bill will do just that. The commercial fishers in the seat of Fisher, operating out of the Mooloolaba harbour, are all extremely hardworking men and women. They employ hundreds of locals. It's a tough gig to be a commercial fisherperson. I've spent a lot of time working with people at the wharf. The good people of Fisher working as fishers out of Mooloolaba will directly benefit from this revolutionary piece of legislation.

We often talk about how this place can be very hostile and about the politics of the day. I want to do a bit of a shout-out to those opposite. I'm hoping that the shadow minister at the table will look at me because I'm going to say something nice. The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act—introduced when Nicola Roxon, I think, was Attorney-General at the time—was a world-leading piece of legislation, which, as we all know, removed the branding from cigarette packets. I think that was a world first and it has made a fairly significant impact, particularly on young people's smoking rates. We all know that for many years, on both sides of politics, we have not allowed cigarette advertising on television and in newspapers. To go off on a tangent for one moment, it's my fervent hope, desire and wish that we follow the same approach to gambling as we have with cigarettes. But that's for another day.

The other act that I want to go to in relation to this bill is the Defence Force Discipline Act. The good seat of Fisher, and probably the Sunshine Coast more particularly, is home to around about 15,000 veterans. If you are going to discharge from the ADF, there's no better place to discharge to than the glorious Sunshine Coast. We have one of the largest veteran populations on the Sunshine Coast. The Defence Force Discipline Act is a very, very important piece of legislation which administers discipline to members of the ADF. Speaking of the ADF, I was very saddened to see today that the Victorian state government has cancelled Anzac Day marches. It's okay for the Victorian state government to have the Australian Open and for them to allow all sorts of demonstrations on the streets of Melbourne, but, for some absolutely bizarre reason, the Victorian state government have come out today and said that they will not allow marches on Anzac Day. Member for Berowra, you're perhaps a lot smarter than me. When you come up to the microphone, you might be able to tell us why you think that might be. I don't understand why it would be.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Order! The member for Fisher is reminded to return to the substance of the bill.

Mr WALLACE: I am speaking on one of the acts that the bill is going to trigger, in terms of the standard provisions of the regulatory powers act—the Defence Force Discipline Act. I accept that I may be straying just a little. The measures represent the second coordinated tranche, as I've said, of amendments to Commonwealth acts to trigger the operation of the regulatory powers act. Schedule 2 will make minor amendments to the regulatory powers act to ensure that the regulatory requirements and underlying penalty and offence provisions of acts that trigger the regulatory powers act can be effectively enforced. Those amendments would enable the use of monitoring powers in relation to matters, rather than only in relation to a provision—I am directly on point here—or information given in compliance with a provision, and update the description of offence provisions and the description of provisions relating to infringement notices which might apply to contravention of both a civil penalty and criminal offence provision to ensure consistency throughout the regulatory powers act and to respond to recent drafting practices.

Now—I'm sorry, that was schedule 1. Schedule 2 is in relation to the Defence Force Discipline Act. The Defence Force Discipline Act creates a system for the enforcement and maintenance of good order and discipline in the Australian Defence Force. The Defence Force Discipline Act also serves to ensure the effectiveness, efficiency and morale of the ADF, and consequently the defence of the nation and public confidence. The DFDA does this through creating a discipline system, which includes a disciplinary offence code—sometimes referred to as service offences. All ADF members are subject to the DFDA in certain situations. A specified category of civilian persons, defence civilians and prisoners of war are also subject to the DFDA. The DFDA currently establishes a framework that allows for the investigation of service offences under the DFDA. The framework includes extensive investigation powers that are appropriate and necessary within a military context. However, the exercise of many of these powers is confined to service land. This application limits the practical scope of the existing investigation powers. Further, many of the investigation powers themselves have not changed to take account of the evolving nature of military life and offending.

Schedule 2 amends the DFDA to trigger the investigation provisions in part 3 of the regulatory powers act, to enable investigation of alleged service offences on premises which are not service land—that is, civilian premises and public places. Triggering part 3 of the regulatory powers act provides a supplementary suite of investigation powers to those currently available under part 6 of the DFDA that are more appropriate for application on non-service land. The availability of investigation powers that can be used on civilian premises and in public places is necessary, as service offences and the evidence required to investigate those offences—bank statements, real estate records, CCTV footage and other things—may not be located on service land. The amendments in schedule 2 are necessary in order to ensure that evidential material can be obtained, wherever it is located, either with the consent of the occupier of the premises or the owner of the thing, or by executing a warrant.

I'm going to allow my learned friend to jump up shortly and speak to some of the other acts that this bill will impact upon. But I am very proud to stand here today in support of this bill, particularly because it will not just assist in the proper and effective discipline of those serving in the ADF; it will also help people like my fisherpeople—fishermen and fisherwomen operating in Fisher, out of fishing boats on the Sunshine Coast. This government is all about reducing regulatory red tape, and this bill does exactly that. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (18:38): It is such a privilege to follow my friend the member for Fisher, who is a veritable Demosthenes in this House. Demosthenes, of course, was a famous Greek statesman who was known for his eloquence and his ability to go and proclaim by the sea with his mouth filled with marbles. His eloquence went right through the ages, such that the only person in the ancient world that rivalled him in relation to his eloquence was Cicero himself. So it is always a humbling privilege to follow my friend the member for Fisher.

Let me say, though, on the member for Fisher's comments on the Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020, that I wanted to address a couple of things. He has demonstrated that he is at times the wowser-in-chief in this place. He demonstrated he is against tobacco and gambling. I'm pleased he was for Anzac Day—he underscored this fact—because I may well have referred to him as un-Australian had he not been for Anzac Day in his comments.

But, like the member for Fisher, I am delighted to speak on this bill. We do pass lots of bills like this in this place that are effectively machinery bills that are engaged in the tightening up of statutes that deal with regulatory reform and that to many people seem quite technical and not a subject that would excite members to get up and volunteer to speak. But I was excited when I saw this bill because I believe in red tape reduction. I believe in regulatory reform. I'm proud that I'm part of a government that is pursuing such reforms and has done so since it was elected in 2013.

This is an important piece of legislation because, if you've ever engaged in a regulated industry or an industry that's heavily regulated, whether it's the university sector, fisheries, products like tobacco or the telecommunications sector, you will know that the level of regulatory compliance that you need to deal with is a real issue. And so it is good to have a regime where those regulations are standardised and where the powers of the regulator are clear. Where that standardisation across a range of different fields means acts sometimes intersect with other—like, in the case of this bill, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act—it is good to have legislation that is similar and that is complementary. So if you as a university administrator—and I was, before I became a member in this House, a senior executive at Australian Catholic university and somebody who did have to deal particularly which the TEQSA Act—have a situation where you are able to comply with two different pieces of legislation in a similar manner that can really be of great benefit.

I heard the member for Isaacs in his contribution say that this was originally a Labor project and that he was very pleased that we had carried on this particular project. I would say to the member for Isaacs that my experience with TEQSA during the Labor years was that they needed a piece of legislation like this because, frankly, the regulation of TEQSA had got out of control. I think it's important to provide context there. TEQSA was established during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years in response to the establishment of a demand driven university system to be a national regulator. It was exercising its powers in relation to the oversight of universities using third parties. TEQSA realised there was an issue. But rather than, as a modern and sophisticated regulator might do, going and talking to those who were affected by the regulation to get a real sense of what the issue was—and in this case the issue they were looking at was where effectively TAFEs and non-university higher education providers were being contracted by universities to teach students and this was something that they thought should come to an end—and seeing how they might address it, they sent out this blanket regulatory request of universities to basically list every single contract that they had with a third-party provider.

So you had everyone from security guards to the people who were supplying the catering to the people who were engaged in doing research work or teaching work. It was a ridiculous regulatory overreach. I think that during the time that TEQSA was doing this there came from the sector a very strong view that TEQSA had overreached and perhaps should no longer exist as a regulator. There was bit of a campaign run by Universities Australia—quite a successful campaign—to bring TEQSA to heel and clip its wings. So the fact that this piece of legislation, this project, was started under the Labor years really is in response to the regulatory overreach that has run amok in so many areas. I speak with some knowledge of the education sector. This is why a project like this needed to commence.

The importance of standardising regulations shouldn't be underestimated. Standardising procedures makes the job of administrators easier, it provides regulatory certainty and it means that the regulated have a much easier time with compliance. There are a range of different pieces of legislation that these amendments to the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 are particularly engaging with. I think it's worthwhile talking a little bit about some of those acts. There's the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 and the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011.

I'd particularly like to look at the Fisheries Management Act for a moment. Like the member for Fisher, I have commercial fishing in the electorate of Berowra, on the Hawkesbury River. Deputy Speaker Wicks, you and I share a boundary on the Hawkesbury River, and I know that you too are a supporter of the commercial fishing industry on our river. I think it is a mark of the health of the Hawkesbury that commercial fishing—the farming of oysters, prawns, squid, crayfish and crabs—can occur in the broader Hawkesbury basin. I think particularly of Gary Howard, one of the great prawn fishermen of my community, who took me out on a prawn trawler early one morning. We set off from Lower Portland at about 3.45 and came back at about 1.00, and I don't think Gary drew the breath the entire time. He is so passionate about his industry, both the regulation of his industry and the need to ensure that in an urban river like the Hawkesbury people can continue to make a living from the river, as they have done, if you take into account our Indigenous past, since time immemorial. I think it is a mark of the health of the river that people can do that. If the health of a river like the Hawkesbury is threatened because of developments that are occurring in the Hawkesbury basin more generally and you can no longer engage in fishing activities, that is a very bad thing.

This particular piece of legislation looks to standardise some of the regulations engaged by the Fisheries Management Act. The Fisheries Management Act provides the statutory framework for the regulation and management of Commonwealth fisheries. The act establishes management plans for fisheries and sets out the legislative basis for statutory fishing rights, licences and permits. The Fisheries Management Act defines the Australian fishing zone and provides for the majority of Commonwealth fisheries offences. It underpins Australia's domestic and foreign compliance work and provides enforcement powers to protect Australia's fishery resources. Currently the Fisheries Management Act provides for an infringement notice scheme of alleged contraventions of a range of sections—sections 93, 95 and 100—or a determination made under section 42 through the Fisheries Management Regulations 2019. While the Fisheries Management Regulations 2019 does not trigger the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act, the infringement notices provisions are identical to the standard provisions contained in part 5 of the regulatory powers act.

Schedule 4 of the bill that we are now discussing amends that Fisheries Management Act to trigger the infringement notice provisions contained in part 5 of the regulatory powers act. The amendments contained in schedule 4 restrict the application of the infringement notices scheme to two offences in the Fisheries Management Act and place the infringement notices scheme within the principal legislation. This will enable an AFMA—Australian Fisheries Management Authority—staff member appointed under section 83 of the Fisheries Management Act to issue an infringement notice under part 5, where they believe on reasonable grounds that an offence under subsection 93(1), which is a failure to give a return or information in relation to fish received, or subsection 95(5), which is being engaged in certain fishing without a licence or permit, has been committed. It's important for the health and ongoing survival of commercial fishing in our country that the people engaged in the industry have clarity and that the regulators in the sector have clarity. Commercial fishing, like other agriculture and aquaculture pursuits, is a particularly important industry in Australia. Australian seafood produce is known as among the cleanest in the world.

This is a consolidating piece of legislation that touches on a range of different aspects of Commonwealth regulatory activity. It's important that from time to time we pass pieces of legislation like this in order to simplify and streamline the Commonwealth's regulatory powers across the statute book, because some of those powers vary in breadth and in detail. There are inconsistencies and unnecessary duplication. I think duplication across a whole range of regimes produces results that are really unsatisfactory, and it ends up with people who are trying to run a business that is being regulated having to comply with additional forms and additional paperwork and fill out additional boxes that don't actually the provide the Commonwealth with any more important information. Indeed, if agencies worked together more, if they were able to share information more, the businesses that are trying to get on with doing their business would be able to get on with their business without the burden of red tape which is imposed by unnecessary regulation or regulations that are incongruent with each other.

This is the second time that we have put forward amendments to Commonwealth acts to trigger the operation of the regulatory powers act. This act provides for a standard suite of provisions in relation to monitoring and investigation powers as well as provisions relating to the use of civil penalties, to the use of infringement notices, to the use of enforceable undertakings and to injunctions. These are all powers the different regulators use from time to time, and the way in which those regulators use them will be different. They will be differently exercised depending on the particular philosophy of the regulator. To have a standardised set of provisions means people who are operating across a different range of industries or are in an industry that has multiple regulators will be better able to comply with that regulation.

By standardising regulatory powers across the Commonwealth, this act is intended to significantly reduce the length of legislation governing each regulatory regime. This is something that we said we would do when we came to government in 2013; we were looking at a whole range of unnecessary acts and a whole range of regulation that we were going to get rid of. I remember the now Treasurer—I think he was then what was called the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister—being responsible for 'regulation reduction day', where he brought in hundreds and hundreds of pages of regulation that we were able to remove. This bill carries on that tradition. This bill is a red tape reform bill.

By standardising regulatory powers across the Commonwealth, the act is intended to significantly reduce the length of legislation governing each regime. It's also there to provide greater clarity and consistency for those agencies that need to exercise powers with respect to multiple regulatory regimes. It's there to make it easier for businesses—and that includes businesses in my electorate and businesses right across the country—that are subject to multiple regimes to understand and comply with the law. I think, as the growth of the regulatory state continues almost unabated, it is so important that people know the law and comply with the law with relative ease. Legislation like this, which is designed and directed specifically to making compliance easier, is so vital in our modern world, so vital when the regulatory regimes that people are forced to comply with are becoming more and more complex. We as a government say, 'No, we want to make it easier; we want to standardise things.'

We want to encourage people to get on with their business, and that's what the regulatory powers act is designed to deal with. The standard provisions in the act represent best practice in regulation in relation to regulatory powers of general application. Implementing the regulatory powers act supports the government's regulatory reform agenda, as this act will streamline so much of the Commonwealth's regulation. I want to congratulate the Attorney on bringing forward this landmark piece of legislation which will make all Australians' lives easier.

Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (18:54): On listening to the member for Berowra speak, and especially when he talks about regulatory oversight over businesses, I'm reminded of a woman who used to ring in to the Jon Faine program in Melbourne. She ran a very popular cafe cum restaurant down towards Port Phillip Bay, and all of a sudden she rang up one day and said, 'I'm not going on with this business.' I thought, 'This is an unusual phone call in to the Jon Faine program,' because it was about as Left as you could be in Melbourne. He's retired now, but it was certainly worth listening to him. Apparently, there were so many regulations on this woman's business and so many imposts on where the staff could go and what they could do, and there were so many parts to the legislation on this industry, that she literally could not continue in business with the regulatory oversight and the intersections of all of these regulations coming across her business. For instance, if a kitchenhand picked up something in the restaurant and carried it out, they had to be paid a different rate from what they would have been paid had they just been there. So she closed the business and said, 'I can't do this anymore,' because the award was so complicated. What the Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020 will do, I hope, will be to streamline enormously.

I was also reminded of the number of people on our side of politics—and if I've missed any on the other side I'm sure I'll be advised about it—who I know have run a business. Just off the top of my head, I can pick the member for Grey, the member for Forrest, the member for Wright, the member for Barker, the member for Longman, the member for Hinkler, the member for Flynn, the member for Fisher, the member for Groom and, of course, myself, the member for Monash—just a few who actually know the rigours of employing people, running a business, making it work and making it profitable. These people can make a major contribution to this parliament because of their background. They've lived in the real world.

This bill amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1992; the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; the Fisheries Management Act 1991, which you've heard the two previous speakers refer to particularly; the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011; the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992; and the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011. Some of these acts contain existing regulatory regimes which the bill replaces with the standard provisions to align the acts' regulatory regimes with the standard provisions. The bill provides additional powers for current regulatory regimes in some acts to ensure they are robust and align with best practice. The bill also provides some regulatory powers for acts which do not currently contain regulatory regimes but require regulatory powers to ensure a robust compliance and enforcement scheme. Modifications to the standard powers are included where necessary for effective regulation in the context of each act. The bill also makes minor amendments to the regulatory powers act to ensure that the regulatory requirements and the underlying penalty and offence provisions of acts that trigger the regulatory powers act can be effectively enforced.

As a general overview of this bill, the measure represents a second coordinated tranche of amendments to Commonwealth acts that trigger the operation of the regulatory powers act. The regulatory powers act provides for a standard suite of provisions in relation to monitoring and investigation powers, as well as provisions regulating the use of civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. By standardising the regulatory powers across the Commonwealth, the act intends to: (1) significantly reduce the length of legislation governing each regulatory regime; (2) provide greater clarity and consistency for agencies that need to exercise powers with respect to multiple regulatory regimes; (3) make it easier for businesses that are subject to multiple regimes to understand and comply with the law; and (4) facilitate the development of a common body of law. If we can, we should make it easier and less complicated for businesses to do business and they can understand the development of a common body of law, where everybody can get on board.

The standard provisions of the regulatory powers act represent best practice in relation to regulatory powers of general application. Implementing the regulatory powers act supports the government's regulatory reform agenda, as that act intends to simplify and streamline Commonwealth regulatory powers across the statute book that currently vary in breadth and detail, resulting in inconsistency or unnecessary duplication across regimes.

Standardisation provides the regulatory agencies with the opportunity to use more-uniform powers and increase legal certainty for businesses and individuals who are subject to those powers. The use of standard provisions ensures that the government exercises regulatory powers responsibly and with accountability so that the rights of individuals and businesses remain protected. I'll just repeat that: the use of the standard provisions ensures that the government exercises regulatory powers responsibly and with accountability so that the rights of individuals and businesses remain protected.

The Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act will make minor amendments to the regulatory powers act to ensure that the regulatory requirements and underlying penalty and offence provisions of the acts that trigger the regulatory powers act can be effectively enforced. Those amendments would (1) enable the use of monitoring powers in relation to matters rather than only in relation to a provision or information given in compliance with a provision and (2) update the prescription of offence provisions and the description of a provision relating to infringement notices which might apply to the contravention of both a civil penalty and criminal offence provision to ensure consistency throughout the regulatory powers act and respond to recent drafting practices.

As part of addressing this issue, I'd like to turn my attention to the Defence Force Discipline Act. The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 is to be amended. The measure amends the Defence Force Discipline Act to trigger the investigations provisions in part 3 of the regulatory powers act to enable investigation of alleged service offences on civilian premises and public places. Existing investigation powers under the Defence Force Discipline Act enable investigation of alleged service offences on service land, not on public or civilian premises. This measure provides a supplementary suite of investigative powers to those currently available in the Defence Force Discipline Act that are more appropriate to application on non-service land. The powers contained in this measure are necessary because evidence required in order to investigate service offences may not be located on service land. Because of the use of new technologies or innovations, they're not necessarily held on service land that needs to be investigated.

The amendments will ensure that the investigation of alleged service offences can be undertaken effectively and appropriately when they occur off Defence Force facilities, off Defence Force land and out in the community. This act amends the Defence Force Discipline Act to include the following modifications to the standard investigation provisions: (1) the power to use force against things that is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances by authorised persons and persons assisting authorised persons and (2) the ability of an authorised person to be accompanied by and make use of an animal in the course of that investigation.

So it obviously increases the opportunity and powers for those persons who are responsible for investigating such malfeasance to be able to do that off Defence Force land, which they are unable to do at the moment. So this actually gives them the opportunity and creates a system for the enforcement and maintenance of good order and discipline in the Australian Defence Force. It also serves to ensure the effectiveness, efficiency and morale of the ADF and consequently the defence of the nation as well as public confidence in the ADF. This bill does this through creating a disciplined system which includes a disciplinary offence code for service offences.

All ADF members are subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act in certain situations. A specified category of civilian persons—defence civilians—and prisoners of war are also subject to this act. This act currently establishes a framework that allows for investigation of service offences under the Defence Force Discipline Act. The framework includes extensive investigative powers that are appropriate and necessary within a military context. However, the exercise of many of these powers are confined to service land, as I said before. This application limits the practical scope of the existing investigation powers and therefore many of the investigation powers themselves have not changed to take into account the evolving nature of military life and offending. Schedule 2 of the act amends the Defence Force Discipline Act to trigger the investigation provisions in part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act to enable investigation of alleged service offences on premises which are not service land—that is, civilian premises and public places.

Triggering part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act provides a supplementary suite of investigation powers to those currently available under part 6 of the Defence Force Discipline Act that are more appropriate for application on non-service land. The availability of investigation powers that can be used on civilian premises and in public places is necessary as a service offence and the evidence required to investigate those offences, such as bank statements, real estate records, CCTV footage and other things that may not be located on service land. The amendments in schedule 2 are necessary in order to ensure that evidential material can be obtained wherever it is located, either with the consent of the occupier of the premises or the owner of the said thing, or by executing a warrant. This just brings the Defence Force Discipline Act, created in 1982, into today's real world of what needs to be addressed by the Defence Force along with all of these other regulatory issues that are bound up in this quite extensive legislation.

Of course, like for myself, in this parliament anything that streamlines government regulatory operations and which gives a greater understanding to all of us of what we need to do under the law is good. The law is in this place; the laws are made here, but it is right that we review every piece of legislation and see if we can streamline that legislation so it is easier to understand and so it is acknowledged by the people who are affected by that legislation—that doesn't matter if they're in the Defence Force, education services or fisheries management or if it's about the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, the tobacco advertising prohibition or the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. All of these things should be addressed by this parliament. We should review legislation that is put in place when, in a latter time such as this, it has become out of date and needs updating.

This legislation will make Australia, doing business in Australia and the regulatory powers that cover all these issues, streamlined. I commend this act to the House for immediate delivery and passage.

Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (19:09): I firstly thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate on this bill. The Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020 represents the second coordinated tranche of amendments to Commonwealth acts to trigger the operation of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. Implementing the regulatory powers act supports the government's regulatory reform agenda as that act intends to simplify and streamline Commonwealth regulatory powers across the statute book which currently vary in breadth and detail, resulting in inconsistency or unnecessary duplication across regimes. Standardisation provisions provide regulatory agencies with the opportunity to use more uniform powers and increase legal certainty for businesses and individuals who are subject to those powers. The use of the standard provisions ensures that the government exercises regulatory powers responsibly and with accountability so that the rights of individuals and businesses remain protected. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (19:11): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:12): The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 is a breach of faith with the Australian people. It's a broken promise. It's said to be about the flow of credit in the Australian economy. It's not. It's a policy orphan. It's a problem in search of a solution. I could talk about the promises that this government has made and broken—indeed, I will come to that in a moment—but I want to start by talking about what this bill is really about. It's about the needs and interests of ordinary Australians and how the government's plan to revoke a law runs against the interests of those ordinary Australians.

Almost every Australian is a bank customer. For the most part, it's a pretty good relationship, but when things go wrong, the effects can be devastating and life-altering for the customers. It's important to note here that as customers our relationships with the bank are not equal. Banks hold most of the cards. They have armies of lawyers, legions of financial wizards and well-oiled publicity machines. The ordinary customer, on the other hand, has just one thing on which they can rely, and that is the law. The laws that we pass here protect customers. They go some way to levelling out that relationship between the bank on one hand and its customers on the other. They help customers take that leap of faith when they put their trust in that bank to look after their interests. They increase the odds of getting justice when a predatory bank or a rogue staff member within that bank takes everything a customer has—their house, their life savings and, very often, family relationships when things go wrong. This is not theoretical. There were 10,000 submissions to the Hayne royal commission. That's 10,000 individual financial tragedies; 10,000 ordinary people, from small-business owners to pensioners, who put their trust in a bank and were poorer for it.

But to really highlight the personal cost of weak banking laws, I want to tell the story of a case that wasn't represented amongst those 10,000 submissions. This was a saga that cost the man at the centre of it everything. It began with a very simple act, an act that thousands of Australians perform on a daily basis, and that act was to walk through the door of a local bank branch and ask for a loan. The year was 1985, and the man was a fifth-generation farmer who needed a modest float to tide his farming business over. He walked into the Commonwealth Bank. The branch was in Inverell, and he was looking for a $200,000 loan. What he ended up with was a loan of $675,000, denominated in Swiss francs.

Over the coming weeks, the Australian dollar dramatically devalued against the franc. The farmer who started out with $675,000 in debt, suddenly had a debt of A$1.5 million. The impact was immediate and devastating. It cost him his farm. It cost his family their farm in South Australia, which had been in his family for five generations. It cost him his marriage, and for a time he lived in a caravan. In winter he stopped using the heating because he couldn't afford the bill. I don't know if you've been in Inverell in the middle of winter, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks. I have. It's known to snow. It's damn cold.

That farmer's name is John Williams. Around this place he's better known as Wacka. He was the victim of a hyperaggressive sales culture that was then in place at the Commonwealth Bank. He was never told that the salesman who sold him his Swiss-franc-denominated loan was getting a whopping commission for the sale. He was never warned of the dangers inherent in a foreign-currency-denominated scheme. In fact, the bank representative convinced him to borrow more than he was actually looking for, suggesting he invest in property with the extra money. He was never told of the risks. He was never told the representative who sold him the loan was paid a huge commission. He was lied to when he asked about hedging loans that could have helped manage the extreme risk that he'd been duped into taking. Despite the fact that the bank's own internal review showed that he was given wrong advice, it took him 15 years and a massive court battle to get justice.

John 'Wacka' Williams was not alone; 5,000 other farmers had been sold the same dodgy loan scheme. Divorce, the loss of family and the loss of businesses was the norm for such victims. Tragically, suicide was also common. These were the circumstances that led John Williams into politics, into the Senate in the federal parliament. Look, there are plenty of things that Wacka and I disagreed on, but his passion for seeking justice for bank victims was one that we were in 100 per cent agreement on. His 15-year legal battle against the Commonwealth Bank for personal justice was good practice for his career in this place. When Labor proposed a royal commission into the banking sector, we found not only a sympathetic ear but a principled politician willing to go against the coalition party room and bring the royal commission on.

The harrowing revelations the commission uncovered may have been a surprise to many of his government colleagues who voted against the royal commission on 26 separate occasions, but Wacka Williams knew something different. Having seen the lies, the cover-ups and the outright fraud of his bank and the perpetration of these crimes against others—the 5,000 other foreign loan scheme victims—he knew something had to be done. Just as the Liberal Party betrayed Wacka Williams and his ilk on 26 occasions by voting against the royal commission, it's now betraying those 10,000 people who came forward to the royal commission, and thousands more like them.

When all was said and done, after 68 days of hearings and almost two years, after 130 witnesses and story after harrowing story, Commissioner Hayne delivered 76 separate recommendations. The first of them, recommendation 1.1, was the recommendation from which all other recommendations flow. It was the cornerstone, if you will. That recommendation was: 'Keep the responsible lending laws as they are.' The hint is in the name: 'responsible lending laws'. They impose a very small obligation on a bank. They've only got to do two things: when you're offering a loan to a customer, ensure, firstly, that it is appropriate for their circumstances and, secondly, that they can afford it. Some might say that's simply good business practice, but there are 10,000 submissions to the royal commission that testify to the fact that good business practice was all too uncommon.

'Keep the responsible lending laws in place.' These are the very laws which this bill seeks to remove, the very laws that Commissioner Hayne described as 'critical' in evening the balance of power when a customer goes to see their bank for a loan, and the very laws that have protected this country's financial system from the instability that has been so much a characteristic of the banking systems in other countries around the world. This is a clear broken promise.

On the day the royal commission's final report was handed down, the Treasurer promised to implement the recommendations. To this point, after two years of faffing about, of delay and excuse, the government has implemented only one-third of them—one-third. What else would you expect from a government that tried on 26 separate occasions to avoid the inevitable? What else would you expect from the Liberal Party, whose member snuggles up on a daily basis to the banks and their ilk as if to a hot water bottle on a cold winter's night while customers freeze on the porch?

Wacka Williams was not alone within the Nationals' party room in calling for a banking royal commission. The member for Dawson famously told journalists up and down the gallery that he would cross the floor to get a commission up. Of course, that turned out to be fake news. He didn't have the guts to follow through on his promise. He made the right noises then, but he didn't follow through. He'll get another opportunity. Then the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, the member for New England, made similar noises but also had a failure of courage when it mattered. But at least later down the track he admitted that he was wrong. The list goes on. You've got Senator Canavan now saying that he was wrong to oppose the royal commission as well.

I say to the member for Dawson, the member for New England and Senator Canavan: now is your moment to shine. Now is the moment to correct the blight on your parliamentary voting record. You all have the opportunity to stand like true, independent Nationals and not be the lapdogs of the Liberals. Vote your conscience. Vote as John 'Wacka' Williams would have, and reject these laws. Otherwise, everything you've said until this point, all of the noises that you've have made over the last couple of fortnights about the Nationals needing to stand on their own two feet to show that they're independent from the Liberals, to show that they will stick to the spirit of those independent Nationals like John 'Wacka' Williams, will all amount to nothing. Senator Canavan says that he wants the Nationals to be more assertive. This is his opportunity to do exactly that.

The member for Hughes has recently resigned from the Liberal Party, saying that he needs to exercise a vote in favour of his conscience, not in favour of the Liberal Party, when he votes in this place. The member for Hughes is going to have an opportunity tomorrow to show that him moving to the crossbench is not all just fluff and wind; that he's truly going to be an Independent. He stood yesterday and said that he intended to stick to the promises that he made to the people of Hughes at the last election. Here's one of them. He promised to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. He promised to stick up for the victims of the banks' bad behaviour. He promised to ensure that the responsible lending laws would stay in place. Here's an opportunity for the member for Hughes to show he really is an Independent.

It's an opportunity for the member for Dawson and the member for New England to show that they are not just froth and bubble and that they are not just lapdogs to the Liberals, who never wanted a royal commission and have done everything within their power to act against its implementation. They get an opportunity tomorrow. Are they going to stand with Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, or are they going to stand for the interests of the people in their electorate? Are they going to be true Independents or true Nationals? Are they going to keep the spirit of John 'Wacka' Williams alive or are they going to be poodles to the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party? This is their opportunity to do the right thing. It's an opportunity to help the people who put them here.

Recommendation 1.1 was unique amongst the 76 recommendations in that all it asked the government to do was to leave things as they are. All they had to do was tick this one off and do nothing, a task that should be pretty easy for this Prime Minister. Instead, they've done nothing on 50 recommendations where action was called for and acted instead on the recommendation that said that all they had to do was leave things as they are. Just like they hung their old mate John 'Wacka' Williams out to dry by opposing the royal commission, they'll be throwing all those other victims under the bus as well if they do not vote with their conscience and reject these atrocious laws.

On the day the royal commission's final report was handed down the Treasurer took it in his hot little hand and ambled down the hall to the blue room in Parliament House. We had quite a performance. There were tears and all. He railed against the sales-driven greed culture of the banks. He earnestly promised that things would change. He was almost brought to tears in talking about the case of a young Down syndrome man who was sold insurance he never needed and couldn't afford. That man's father has called upon the Treasurer not to proceed with these laws, because he understands from his own experience what a failure to put in place strong consumer protections looks like. What was the Treasurer's response? He did not even have the courtesy to reply to that man's letter. He didn't even reply to the letter.

Those of good conscience in the coalition party room are going to have an opportunity tomorrow to do the right thing. We're calling on them to do exactly that. They've promised that things are going to change. They can be a part of that change. They can keep their promises and do the right thing or they can proceed and break the promises that they made to their constituents before the last election, and we will remind every single one of them of what they've done. I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to:

(1)   respect the findings of Commissioner Hayne;

(2)   not weaken Australia's credit laws; and

(3)   pass legislation that will actually support Australia's economic recovery, rather than overturn recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is there a seconder for the amendment?

Mr Keogh: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate interrupted.