The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 31 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business for Monday 24 May 2021. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 11 May 2021.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 11 May 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 24 May 2021, as follows:

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act to provide that major emitters of greenhouse gases are liable for climate change damage that occurs in Australia, and for related purposes. (Liability for Climate Change Damage (Make the Polluters Pay) Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 23 March 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 Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to establish an independent Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for protecting animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities, to assist in creating a better Australian animal welfare system, and for related purposes. (Independent Office of Animal Welfare Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 11 May 2021.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3   Mr Ted O'Brien: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the important work being carried out in Australian businesses to research and commercialise new ideas;

(2) acknowledges that the Government has supported those efforts in many ongoing ways, including:

(a) fostering business collaboration with the CSIRO;

(b) the research and development tax incentive; and

(c) Accelerating Commercialisation grants under the Entrepreneurs Programme; and

(3) congratulates Australian companies that are developing and commercialising new ideas, including Naturo Pty Ltd, which has developed a way to extend the shelf life of fresh milk up to 60 days and is creating a pilot manufacturing facility as a result of its recent Accelerating Commercialisation grant.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—45 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Ted O'Brien—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

4   Ms Templeman: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the devastating effects of extreme rainfall that caused extensive flooding across areas of New South Wales in March 2021, resulting in disaster declarations in 63 local government areas by the NSW Government and causing more than $1billion in damage;

(2) acknowledges the work of emergency services and other groups in assisting throughout the emergency and subsequent clean-up, with particular reference to:

(a) volunteer-based organisations such as the NSW State Emergency Service, NSW Rural Fire Service, Rapid Relief Team, and various charities;

(b) supermarket operators that loaded supplies on to helicopters and barges to restock shelves at stores cut off by flood water and landslides; and

(c) community members who assisted with distribution of supplies and relief efforts during and in the aftermath of the floods; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) provide the support needed to allow businesses reliant on working waterways such as the Hawkesbury River (including turf growers, vegetable farmers and caravan parks) to get back to work;

(b) act to fix the disastrous environmental damage by announcing specific funding to help address silt and debris build up, erosion and collapsing riverbanks; and

(c) immediately access the $4 billion Emergency Response Fund, announced two years ago but never spent, for this recovery which can provide up to $200 million per financial year to be spent nationally on natural disaster recovery and mitigation.

   (Notice given 11 May 2021.)

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

Speech time limits—

Ms Templeman—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Dr Leigh: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (known as the Andrews Bill) amended the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to deprive these two legislative assemblies of the power to make laws relating to euthanasia;

(b) the Government of Prime Minister Howard justified this at the time as a constraint on young jurisdictions that were seen to be moving ahead of the broader public mood;

(c) when the Andrews Bill curtailed the right of territories to make laws relating to euthanasia, no other state or territory legislature had conducted a debate on similar laws;

(d) polls of public attitudes to doctor-led voluntary assisted dying suggest that support was in the high sixties in the 1980s, in the mid to high seventies in the 1990s, and in the low eighties in the past two decades;

(e) in recent years all state legislatures have debated legislation around voluntary assisted dying, with Victoria and Western Australia legalising voluntary assisted dying, and New South Wales and South Australia rejecting legalisation, while Queensland and Tasmania have processes ongoing;

(f) the anachronistic Andrews Bill means that a quarter of a century since it was passed, 700,000 Australians who live in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory are still unable to participate in a democratic process to resolve community approaches to euthanasia;

(g) repealing the Andrews Bill would return to territories legal powers that are held by other Australian jurisdictions; and

(h) restoring territory rights does not direct that either territory legislature should consider legislating on euthanasia, it merely allows them to do so if their properly elected representatives decide it appropriate;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) in each of the last two terms of parliament the Government has blocked debate on private Members' bills that would restore territory rights; and

(b) while senators have debated and voted on related legislation, members of the House of Representatives have been prevented from expressing their views on this issue; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) explain why, in 2021, two mature legislative jurisdictions are still singled out as unworthy of legislative self-determination;

(b) commit to introduce legislation into the House of Representatives that would grant territorians legislative equality with Australians in other jurisdictions; and

(c) restore the right of territories to determine their own laws on euthanasia.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—35 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Dr Leigh—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]

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

2   Mrs Archer: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that under the Government, we have seen:

(a) a record eight consecutive quarters of year-on-year consumer price index reductions in retail electricity prices; and

(b) wholesale electricity prices fall for 17 months in a row; and

(2) welcomes the Government's strong action to ensure that Australian households and businesses have access to the affordable, reliable and secure electricity.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—35 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mrs Archer—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]

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

Orders of the day

Housing: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Burns—That this House:

(1) recognises that every Australian should have access to safe and secure housing;

(2) notes that:

(a) the rate of home ownership continues to decline due to this Government's inaction and lack of leadership on federal housing policy;

(b) the rising cost of rent is pushing more Australians into rental stress;

(c) more investment in social housing is needed immediately to address the growing waitlists and increasing number of people facing homelessness; and

(d) the homelessness sector is desperate for more funding to support those needing crisis accommodation, especially women fleeing domestic and family violence; and

(3) calls on the Government to take responsibility and implement policies that respond to the serious issues facing access to safe and secure housing in Australia.

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

All Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

Notices—continued

3   Mr Connelly: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government's $270 billion investment in Australia's defence capability is creating thousands of jobs and opportunities for small businesses across Australia, particularly in the state of Western Australia;

(b) it is only because of the Government's continued investment that we are able to guarantee that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force receive the defence capabilities they need to keep Australians safe; and

(c) a key pillar of our economic recovery plan to get Australians in jobs is getting more Australian businesses in our defence industry to deliver the essential capability our Defence Force relies on; and

(2) recognises that because of the support measures the Government has introduced to help Australian defence:

(a) businesses remain in business and are recovering from COVID-19; and

(b) our defence industry is not only recovering, but thriving as we comeback from the COVID-19 recession.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

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

Speech time limits—

Mr Connelly—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

4   Ms Sharkie: To move—That:

(1) a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety be established to inquire into and report upon:

(a) the Government response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, including the development of a new Act to replace the Aged Care Act 1997 and the establishment and operation of a new person-centred Aged Care system which focuses on the safety, health and wellbeing of older people; and

(b) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament;

(2) the committee present its final report on or before the final sitting day of the 46th Parliament;

(3) the committee consist of nine members—five senators, and four members of the House of Representatives, as follows:

(a) two members of the House of the Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;

(b) two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;

(c) two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(d) one senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(e) one senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator; and

(f) one member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority party or independent member;

(4) participating members may:

(a) be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and

(b) participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee;

(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(6) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(7) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(8) the committee elect:

(a) a Government member as its chair; and

(b) a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; and

(c) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;

(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(11) the committee have power to:

(a) appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(13) the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit;

(14) the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(15) the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;

(16) the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;

(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and

(18) a message be sent to the Senate seeking its concurrence in this resolution.

   (Notice given 11 May 2021.)

Time allotted—45 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Sharkie—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

5   Mr Entsch: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Indigenous tourism plays a vital role in supporting businesses, creating jobs and driving economic empowerment of Indigenous Australians;

(b) the Government's $40 million Indigenous Tourism Fund announced on Friday, 19 February 2021 will support Indigenous tourism businesses and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations; and

(c) the establishment of the National Indigenous Tourism Advisory Group will advise the Government on strategic priorities for the growth of Australia's Indigenous tourism sector in a way which best supports the broader tourism sector's recovery; and

(2) recognises and acknowledges that:

(a) Australia's Indigenous culture, country, art and history are unique in today's competitive international tourism market, and are equally attractive to our domestic audience; and

(b) employment in the Indigenous tourism sector provides the opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to stay on country while maintaining and sharing their culture and traditions.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Entsch—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

6   Ms Owens: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the launch of the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Bursary on 18 March 2021 at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra;

(2) notes that the bursary is:

(a) a contribution by members of the Australian-Turkish community to the Gallipoli Scholarship, which supports the descendants of Anzacs to study at university or TAFE; and

(b) part of the new Ataturk Scholarship, which will support Turkish Australians to study at university or TAFE from 2022; and

(3) recognises that the donation of this bursary is an act of friendship by Turkish Australians, who have made enormous contributions to our country and community, helping to forge the strong and lasting bond between Australia and Turkey.

   (Notice given 11 May 2021.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Owens—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.

7   Dr Martin: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Government is:

(a) supporting universities through the COVID-19 pandemic and creating more opportunities for young people to study; and

(b) investing $20 billion in the higher education sector in 2021;

(2) recognises that $1 billion has been provided to university research this year;

(3) acknowledges that the Government has provided $903.5 million over the next four years for more domestic places and to ensure our universities are financially stable; and

(4) congratulates the Government for its Job Ready Graduates package which is providing up to 30,000 additional university places in 2021.

   (Notice given 22 February 2021.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Dr Martin—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

Orders of the day—continued

1   Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 (Mr Perrett): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from22March2021).

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 should continue on a future day.

THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

12 May 2021

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (09:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) to provide that if the minister makes certain character decisions under subsection 501(3) of the Migration Act in relation to a person, then the minister must cause notice of the making of the decision to be laid before each house of the parliament within 15 sitting days of that house after the day the decision was made.

Decisions made under subsection 501(3) of the Migration Act are those decisions to refuse to grant a visa or to cancel a visa on character grounds that the minister makes personally, without notice to the applicant or visa holder, where the minister considers the refusal or cancellation to be in the national interest.

Requiring notice of the making of certain character decisions under subsection 501(3) of the act to be tabled before each house of parliament will provide greater transparency in relation to the decision to refuse or cancel a person's visa in the national interest on character grounds. Usual tabling practices will be followed, including to ensure that personal information is not published.

This requirement will not apply where the decision was made on the basis the minister reasonably suspects the person does not pass the character test because the person:

has a substantial criminal record; or

has been convicted or found guilty of sexually based offences involving a child; or

has been assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to be directly or indirectly a risk to security.

This requirement will also not apply where the person was the subject of an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 when the decision was made.

All those who support measures to ensure greater transparency and accountability in relation to visa decision-making should support this bill.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (09:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 implements a measure announced in the 2021-22 budget. It will provide continuity for the current policy settings by continuing the pause on the indexation arrangements for income thresholds in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 for a further two years, and updates the indexation arrangements to apply to the current thresholds from 2023-24. The income thresholds contained in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 are used in determining the tiers for both the private health insurance rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge. The rebate and surcharge will continue to be income tested.

The government invests over $6 billion each year in the private health insurance rebate which contributes to the affordability of private health insurance for Australians. Following significant reforms over recent years which have made private health insurance simpler and more affordable, the 2021-22 budget sees the Australian government continuing to increase overall spending and investment in health. This includes investing in ongoing reforms to private health insurance which to date have resulted in the lowest annual average premium change for consumers since 2001—2.74 per cent. Specifically in the 2021-22 budget the government is investing $30.6 million over four years to continue to make private health insurance simpler and more affordable for Australians.

Australians continue to rate the quality of health care available in our country at near record high levels but are concerned about the system becoming overstretched. Private health insurance continues to be viewed by Australians as a vital element of the health system, providing choice and helping to relieve pressure on the public system.

The bill supports ongoing reforms in private health insurance. More than half of the Australian population have some form of private health insurance. Income-tested rebate arrangements are a foundation stone of these arrangements and continue under this legislation.

The bill preserves the explicit link between the rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge. It makes no changes to the Medicare levy surcharge rate or the private health insurance rebate rates. This is important as they operate together to ensure that people whose rebates are reduced because of means testing continue to have a strong incentive to retain their private health insurance.

It is important to note that these changes over the next two years will not affect individuals with an income that remains below current base tier thresholds of $90,000, or couples and families with an income that remains $180,000 or below. Higher income earners without private health insurance will continue to be subject to the Medicare levy surcharge.

Importantly the bill will ensure the recommencement of annual indexation from the current income thresholds following the end of the pause, which is important for the continuity of policy settings and predictability for government financing.

This bill provides stability regarding access to the private health insurance rebate and application of the Medicare levy surcharge. During this pause the government will undertake a detailed study into the settings of these two important private health insurance policies to ensure they provide the appropriate incentives for individuals, couples and families when choosing the healthcare cover that best suits their circumstances.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TEHAN ( Wannon — Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment ) ( 09:40 ): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Christmas Island Stormwater, Landslide and Rockfall Mitigation Works Project.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications is proposing to undertake infrastructure works to manage the risks of stormwater flooding, landslide and rockfall at key locations on Christmas Island. Proposed works include upgrades to the stormwater overland flow and in-ground network arrangements at Drumsite, as well as landslide and rockfall defence mitigation and protection measures at Flying Fish Cove.

These proposed works are necessary to protect the community and visitors living or working on Christmas Island and to ensure the government meets its obligations to provide safe workplaces. The estimated cost of the works is $28.9 million excluding GST. The works must be referred, considered by and reported on to both houses of the parliament by the Public Works Committee before work can commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activities are expected to commence in January 2022, with completion expected by mid-2023. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (09:42): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Department of Defence—United States Force Posture Initiatives Northern Territory Training Areas and Ranges Upgrades Project.

The Department of Defence is proposing a project to deliver essential upgrades to facilities and infrastructure at four existing Defence training areas in the Northern Territory to ensure the Australian Defence Force has reliable access to suitable military training areas and weapon ranges to meet military capability. This investment supports implementation of the 2020 Force Structure Plan initiative for enhancements to Defence training areas and facilities. The proposed works will also enhance the levels of interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and our allies, including with United States military forces, through expanded cooperation and increased opportunities for combined training and exercises.

The total estimated capital delivery cost of the project is $747 million. The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, the construction works are expected to commence in late 2021 and are scheduled to be completed by mid-2026. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (09:45): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Department of Home Affairs—Parramatta office fit-out.

The Department of Home Affairs is proposing fit-out works as part of its consolidation of leased office space in Sydney. Home Affairs currently occupies three buildings in Sydney—two in the Sydney central business district and one in Parramatta. The leases are due to expire in 2022 and 2023, with no options to extend. Under the Home Affairs Sydney precinct strategy, the consolidation of these three sites into a single site in Parramatta will provide operational efficiency and flexibility to allow the change in future business requirements and will reduce overall property operating costs. The estimated costs of the works is $25.2 million. The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of the parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, fit-out works are expected to commence in November 2021 and scheduled to be completed in mid-2022. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (09:46): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, I present a progress report of the committee.

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

Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (09:47): by leave—I present a report from the Petitions Committee together with petitions and ministerial responses.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PETITIONS COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 25

Petitions and Ministerial Responses

12 May 2021

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Mr Ken O'Dowd MP

Deputy Chair Hon Justine Elliot MP

Mrs Bridget Archer MP

Ms Lisa Chesters MP

Ms Gladys Liu MP

Mr Julian Simmonds MP

Mr James Stevens MP

Ms Susan Templeman MP

Report summarising the petitions and Ministerial responses being presented.

The committee met in private session on 17 March, 24 March, and 21 April 2021

1. The committee resolved to present the following petitions in accordance with standing order 207:

Petitions certified on 21 April 2021

From 920 petitioners - regarding veterans' exposure to carcinogenic dioxins during the Vietnam War (PN0504)

From 551 petitioners - regarding the persecution and organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners (PN0505)

Petitions certified on 24 March 2021

From 13 petitioners - requesting restriction of home loans to a single applicant (EN2486)

From 81 petitioners - requesting voting rights be extended to 16 and 17 year- olds (EN2487)

From 22 petitioners - regarding reform of the child support system (EN2489)

From 49 petitioners - requesting a ban of all child circumcision (EN2490)

From 9 petitioners - regarding the Medicare levy (EN2497)

From 19 petitioners - regarding the Extradition Act (EN2499)

From 5 petitioners - requesting the establishment of a national COVID-19 remembrance day on 26 October (EN2502)

From 1566 petitioners - regarding Australian Consumer Law refund provisions (EN2504)

From 6 petitioners - regarding phone call campaigns (EN2506)

From 25 petitioners - regarding violence in the Tigray region of Ethiopia (EN2510)

Petitions certified on 17 March 2021

From 2917 petitioners - requesting an extension of working holiday visas for people over 30 (EN2434)

From 10 petitioners - requesting Australia provide the Covid-19 vaccine to all Pacific island countries (EN2436)

From 34 petitioners - requesting that the tobacco tax be substantially decreased (EN2437)

From 83 petitioners - requesting the House refer the Hon. Peter Dutton MP to the High Court regarding pecuniary interests (EN2439)

From 2014 petitioners - requesting the House to condemn racist rhetoric in Australia (EN2441)

From 120 petitioners - requesting the Department of Veterans' Affairs increase its number of delegates (EN2442)

From 44 petitioners - requesting a compulsory COVID-19 vaccination for all residents and visitors to Australia (EN2444)

From 956 petitioners - requesting the use of m-RNA COVID-19 vaccines be suspended (EN2445)

From 1442 petitioners - requesting the NAPLAN dates be changed due to a clash with Ramadan (EN2448)

From 3 petitioners - regarding the safety of Indian Australians (EN2449)

From 137 petitioners - requesting the House support an international criminal tribunal for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EN2451)

From 1 petitioner - regarding school education on evolution (EN2452)

From 109 petitioners - regarding the freedom of international travel

(EN2453)

From 2 petitioners - requesting the removal of news from social media platforms (EN2454)

From 31 petitioners - regarding renewable energy (EN2457)

From 163 petitioners - requesting a Royal Commission into pesticides (EN2458)

From 7 petitioners - regarding communication between Members of Parliament and the public (EN2459)

From 16 petitioners - requesting the legalisation of cryptocurrency (EN2461)

From 63339 petitioners - regarding a vaccine passport (EN2463)

From 173 petitioners - requesting an increase of pension payments (EN2464)

From 68 petitioners - regarding the lease of Keswick Island (EN2468)

From 57 petitioners - requesting an independent investigation into rape allegations regarding the Hon. Christian Porter MP (EN2470)

From 2340 petitioners - requesting an independent investigation into rape allegations regarding the Hon. Christian Porter MP (EN2472)

From 11 petitioners - regarding free access to digital news media (EN2473)

From 28 petitioners - requesting the federal Government condemn violence in Afghanistan (EN2474)

From 47 petitioners - requesting Australia endorses the Marine Arctic Peace Sanctuary Treaty (EN2481)

From 2501 petitioners - requesting an early federal election (EN2485)

Petitions certified on 24 February 2021

From 11 petitioners - requesting Jubilee Medals for Australian Defence Force members and veterans (EN2401)

From 89 petitioners - requesting amendments to child support legislation (EN2402)

From 321 petitioners - regarding JobKeeper and the aviation industry (EN2404)

From 9 petitioners - requesting offshore COVID-19 quarantining for international arrivals into Australia (EN2407)

From 18 petitioners - requesting a federal government quarantining facility for international arrivals into Australia (EN2408)

From 101 petitioners - regarding informed consent and the COVID-19 vaccine

(EN2409)

From 399 petitioners - requesting a Royal Commission into the number of truck driver fatalities in Australia (EN2410)

From 1269 petitioners - requesting improved mobile network coverage in Clyde and Clyde North, Victoria. (EN2412)

From 75 petitioners - regarding the Subclass 115 Remaining Relative visa (EN2414)

From 5 petitioners - regarding religious organisations and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (EN2415)

From 381 petitioners - regarding flight cancellation refunds (EN2418)

From 80 petitioners - regarding digital platforms and freedom of expression (EN2419)

From 21 petitioners - regarding digital platforms and freedom of expression (EN2421)

From 41 petitioners - regarding the National Minimum Wage (EN2427)

From 230 petitioners - regarding JobKeeper and English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students sector employees (EN2428)

The following ministerial responses to petitions were received:

Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 24 March 2021

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding JobSeeker and JobKeeper payments (EN1732)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care - to a petition regarding strategies to mitigate vitamin D deficiencies (EN2048)

From the Minister for Education and Youth - to a petition regarding removing compulsory English units from the National Curriculum (EN2055)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding non-Australian ownership of land or property (EN2149)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition requesting the tax on tobacco products be reduced (EN2166)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care - to a petition requesting an extension of eligibility criteria for the Continuous Glucose Monitoring Initiative (EN2168)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding the Boosting Cash Flow for Employers measure (EN2184)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding fuel price fluctuations in Australia (EN2193)

From the Minister for Finance - to a petition regarding parliamentarians' superannuation contribution rate (EN2195)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding the Medicare levy (EN2200)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding petrol and diesel excise rates (EN2208)

Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 21 April 2021

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition requesting a COVID-19 financial stimulus package for the Australian events industry (EN1414)

From the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment - to a petition regarding trade with China (EN1523)

From the Deputy Prime Minister - to a petition requesting a repeal of flight restrictions and paid quarantine for returning Australians (EN1710)

From the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy - to a petition requesting a review of the Australian Stock Exchange (EN1758)

From the Deputy Prime Minister - to a petition requesting to lift the cap on citizens returning to Australia (EN1852)

From the Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters - to a petition regarding the movement of elected Members to other parties or as an independent (EN2011)

From the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services - to a petition regarding Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and companion animals (EN2026)

From the Speaker - to a petition regarding swivel chairs in the House of Representatives Chamber (EN2030)

From the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet - to a petition requesting a referendum for Australia to become a republic (EN2031)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs - to a petition requesting a referendum regarding the Paris Agreement (EN2033)

From the Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries - to a petition requesting an end to Regional Forest Agreements and the logging of old growth forests (EN2059)

From the Minister for Home Affairs - to a petition requesting parents of pregnant women and women in postpartum period be exempt from Australia's current travel restrictions (EN2074)

From the Deputy Prime Minister - to a petition regarding the cap on returning citizens to Australia and COVID-19 quarantine options (EN2075)

From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme - to a petition requesting reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme access criteria (EN2079)

From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure and the Arts - to a petition requesting a mandate for social media websites to provide an option for users to delete all historical data (EN2080)

From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure and the Arts - to a petition requesting a royal commission into social media and to introduce new laws related to freedom of speech in Australia (EN2084)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Schedule 2: Australian Consumer Law) (EN2101)

From the Speaker - to a petition regarding the House e-petitions system (EN2102)

From the Minister for Home Affairs - to a petition regarding alternative COVID-19 quarantine methods (EN2115)

From the Speaker - to a petition regarding religious observance at the start of parliamentary proceedings (EN2141)

From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs - to a petition regarding the extension of Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visas (EN2165)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs - to a petition requesting Australia to act against China placing trade tariffs on Australian goods in retaliation for Australia protecting its sovereignty (EN2170)

From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs - to a petition regarding allegations of worker exploitation (EN2190)

From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs - to a petition regarding eligibility for Australian permanent residence for migrants over 40 years of age (EN2196)

From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs - to a petition regarding Partner visa applicants and illegal maritime arrivals (EN2197)

From the Minister for Sport - to a petition regarding gender transitioning and sport (EN2202)

From the Speaker - to a petition regarding a list of Pentecostal Christian Members of Parliament (EN2215)

From the Minister for Home Affairs - to a petition requesting international students be exempt from Australia's inbound travel restrictions (EN2217)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding income statements and myGov (EN2223)

From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme - to a petition regarding National Disability Insurance Scheme participants and workers (EN2268)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care - to a petition regarding outbound international travel and the COVID-19 vaccine (EN2280)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care - to a petition regarding the prevention of future health pandemics (EN2316)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition requesting an extension of JobKeeper Payment support for the travel and tourism industry (EN2320)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs - to a petition requesting an Australian Government flight and quarantine program for returning Australians (EN2323)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding public liability insurance and Australian small businesses (EN2326)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition regarding the cost and availability of insurance in Northern Australia (EN2368)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition requesting an extension of the JobKeeper Payment beyond March 2021 (EN2395)

Mr Ken O ' Dowd

Chair - Petitions Committee

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (09:47): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence, together with the minutes of proceedings.

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

Mr WALLACE: by leave—The scourge of family, domestic and sexual violence is sadly all too familiar. Since this inquiry commenced in June of last year, more than 40 women will have been murdered at the hands of a current or former partner. Countless other women, children and men will have experienced non-lethal family violence and abuse. Sometimes we see the names and faces of the victims on our screens, but more often than not family violence remains hidden. What we do know is that the impact of this shocking violence and abuse is profound and long-lasting on victim-survivors, on their families and friends and on the very fabric of our society.

Recognising the need to stem this violence, governments across Australia came together in 2009 to establish the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. Many achievements have flowed from the national plan, including the creation of Our Watch, the Stop it at the Start awareness campaign and national support services such as 1800 RESPECT. Importantly, through the national plan the community has begun to grapple with the cultural change that is necessary to prevent violence from occurring in the first place. More people are now willing to speak up and to challenge the attitudes and behaviours that lead to violence. However, there is much more work to be done. Despite significant investments from governments of all jurisdictions and all political persuasions, it is clear that the national plan has not achieved its objective of a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children. As a nation, we can do better and we must do better.

This inquiry was an opportunity to reflect on the successes and shortcomings of the national plan, to hear from experts in the field about what has and what has not worked and to identify opportunities to ensure that the next national plan leads to a meaningful reduction in family, domestic and sexual violence. It should go without saying that the committee took this task very seriously. The committee carefully considered around 300 submissions and held 90 hours of public hearings over the course of 16 days. The committee also held to in camera hearings where it heard from individuals about their lived experience of family, domestic and sexual violence.

In this report, the committee has made 88 bipartisan recommendations which seek to inform the development of the next national plan. These recommendations are wide ranging but can be grouped under five main themes. First, the next national plan should involve a more uniform approach across Australia but one that recognises the many different forms of family violence and the diversity of victim-survivors and perpetrators. This should include the development of a uniform national definition of family, domestic and sexual violence that takes account of non-physical forms of violence, such as coercive control, financial abuse and technology facilitated abuse.

Second, the next national plan must seek to engender a culture of accountability while also providing more support to the specialist family violence workforce. All Australian governments should be held to account through hard targets. Similarly, while the committee has called for more secure funding for frontline services, ongoing monitoring and evaluation is critical to better understand what works, what does not and why. To support these recommendations, the committee has proposed to establish a national commissioner who would have independent oversight of the next national plan.

Third, education is critical. There remains a need for greater awareness and understanding of the many forms of family, domestic and sexual violence and the causes, the impacts of this violence and the ways in which it can be prevented. The committee has recommended a continued focus on primary prevention; the rollout of universal, age-appropriate respectful relationships and sexual consent education; and measures to help workers in the social services sector identify and respond to violence.

Fourth, in the response to family, domestic, and sexual violence, the welfare of victim-survivors and their children should be paramount. The next national plan should seek to improve victim-survivors' access to specialist services as well as housing, legal aid and financial assistance. The committee has recommended improvements to risk identification, including ensuring that coercive control is recognised as not only a form of abuse in its own right but also a precursor to severe physical abuse and, in fact, homicide. The committee has also made recommendations for improving services to victim-survivors in times of natural disasters, informed by our experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, the next national plan must continue to hold perpetrators to account for their use of violence. This should include increased penalties for breaches of domestic violence orders and improved information sharing about perpetrators. The committee has also recommended more research to better understand why perpetrators choose to use violence and an increased focus on evidence-based programs to change perpetrator behaviour.

In closing, I would like to thank members of the committee. I would like to thank many organisations and individuals who have contributed evidence to the inquiry. In particular, thank you to the victim-survivors who shared their experiences with the committee. We acknowledge your courage in speaking out and advocating for change. The hard work and dedication of the members of the committee, many of whom are in the chamber this morning, was, quite frankly, very commendable. This was, in some cases, quite harrowing work, and the work that the members did really speaks volumes. It was an 88-recommendation bipartisan report. I'm very, very proud to stand here and say that this is parliament at its best, when we really do recognise that the line which runs up the centre of this floor doesn't exist when it comes to the welfare and security of victims-survivors of domestic violence. The committee hopes that this report will contribute to our collective national effort to end family, domestic and sexual violence. It is perpetrators who are responsible for their use of violence, but everyone has a role in speaking up to make change and to stop violence before it starts.

The government has already acted in the budget on a number of these 88 recommendations. I'm very pleased to see that, on a number of those 88 recommendations, the government is taking a very leaning forward approach. It announced some of those things just last night, so we are on the road towards zero. The committee implores all Australian governments to consider this report carefully and to act on its recommendations with urgency. I commend the report to the House.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (09:56): by leave—As the deputy chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee I am very pleased to rise in the House today and speak on this report, following our rather extensive inquiry over the last eight to nine months of this parliament into family, domestic and sexual violence.

At the outset, I want to thank the chair for his leadership in helping ensure that this committee stayed on track at a time when we were in the midst of COVID. Like all committee work had to, we were able to shift to digital platforms in order to take vital evidence on an issue that has now really become such an urgent one. It has been for a long time, but family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia is now well and truly in the government spotlight.

I'm delighted to be able to table this report. It is a weighty tome, and there are 88 solid bipartisan recommendations in it. I won't go through each of those; I think the chair has done an excellent job in mapping out some of those broad themes. On behalf of all the Labor members of the committee I sincerely thank the chair and our government colleagues, who made great contributions in ensuring that this report was the best it could be.

I also want to give a shout-out to the extraordinary efforts of the secretariat. People may not realise that we were actually running two major concurrent reports. We were also doing a report into housing and homelessness—another national crisis in Australia—at the same time as our work on family, domestic and sexual violence. The secretariat were terribly underresourced and overstretched at the time, and we were able to get one additional staff person to help crack through two really big inquiries. We are yet to table the housing and homeless inquiry; that's yet to come.

In addition to the secretariat, I want to acknowledge the contributions from victims-survivors who gave especially powerful testimony to the committee. We are forever indebted to them for sharing their experiences of family, domestic and sexual violence. I also thank those frontline services and organisations that made contributions on the most pressing issue facing us as a country, at a time when they were probably the most stretched and pushed.

As the chair said, we had more than 350 submissions, 47 confidential submissions, 16 days of inquiries and 90 hours of evidence over many months. In addition to what the chair mapped out, I would just like to say that these are very strong bipartisan commitments—recommendations. I slipped because I want to see them become government commitments. I will acknowledge that there were measures in the budget last night. But, before I give too many pats on the back, I want to say that this is off the back of women and children in Australia making their voices heard, loud and clear, year after year after year until, finally, enough was enough. The evidence taken by our committee was absolutely unequivocal. The scale of this problem is greater than either the resources or the resolve that the government has committed to date. We would want to see these recommendations endorsed, wholly, by the government, because that is what's needed to face up to the challenge and to finally embrace the capacity and the obligation that we have, as a Commonwealth, to actually do so much more.

As good as this report is, I could point to another eight reports that have been tabled in this parliament over eight years asking for urgent action on this issue. I'm not going to do too much self-congratulation just at this point. When I see the full weight of government behind these 88 recommendations then I'll feel like the job might well have been done. Many of the recommendations made by this committee, as I said, have been made by previous committees. They could have been implemented by the government many years ago. That failure has had some very real consequences. The economic cost of violence against women and children in Australia is estimated to be $26 billion a year. Victims and survivors bear more than half of that cost, as well as the long-term social, health and psychological damage. It's a very heavy burden. Our failure to act on family, domestic and sexual violence, over many years now, has resulted in a very heavy burden for women and children in this nation.

The government must not ignore this report. The recommendations should be implemented immediately. The government doesn't have to wait till the next national plan to implement the majority of these recommendations. The Labor members on the committee are calling for urgent action to be taken. A crucial test of this government will be, indeed, how quickly it responds to this report and how willing it is to enact the recommendations. It cannot sit on the shelves gathering dust like the other eight reports over the last eight years have done.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:03): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:04): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:04): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report, entitled Inquiry into Australia's defence relationships with Pacific island nations.

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

Mr WALLACE: by leave—Australia is historically and indelibly linked to its neighbours in the Pacific islands. Our shared history of endurance and mutual assistance during times of major international conflict, natural disaster, climate change and pandemic has forged links with our Pacific island family which go beyond statehood and diplomacy. Our people-to-people links forged over centuries are at the core of this deep understanding, and defence relationships play a significant role in creating and maintaining this unique connection.

Defence and security challenges faced in the Pacific are now more prevalent and complex than ever before. It behoves all members of our Pacific family to be aware of emerging issues and to face them together in an organised, collaborative and coordinated manner. As a regional medium power, Australia bears significant responsibility for creating the environment and providing the means to achieve just this. From fisheries management, protection and surveillance to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, intelligence collection and sharing, climate change and the global pandemic, Australia's Defence Organisation stands ready to play its part in the Pacific step-up.

There is, however, more to be done. As the committee heard throughout the conduct of the inquiry, there are several existing and proven defence initiatives and programs which contribute significantly to the Pacific step-up. These include the longstanding Defence Cooperation Program and the Pacific Maritime Security Program. The committee also heard that there are ways to improve these initiatives as well as new and innovative ways to forge, deepen and strengthen ties between members of the Pacific family. This is where the future of Australian defence relationships should be focused.

While the conduct of this inquiry was impacted by COVID-19, the submissions received and evidence heard at public hearings were of the highest quality, and the committee thanks all of those who contributed to it. In particular, the committee thanks those members of the diplomatic corps whom we held a roundtable with, and the committee is very keen to ensure that that is an ongoing arrangement that we make with members of the Pacific diplomatic corps.

This report and its recommendations reflect the committee's belief that Australia's defence relationships in the Pacific are extremely important, are becoming increasingly so and that additional efforts can and should be made to ensure the security of our region in the years to come.

I would like to thank all members of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for their efforts in this inquiry. I would like to thank all those who made submissions, particularly those members of the diplomatic corps who took part in that roundtable and, of course, I would like to thank members of the secretariat that worked hard in putting this report together and also previous members as well. I commend the report to the House.

Dr MARTIN (Reid) (10:08): On behalf of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, I present the committee's interim report together with the minutes of proceedings.

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

Dr MARTIN: by leave—After 20 years of practising as a psychologist I have never seen the need for mental health services in Australia. Mental health challenges for Australians have become the norm. The system is strained. The pandemic, the bushfires, the floods and then the COVID recession have increased the pressure on the sector, which was already in need of reform. The emergence of COVID-19 reminded us of the importance of mental health and suicide prevention as a national priority. It's been described as the shadow pandemic, but no matter the name we cannot ignore the crisis which lies before us.

On 10 December 2020 the House of Representatives resolved to establish a Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. The terms of reference highlighted significant reports recently completed and work underway. The committee was tasked with inquiring into the current mental health system and its capacity to respond to events such as the pandemic and bushfires, as well as a range of matters beyond the scope of earlier reviews and reports. There have been significant efforts made by government and non-government bodies to respond to the increased demand for mental health and suicide prevention services over the last 12 months and more. There have also been increasing calls by industry, consumers and carers for national reform to the sector.

On behalf of the committee I would like to thank the Productivity Commission, the Department of Health and the National Mental Health Commission for their evidence at the opening public hearing. This provided insight into government-led initiatives and reporting gaps, informing the work of the committee moving forward. Through this initial phase of the inquiry, the committee has noted several themes: workforce, including workforce capacity concerns; the role of professional bodies and the need for multidisciplinary teams; the coordination of funding of services and outcome measurement; accessibility and affordability concerns, especially for at-risk groups; early intervention, including stepped care, telehealth and digital health services; and stigma as a barrier to accessing services. We also thank the individuals and organisations who have contributed submissions to this inquiry.

The committee will now move into phase 2 of this inquiry. Let me assure stakeholders that the committee has heard their concerns and acknowledged the sector's desire for government to implement change. Reports, reviews and strategies are essential tools, but we must bring the community with us to drive change and improve people's lives. The committee, having considered these government reports and strategic reviews, will now look to identify those areas that need further attention. We will engage with stakeholders across the country through a series of public hearings to listen to views from those who are on the front line providing services, innovating to meet challenges, lobbying for change and training the workforce not only of today but of tomorrow. I would like to thank the secretariat, for the long hours and hard work they have put into the committee to date, and also members of the committee themselves. The final report is due in November this year. On behalf the committee, I commend the interim report to the House.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:12): by leave—I want to thank the member for Reid, the chair of the committee, for her work, and other committee members and the secretariat for producing this interim report on mental health and suicide prevention in a very short time frame. This has been a challenging committee because of the time frame, but we have had the benefit of many reports written prior to our meeting: the Productivity Commission inquiry, the National Suicide Prevention Adviser's report, the Victorian royal commission report and the National Mental Health Workforce Strategy. They have informed the place we have reached in the interim report. We have had the opportunity to take into account the 2019 bushfires, which hit my local community so badly, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.

We all recognise that the need for improved mental health services was evident well before we went through bushfires in my community, followed by flood, then COVID and then another massive flood in March, which is going to have long-term mental health impacts. We knew there was a need, and there are important issues raised in this report—one of which is around affordability, which the committee considers to be a significant and ongoing barrier to accessing mental health services in Australia.

I want to give an example from my own community. I have young people who limit their psychology or psychiatry appointments because they have to pay up to a $200 gap fee each time, or they miss out altogether and don't even start their treatment. I have parents who don't have private health insurance and can't afford the private residential programs for their kids who are suffering eating disorders. They really consider themselves at the mercy of an under-resourced public health system. These are some of the issues that we as a committee have taken evidence on. Just last week I spoke to a mum whose daughter has an eating disorder. The very best advice they can get from any doctor anywhere in Sydney is to go to England for treatment. That's the state of services available to people not just in Western Sydney, but in Sydney. We know, as a committee, that we need to improve these things.

I know that, as a committee, we will do our best to provide good advice. But, as good as our reports may be, we need not just this report or more reports, but for those reports to be actioned. What's needed is services on the ground, and certainly in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury we need specialist services that are accessible to people—young people, old people, anxious people, psychotic people, people with complex mental health needs and people needing early intervention.

What is needed is more capacity for the Blue Mountains satellite headspace, for example, which, since it opened, has had 80 per cent of its clients reporting suicide ideation. I've been very grateful to my local services for providing submissions to this committee for the second stage of our reporting. I think my engagement in the committee shows that I am extremely motivated to be involved in any useful decision-making process about where investment in mental health services should go, and I obviously welcome any investment in additional services.

But I do stand here today asking a question that people of the Hawkesbury are asking, which is: why are we still waiting for a headspace in the Hawkesbury? The last budget had funding for extra headspaces, and we didn't get one. Young people have been waiting and waiting; their parents have been waiting and waiting; their teachers have been waiting and waiting. I think that urgency, the need for it, comes through in our report. We really do feel that these reports need to be actioned. What we really need in the Hawkesbury is a key coordinating place with a no-wrong-door policy for young people to walk in and say to someone who will understand, 'I need help'.

In lieu of those things happening, as a committee we have been encouraging our grassroots community organisations to make submissions to this inquiry. I've had the opportunity to work with a group of young people right at the grassroots. They have been doing amazing work to develop their own way of reaching out to their peers to get them to talk about their battles with mental health, partly addressing the issue we raise in this report around stigma—one of the key themes that comes through in this report—and I look forward to helping them launch their initiative in the coming weeks. It will partly tackle the stigma associated with mental ill health and partly direct people to digital and phone support services, both of which are themes of this report.

Every one of the reports our committee has considered stresses early intervention, as the chair has said. Tackling issues when they first appear is a more effective method than ignoring them, leaving them untreated so that they compound. The committee has had the benefit of being able to hear from very wise people who've spent a lot of time working through these issues. I'm pretty sure every committee member values that expertise. Certainly the Labor members on the committee value that expertise. I'm not sure if any of the work that this committee has discussed or that the witnesses appearing before it have discussed has been addressed at all by funding the government has allocated in this year's budget, but I look forward to learning more about that.

I do want to touch on one last point in our interim report, and that's telehealth services. This report recognises just how useful an expansion of telehealth services, and the take-up by consumers, has been during COVID. There is no doubt it has saved lives. But if you live somewhere like the Macdonald Valley—which has faced flood and fire; where the landlines go down, sometimes for weeks; where there's no mobile coverage, and the latency of the satellite via the NBN means it's not filling that gap—you can't actually access those services. So, when we think about mental health as a committee, we can't see it in isolation. We need to make sure the services that are available are accessible to everyone, one way or another, wherever they live. I look forward to our committee finding a way to really add value to the work that the committed experts in the field are doing, and have been doing for many years. I thank them all for being involved with our committee, as they have been with so many other inquiries in the past. I look forward to doing further work with a very dedicated team to get some action here.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (10:19): On behalf of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Public communications campaigns targeting drug and substance abuse.

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

Mr SIMMONDS: by leave—Thank you very much to the stakeholders who participated in the inquiry and, of course, to the committee members and the secretariat for their very diligent efforts. Illicit drugs should be an issue of grave concern for all of us in this chamber and for all Australians. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission reported that Australia's stimulant consumption is the fourth-highest in the world. We're third-highest for the consumption of meth and MDMA.

Through this inquiry the committee has heard that the economic impact of illicit drug use is over $27 billion every year. That figure does not include the estimated $12 billion cost of harm to partners and children of those using methamphetamines. Drug use doesn't just affect and harm the users. It is a scourge on families and particularly on the most vulnerable in our society: our kids. The report of the committee recounts how approximately 50 to 80 per cent of all child abuse and neglect cases substantiated by child protection services in this nation involve some degree of substance abuse by the parents. For those who advocate pill testing, injection rooms and other policies to legalise recreational drug use, understand that you are not just enabling the users; you are destroying the opportunities and futures of innocent children who deserve better than the cycle of addiction.

While safe injecting rooms or pill testing may reduce health harms to the drug user, the committee also heard how this narrow approach exacerbates the broader harms to our society. Young Australians are dying from illicit drug use, not just through overdoses or dirty needles but also through risk-taking behaviours related to their drug use, such as drug driving. So many young lives have their trajectory to success harmed by drug use, cutting off their educational and employment opportunities, which limits them for the rest of their lives.

The committee report therefore advocates for an increased focus on the prevention approach to illicit drug use—where people are assisted through education to avoid illicit drugs from the beginning, instead of trying to cure them after the fact through addiction treatment. To target illicit drug use, our national law enforcement agencies have done a tremendous job ramping up their efforts.

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission also reported, as part of this inquiry, that, over the past decade, while the Australian population increased by around 13 per cent, the number of national illicit drug seizures increased by 77 per cent and the weight of illicit drugs seized nationally increased by 241 per cent. That not only shows the effort that our law enforcement agencies are going through and the success they are having; it also shows the growing scale of the problem.

But the committee's report demonstrates that enforcement is only one side of the coin. It must be coupled with public communication campaigns that represent an important part in lifting education levels on risk, supporting other policing elements and enabling better decision-making among the public. The committee and I are very concerned that there has been no National Drugs Campaign activity since early 2018. This is particularly relevant, with reports of increased problematic drug use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clearly, the time is ripe for action.

The committee recommends that the government implement a new public communications campaign, via the National Drugs Campaign, that will support law enforcement agencies' efforts to reduce current and future illicit drug demand. Ideally, the campaign should consider the national and international best practice contained in this report, but also include a combination of shock and fear tactics that target the behavioural drug use rather than the individuals themselves.

The committee also recommends that the government present, as part of the new communications campaign, targeted messages to different cohorts, including a national schools element, as well as taking a long-term approach, of at least three to five years, to the campaign, to ensure that the messages from the campaign take root in our community over time. With a committed and collaborative approach to reducing drug demand, we can reduce the harms caused by illicit drugs to individuals and across the broader Australian society. I commend the committee's report to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (10:25): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak in relation to this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill, but I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment at the end of my remarks.

This bill is a very modest one in its impact, to say the very least, but it is important. It highlights the difficulty that the health system in Australia is having with coming to grips with modern information management systems and digital technology, with what many other if not almost all other sectors of our economy and society have done in relation to grasping the opportunities of modern information technology. I well remember when former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was the health minister, close to two decades ago, and said that his No. 1 KPI as health minister was to introduce an e-health record. Yet still we struggle with having good digital systems that ensure that people are able to have confidence that their health records are stored digitally and are available, subject to their consent, obviously, by all of their clinicians—but I digress.

This bill deals with a particular challenge that is fairly extraordinary. I make no criticism of the government for the fact that we've found this challenge. It just reflects the slow transition of the health system to modern information systems. The challenge is that, under current legislation, once a medical practitioner gains fellowship with their specialist college—when a medical practitioner is admitted to the College of Surgeons or the College of Psychiatrists, for example—they are then able to charge higher Medicare rebates. The way they do that is by making an application to Services Australia, which in the ordinary course of events is approved. They are then able to charge the higher Medicare rebates. The current system as legislated requires that medical practitioner to pay a prescribed fee of $30 and to pay that fee by way of cheque or money order. I'm not sure whether they're required to fax through a copy of the money order or send it by telegram or carrier pigeon, but the system requires them to pay by cheque or money order. It is highly prescriptive. One could argue reasonably that this system was slightly outdated even before the COVID pandemic, but it became a particular challenge, obviously, during the pandemic. It became very difficult because of movement restrictions and suchlike that really made it very difficult for medical practitioners to move up through their specialist registration with their college and then be able to charge a higher Medicare rebate.

We're told that the government explored the option of implementing more-modern payment systems for these fees—one could ask why they weren't already in place—but the advice from government is that the cost of an upgrade to something slightly more modern than the payment of a fee by money order or cheque was assessed as being far greater than the loss in revenue from scrapping the fee. If there are younger people watching these proceedings, I wonder whether we'll have to explain to them what a cheque is. I've talked to members on our side—I'm sure it's the same on the other side—about when you bring a new staff member into your electorate office and pay a sponsorship to a local sporting club or suchlike by cheque. A number of us have stories where much younger members of staff have literally looked at this oddly sized piece of paper and asked, 'What is this?' Anyway, apparently the cost of moving to a more modern payment system was going to cost more than simply scrapping the $30 fee, so the government has taken the decision to remove the fee entirely, which is the decision this bill gives effect to. That seems a sensible approach to this rather peculiar information management challenge that the government has identified, and we will support it. What we want to see, obviously, is medical practitioners who have done all of that hard work to gain admission to their specialist college able to continue to practise as a specialist as soon as possible and, obviously, charge the higher Medicare rebates that go with that specialisation.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this particular challenge really does reinforce the ongoing challenge that our health system has in moving towards more modern information management systems. I know there are a couple of members in the House on both sides of this chamber—the member for Macarthur and the member for Higgins—who will be speaking on this bill who have much more direct experience of this than me. But I hark back to that KPI that former health minister Tony Abbott identified in 2004, almost two decades ago. His first KPI, his most important KPI, as he said then, was to transition the health system to one based around a functional, personally controlled electronic health record. We still grapple with these things today, as this bill has reminded us.

I want to give a couple of examples of some of the ongoing challenges in the health system—firstly, in relation to the use of new and sometimes not-so-new information technology, and that is in relation to telehealth; and, secondly, in relation to the broader workforce challenges that this bill, indirectly, is dealing with as well, in terms of medical practitioners moving to specialist colleges.

The issue of telehealth is one that the medical health system has been grappling with for some time. The use of telehealth has been in place for some time for a range of different assessments and therapies. But, as the pandemic really hit last year, the member for McMahon, when he was the shadow health minister, spent a lot of energy and time calling on the government to mainstream telehealth at a time when Australians were, to varying degrees around the country, locked down in their homes but still needed to be able to consult their treating doctors. To the government's credit, they heard those calls not just from the member for McMahon but from the health system and the community more broadly and introduced telehealth as a broad based MBS measure, albeit on a temporary basis.

The minister said in November, I think, that it was his intention to make telehealth a permanent measure, but all we've had since then is a rolling series of six-month by six-month extensions by the minister, which are good as far as they go but don't give that ongoing, permanent confidence to the community and, importantly, to the health workforce that this is a permanent transition in the way in which health services are delivered. A couple of weeks ago—I can't remember the exact date—the minister did make a decision to extend the telehealth measures that were due to expire on 30 June to the end of the 2021 calendar year. Again, it's better than nothing but a far cry from the permanency that the minister promised back in November.

Broadly, at first blush, although people want permanency and some sense of confidence about how this is going to operate, this was something welcomed to a degree by the community and by the health sector—until they read the finer detail. The finer detail was to abolish all but two of the MBS items allowing phone consults. That is a very serious set of decisions that very understandably have caused a great deal of concern in the broader community as they have become aware of it but particularly in the health sector. These phone items—particularly, for example, the long consult item—have been widely used through the pandemic since they were introduced. We were told that there have been 2.8 million items for level C phone consults and nearly 200,000 items for level D consults since the measures were introduced.

There had been some talk around Canberra that the department and the minister were concerned that maybe these phone consultations were being misused or weren't the clinically optimal way for GPs, particularly, to consult with their patients. But it was very vague; it was very vague what the actual concern was. I think that we, as members of parliament, all understand that there's quite a variety of levels of comfort with different technology. The government says, 'We want people consulting with their GP, if they're not face-to-face, over video consult.' That's fine, except where, first of all, patients aren't comfortable or don't have the technology quite yet to do video consultations, or, for that matter—and I'll come to this—where the doctor says: 'Actually, we're quite comfortable with doing a phone consult. We don't need to see a person for the particular purpose of the consult in question here.'

That's really why there has been such a strong reaction from doctors groups to this decision, which was subject to no consultation with them. It was a complete surprise after they read the fine print of the announcement by the minister that he was extending—again, on a temporary basis—the telehealth items that were introduced during the pandemic. The AMA president, Dr Omar Khorshid, said that the profession had been blindsided by the government's decision. He said: 'The permanent future of telehealth must include access for people who are disadvantaged, and that means, at this stage, telephone consults. The beneficiaries of telehealth are patients, not doctors.' He further went on to say, 'We believe that the quality of care provided over telephone consultation is excellent, so long as it's being done appropriately, and is no different to what is provided over video.'

Obviously, if they're doing a telehealth consult, there are circumstances where the doctor will want to see the patient; they will want to have a video consult to see the particular rash or have some other visual assessment of their patient. We should trust GPs to make that assessment; we should trust the clinical judgement of GPs to make a decision about whether, in a particular circumstance, a phone consult is acceptable and appropriate—particularly given that they, better than anyone, understand the circumstance of their patients. They, better than anyone, understand that there are some patients who are not, at least yet, comfortable and able to access video technology. Maybe the government would have understood that better if they had actually consulted with doctor groups about this decision—I do make that point. As I said, this particular bill does highlight again the challenges that the health system is having in coming to grips with modern technology. Frankly, this government is even having difficulty in coming to grips with the appropriate use of rather longstanding technology, like telephones.

As I close my contribution I will also make some remarks generally around workforce. The measures in this budget dealing with more general health, rather than aged care and mental health, are relatively modest. To the extent that there are measures, they're broadly measures that the opposition would support. But I want to talk about one particular measure that was—as almost every measure in the budget was—leaked to the media some days ago: the decision to boost bulk-bill rebates for rural and regional Australia. The opposition supports measures to increase bulk-billing and is very aware of the particular challenges, first of all in attracting sufficient numbers of health professionals, including GPs, to rural and regional Australia; that was something which we worked very hard on when we were last in government. I had the honour of working as the parliamentary secretary to the then Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, at the time, and this is something that we broadly support. But I want to draw attention to these ongoing challenges that are presented by the application of the Modified Monash Model. Again, this is something that leaves a number of communities in Australia out in the cold with this latest decision.

When the decision to increase bulk-billing rebates for rural and regional Australia was announced, it was presented as something that would support communities and clinics outside the big cities. As I was going through the papers, it appeared to apply to Modified Monash Model areas 3 to 7, so it leaves out areas 1 and 2. Just last week, as I was travelling through the Hunter Valley with the member for Shortland and the member for Newcastle, and then when I spent time on the Central Coast with the member for Dobell, I met GP after GP who drew attention to the challenge those communities are having attracting and retaining GPs and keeping up bulk-billing rates because of the cuts to their incomes, on top of the Medicare rebate freeze that they dealt with, through the application of the Modified Monash Model system.

The roundtables that we had with the member for Dobell on the Central Coast really highlighted a region whose population, compared to the demographic average across the country, is older than average and has a range of more complex health conditions. It gets no support from this decision. Again, it is treated as if it's part of Sydney. There are parts of Sydney that are treated as what we used to call a district of workforce shortage, but the Central Coast is not one of them. If you actually go through the Central Coast and talk to GPs who have surgeries that have no GPs in them—surgeries that were built to deal with the enormous growth in population on the Central Coast, a growth in population that is weighted towards the older part of the population—the lack of any attention in this budget to these challenges around bulk billing and the availability of workforce in regions like the Central Coast and the Hunter Valley is particularly stark.

With those remarks, I move, as a second reading amendment:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House urges the Government to implement policies to better protect Australians' health".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amended seconded?

Dr Freelander: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Hindmarsh has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (10:42): The Morrison government always has a view to the future. Whenever there is an opportunity, no matter how small, to make an efficiency gain and improve the lives of hardworking everyday Australians, we take it. This legislation exemplifies this in a very small way. It removes a minor but impractical administrative measure that burdens medical practitioners and ultimately their patients. This is in line with the Morrison government's commitment to delivering an even better post-COVID-19 healthcare system. We should be ambitious for our healthcare system. That is why I served on the board of Cabrini hospital before coming to this place. The only hospital in Higgins, it is a not-for-profit Catholic-based private hospital. As I said in my first speech, our healthcare system is undoubtedly one of the best, if not the best, in the world. It is a unique and effective blend of public and private, where the private sector provides innovation and choice and the public sector provides a safety net for all.

This bill simplifies the administrative processes for recognition of specialist and consultant physicians for Medicare purposes under the Health Insurance Act 1973. I note the member for Macarthur in the chamber here today. I know he will welcome this small addition to the changes we're rolling out. It will remove the requirement to pay a $30 prescribed fee for specialist and consultant physicians for Medicare purposes. This benefits practitioners and also Services Australia, who are tasked with processing this fee. Ultimately, it helps patients.

Currently the pathway to be recognised as a specialist or consultant physician requires a medical practitioner to apply to Services Australia for access to higher Medicare rebates. This process requires a medical practitioner to pay a prescribed fee of $30 by a cheque or money order to have their application processed. The issue with this payment is that it is fundamentally outdated, an issue heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Movement restrictions and in-person services quotas meant that practitioners had trouble paying the fee, while Services Australia had trouble processing the fee. As a result, patients missed out on receiving higher Medicare rebates.

The cost of requiring a new modern system to take digital payments—and it is pretty hard to believe that we are talking about this in the 21st century—is far in excess of the $200,000 in revenue this payment generates over four years. Put simply, this is a prime example of red tape. It does not contribute significantly to government revenue, it doesn't help doctors and, with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now unfairly hurting the hip pocket of patients. This bill corrects this issue. This small but important tweak is just one of the Morrison government's efforts to ensure a modern and efficient healthcare system post COVID-19.

The impact of COVID-19 means that we have been required to become more sophisticated and flexible in the use of technology and to think differently about how to solve problems that everyday Australians face. For the short term, we will have to continue to be agile and creative—and I welcome the fact that Australia has been very good at pivoting across many different aspects, including our healthcare sector. One of the great developments coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the great pivots of 2020, has been the rapid expansion of telehealth services. I welcome the comments from the member for Hindmarsh, but I have a point of difference with him about the rollout of telehealth services.

The uptake of new technology has been challenging for the best of us. However, as they so often do, our medical and healthcare practitioners have taken this in their stride. They should be congratulated for their adaptability and responsiveness. Due to the program's success in telehealth medicine, and in the interests of safety in protecting both our doctors and patients, this has now been extended to 30 June 2021. The government has consulted extensively with peak bodies and members of the medical and health profession to ensure the staged and proportionate integration of healthcare services.

Last year on 27 November the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, flagged that telehealth in the long term will become a permanent addition to Australia's Medicare system. I look forward to this commitment being secured and I congratulate the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, on the excellent work that he has done in initiating a very rapid rollout, in 10 weeks, of something that could have taken 10 years in a normal period of time to be rolled out. I understand that he is working very hard with the sector to make sure that the rollout goes smoothly and that it is sustainable in the long term. But certainly with 3.3 million video consultations and 41 million phone consultations provided last year it is clear patients and medical practitioners alike have taken up telehealth with enthusiasm.

While telehealth will never replace the more attentive and important care given in an in-person consultation, it fills a key gap in our health system. Whether you are travelling hundreds of kilometres, if not thousands of kilometres, across this wide continent to see your medical practitioner or in particular, your specialist, or whether you are sitting for hours in congested traffic in our major inner cities, telehealth provides an efficient and rapid way for patients to connect with doctors. We know this will improve the effectiveness. As a paediatrician, I know that parents sometimes have to take time off work in order to take their child to an appointment and to sit for hours in a medical practitioner's rooms—and, yes, I would say that I was responsible for some of that sitting as, even though you do try to be effective and efficient as a medical practitioner, sometimes the wait can be long. Telehealth provides the ability for people to be able to care for themselves and their families and to be able to do this in an efficient and effective way.

I do however think that it is important that we focus on telehealth utilising video technology. At the moment, telehealth is predominantly phone based, with 80 per cent of services being provided by phone. This is where my views differ from those of the member for Hindmarsh, in that I think that percentage should be 80 per cent videohealth. The reason for that is that we know many cues come from a video experience. By not allowing that to be the most important aspect of the telehealth services means that medical practitioners are potentially missing out on some important cues that they may receive via videoconference.

I do understand that older Australians may not be as technology savvy as some might believe, but I think that older Australians have been enthusiastic with their uptake of things like telehealth and that, once they have seen the light, so to speak, with regards to videohealth, they will enthusiastically embrace it. We need to make sure that this is transitioned carefully and that there is support to ensure that the videohealth links are secure and safe and that privacy is also maintained. But I do believe that these things can be addressed and certainly should be addressed.

Access to bulk-billed appointments via phone or video don't just benefit Australians in accessing their regular appointments in a pandemic but also help ensure that people, who perhaps have depression or are unwell, who do not wish to or cannot wish to leave their homes—particularly in cold winter months in Melbourne—are more likely to access health care. That is very important for early intervention and is very important for secondary prevention to prevent readmissions when people have been home from hospital. Too often Australians, particularly those living with chronic health disease or with disabilities, and especially those with fluctuating conditions, will face delays in accessing health care and that can potentially compound their conditions.

During COVID one of the reasons that telehealth facilities were rolled out was to protect health practitioners as well. It meant that, in that swift crisis that we all faced, we were able to ensure that, when we were facing difficulties with PPE and mask acquisition, we could keep our frontline workers as safe as possible. So the use of telehealth has had a myriad of uses throughout the COVID pandemic.

The use of telehealth is about protecting the most vulnerable members of our healthcare network. It is jointly about guaranteeing that vulnerable patients can receive continuity of care and advice. The expanded use of telehealth will undoubtedly be a positive legacy piece of the COVID-19 pandemic and one that all Australians should feel proud.

The government is also implementing the most significant reforms to private health insurance in over a decade, which is making private health insurance simpler and more affordable. From 1 April 2021 the government increased the maximum age of dependants for private health insurance policies from 24 to 31 years and removed the age limit for dependants with a disability. I cannot emphasise how important this will be to ensuring that young people maintain their private health cover, particularly if they've been part of their family's private health cover. This is part of the government's commitment to ensuring private health insurance is affordable and provides value for money for its consumers. This serves the additional purpose of encouraging young Australians to continue with private health insurance when they reach the age of 31—the age at which lifetime health cover commences.

My son is an example of this. He was on our family cover. He is a young man who has epilepsy. Unbeknownst to us he allowed his private health insurance to lapse. During that period of time he was trying to access a neurological appointment and took a long time to receive an appointment. In the meantime he was on the wrong dose of his antiepileptic medication. He suffered a seizure, a generalised convulsion, which can be quite dangerous. So because he allowed his PHI to lapse he actually put his own health and life at risk. I am delighted to say that he will now be able to be incorporated into our family health cover. And hopefully as a young man, who has only just commenced employment in the workforce, he may see the benefits of private health insurance going forward.

This gap between 24 and 31 years of age is often the time that young people are going out into the workforce. They have a lot of additional expenses. They are saving, hopefully, for their first home—as a member of Goldstein would be very pleased to hear—and they also have difficulties with job security. So PHI or private health insurance is often not their No. 1 expense. I think this extension is a very welcome extension. I think it will be a benefit, ensuring that people who wish or choose to invest in private health insurance will continue that coverage from their family coverage onwards.

The Morrison government has worked hard to ensure the vitality of our healthcare system before, during and now after the COVID-19 pandemic; although, I note we're still not out of the woods yet. This minor but worthwhile amendment to prescribed fees is a welcome change, which will abolish this administrative imposition on medical practitioners. This is great news for our healthcare system, its practitioners and ultimately for patients. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:54): First of all I would like to acknowledge the contribution by the Member for Higgins. I would also like to acknowledge the Member for Lyne as being, with myself and the Member for Higgins, one of three people who have direct knowledge of this particular amendment. I would like to commend the shadow minister for health, Mark Butler, for his deep understanding of our healthcare system and knowledge of this particular amendment. As with many things that this government does, we support the amendment but understand that this is tinkering at the edges of a healthcare system that is under increasing stress.

It is good as a specialist to receive your specialist acknowledgement by achieving the fellowship of your royal college, be it the college of physicians or the college of surgeons or psychiatrists or whatever specialty. That's very important and a great part of our joy in receiving specialist recognition. But part of that also is the time when you can get specialist recognition for payment through Medicare. I remember in 1983 having to get either a bank cheque or a money order rather than a personal cheque to pay my contribution for this. Every specialist really waits for that moment and it is a really important time. The fact that we are now allowing it to happen in a much more ordered and modern way is really correcting an anachronism that should be long past, as the shadow minister commented. However, it is tinkering at the edges of what is a very significant problem in our healthcare system, and that is access to higher level specialist care.

Across the board we see in Australia a degradation in life expectancy from inner-city and metropolitan to outer metropolitan, rural, regional and remote areas. Life expectancy gradually decreases along that line. Access to higher level care increasingly is restricted to people living in inner metropolitan areas. We see that in a whole range of mortality and morbidity figures. With the advent of modern health care, we are seeing increasingly complex procedures available. For things like for coronary artery disease, urgent stent insertion is now the treatment of choice and has contributed markedly to a reduction in mortality and, indeed, a reduction in morbidity in our major capital cities. This is less and less available the farther we move from the inner city of all our major capital cities. These treatments mean that people live longer and are able to return to the workforce following a heart attack much more quickly and with much less disability. We see those available increasingly in our capital cities, but it's still a major difficulty in our rural and regional areas and also in our outer metropolitan areas. There are new treatments—for the management of stroke, for example, with clot retrieval—which are essentially available only in our inner cities on a regular basis, and little effort is being made by the government to try to provide these higher level medical services to outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas. There seems to be little acknowledgement from the government of the difficulties in getting these procedures made available to all Australians.

One issue that the government has spoken about is the increases in Medicare payments to GPs living in rural and regional areas. Yet, for the last five years, I have been writing to the minister for health, explaining to him how difficult it is to recruit GPs to our outer metropolitan areas. More recently, the changes to the area-of-need classifications for the outer metropolitan areas, as the shadow minister for health spoke about, are making it very, very difficult to recruit general practitioners to our outer metropolitan areas.

In my electorate of Macarthur, one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country, I have general practices contacting me every week saying they can't recruit GPs to work in their already overburdened clinics, which puts enormous pressure not only on our patients but also on our public hospitals, which are now being used as general practices by many people because they can't access general practice care. This is a failure of the government to understand that their responsibility is to deliver the best health care they can to all Australians, not just some. This is, again, a failure of understanding the importance of health care to everyone.

There are other issues that the government is also failing on. The member for Higgins mentioned private health insurance. Some of the changes that the government recently made to private health insurance, in particular in the area of disability, allowing people with disability to remain on their parents' health insurance indefinitely, have been very important changes. But it is too little, too late. The numbers in private health insurance are dropping, which is putting more and more pressure on our public health system, which the government seems to be quite happy to let happen, without any real move to improve the viability of private health insurance for all Australians.

In terms of technology, the government's idea of how My Health Record is working is deeply flawed, yet there is little commitment from the government to try and improve our electronic healthcare records. This is very poor. This is the future of health data, and how we store and use that data is increasingly going to impact on all our health care as the future evolves. Yet the government has done nothing to improve My Health Record, to the point where the whole system needs to be redesigned and re-established because the majority of Australians are not using electronic healthcare records. This is increasingly important as we develop an understanding of the genetic nature of disease and how we apply that to health management across a whole range of fields, from cardiovascular disease to obesity and diabetes, to cancer therapy and cancer management.

In this budget—this is another piecemeal measure—the government has put in some funding to provide support for breast cancer genetic screening. That's very important but it's only part of the answer. There is no commitment from the government to an overall picture of gene and cell management. We need to be doing this as a whole-of-health approach, not just as a piecemeal approach all the time. That's what we get from this government.

Unfortunately, it's not just in electronic health records and other technology; little is being done to support the telehealth and telemedicine regime. The recent changes were announced by the minister without consultation and without any proper engagement with the healthcare workforce, yet this is going to be a very important part of our health future. This should have entailed consultation with a whole range of health providers—not just doctors and general practitioners but specialists, nursing staff, allied health staff, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. A whole range of options could be made available to try and improve our telehealth system, futureproofing it and enabling the expansion of services for the benefit of all patients.

Telehealth is not just very important in rural and regional areas; it's very important in electorates like mine, which have a high level of disadvantaged patients, a high level of Indigenous patients and a high level of people with disability. Access to telehealth is very important and should have been expanded by the minister, with support given to practices to establish more telehealth facilities. The ability to conference telehealth and engage other practitioners for case conferences et cetera should have been expanded. As a paediatrician I found access to case conferences vitally important for my patients, often those with multiple disabilities. A process should have been put in place by the minister to allow this to happen rather than restricting access to telehealth practices.

Again, whilst this amendment gets agreement from both sides of the parliament, it's piecemeal, it doesn't look at the overall health picture and it could have been done a whole lot better with a philosophy of improving health care for all Australians. If you live in the inner city it may well be that you get good access to a whole range of health services, but, in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas, access to high-level specialist care is increasingly being rationed, and the health outcomes in terms of both mortality and morbidity are being paid for by some of the most disadvantaged groups in our country.

This change is a very small change. Whilst I welcome it, I want the government to look at putting in more processes that enable high-level specialist care to be given to people living in rural, remote and isolated areas. It can be done. Teaching-hospital-level health care should be available to everyone in Australia. There are ways of doing this. The health cardiology bus that is used in remote and regional areas of Queensland to provide high-level cardiac care to the teaching-hospital level should be available across the country. Our most remote Indigenous families should have access to high-level eye care, high-level ENT care and high-level cardiovascular and diabetes care. We know that can be done with a commitment from a government that philosophically understands the importance of universal access to the best health care possible.

The government has approached the whole health issue in a piecemeal and very political way, without a philosophy of providing the best care to everyone. We've seen rollouts of some innovative health policies occurring in very advantaged communities and not in disadvantaged communities. Once again, the health workforce is not being evenly supported across the country. In my own area, the electorate of Macarthur, we have had major problems recruiting GPs to work in our GP clinics, major difficulties recruiting specialists to work in our hospitals and major difficulties providing tertiary-level health services in the outer metropolitan area. There are ways of doing this much, much better.

Whilst we support this amendment, the government needs to do more to support health care for all Australians. In particular, we need to look to the future and we need to futureproof our health care for everyone. That means a commitment to electronic healthcare records for everyone, a commitment to supporting telehealth, a commitment to supporting the most disadvantaged and, overall, a commitment to supporting our workforce that has supported us so well throughout the pandemic.

One of the reasons Australia has done so well in the pandemic is our health workforce. I don't just mean the epidemiologists and the infectious-diseases consultants; I mean the nursing staff, the contact tracers and the IT specialists—the people who work on the ground to make sure we are all protected. I really thank them so much for this, but we need more from the government for overall health care as we emerge from the pandemic so that there is justice for all within our health system. I thank the House. I thank the shadow minister for his amendment, and I reiterate our approval of it.

Dr MARTIN (Reid) (11:08): I rise to speak in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove the requirement for new specialists and consultant physicians to pay a prescribed fee when applying for recognition for higher Medicare rebates. It reaffirms the Morrison government's commitment to cutting red tape and ensuring better access to health services for all Australians.

This amendment is a small amendment, but the changes will ease the bureaucratic process for recognition as a new specialist or consultant physician for Medicare purposes under the Health Insurance Act 1973. It does this by removing the requirement to pay a $30 fee to gain access to higher Medicare rebates. As it stands at the moment, the current pathway to recognise a specialist or a consultant physician requires a medical practitioner who has gained fellowship with a specialist medical college to supply to Services Australia for access to higher Medicare rebates. As part of this process, the medical practitioner must pay the prescribed fee, $30, via money order or cheque. Only then can the application be processed.

This simple amendment will reduce the cost and processing times for new specialists and consultant physicians to be recognised for Medicare purposes, therefore providing more efficient patient access to higher Medicare rebates. During the COVID crisis, it became apparent that this method of payment was impacting specialist and consultant physician recognition for the purposes of Medicare. This was mainly because neither method of payment was efficient or practical during movement restrictions and in-person service closures. As a result, patients of new specialists or consultant physicians may not have been able to receive higher Medicare rebates when they were entitled to.

These changes will not only remove costs for physicians and provide better access for patients; they will also make it easier for Services Australia to more efficiently process applications from new specialists and consultant physicians, ensuring earlier access for patients to higher rebates. If this change is not made, patients of new specialists and consultants may not be able to receive higher medical rebates during any future movement restrictions and/or reductions in in-person service availability. In the past, this requirement has delayed access to higher Medicare rebates.

The government has done a lot to assist with patients access to better health care. More Australians are now seeing their doctor without having to pay. Nearly nine out of 10 visits are free. The GP bulk-billing rate was 89.3 per cent in 2020, compared to 81.9 per cent in 2012-13, Labor's last year in government. In total, there were 440 million Medicare services last year, with $25.9 billion in total benefits paid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have extended Medicare subsidised telehealth services, enabling more than 50 million consultations since the crisis began.

In summary, this amendment, which is a rather simple and small amendment, will reduce red tape and improve efficiency so patients have better access to health care. We don't want our doctors consumed with paperwork. We want them to treat patients. I support the changes.

Mr CONROY (Shortland) (11:12): This bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021, goes to the future of the healthcare system in this country. I thank the speakers, on both sides, for their contributions about the impact of this on modernising payment schemes. In particular, I find it incredible that we're still asking people to pay by cheques or money order. I'm 42 years old. I don't think I've ever used a money order in my life.

An honourable member: You don't look a day over 21.

Mr CONROY: Thank you. There's a lot of kindness in the room today. I attribute it to the budget hangover.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): There'll be enough of that.

Mr CONROY: The modernisation of payment systems is really important, particularly in COVID, when we need to upgrade our payment systems to make them as contactless as possible. I think that's very important. In his contribution, particularly in his second reading amendment, the shadow minister for health went to the broader issues that surround doctor training and workforce development. I'm going to take this opportunity to make a contribution on those broader issues, which are canvassed in the second reading amendment.

The changes to the Modified Monash Model for how we pay GPs is a disgrace. The fact that they have changed the classification of regions like mine has had a huge impact on bulk-billing rates. The cut to the bulk-billing incentive has had a direct impact on my electorate. For example, I had a roundtable discussion last week with GPs. They reported that it has cut payments to GPs salaries by $9,000 a year. That's on top of the fact that GPs have had a pay freeze for many years under this government. This government is continuing to diminish the value of GPs and, by attacking their remuneration, is making it a lot less attractive to GPs to train and go through the long process of becoming a GP. So we're seeing that cut impacting on the workforce.

On top of that, the implication for GPs is that, if they want to stay in business, they're going to have to increase the number of patients that pay a gap. In fact, GPs reported to me that, before the cut to the GP bulk-billing incentive, they were running at about 80 per cent bulk-billing and 20 per cent non-bulk-billing. That's reversed. They are now only bulk-billing 20 per cent for their patients. To quote one GP, this payment cut was 'the straw that broke the camel's back' in terms of their focus and commitment to bulk-bill. That's incredibly tragic. It's undermining the entire Medicare system and it's incredibly counterproductive.

Medicare is based on access to health care being based on need, not financial ability. We canvassed this issue when this government launched another attack on Medicare, which was the attempted introduction of the $7 co-payment charge. In testimony to a Senate inquiry into that, the Department of Health quantified the cost savings from it. They quantified that it would avoid four million visits to GPs per year. It was able to quantify that, if just one in 50 of those people who avoided visiting the GP presented to a hospital emergency department, the savings would be wiped out. The tricky bit is that the savings would accrue to the federal government, while the cost increases for EDs would be borne by the state government.

We are seeing an attack on preventive health and an attack on primary care under this government. That's having a huge impact on the Medicare system, and that's why the second reading amendment from the shadow minister is so important.

Another part of what GPs raised with me last week was the issue of the lack of ability to see specialists through the public system. These GPs said to me that they've basically given up on referring their patients through the public system to specialists because the wait can be up to four or five years. That's catastrophic. The most tragic case I heard was of a five-year-old boy who has been on the waiting list to see an ear, nose and throat specialist for two years. He's got constant ear infections, which are impacting on his hearing, impacting on his ability to learn and leading him to be further and further behind his classmates. He's been on the waiting list for two years. This is something that has an easy fix. While I'm not a doctor, I understand that grommets are probably the preferred course of treatment. Having had grommets, I can say that they did help with my particular issue. I try not to be too personal or to give false advice, but this GP said that grommets would provide an easy fix to this poor boy's situation. But he's been on the waiting list for two years and is likely to have to wait another two years to get the grommets. During that time he will be falling further and further behind his classmates. His potential to make the greatest contribution he can to our society is being diminished because of this. Ultimately, I would submit, the economic cost of the loss of potential of that young boy's life, from a purely economic point of view, outweighs any cost savings from this government's continued attack on the ability of people to see specialists through the public health system. That was another issue that was raised in this particular forum.

The third issue—and I'll finish on the third one—is the issue of bonded doctors. A number of doctors have come to see me concerned about the incompetence displayed by the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Department of Health in managing the transition of the bonded doctors system. These doctors said to me that a couple of years ago they received notification from the Department of Health that the way doctors were bonded was changing. Instead of having to provide six or seven years of service as bonded doctors going to rural and remote areas they only had to do three. Therefore, they received a certificate saying that they had acquitted their service. Now the Department of Health has come back to them and said: 'We made a mistake. We're changing back to that. And, by the way, for the two years that you weren't doing your rural or remote service, because we told you didn't need to, we're now going to go you and you're possibly going to lose your Medicare provider number,' and a whole lot of other catastrophic things that would mean that these GPs and other doctors wouldn't be able to practise for 12 years. This is symptomatic of a government that can't manage the healthcare system. They can't manage primary healthcare, they can't manage the ability to make sure that people can see a doctor when they need to and not have to wait till when they can afford to. I'll end my contribution there. I commend the bill, with the second reading amendment, to the House. It covers some important areas of the health system.

Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (11:20): I thank my colleague, the member for Shortland, for speaking earlier than perhaps he thought he might on this bill because I was a little late into the chamber. I rise to speak on this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021. As those speaking before me have said, Labor supports this bill. There is a second reading amendment which talks about GPs, and I want to take the opportunity to speak on the legislation because there are a number of issues relating to GPs and health services in my electorate of Dunkley that I am incredibly eager for the government to take up and either support or fix.

The first relates to something that my colleague who was speaking just before me, the member for Shortland, was speaking about, and that is lack of access to GPs. In particular, this is an issue in outer suburban areas. My seat of Dunkley is an outer suburban seat. I have spoken before about the GP clinics that are finding it just impossible to get Australian trained GPs to come and work at their clinics. They have been relying on GPs from other countries and are now finding themselves in quite dire straits because they cannot keep GPs employed. As I have raised with the Minister for Health and Aged Care and have spoken about in this chamber before, the main issues are that, as an outer suburban area, we're not classified as a distribution priority area; that the removal of Medicare incentive payment 10981 causes financial difficulties and is a disincentive for doctors staying in bulk billing clinics, as opposed to going into private practice; and that clinics would like to see options for sponsoring doctors from overseas, because they can't hire locally—this was difficult before the pandemic and is even more difficult now.

I appreciate that these are not simple issues to resolve but, in the end, the clinics that I'm talking about are in places like Carrum Downs and Frankston and look after people who rely on bulk billing. They look after some of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged people in the broader Melbourne area. We know that, in the community of Frankston, we are just so far below the rest of Melbourne, the rest of Victoria and the rest of the country in regard to a lot of the health measures and in terms of life expectancy. There are issues with alcohol and other drug addictions. Diabetes is a significant issue. I could go on and on. We need good GPs and really good GP clinics that bulk bill. It's an issue that I've been raising for way more than 12 months now, and I'll continue to raise it. It's an ongoing and serious issue in my community.

The other issue that we have in my community that is not being addressed by the federal government and that charities, the not-for-profits, have had to step in and address—it has been raised with the minister of health, because it's also operating in his electorate of Flinders, but I'm yet to see any government support for it—is access to paediatricians for children from disadvantaged areas. There is a real problem with children from lower socioeconomic areas not getting in to see paediatricians. I can't even believe I have to say that sentence out loud in the federal parliament. That just should not be the case. The Menzies organisation, as a charity—with an amazing local man named Kevin Johnson, who is part of it—is providing paediatricians in schools. They are now servicing 22 schools with paediatricians in the broader Mornington Peninsula, including the Frankston area. From 27 January year until 1 April of this year alone, in term 1, there were 323 appointments for children to see paediatricians, including appointments for 85 new patients, often, particularly for those 85 new patients, for the first time—the first time ever that they had seen a paediatrician in their young lives.

In my electorate, the Paediatricians in Schools Outreach Program is out of Mahogany Rise Primary School, which also services Aldercourt, Seaford Park, Kananook and Monterey Secondary College; and out of Karingal Primary School, which services Frankston East, Ballam Park, Karingal Heights and Kingsley Park. This is a program that is providing essential care for children who need it now. It also provides that crucial preventative health care that not only enriches the lives of the children but also has so many benefits for the community and for the bottom line of health budgets. This is done by Menzies in conjunction with Peninsula Health through donations alone. As I said, it is not supported by government funding. I'm hopeful, because I've lobbied for it, that when we have the opportunity to go through the detail of the measures in the health budget that I will find some money in there for this essential and amazing program, but certainly it hasn't been announced. My serious concern is that the Minister for Health and Aged Care, whose electorate this program operates in, hasn't seen fit to support it. That's why I wanted to speak on this legislation. It's a terrific program and I really urge the government to support basic health care for young children who otherwise would not get it in my community and in the electorate of Flinders.

Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (11:27): The Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021 simplifies the administrative processes for the recognition of specialists and consultant physicians by Medicare under the Health Insurance Act. It does this by removing the prescribed fee of $30. As the member for Hindmarsh and other speakers have noted, the current pathway in the act to recognise a specialist or a consultant physician requires a medical practitioner who has gained fellowship with a specialist medical college to apply to Services Australia for access to higher Medicare rebates. As part of this process, a medical practitioner is required to pay a prescribed fee of $30 via cheque or money order. One wonders how we got so out of date that this is still the process. Rather than just being out of date, this method of payment became difficult during the COVID-19 crisis and in particular during movement restrictions. This had a massive impact on specialist and consultant physician recognition for the purpose of Medicare.

The government explored the option of implementing more modern payment methods for these fees but the costs of such an upgrade were assessed as far greater than the loss in revenue from scrapping the fee. As a result, the government has elected to remove the fee entirely, which this bill gives effect to. Labor supports this measure as it will remove a barrier to better building the specialist medical workforce that Australia needs. But, again, how tiny a tweak is this. After eight long years of Liberal government, this, unfortunately, is the type of reform that we get.

Let's be clear, the government have failed on their two jobs with regard to health care this year. The first was the speedy, effective rollout of the vaccine; and the second was a safe, national quarantine system to protect returning Australians during the vaccine rollout. This government and this Prime Minister are failing on both measures. The Prime Minister has said that the vaccine rollout, in his words, 'is not a race'. Well, I disagree. It actually is the race of our lives. You cannot have a first-rate economic recovery with a third-rate vaccine rollout. This government has missed every target it has set. The Prime Minister promised four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March. After failing that target, the government's next target was six million Australians vaccinated by 10 May. With only just over 2.5 million vaccinations completed, 1.7 million of which have been delivered by the federal government, Scott Morrison has again utterly failed in achieving his own target. Frontline healthcare workers, aged-care workers and disability residents—all in the government's 1a rollout—were all supposed to be vaccinated by Easter; yet so many of them are still to receive their jabs.

At 400,000 doses per week, it will take two years for everyone to be protected from the virus—two years! The Prime Minister has been saying for weeks now that the vaccination program was ramping up. Well, it had better ramp up a mighty steep ramp, because he has no record of delivering on anything that he says he will. It's heartbreaking for so many people in our economy who need our borders open and who are relying on the rollout of the vaccine for their businesses to survive. It is heartbreaking for people who fear another lockdown and the pressure that that puts on their livelihoods and on the economy. It is negligent.

We know that this virus is already mutating. There are variants spreading right through the world now that will probably require populations to receive a booster shot. But, in order to get the booster shot, we have to first be vaccinated. I grant you that, but countries like the UK are preparing for booster shots as early as September and October. I'm already being asked by doctors and other people in my electorate what the plan is for booster shots. Have we bought booster shots? Are we yet negotiating with companies to have them onshore, ready when they need to be given, or are we going to be left at the back of the queue again just as we were with the vaccines? I note, significantly, that it appears that there was no money allocated for boosters in the budget.

With regard to the vaccine rollout in aged care, it's been nothing short of a disaster. Families and residents have been constantly asking me when their residential aged-care facilities will receive the vaccine. I have had heartbreaking phone calls from people who have seen the state publicly run facility in a regional town get all their doses for the staff to be vaccinated and for the families to be happy and content that their residents are safe, while a privately run facility down the road that is in the purview of the federal government has no idea when the vaccines will be rolled out there. The public health networks are in the dark as much as we are. It's pretty crook when aged-care providers are ringing me and other local members to find out when their facilities will be getting their vaccinations. They can't find out that information from the federal government.

We are hearing stories of nursing homes being all set up, the residents all primed, the families all informed and the staff all ready to roll out the vaccinations, but no-one turns up. One aged-care facility told me recently that they went through the whole process. They lined everybody up—they had 160 residents—and everybody was getting a vaccination, until there were about eight residents left and they ran out. That facility had to tell those eight residents and their families that they had to miss out, with no plan to come back and no plan to make sure that those residents actually got the vaccination in the end. It was reported on the ABC that one aged-care facility, TLC—which actually have a facility in my electorate—decided to take the vaccination of their residents and their staff into their own hands. Their CEO, Lou Pascuzzi, said:

We really didn't want our residents, staff or contractors to endure another winter with the nervousness and trepidation that they have endured over the last 16 months.

We've got immunisation capabilities and primary care capabilities.

We decided to approach the government … and ask for permission to administer phase 1a ourselves.

That says a hell of a lot about the government's ability to roll out the vaccine to our aged-care facilities.

The other job the federal government had was to provide a safe national quarantine system, a responsibility that has been the Commonwealth's for more than a century. The hotel quarantine system that was put in place last year is not a long-term solution. What the Prime Minister needs to do is build a network of dedicated facilities around the country that are fit for purpose. This is a government which only acts when it has its back to the wall.

Even after all the horrors of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the Prime Minister still hasn't acknowledged that it was his cuts to the aged-care sector that have led to the crisis. The Prime Minister expects us to congratulate him for last night's budget announcements, but the truth is the package handed down last night still has huge gaps that leave our residents in aged care wanting. As someone who has spent a long time campaigning for aged care, I don't believe this budget package is the generational reform that the royal commission wanted and that the system so desperately needs. It seems to me to be more untied funding for providers that lacks proper wage increases for new nurses and carers. The Prime Minister must explain why he has refused to accept recommendations that require a registered nurse to be on duty at all times in nursing homes, why the government have refused to act to help increase the wages of nurses and carers, why they have failed to implement a registration program for carers and why the Prime Minister has not committed to implementing a comprehensive workforce plan.

Critically, there is no plan to ensure real accountability and transparency of taxpayers' money. There is nothing that seriously reforms the system to see exactly where the money goes, no change to the auditing requirements to stop money being funnelled away to Maseratis and offshore tax havens or secret family trusts, when residents are not being fed properly or are in soiled clothing and can't get access to proper care. As for the promises of staffing guarantees—two years down the track, mind you—and other promises made for aged care, given the huge gap between this Prime Minister's announcements and delivery, why should older Australians and their families trust him to follow through and fix his broken system?

On another point, I am a nurse, and I have been thinking a lot recently about preventive and primary health care, because that seems to be a term that this government rarely uses. There was practically nothing in the budget for preventive health care. As a nurse I was trained to consider the social determinants of health. That means your economic circumstances play a major role in your health outcomes and need to be dealt with if we are to have a healthy nation. Study after study shows that investing in primary health care and preventive health is far cheaper and more effective than waiting for people to end up in hospital, in our tertiary care system, which is resource intensive, overrun and very much more expensive. It is literally the old 'fence at the top of the cliff rather than the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff' argument. It is a no-brainer.

We need bolder thinking. We need healthcare reform. We need better and longer access to general practitioners, where there is a crisis of shortages. We need more access to nurse-practitioner led care, where appropriate, to improve reach and health outcomes. We need easier access to allied health practitioners, healthier kids with wraparound services attached to schools, more community led health care, with community health centres, and investment in Aboriginal health community care. We need so much more from a government when it comes to our nation's health. We need to bolster the health of the nation. And on this day, International Nurses Day, I would like to say a great big thankyou to all the nurses in Australia, who worked so hard to keep us safe during the COVID crisis and who work hard every day to keep the health of our nation in a better state.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (11:39): I rise in support of this very practical bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021. This bill reforms the requirement that an emerging, soon-to-be-registered specialist medical practitioner or consultant physician has to pay a $30 fee. Having gone through 10 years of advanced training, being approved by the relevant college, being approved by the specialist advisory committee in that subspecialty and applying to AHPRA—going through all those checks, balances and quality assurance mechanisms—there is a $30 fee at the end of all that.

The department which administers the Health Insurance Act has realised that the digital transfer cost to bring this into the digital age, for each emerging specialist—and there are only so many of them each year—would far outweigh any administrative benefit, given all those other checks and balances. So, hallelujah! A bit of common sense is being applied; they're going to waive this fee. I don't think anyone will object to that, because we have a very good regulatory system—just like we have a very good health budget that was announced last night. It's mind-boggling how much money the coalition government has put into the health budget since we were given the responsibility of governing the nation in 2013.

During the COVID crisis the response has been exemplary; around the world, people are looking on in envy at how we responded and how we have avoided the crises other nations are involved in now. Over the last few months, we have had 81 days with no transmissions. That's an amazing percentage. Obviously, there will be transmissions every now and again, but we are increasingly back to near-normal life and that's because we have managed the health crisis well. That's with public health measures, border measures and contact tracing—all of those things.

As I said, the response is just mind-boggling. We have funded respiratory centres, and private hospital systems have been engaged to cope with any overflow from public hospital systems in the COVID crisis period. Obviously, in this budget we're continuing all these services—all the respiratory clinics, helping with the vaccination rollout, and engaging with the state health systems for them to do their part as well. All this requires an awful lot of taxpayer funds but the coalition government and this health ministry have been right ahead of the curve. The more detail I see, the more practical and clinically beneficial it will be. We have a generational step change in how the federal government intervenes to help with mental health and suicide prevention.

We have a plan—a macro plan and micro details—and now we have money attached. All these plans are great, but if they're not funded they don't deliver the full benefit. I note with great relief that we're going to expand the headspace service, with 54 more places. We're going to expand support for the Head to Health initiative for kids and for adults. All the links to digital support for mental health services are being supported: Lifeline, beyondblue and the Butterfly Foundation. All these issues are really important. Eating disorders are getting much more fiscal support out of this budget—all the services that help people with eating disorders will be really pleased. I recall that, when I was in practice, there were very few services on the whole North Coast that could look after specialised eating disorder patients. There were a couple of very effective units in major centres, mainly in Sydney, but now that we've got all these other allied services in this space it will be so much better.

Unfortunately in mental health, the apogee of it all and the sad bit is when people take their own life or attempt to take their own life because their mental health is disordered and to them it seems like that's the logical way out. But fortunately we do save people from failed attempts. Post discharge, the care after one leaves a place where they've been an inpatient and cared for is a very risky period. The aftercare of people who've gone through a suicide attempt is now addressed in this budget. There will be an aftercare system.

We're looking at new and innovative treatments, including transcranial magnetic stimulation for refractory depression. This is evidence of the logical plan, as I said. It's all been thought through. We've had three ministers involved in this, including the Minister for Health and Aged Care and Assistant Minister Coleman. It's obviously been a really well thought through plan. We're looking at improving mental health workforce and workplace support, as well as mental health governance of all these arms that we are putting funds into. Also, there are some sections of our country that are at higher risk because things get lost in translation or the services aren't that thick on the ground, particularly in some multicultural groups and in the Indigenous space, so there are extra funds allocated for that.

The other thing I like about this budget, that's been very well received, is the focus on rural and regional health. You might have seen that in the days leading up to the budget we had some preliminary information. The increase in the bulk-billing incentive in a progressive fashion—currently it's at 150 per cent in difficult metropolitan areas. But, in aligning the population size to an increase in incentive, the more remote and regional you go the bigger the incentive. In an area that might have 50,000 people—a sizeable regional town—that would be a modified Monash 3. A big metropolitan centre is Monash 1. A very remote place is a Monash 7. Once you get into a modified Monash 3 it goes to 160 per cent. And then step wise up through three, four, five, six and seven it goes up to 190 per cent extra on the bulk-billing incentive, which will make medical practice much more sustainable in those more remote areas.

Everything is usually more complex there. People tend to get sicker. They have more comorbidities. There is much more responsibility without all the associated support mechanisms that people take for granted when you are in a metropolitan centre: you might have three specialists that you could reach to for help and there's probably a hospital, an accident and an emergency. But when you're in regional and remote Australia all of that falls onto the practice. In many cases they are often a de facto emergency centre. They're an after-hours centre. They have to look after really sick people until they can get evacuated after road trauma or after serious illness that is beyond the capability of a regional or a small, country district hospital.

There is also extra care in the workforce planning and the workforce incentives. As you know, there are some scholarships that we have supported for many years. One of the best ones to get young students training in their basic medical degree is called the John Flynn scholarship, after the fellow who started the Royal Flying Doctor Service. In a sequential way, during their training these students revisit and spend time in the same practice. They get longitudinal exposure to rural and regional practice, because the health workforce in the regional space is probably the biggest challenge. It is a complex area to fill. It's the same issue as for a lot of the other professional services. Trying to get pharmacists and physios in the regions is a lot harder than in a metropolitan place. It's the same with dentists and in other professions for that matter. But in the medical space we have a metrocentric distribution of services.

One of the best markers of a quality health system is easy access to those entry-level primary care services. That's why it is so important that we keep supporting all these rural initiatives. We've got extra funds to have more specialist, non-GP training in regional areas. We have grants to keep regional doctors all doing stuff up to date. They can go and do upskilling courses. It is a continuous and relentless responsibility if you are working as a professional medical operator; you need to keep up to speed. There's support for those doctors to go off and do upskilling. There is the practice incentive program and the Rural Procedural Grants Program.

There is assistance for rural diagnostic imaging. I went on a trip down the Darling River checking out things, and there are some amazing services in these remote areas of my home state. But to have some up-to-date equipment or the latest technology sometimes is not economic, because the volume of activity in these areas isn't as great. There is a one-off funding pool to assist rural and remote medical imaging, which is generally not government run. It's private providers who do it because they love the country, they live there, they want to be part of the community and they want people in regional Australia to get the same things they would get if they went over to the Canberra Hospital at Woden. So we are trying to correct this disconnect in access to services.

We have also done so much work in this budget over the digital health space, as well as the My Health Record. Having access to health data in a remote area is always very important if you are travelling or moving around for work.

We have a long-term health plan. As I mentioned, there are initiatives for women's health. On the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, there are great announcements—new treatments for osteoporosis, asthma, lung cancer and breast cancer. There's the initiative for funding a trial for triple-negative breast cancer. Tick, tick, tick—they are all really good, practical things that will make a material difference to the outcomes for many people who suffer from very serious diseases.

As I said, this original bill is a very practical, commonsense administrative initiative which I don't think anyone in this building will object to. It's common sense. I am so pleased that, in the 2021 budget, health is right at the top. To put things in perspective, we've done amazing things. There is a generational step change in aged care as well. That is also in the health portfolio. That is $17.7 billion extra over the next four years that will be going into aged care—$10 a day per resident in a high-care centre will really turn the economics of that around for a lot of long-term, very efficient, longstanding aged-care providers in regional Australia who have been challenged because the economics have changed so much. It's really impressive. There's $2.3 billion in the mental health space. That's $2.3 billion in new initiatives on mental health and for adult, youth and children's treatment centres.

On Medicare itself, we always guarantee that every budget. But there is also the initiative of telehealth, which has been fantastic for regional Australia. That's been supported with continuing funds. Wherever you go in the health budget, just about everything that people would think is great is there. There are obviously other things, but we have to manage it and get the best value for money for the Australian taxpayer. But overall our health system has been keeping Australians— (Time expired)

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (11:54): The Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021 simplifies Medicare administrative processes for recognition as a new specialist or consultant physician for Medicare purposes under the Health Insurance Act 1973 by removing the payment of a prescribed fee on the application. During the COVID-19 crisis, it became more evident that the outdated method of payment of the prescribed fee by cheque or money order was impacting specialist and consultant physician recognition for the purposes of Medicare, as neither method of payment was efficient or practical during movement restrictions and in-person service closures. As a result, patients of new specialists or consultant physicians may not have been able to receive higher Medicare rebates when they were entitled to them. Implementation of the bill means a prescribed fee will no longer be required to accompany an application form for higher Medicare rebates for new specialists and consultant physicians. This removes the cost to specialists and consultant physicians, and the administrative burden on Services Australia of processing the fee.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.

The SPEAKER: 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 before the House is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (12:05): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (12:07): I rise to support this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

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

(1) notes the Government has made it more expensive for Australian students to undertake tertiary study, and has pushed students into taking on more debt; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure rural and remote students have access to quality continuing education".

Every Australian should have access to a world-class education, no matter their postcode. All Australians should have the opportunity to undertake further study should they choose to do so. We know that rural and remote students face extra and sizeable hurdles in undertaking high school and post-secondary education. In fact, I have just met with representatives from the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, and this was one of the issues that the group of women I spoke to raised with me. Boarding accommodation, living expenses and travel represent some of the major challenges for regional and remote students. We all know, too well, that accommodation can be expensive, especially in inner city and suburban areas, and that affordable accommodation can be difficult to find. Travel from remote and regional areas can also be costly, but we also recognise that travel to reconnect with family can be important for educational success and the successful transition into post-secondary studies. Many have to defer studies because their families are unable to afford to continue.

This is why social security measures to assist remote and regional students is a proud Labor legacy. This bill will make administrative changes to the operation of the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme, known as Abstudy, and the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, the AIC Scheme. Both schemes are designed to provide financial assistance to students and their families, helping to remove the barriers to education caused by distance and financial disadvantage. In 2020 the Abstudy scheme assisted about 27,000 students at school, university and TAFE. Over the same period, the AIC Scheme assisted around 13,000 students, some of whom are living in very isolated rural and remote regions.

The provisions in the bill align the tax file number requirements of the two schemes with those under our social security laws. Currently, under the legislation, primary school children are required to submit a tax file number. As a result of these changes, only the parents of the AIC applicants will need to submit a tax file number. Labor does support these changes, ending the bureaucratic absurdity of government agencies asking schoolchildren for their tax file number.

But the legislation does provides me with the opportunity to remind the parliament that these two education schemes are Labor legacy programs, introduced during the Whitlam government and its great education reform agenda under the guidance of Kim Beazley Sr. We know that Labor has a great history of equality of access to education. It was a Labor government that provided financial support for students to undertake study and training during World War II. This is our legacy. By contrast, this coalition has again done nothing new for this cohort. These legislative changes are a missed opportunity to introduce real reform of the scheme's administrative processes to fast-track benefits to families that are working to do the best for their children.

Labor believes that ease of access should be the priority of any proposed change for a government with the mantra of reducing red tape. In this case, the government knows that families applying to access the AIC need an online application process. In fact, this was one of the very issues that was raised with me by the isolated children program this morning. It's ridiculous to think that there isn't an online process for these families. They are living in very isolated communities—on cattle stations, on sheep stations and in rural and regional Australia, particularly in rural Australia—and the fact that they have to do this without an online application is just ridiculous and something, you would think, from times gone by.

So this legislation is a missed opportunity. Ease of access should be the priority of any proposed change for a government with the mantra, as I said, of reducing red tape. In this case, the government knows that families applying to access the AIC need an online application process. This is just a no-brainer. An update in the current administrative process doesn't require legislative change, just a political will. These families also want the government to recognise that geographic isolation creates additional costs for parents who are educating their children from home. Today, as I said, I met with parents from isolated parts of Australia and, again, there is nothing in the budget to address the concerns of these families.

You just need to reflect on the government's continued inaction on this issue and its education policies over the last eight long and tired years. We know that this government is trying to move us to an American-style system of tertiary education. Last year Scott Morrison passed a bill that makes it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university. Around 40 per cent of students will have their fees increased to $14,500 per year, including in law, commerce, accountancy, economics and communications—doubling fees for some students, particularly those wanting to do humanities. That's more than for people doing medicine and dentistry degrees. It is a ludicrous situation, and I'm afraid it will come home to roost and it will be the people wishing to pursue those degrees who will feel the pain. Fees for law, commerce, business and communication degrees will increase by thousands of dollars per year. Tell me the logic in that. He is making students go into an American-style debt which will have lasting consequences throughout their lives, including in saving for a home. What's more, there is no evidence that studying these degrees will make you less job ready than any other. There is no logic to it. In fact, according to research from Victoria University, people with humanities degrees have higher employment rates than science or maths graduates.

Think about the year 12 students who have had a hell of a final year because of COVID. The last thing they need is the Liberals making it harder and more expensive for them to go to university. But that is exactly what is happening. Parents know that getting a great education is a ticket to a great job and a lifetime of opportunity for their children. Labor believes education and jobs go hand in hand. By locking young Australians out of university, Scott Morrison is locking them out of their job of choice. We want every Australian to get a great education no matter where they live. That is essentially what this bill is about—the training they need to get a job, whether that is at university or at TAFE, to get ahead and stay ahead.

Then there are the First Australian students and the Job-ready Graduates bill. Given the enrolment patterns of universities, these changes will be more costly for Indigenous Australians than for non-Indigenous Australians, which is just ludicrous. This is because Indigenous students are more likely than non-Indigenous students to enrol in courses affected by these changes. The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium provided data in their submission to the Senate inquiry into the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 which revealed a significant impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. They said:

2018 data shows over 52% of Indigenous students were enrolled in programs that will be impacted by an increase in student contributions for humanities based disciplines.

This will result in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students graduating with a higher HECS debt than non-Indigenous students and moving into the workforce with a greater financial burden.

School funding is another example of a coalition government making it harder for Australian families to educate their children, particularly those living in rural and regional Australia. It's been remarkable to watch schools convert to online learning almost overnight. It is a testament to everyone in the sector.

Remote learning has been necessary, but there is no doubt that it's pushing disadvantaged students further behind their peers. Even when it works well, disadvantaged students usually learn at about 50 per cent of the usual rate. That means that they would have lost about one month of learning over two months of remote schooling. This is why Closing the Gap needs to be a priority, and this government needs to commit the resources needed to make it happen. But that certainly did not happen in the budget that we heard last night and have read about today. There is absolutely nothing but rebadged money in the First Nations space, and, despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister at the beginning of the year, no additional money for Closing the Gap targets. That needs to be said clearly and plainly.

It would be nice if the Prime Minister would take educating children living in rural and remote areas seriously. The Prime Minister should be providing the resources needed to target and reverse the existing disadvantage that children are experiencing living in isolated regions of Australia instead of holding public schools back from their full fair funding. As expected, the coalition government has once again failed to provide the resources needed, even in a time of plenty, to meet the Closing the Gap targets for education. Shame on the coalition government, Prime Minister, when we know that it is education that delivers jobs and lifts people out of poverty.

The latest data shows a two-year gap in maths literacy between metropolitan and remote students. Our public schools educate more than 70 per cent of our regional students. But, under this government, these young people are missing out. Under the Liberal school funding deals, almost every Australian public school receives far less than its fair funding level. Labor believes every school in Australia should be an excellent school. No matter where you live, parents should be comfortable that they can send their children to a public school down the road where they will get a world-class education.

In conclusion, every Australian should have access to a world-class education, no matter their postcode. But, under the Liberals, our students are falling behind, especially in rural and regional and remote areas. It is unacceptable for anyone to miss out on achieving their potential because of their background, geography, disability or any other educational disadvantage. This bill is a missed opportunity to do just that—introduce genuine reform, reduce red tape and update and fast-track access. That is why Labor has moved the second reading amendment circulated in my name.

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

Mr Brian Mitchell: I second the amendment.

Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (12:23): I rise to support the substantive bill in front of us, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. It's a pleasure to follow on from the previous Labor speaker. I know her passion for closing the gap. It is a passion of ours on this side of the chamber as well. But a lot of what the previous Labor speaker spoke about is not contained in this bill. In fact, the basic premise of the theme running through her speech—to make it easier for children, in particular from remote, isolated and rural communities, to access education—is contained in this bill. This bill will do exactly that. It will make it easier and streamline the process. If that is her central theme, if that is what she would like to achieve, she need only join us and vote for the substantive bill, unamended.

It is a passion of this side of the chamber to support Australian families. We saw that theme running through the budget last night, when the Treasurer announced the measures he did. Our efforts, like this bill, although it may be technical in nature, to streamline processes so that children have the very best access to education that is possible, are incredibly important. This bill performs that task by making the Student Assistance Act consistent with the social security law. This will lead to improving the effectiveness of the administration of vital schemes such as Abstudy, which provides assistance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme. I will speak a little more on that later. It is a very important program.

Although this bill is mechanical in nature, it is important as it continues to improve the way we do things. Before I talk about the specifics of the bill, I want to talk about the importance of this type of bill that is reducing red tape and reducing unnecessary burdens. This is a focus for us on this side of the chamber. It has been a firm goal of the government to streamline processes and reduce regulatory burden, and it is one that we are achieving. I want to compliment the work that my friend the member for Tangney, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, is doing in this space. He is a passionate advocate for cutting red tape and his deregulation task force is making some real and continuing improvements. I look forward to seeing other bills before this place that continue to achieve that outcome. It is in our DNA to create jobs. It is in our fundamental DNA to reduce regulation and reduce burden to make things easier, and to create smaller government with less red tape and more opportunities.

I move to speak on the AIC, Assistance for Isolated Children, Scheme. The scheme helps parents and carers with the extra costs of educating their kids when they can't go to an appropriate government school, which could be for many reasons. They may live in an isolated area, they may have a disability or they may have special needs. The AIC allows them to get financial assistance to help with the additional costs. There are allowances for boarding or for a second home. It gives families options and choices, and that is what this government is all about. We are about empowering our nation's families to make the best choices for their families.

Those on the other side of the chamber believe they are best placed to spend your money for you and to make your choices for you. This government believe in empowering families to not only earn more dollars but also make the best decisions for their families. Programs like the AIC help to level the playing field and ensure that families have choices, even if they are in an isolated or remote community. Without it, they would not have the ability to choose their own outcomes and achieve the best education for their kids. The streamlining of the process contained in this bill means these families don't face further unnecessary burdens. It means they will have more help and fewer challenges, something I think even Labor members opposite could support.

Throughout the pandemic, we may have felt isolated from our friends, our work and our schools. This has given us all a greater understanding of isolation and what it might be like to live in isolated and remote communities. While we don't face those challenges ourselves, it has given us a better appreciation of the many challenges that they face every day. In the midst of the pandemic our worlds became smaller as restrictions saw us isolated and not able to travel, but our outlook became broader. I got many calls to my electorate office from people who were not concerned for themselves but concerned for others. Our community wants to make sure that the most vulnerable among us are looked after—the elderly, those in aged care, our veteran community and, importantly with this bill, our kids. It was a central theme running through last night's budget speech from the Treasurer, the member for Kooyong, for the path to recovery. We have the opportunity with this legislation and the last night's budget to take the challenges of the pandemic and to parlay them into opportunities to put more funding into some of our most vulnerable communities, as we have with massive funding injections for aged care, veterans and mental health. Those kinds of investments dovetail with bills like this one before the chamber, which is also providing opportunities for some of our isolated and vulnerable kids. With that, I certainly commend this bill to the House as part of the government's ongoing commitment to effective and efficient government, to reducing red tape and, importantly, in our efforts to help all Australian families.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:30): It gives me great pleasure to stand here, having seconded the amendment by the shadow minister. Members can rest assured that we are speaking in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, but we have proposed an amendment, which is a good amendment, and we would encourage those opposite to support it.

Labor supports this bill, which will align the tax file number regime under the Student Assistance Act 1973 with the collection and use of TFNs under social security law. The bill removes the anomaly currently in place which requires all claimants of the two schemes—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Study Assistance Scheme, known as Abstudy, and the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, the AIC Scheme, including primary school children—to provide a TFN to Services Australia. These two schemes were designed to improve access to education by reducing financial barriers to higher education and training, which disproportionately affect First Nations people.

In 2020, Abstudy assisted around 27,000 students to pursue further education in school, university and TAFE. We should just pause and reflect on that for a moment. Twenty-seven thousand young First Nations Australians were assisted in furthering their education thanks to Abstudy, which of course is a proud legacy program of the Whitlam government. Similarly, the AIC assisted around 13,000 students. The AIC enables people living in regional areas, including my own electorate of Lyons, to pursue educational opportunities that they might not ordinarily have felt were an option for them.

For the people currently on these schemes, the reforms we are debating today are inconsequential. What Labor is focused on, and what the Morrison Liberal government should be focusing on, is implementing real reform that ensures that benefits can be fast-tracked to families and educational opportunity can be further opened up for people living across regional Australia. For a government whose mantra is supposedly about reducing red tape, I would have thought that this would be a logical aim.

In speaking to this bill, it is important to reflect upon the history of tertiary education in Australia. Labor has a proud history of supporting students to undertake study and training. In fact, financial support to students began under a Labor government during the Second World War. I've stood in this place before and talked about the fact that Labor builds. Unfortunately, those on the opposite side, the Liberals, cut. Labor builds. Liberals cut. Under the Whitlam government Abstudy was reformed into a means tested payment scheme, and the AIC was established to assist students in remote and regional areas.

Labor is proud to support Australia's youth from regional and remote areas in gaining higher education and training. We fundamentally believe that every person deserves the opportunity for an education in Australia no matter where they're from, and we are committed to ensuring that this opportunity continues. Labor has a very proud legacy in improving education across Australia. We fundamentally believe that every person in Australia deserves the opportunity to pursue higher education and training as well. Skills training is very important, but higher education is equally important for those who wish to pursue it. Labor fundamentally believes that it is a role of government to assist with this aim, and a good government will ensure Australia's higher education sector is truly first class and working for students. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the government. The evidence of that was all too apparent in last night's budget.

In his second reading speech on this bill, the minister said:

This bill strengthens our student support system so that it can focus on the important task of ensuring that Indigenous students and isolated students from across Australia have the opportunity to gain a first-class education.

If only this government was truly committed to investing in education and training for people in our regional and remote communities—and you don't invest in higher education when your budget for 2021, over the forward estimates, cuts 10 per cent from the higher education sector. The maths doesn't add up on that. You can't profess to have a commitment to higher education in this country and then slash 10 per cent from the sector over the next four years. It doesn't add up.

The comments the minister made about this bill are another example of all talk and no delivery from this government when it comes to higher education. The budget last night—this goes to the shadow minister's second reading amendments—locked in the Prime Minister's policy to make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to uni. That runs counter to the sentiments of the minister in speaking to this bill. The budget papers confirm for the first time that the government is actually saving money by jacking up university fees and increasing student debt. That's going to be this government's legacy: crushing student debt and cuts to universities; crushing, crippling student debt, just like we see in America, that makes it harder for young Australians to get ahead. It makes it harder for them to save for a home. It makes it harder for them to raise a family. It makes it harder for them to save for retirement. The longer it takes you to pay off your student debt out of your wages means there's less money going into your superannuation account, so you're earning less on the compounded interest over your working life. It gets you when you're young and it gets you when you're old. It is absolutely counterproductive to the national productivity of this country.

Wham—higher fees; wham—low wages; wham—crippling mortgages; and, wham—less superannuation! Australians are being hit at every stage of their lives by this government, including with the cuts that it made to higher education last night. It's a lifetime of kicks to the incomes of Australian workers. Instead of helping young regional Australians get ahead, which is what this bill is supposed to be doing, the Liberals are putting roadblocks in the way. They should hang their heads in shame over the budget they delivered last night for what it does to higher education.

Labor does not want Australia to be like America, where our kids have to get a lifetime of debt to get an education. And we are talking about our kids. My daughter is 22. She is graduating this year from university, so she misses out on this, but there are kids just behind her who will be facing very, very high fees. They will have debts of around $60,000 for a basic degree at the same time as they're trying to find work, save a deposit for a house and start a family. What a way to say to young Australians, 'We're on your side.' If you're doing this to young Australians, you are not on their side. The Prime Minister's huge uni fees and huge uni debts will rob Aussie kids of the jobs of their dreams. They are not setting Australian kids up for success; they are loading them up with a lifetime of debt.

If this government is so invested in advancing students in remote regions of Australia, why is it cutting funds from the university sector? As of January this year, more than 17,000 people have lost their jobs at Australian universities since the beginning of the pandemic. Yet the government wants us to believe it is committed to improving our education system. The job losses amount to 13 per cent of the pre-COVID university workforce. That's a massive chunk of a national workforce that this government completely abandoned because they were not eligible for JobKeeper. This government excised them from JobKeeper. So 17,000 people were let go from universities and told, 'You're on your own.'

In my home state of Tasmania, the University of Tasmania has suffered immense financial hardship throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. With around half of UTAS's international student cohort being comprised of Chinese students last year, the closure of international borders and travel restrictions sent shock waves through UTAS and the broader higher education sector. A lot of it was unavoidable, but the real test is what you do about it. When the shock happened and the borders were closed, which had to happen, how should a government have come in and assisted? This government just locked the gates on the universities and said, 'You're on your own.' UTAS was forced to expedite a planned restructure, which led to a cut in the number of courses from 514 to just 120. Staff were offered redundancies, cleaning and security staff were stood down—again, without the protection of JobKeeper—and the broader university community were severely affected by such large-scale change being implemented so swiftly. UTAS needed to implement these changes as a priority matter of sustainability and survival. Their survival was on the line. It is outrageous that Tasmania's only university was forced to go through such turmoil because the Liberals would rather hand hundreds of millions of dollars in JobKeeper subsidies to profitable corporations than provide support to the nation's universities, which had been crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a show of naked hostility from the Liberals to our traditional learning establishments.

While all this was occurring, while universities were struggling to survive, what exactly was the Morrison government doing in the education and training sphere? It wasn't trying to help the sector. It set a mandate to make higher education more difficult to achieve for working-class families. It made it more difficult for people in rural and remote areas, including in my electorate, to achieve higher education. It set a mandate to raise course fees to frankly ridiculous levels, forcing future arts students—I would hazard a guess that most people in this chamber on all sides are arts graduates—to pay up to $100,000 for their degrees. No-one in this chamber has paid that much for their degree, yet we're foisting that legacy upon the kids of tomorrow. If the kids up in the schools gallery are going to do an arts degree in future years, they're facing bills of $100,000. It's an absolute disgrace. Instead of helping universities and the higher education sector during a global pandemic which was adversely affecting the sector, this government took a wrecking ball to higher education, restricting opportunity for people to pursue higher education.

Under the Liberal government, access to training and apprenticeships keeps getting worse. The government is making a lot about the fact that apprenticeships are back on the way up. What it doesn't say and what it never says is that, over the past eight years, $3 billion has been cut from TAFE and there are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees now than there were eight years ago when the Liberals came to office. The government is increasing those numbers marginally now, but that follows the deep cuts it has already made. Things just keep getting worse under this government after eight long years. They have created a training environment where more people drop out of apprenticeships than complete them.

Key industries such as carpentry and plumbing have critical shortages of workers, and this has a flow-on effect to our construction industry and the ability for new developments and new homes to be completed. Australia's skills shortage now is a direct result of this government's incompetent decision to cut $3 billion from TAFE and rely on short-term visa holders from overseas to do the work. Labor is absolutely committed to training young Australians to do this work. The value of TAFE to Australia, to our productivity and to our economy is undeniable. Graduates of TAFE are invaluable to growth in this country, yet this government is failing to resource it properly. We know that it is in the Liberals' DNA to attack TAFE. Even now in Tasmania, the Gutwein Liberal government is seeking to restructure TasTAFE in a way that puts the quality of education and training at risk and leaves wide open the door to privatisation down the track.

As a result of the Morrison government's complete disregard for the higher education sector, tens of thousands of Australians have lost their jobs. As a result, the education of tens of thousands of students has been adversely affected. We are talking about lecturers, tutors, support staff, staff in the broader university community, security staff, cleaners and admin staff. These are the people who keep the ball rolling in universities across Australia, and without them the education of Australian students is much poorer.

Labor will support this bill, but we implore those opposite to support the amendments. The amendments are important. We support this bill and the administrative change that it makes to Abstudy and the AIC Scheme, but we do reject the government's preaching of its commitment to making education more accessible in the regions. The Liberals have a long history of attacking higher education. They have a clear mandate to turn the higher education system in Australia into a mirror image of the United States, a system burdened with debt. And the government has a long history of cuts, cuts and more cuts to the university and TAFE sectors. They don't care for educational opportunity. They don't care about the kids from towns and outer suburbs. They think that uni is for the kids from Kooyong and Point Piper, not Kalgoorlie and Primrose Sands, and their political agenda reveals that.

Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (12:45): The Morrison government is increasing efficiency and improving ways that students can access Abstudy and the Assistance for Isolated Children, or AIC, Scheme. This bill will help to reduce unnecessary red tape and enhance consistency in the collection and management of information. The proposed changes are needed to improve the effective administration of the Abstudy and AIC schemes and allow the machinery of Services Australia to have a greater level of efficiency. Many students in my electorate of Lindsay rely on these payments to enable them to upskill and take on the opportunities that improve their education and employment prospects. Abstudy helps Indigenous Australians to undertake study and training from secondary school through to postgraduate study, many from remote areas, with study, living and travel expenses. Many of these students must move away from home to study and the Abstudy scheme provides Indigenous students with financial assistance to do so.

The additional assistance provided under Abstudy is specifically targeted at addressing educational disadvantage to close the gap. In 2019-20 the Australian government invested around $320 million in the Abstudy scheme. In 2020 around 27,000 students were assisted through Abstudy. AIC is an ongoing scheme that provides assistance to isolated families whose children cannot attend an appropriate state school due to geographic isolation, disability or other special needs. In 2019-20 the Australian government invested around $83 million in the AIC Scheme, assisting around 13,000 students. These are incredibly important services that make a tremendous difference in the lives of Australians embarking on their own education journey.

In my electorate of Lindsay there are over 6,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Minister for Indigenous Australians and I met—unfortunately it was virtually with COVID last year—with local Indigenous representatives and community health providers to ensure that people in my community were getting the help they needed during the coronavirus pandemic. While we couldn't be there in person, Minister Wyatt recorded a message. It was really quite special because it was around his personal journey through education and to encourage local people, particularly kids in my community, to think about their future and what they want for their own education journey and careers. Minister Wyatt said that if he hadn't followed through on his education and didn't have those opportunities he in fact wouldn't be in this place. He spoke very passionately about the teachers who have influenced him, even from year 1. This set the foundation from an early age to value his education. Minister Wyatt learned to value his education so much so that he got his Bachelor of Education and became a teacher, passing on that lesson to his students and he continues to do that now.

Education plays a pivotal role in putting kids in our community on the pathways to local jobs, and that is absolutely essential, ensuring that all children in my community of Lindsay have opportunities when it comes to education and then in turn getting into local jobs. I don't see that more than in parts of my community that do wonderful work in supporting kids to stay engaged in school, to keep up their schooling, ensuring that they are supported with things like getting picked up from home if they need to and going to a breakfast club. That's a really important service that's provided to local people in my community.

These amendments are technical in nature. For example, currently the Social Security Act defines the term 'social security law'. It includes the Social Security Act, the Social Security (Administration) Act and the Social Security (International Agreements) Act, which are the main parts of the social security legislative scheme. This bill amends the definition of the term 'social security law' to confirm that it includes any legislative instrument made under one of the acts, strengthening the Student Assistance Act in matters relating to Abstudy and the AIC schemes, and clarifies the definition of 'social security law'.

As you can see, while these proposed changes are largely technical and mechanical in nature, they are important for the people who rely on these systems to access a quality education, including the Indigenous students in my electorate of Lindsay and those right across Australia, as well as isolated students. It improves efficiencies, delivering a better service. We want all Australians to have access to a first-class education, and these programs ensure that these opportunities are available for more Australians.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:51): Labor will be supporting this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. We have a long history of supporting financial assistance for students to undertake study and training. From World War II through to the Whitlam government's reforming of Abstudy into a means-tested payment scheme and the establishment of the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme to assist students in the bush, Labor has been all about ensuring that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get the opportunity to study not only at our universities but also at our vocational education centres.

This helps to reduce financial barriers to tertiary education and training for First Nations people. Access to education is a key part of the Closing the Gap strategy. Educational attainment is actually one of the areas where there has been some achievement and advance in closing the gap, particularly in the rates of completion of year 12 schooling in Australia.

In 2019-20, the AIC scheme assisted around 13,000 students, enabling children living in rural and remote regions to access continuing and appropriate education. For this cohort, the legislative changes are inconsequential, and real reform is needed to ensure fast-tracking of benefits to families. Updating the respective administrative processes of the scheme doesn't require legislative change; it just requires the political will—and that's what has been missing from this conservative government.

As of January 2021, more than 17,000 people had lost their jobs at Australian universities since the beginning of the pandemic. If you want to sum up this government's approach to education, look no further than what they did for Australian universities around JobKeeper. I make this point: this government provided JobKeeper to casinos in Australia, yet they denied JobKeeper to universities in Australia. That says everything about their philosophical approach to higher education.

We all know that this government is not about assisting students and making it more affordable to get a university education. We've seen that in the fact that they have increased fees across a range of courses, particularly in the humanities, and made it more difficult for kids to pursue their dream of a university education in the humanities. The result has been decreased enrolments in those forms of education. That deliberate approach from this government provides a disincentive to people enrolling in humanities courses in our universities.

We've all seen the job losses that have occurred at universities. I represent an electorate that has one of Australia's most successful and largest universities: the University of New South Wales. There were hundreds of job losses at the University of New South Wales; courses were stripped away because of this government's failure to support the university sector through the JobKeeper payment. Yet the Morrison government stood by while those jobs in that important sector were lost.

It's also bad for our economy, because education is usually in the top three when it comes to Australia's exports. We've all seen the success that Australia has had in marketing itself as a destination for foreign students to come to Australia and get a decent education in the Australian tradition. This government's approach to JobKeeper has made that all the more difficult. It's also been made all the more difficult by the fact that it's going to take our economy a longer time to open up than it is for those of other nations, because the government have completely bungled the vaccine rollout. Remember the promise that the Prime Minister made: four million vaccinations by the end of March. They only fell 3.2 million short of that promise. Again, we've seen the commitments that they've made in the budget about having Australians vaccinated. They are now walking away from a time line—understandably, because they can't deliver anything or meet any of the commitments. The states are now starting to say: 'These guys don't know how to run anything. The Morrison government can't handle the administration of the vaccine rollout. We'll take it over ourselves, to try and boost the numbers.'

In the university sector, we've seen job losses, as I said, and there are more expected to come. Unis have been hit hard by the fallout from COVID and the decline in international students. University education is one of our nation's biggest industries and one of our biggest employers, too, including in the electorate that I represent, but the Prime Minister changed the rules three times to make sure workers in that sector didn't get JobKeeper. They changed the rules to make sure that university staff were not covered by JobKeeper. UNSW was forced to cut 256 jobs last year, impacting many families in our community: academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners and many others trying to make ends meet.

Universities are the ones we've turned to during this pandemic. They're the people that we asked to help research and develop a vaccine and the treatments, to look at the ways the disease was spreading in the community and to try and come up with suggestions for government to reduce the rates of infection. Not only do thousands of Australians rely on universities for their jobs, but it's our brilliant university researchers who we've been depending on to develop those treatments to combat COVID. Yet what's the government's thankyou to the sector? What support is the government's providing the sector for doing this vitally important work? We'll deny you JobKeeper, and you guys have to stand on your own, fend for yourselves and try and make ends meet.

There have been 17,000 jobs lost across our nation's universities, and that's a shameful record for this government. It says everything, as I said earlier, about their philosophy when it comes to higher education. Academics and tutors have lost their jobs, as have workers and admin staff and others who keep those universities running. They've all got families and bills to pay. No other industry of this size has been treated with such contempt, as universities have been, by this Prime Minister and his government.

Now we've seen the university sector ignored again in the government's budget. Universities said that they're disappointed with the lack of support for higher education in last night's federal budget, and they're facing another setback, with no return of international students until at least 2023. The chief executive of Universities Australia, Catriona Jackson, said:

"With borders shut until mid-2022 the picture for universities will get worse—with significant flow-on effects for the nation's research capacity and jobs, inside and outside universities,"

That's an important point to make because there are so many jobs in local communities where universities are situated that are related to the health of the university. I see it in Kingsford, in Kensington, in Coogee, in Maroubra, in Eastlakes and in Daceyville, the suburbs that surround the University of New South Wales, where there have been massive job losses. Small businesses in particular have been unable to survive and cope because the university sector has been decimated. So the effect goes way beyond what happens on the university campus, to many small businesses and communities where universities are situated and to those small businesses that do work for the university sector. It's clear that this budget is yet another marketing exercise that can't hide the fact there's no support for our university sector. This is another missed opportunity from this government to really undertake some significant reform and demonstrate philosophical and real support for higher education in this country.

It's vitally needed, because we all know that Australia is falling behind when it comes to our productivity performance. We're actually going backwards; we're one of the few nations in the OECD where productivity in our economy has gone backwards. It's actually the first time in Australia's history, since we began measuring labour productivity, that it's actually fallen, and that's on this government's watch. It never happened under a Labor government and never happened under a previous coalition government either, but it is happening now under this government's watch.

What does that mean? Ultimately it means that living standards will fall because the income per Australian worker that we're generating is falling. There are a host of reasons associated with that. It's associated with the fact that there has been a dramatic reduction in business investment in Australia as a result of this government's lack of support for research and development and for business investment in Australia—and I'm not talking about the investment that comes from buying a ute or a new freezer for a small business. I'm talking about long-term real investment in new technology, new ways of doing business and the next breakthrough around medical, food technology, horticulture or agricultural research. Those next big breakthroughs aren't being encouraged by this government because of their lack of support for business investment, and that's seeing the productivity of our economy fall off a cliff.

This is something that we'll pay for in the future. It means, ultimately, that this large debt we've racked up has to be paid back. It's $1 trillion. Can you believe it or not? Imagine what this government, those opposite, would have done to us if Labor said we were going to institute a trillion dollars worth of debt? That's exactly what they've done; it's the largest budget deficit in the nation's history. How are we going to pay it back when we've got falling and declining productivity, which is going to be a handbrake on economic growth, and make sure that we are getting growth in the economy, more people in jobs, greater income tax receipts and therefore fewer welfare payments? It's not going to happen.

So the forecasts that they're making in the budget are pie in the sky without the necessary investment in productivity-enhancing business investment. That is simply not happening in our economy and will not happen under this budget because there is no decent reform there. It's simply a short-term fix to try, really, to get this government through a successful next election. That's what all this is about. It's about them trying to win an election, it's not about the long-term health of the Australian economy and the long-term living standards of the Australian people.

Despite spending almost $100 billion and racking up a record $1 trillion in debt, the Morrison government is still leaving our universities stranded. While the private and not-for-profit colleges, reliant on foreign students, are receiving a $53 billion lifeline, our public universities, which account for the vast majority of enrolments, are once again mostly passed over and receive nothing.

Australian Technology Network of Universities chair, Iain Martin, said:

… the government has missed the opportunity in this budget to fully utilise our world-class university system.

Group of Eight CEO Vicki Thomson said that the delay in returning international students has now made it more difficult for universities to play their part in securing Australia's economic recovery. She said:

Universities are critical to everything the government has announced (in the budget), whether through our research or the provision of a highly skilled workforce.

She is spot on. There is nothing in this budget that supports that research or the development of skills in our economy. I could go on forever about the skills shortages that we have in Australia because of this government's lack of commitment to higher education and vocational education and training. There are 140,000 fewer apprentices in Australia. Billions of dollars have been cut from the TAFE budget. TAFE colleges are being sold off by state Liberal governments. There is no pathway to securing the skills of the future that we will rely on to, as I mentioned earlier, boost our productivity, encourage business investment and enable us to be the engine room for the next big economic breakthrough that will hopefully spur our economy on into the future.

Although we're supporting this bill, it's disappointing that this government has once again ignored the higher education system in the budget, and we'll pay for it in the future.

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:06): What an important opportunity it is today to remember just how important the future of Indigenous Australia is, founded upon the availability of high-quality education. Let's concede that this very minor amendment, which makes it administratively easier for those students accessing Abstudy to be able to be part of education, both secondary and tertiary, is a significant step to making sure that we remove every barrier there possibly could be to Indigenous Australians getting the education they deserve.

Let's not forget Noel Pearson's great words about both the challenge and the advantage of Indigenous Australians walking in two worlds and doing so confidently, and it's education that allows that to happen. There is every argument that Indigenous Australians can have significant advantages because of their cultural connection to land as well as the Western benefits of an education that need not be Western at all. Today I want to make the obvious point: I see no reason why Indigenous Australians cannot lead, design and deliver their own education system within Australia's. They should be forming parents and friends groups—not just being teacher aides following the advice of Western teachers, but actively designing and co-designing. The member for Lingiari is in this chamber today, having been part of the discussions with the Northern Territory government. It is at the frontline of these challenges.

To take away an administrative concern from, potentially, pursuing tax file numbers from Indigenous Australian minors or their parents is logical, and of course it will have the support of both sides. But it raises the bigger question: while we endlessly debate here the importance of rights, are we as a nation serious enough to admit and can we agree that not only is education a right but it's an obligation of any extended family unit to ensure that all minors of the appropriate age are getting an appropriate education—not just enrolled, not just counting it for the sake of closing the gap, but taking on board that, if a child leaves at lunchtime, starving, we're going to do something about it? Can we commit to having a family commission's approach that says that, if we see children dropping out of education, it is a clear and present emergency to be addressed?

I don't know about the member for Lingiari, but I've been to plenty of community councils in remote communities in Australia where none of those individuals know anything about school attendance, nor have they ever been engaged seriously in the question of how do we keep our children at school? Gone is the time to claim that school is simply not cultural. Gone is the time to say that someone is potentially abusing substances and therefore the rest of the family can't go. Gone are the times of saying that parents simply can't find the shoes to send their kids to school or get out of bed on time to get them there. Gone are these recurrent excuses in a great civil democracy where there are not only rights but also responsibilities to not only confront a problem but seek a way through it. At every level in our social security law, no matter how well we design the back end, it seems that, fundamentally, if someone provides an acceptable excuse for not engaging, it's tools down for the system. It's no longer, 'How do we fix it?' and 'How are you a responsible part of the solution?'

I concede that, coming from my background, I may not have experienced a household where you cannot afford a pair of shoes or a school uniform or where a significant family crisis or a health status is such that you simply can't get your children to school. But are we a society serious enough to say that that is an emergency to be dealt with—no more excuses and shoving between agencies or claiming it's another level of government? Are we serious enough as a community to be saying that, if we're going to be an Indigenous cultural council, an elected town council or an Indigenous land council over a region, part of our responsibility is for our minors and seeing that, when they're of the appropriate age, they're in early education, primary and secondary school, and then a community wraps together to get those children through as young adults into tertiary and vocational education?

This has to be more important than fighting for grant money and internecine debates over which family benefits. But that's become the new reality. Don't for one minute misinterpret what I'm saying as me blaming Indigenous Australians for that. They had a structured working system over tens of thousands of years that passed on education far more successfully than we did as we tumbled into our own Dark Ages. So the question I ask is: how responsible are we as non-Indigenous Australians for the system that we designed and implemented, the system that moved in from the top and created governance that passed money down to families in remote Australia and then a Centrelink and social security system that effectively undermined individuals and their power by simply paying them a cheque for nothing in return?

What other outcome was likely but a complete disintegration of those kinship groups that have always looked after family? Fundamentally, the Western system never got that. And, by not recognising it, we devalue and demote it and we do not work within those kinship groups to acknowledge that senior men and women have that power if, as a Western government, we're prepared to confer the power. But we don't; we take the power away. We've created community organisations to fight over the money that comes from above—effectively a cargo cult—that activates internecine warfare between families, and we created an individualistic payment system that is blind to kinship groups and families. As anyone, even a person who has visited Indigenous communities as rarely as I have—I have had the privilege of visiting a few dozen—will tell you, if you talk to people on the ground under the tree they'll tell you who's responsible and who's in charge. And, I tell you what, it's probably not the person you expect it to be, but there is someone who can make things happen. But our system has made that almost impossible to deliver.

I have spent a lot of time thinking these thoughts and talking to Indigenous people about them—it's mostly been in remote and regional areas, where the services taken for granted by the rest of us are not immediately available—and they tell you that these problems are surmountable but that, every time someone tries to crawl their way out of the slippery bucket, they're pulled back in, and we don't have a sustainable solution. The government's tried everything, you could argue. We tried making it an element for the Family Responsibilities Commission in Cape York to monitor and enforce. The end result was that school principals didn't want to enforce school attendance or be the cop on the beat.

Today in this chamber we make a minor administrative amendment to do something entirely sensible, and that is to bring Abstudy and AIC back in line with every other piece of educational assistance—to not require a tax file number. It takes me back 20 years to the mid-1990s. I know that the member for Lingiari was representing the Northern Territory at the time. I was working as a young doctor, learning more about the semi-desert community of Lajamanu. At the time we were pushing out Medicare numbers in a similar way to tax file numbers today. Would you expect traditional semi-arid community people to carry a Medicare card everywhere? It was impossible. The solution was that every Medicare card from the community was stored in a shoebox, and, when they came in and they needed care, we found a way to deliver Western care in a way that was culturally appropriate.

So I conclude today: what is the solution to what all of us can agree on—and we have to agree on nothing less than the lesson learnt from around the world—which is that, no matter how traditional the community, there is no substitute for a good education?

We've got to be prepared to change the way we deliver education, and if that means more support for families that most need it to attend school, we've got to be committed to doing it. Removing a tax file number obligation? That's important, because it's a barrier to engaging with the system, but, once through it, our obligation doesn't stop. Our obligation isn't just to enrol students. Our obligation is that students turn up, engage, retain, remain and graduate, and that is a never-ending challenge that every level of government is responsible for, including for those communities that do not talk about it.

Let's be honest: there is no tougher public policy challenge in a nation as wealthy as this than delivering social security and social services to the remote corners of Australia. This is not a comment about whether or not anyone is Indigenous. It's challenging in every way to deliver those services, but it is right to have an expectation that a child growing up in the most remote corner of Australia can gain a complete education and retain a connection to country, but can leave with confidence knowing they can always return. There are a million ways you can tailor that, but I tell you what we can't accept at the moment, and that is surrendering, giving up on families, doing nothing after visiting a community that says: 'There are always a couple of families that simply never send their kids to school, and that's just how it is. There are a whole lot of kids that turn up for the breakfast, but they're gone by the middle of the morning, and that's just how it is.' There are a whole lot of excuses around support between siblings and family connections where, quite rightly, young people who should be getting an education are forced, through health or another crisis, to be delivering care for extended family members. We need to work with that. In the Western world we found putting schools in hospitals worked. Maybe we have to deliver this differently?

Today we take a very simple measure and prove that there can be support on both sides of this chamber to remove, let's be honest, a ridiculous requirement that wasn't enforced on anyone else. Long may there be decisions like this. And let us not waste our time in this chamber but ask ourselves really hard questions about why there cannot be 95 to 100 per cent attendance.

The Closing the Gap targets simply aren't right at the moment. I have made the point that a snowstorm of 16 targets is too many. They're poorly designed, despite how much they have been workshopped. They simply are too heavily focused on administrative inputs. You cannot measure enrolment if you don't care about what they're doing after they're enrolled. It's okay to count graduation, but too many are casualties in between. My academic career, which I began by being part of Australia's greatest education faculty and doing a doctorate in just this area, tells me that you cannot write a family off. You have to take the entire cohort and work with what you have. Not all of them can see a direct line of sight from education to employment, so we need to make sure that is possible. Not all of them are close to an employment opportunity or close to a large metro centre. We need to be imaginative about those empty fly-in fly-out flights that could be taking students into culturally appropriate accommodation for short periods of education with the automatic right to return at any time. Of course it's expensive, but is it more expensive than not doing it?

These issues must be put on the table at community level. I'll defer to the member for Lingiari—he's had more of these conversations than I have—but I want to know which communities are serious about this. Take a 100 per cent enrolment, attendance, retention and graduation and work backwards. The minute the first person drops out of that it's an emergent situation. We ask ourselves what's it going to cost to get that child re-engaged? But what does it cost if we don't?

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (13:18): I acknowledge the contributions which have been made thus far in this debate. I'll come to the member for Bowman in a moment, but I do want to particularly acknowledge the member for Barton, the member for Lyons and the member for Kingsford Smith. It's not my intention to go over the ground they have covered, at least not in any detail, but I will repeat some of the obvious points about the heritage that Labor brings to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 in terms of support for Abstudy in particular, but also financial assistance for students to undertake study and training which, as has been said, commenced under Labor during World War II.

I'm sorry the member for Bowman has left the chamber, as I want to make some observations about his contribution. I will do that shortly. I want to briefly and, in part, repeat two elements of what others have said before I refer to the member for Bowman. In 2020, Abstudy provided financial assistance to around 27,000 students at school, university and TAFE. As has been said, it helps to reduce financial barriers for First Nations people to tertiary education and training. Access to education, as we know, is a key target in closing the gap. I took note of the member for Bowman's observations about both targets.

The Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme assisted around 13,000 students in 2019-20. I want to make some comments about the Isolated Children's Parents' Association and the wonderful work they do in advocating for students who live in rural and remote communities across this country. They do this pushing stick uphill. It's a very difficult row to hoe and they do it so professionally and well, and they have had significant outcomes over the years. This legislation will assist them, but it won't make a marked difference to the educational opportunities or outcomes for kids from the bush—those who utilise the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme.

It is important that we appreciate the commitment of their parents and carers, and school communities that they attend, for what they provide young people in terms of educational opportunities. Some of them do extremely well. I was talking to a pastoralist in the Northern Territory the other day, in sad circumstances. His father had died and the burial was to be held in the local community. He observed that his daughter, who is in her fourth year of medical training, was able to come and be of great assistance to her dying grandfather at the time when he needed close attention and help. That is a commendation not only of that student but of her parents and the wider community and her family.

I now go to the member for Bowman's comments. I don't agree with all of his comments or his observations, but I do accept the commitment that he has demonstrated in terms of getting outcomes for First Nations kids wherever they might be, in particular in remote communities. I want to say to him that it is important that we see the connection between other elements of social policy as well as education. He knows this because of his observations and his experience. We can compel kids to go to school as much as we want, but if they don't have the right familial circumstance, if they live in overcrowded housing, the social determinants of health, including education, come into play. I have observed this now over many, many years—too many years to recount, really.

Whilst we are prepared to tolerate significant overcrowding in bush communities, where there might be 20 or 30 people to a house, we are going to be forever frustrated in getting decent education outcomes. I do note, though, your observation about giving First Nations people the opportunity to control their educational outcomes. I understand it, and I want to commend the Northern Territory government in this regard. It is now entering negotiations and discussions with First Nations communities around local decision-making, including controlling the school system in their local community. That is a very positive thing. I make the observation that I think there was a mistake in policy introduced some years ago in the Northern Territory where they effectively sidelined bilingual education. In my view that was a grave error. It seems to me that we've got to understand that, if we want to get the educational outcomes to which the member for Bowman referred, we have to engage with the whole community, that's true, but we have also to understand the circumstances in which those communities are situated in terms of their economic and social profiles and to understand the need to put in the resources that are required to get the outcomes that we all want. Those are not just in education but in housing, primary health care, communications and other infrastructure. If we don't do that, we will not get the outcomes that we all want.

I'll say a couple of words on the budget. There is nothing in this budget of any consequence, really. There are two elements. I'm not going to be so churlish as to say they're not decent, but there's nothing substantial in this budget to address the poor educational outcomes of First Nations kids in the bush. There is nothing, zero, zilch. There is nothing in this budget to advance those issues around the social determinants of health, to which I referred—nothing, zero, zilch. There is some money for further primary health care, and I acknowledge the commitment made for the 2,700 additional places for Indigenous girls academies across the country. That just balances the ledger, because of the commitments made for young men's programs. I also acknowledge the commitment to provide $16.6 million for schools and youth support for boarding school viability in 2021-22 post-COVID.

I'll make an observation. The House of Representatives standing committee on First Nations did an inquiry into education. It looked at boarding facilities and boarding schools across the country and discussed their merit. The conclusion arrived at was that they had questionable outcomes. There were certainly young First Nations students who profited by going to a boarding school, but what we noticed also was that a large proportion of kids who went to those boarding schools dropped out before they'd finished or completed their education. We came to the view that the best way to get better educational outcomes for those kids was to invest in educational opportunities locally, in their own schools and in their own communities. This is where the money should be spent in the first instance. I have no issue with kids going to boarding school if that's what they want. I have no issue with needing to make sure those boarding schools provide good facilities—none at all—but that should not be the priority. The priority should be to look at the fundamental needs of preschool, primary school, high school and post-school education in remote and regional Australia. That's where we should be spending on resources. It seems to me that the government has missed an opportunity in this budget.

I note that there has been significant comment already in this debate about the impact of the government's budget on higher education and the failure of this government to see that the needs of Australian students are properly addressed. More than 17,000 jobs at universities have been lost because of the Prime Minister's pig-headed decision to stop universities getting JobKeeper. How stupid can you be? Yet that's what we've got. That's sad, and it's a handicap on kids who live in rural and remote parts of Australia, just as it's a handicap on kids who live in major urban centres. The availability of courses and the restructuring of fees that we have seen have already been commented on here. They make huge university fees and university debts that will rob Australian kids of the job of their dreams. That's what will happen as a result of the decisions taken by this government.

I will go back to where I commenced. There is an opportunity for us here, and I pick up again on the plea of the member for Bowman. Yes, we do have to do things differently, but we have to acknowledge the right of First Nations people to make their own decisions. That's absolutely true. But it requires an investment, and that investment is not coming from this government. The budget last night puts nothing towards local decision-making or investing in the education outcomes of these First Nations kids who live in rural, regional and remote Australia. We're going to have to do a great deal more if we are serious about closing the gap, for which we say we have bipartisan support.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a late hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.