The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Closing the Gap
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (09:31): I present the Commonwealth Closing the Gap Implementation Plan, and I ask leave of the House to make a ministerial statement relating to the report.
Leave granted.
Mr MORRISON: Here and in other locations around Australia, our parliament draws together to remember, to reflect and to remind ourselves of at least 65,000 years of stewardship by the original custodians of this land—Indigenous peoples who love this country, its lands and its waters and have cared for it since time immemorial. We pay our respects to the Ngunawal people and our First Peoples across our great continent and to their elders past, present and emerging. Here and elsewhere around the world, Indigenous Australians are serving in our Australian defence forces, protecting Australians and advancing our interests in a world that favours freedom. Over in Tokyo, Patty Mills leads the Boomers today.
On this day, I also honour the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who serve in this parliament, in both chambers. The Minister for Indigenous Australians, the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians are two historic figures of this place and of our nation of whom we can be very proud. I honour Senator Dodson, Senator McCarthy, Senator Lambie and Senator Thorpe.
COVID restrictions mean we cannot be joined in the chamber here today by Pat Turner and her colleagues across the Coalition of Peaks, but I want to pay personal tribute to them and to Pat, in particular, for the partnership being built together, the trust being established and the respect being shared. It is already bearing fruit.
I've always said that closing the gap is, at its core, about children. The ultimate test of our efforts is that every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boy or girl can grow up with the same opportunities and the same expectations as any other Australian child or, to put it a different way, that any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child can walk uninhibited in two worlds and feel at home wherever they walk in our country.
This month marks 50 years since an Aboriginal Australian first spoke in this parliament. Neville Bonner was born on a small island at the mouth of the Tweed River. His mother gave birth to him in a gunyah under a palm tree. She wasn't allowed in the local hospital. Neville's schooling was patchy. His mother died when he was 11. For much of his childhood, most schools wouldn't take him. He hit the road with a swag at 15. As a young man, Neville tried to enlist to serve. He was rejected—again, because of the colour of his skin. From his earliest years, Australian society told Neville Bonner he could not walk freely in two worlds. Daily injustices fuelled by institutionalised discrimination followed him through his life. But, like Ken, like so many others, Neville found a strength to rise above it, to claim for himself the truths of a free nation.
In remembering Neville Bonner, we need to remember the full story: the derogatory names he was called because his politics didn't fit the zeitgeist—Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price can testify to that; and the colleagues who treated him as an equal in the chamber but never saw fit to invite him out for dinner or a drink. Old Parliament House has in its collection Neville's diary and pillow. In the diary Neville reflected on the isolation of Canberra, and the pillow was there for the late night sittings. He knew there was nowhere else for him to be than in his office. As Ken says, what a picture of loneliness: progress and cold-heartedness side-by-side. What a missed opportunity to listen and to learn. That failure to listen and to learn has been part of our journey for too long.
Thirteen years ago the parliament rightly apologised to the stolen generations. So many of us stood here. It was a moment of great reckoning. It was a moment of grace. But, in the years that followed, the Closing the Gap process, borne of the best intentions, remained hard of hearing. We still thought we knew better. It was why our government brought together a new 10-year national partnership agreement, signed by all Australian governments, the Coalition of Peaks and the Australian Local Government Association. From that partnership, the National Agreement on Closing the Gap was born. Today, we make the promises of that agreement real, with the presentation, as tabled, of the first Commonwealth implementation plan. In financial commitments, partnership, shared accountability and scope, this is the most significant and comprehensive response to closing the gap that our government has ever provided.
Our Senior Australian of the Year, Dr Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr Baumann, speaks of the concept of dadirri, a word spoken by Aboriginal people in the Daly River region of the Northern Territory. What dadirri refers to is a deep inner spring inside us. It's the pursuit of inner deep listening. Miriam-Rose says we call on it and it calls on us. With the implementation plan I table today, we are making good on our commitment to do things differently: a path that requires deep listening, dadirri, that requires learning, accountability, transparency and a genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders and organisations—a partnership generations overdue, built on mutual respect, dignity and, above all, trust. I'm under no illusion that this will happen overnight. As Pat Turner says, the path being forged is rocky. But, with the Coalition of Peaks, the states and territories and local governments, we're working together to smooth that path.
The true value of the national agreement is who it empowers and what it inspires. In a significant departure from what we've done before, each of the states and territories and the Coalition of Peaks will be responsible for their own actions and their own plans. Another departure is that all of us will be independently and collectively accountable. I will table an annual Commonwealth progress report around this same time every year. Each of us, the states and territories, will separately deliver ours, and all of us will reprioritise our investments to do things that we know will work.
To help us understand what the evidence says and our progress, the Productivity Commission will release an annual report on the outcomes and priority reforms. The first of those reports was released last week. On life expectancy, we're doing better but we're not where we want to be. On getting kids into preschool, we're tracking well. On incarceration rates, we're not achieving what we need to. On youth detention, we are making progress, but the data tells us we still have a long way to go. As well as the annual reports, the Productivity Commission will also present an independent review once every three years. After each report by the Productivity Commission, an independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander report will deepen the data and give us a picture of the change happening on the ground. Overall, it will be a far more rigorous assessment of the data, and the data will be updated in real time for all Australians to see.
We have many years of hard work ahead of us, as we have behind us. The first Commonwealth implementation plan with more than a billion dollars worth of new targeted measures lays the foundation for this work. The plan is an overview of Commonwealth actions to close the gap. It's aligned to the four priority reforms and the 17 socioeconomic outcomes set in the national agreement, including new target areas, such as justice and Indigenous languages. Critically, the measures we're funding reflect a sharpened set of priorities. Again, we haven't defined these priorities unilaterally. Instead, they are priorities offered and agreed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples themselves.
The first of these new priorities is simply to collaborate better and to do that by building better structures for genuine partnership and joint decision-making. That's why we have our joint council, co-chaired by Ken and Pat, that includes ministers from each state and territory, 12 members of the Coalition of Peaks and a representative from the Local Government Association; equal representation right around the table. The joint council builds on the partnerships that are happening at the jurisdictional and Commonwealth levels. The joint council is meeting tomorrow to commence its work, bringing all of the implementation plans together to form a thorough layered national plan.
The second priority is to build up Indigenous organisations to empower community controlled sectors to do what they already do best: deliver the services that support closing the gap. The example I keep going back to is the outstanding job the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health organisation has done during this pandemic. The contribution of Pat Turner, Dawn Casey and NACCHO in keeping vulnerable Australians safe has been nothing short of extraordinary. The fact that no Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person has died from COVID-19 in Australia and there have been no cases in remote communities is one of the most significant pandemic achievements Australia has had. Indigenous Australians have been six times less likely to contract COVID-19 than the wider population. That shows what happens when we work in partnership, but we must invest in the capabilities of such partnerships. That's why this implementation plan includes $38.6 million for an outcomes and evidence fund. It will support genuine co-design between government and Aboriginal controlled organisations and other local providers to deliver the best possible services for families and children. This goes to the heart of the third priority area, which is about transformation of government. We seek to understand in detail how our systems can knowingly or otherwise perpetuate racism. The new chapter of closing the gap simply won't succeed without it.
The last priority reform area is about data. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations need to be able to collect, analyse and use their own data to meet their own needs. In this new plan, with a billion dollars in new measures, one measure will mean more than any other. That relates to the stolen generations. What happened is a shameful chapter in our national story. We have already confronted it with a national apology. But our deeds must continue to match our words. Earlier this year, I met with the Healing Foundation and listened to the stories, not simply stories of the past but stories that continue to reverberate throughout the generations.
Today, I announce that the Commonwealth is investing $378.6 million in a new scheme for the stolen generations, for survivors who were removed as children from their families in former Commonwealth territories: the Northern Territory, the Jervis Bay Territory and, here in the ACT, the Australian Capital Territory. The scheme will involve a one-off payment in recognition of the harm caused by forced removal, and it will give each survivor the opportunity to, should they wish, tell their story and receive an individual apology. This is a long-called-for step, recognising the bond between healing, dignity and the health and wellbeing of members of the stolen generations, their families and their communities, to say formally not just that we're deeply sorry for what happened but that we will take responsibility for it.
I turn now to the other aspects of the Commonwealth implementation plan, tangible actions that are directly linked to clear targets that will be held accountable for in the years ahead—measures that are new, in the priority reforms of justice and languages, and measures that need continuing investment to deliver a longer term impact. I've spoken already about investing in the community controlled sector. The Commonwealth is providing an extra $254.4 million towards infrastructure to better support Aboriginal community controlled health organisations to do their work, their critical work, on their terms.
The plan also has a new focus on justice. Of course, the Commonwealth doesn't manage those justice systems. Where the Commonwealth can make a difference is in bringing people together. That's what our justice policy partnership hopes to do, and it will be on the agenda at tomorrow's joint council meeting. The Commonwealth was also in a position to provide additional funding for some of the services it supports, so in this first plan $9.3 million is there for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services to better manage complex cases in coronial inquiries. And there is $8.2 million for family dispute resolution programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. This all feeds into the new targets we've set—that by 2031 we will reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults incarcerated by at least 15 per cent and the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in detention by 30 per cent.
Up until now we've put the economic and social determinants of health at the centre of our approach. Today we understand that cultural determinants of health are important too, because a person's sense of community and culture is inherently bound to their physical and emotional wellbeing. It's bound to their dignity as a human. Earlier, I used the word 'dadirri'. Dadirri is one of the thousands of Indigenous words and concepts that are a gift to all Australians—concepts that can never adequately be translated into English and tell us so much about the nuanced and powerful connections First Australians make between self, community and the land. These words are part of the rich inheritance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, an inheritance that Closing the Gap will, from now on, specifically seek to protect. At the latest count, there were 123 Aboriginal languages still being spoken. Of those, only 14 were considered strong. Our target is a steady increase in the number and strength of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages being spoken between now and 2031, and we're committing $22.8 million to support this effort.
Then you have the areas of long-term impact. The first is ensuring the best start in life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The Commonwealth is investing more than $160 million in this effort. This includes the early childhood package announced yesterday: some $122.6 million to lift participation in quality and culturally appropriate early childhood education and care. Our investment also flows into school education: initiatives like building on-country boarding schools, to which we're contributing $75 million; city-country school partnerships, an investment of $26 million; and 'scaling up success', an investment of $25 million to make sure primary school kids are taught using the best evidence based programs.
To keep women and children safe, the plan is also investing in supporting Indigenous families with complex needs. Again I want to emphasise that this Commonwealth implementation plan, and the proposals in it, forms just one part of a larger whole. There are 10 implementation plans like it, one for each jurisdiction, the peaks and the Australian Local Government Association. All of them will be presented to the joint council meeting tomorrow, and all of them will be tracked and further shaped as we learn more about what is working and what needs to improve. To go back to Pat's words, 'The road ahead will be rocky.' I don't doubt that. We don't expect to see clear improvements immediately, but I think the approach we've got now gives us the best chance.
On occasions like this, we quite rightly focus on the gaps that we need to fill and look to the places where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders do not have the same opportunities as other Australians, and it's right that we do so. But let us not forget the richness and achievement that also inspires us. Across this country in most fields of endeavour, we are seeing confident, strong and empathetic Indigenous leadership emerge. We see it expressed here in this parliament, with voices adding to our national life and politics, the arts and business and sport. May our country be a country of voices, not silence, because liberal democracies are all about giving a voice. In our country, it is also dadirri—the deep listening of soul, a listening that is not rushed; rather it is careful; it is thoughtful; it is considered.
I can report to the House that the Minister for Indigenous Australians has received the Indigenous voice co-design process final report. The report was submitted by Senior Advisory Group co-chairs Professor Dr Marcia Langton AO and Professor Tom Calma AO, following 18 months of extensive engagement and co-design. I want to thank them and the members of the co-design group for the care they have brought to this task. We will consider the details of the final report and respond in the future, following consideration by the cabinet. The first step was to define the detail of an Indigenous voice. An Indigenous voice will contribute to achieving the Closing the Gap outcomes by providing avenues at the national, local and regional levels for Indigenous voices to be heard, including to provide feedback to government on closing the gap. Once a model for the Indigenous voice has been developed, all governments will need to explore how they can work with the voice to ensure that these views are considered.
Some might want this process to be faster. I want it to be right. We have to learn from each other, and we will, as we walk and reason together, side by side, as sons and daughters of this great continent.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (09:52): I begin by acknowledging that we meet on the land of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people—land that was, is and always will be Aboriginal land. I pay my respect to their elders, past, present and emerging. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today.
The harsh reality of the COVID-19 pandemic means that so many who would be here in this chamber are instead in their electorates across Australia. Each one of them is on the land of one of the great mosaic of First Nations that make up our great continent. I pay tribute to Minister Ken Wyatt, to shadow minister Linda Burney, to Senator Patrick Dodson, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Senator Jacqui Lambie and Senator Lydia Thorpe. The fact that the Prime Minister and I could outline so many names over such a recent history shows that progress is being made, and I look forward to welcoming Marion Scrymgour and Donisha Duff into this chamber after the next election. I thank all our Indigenous representatives for their commitment, their passion and their dedication, not just to Indigenous Australians but to all Australians who they represent in this chamber and in the Senate. I thank them for their commitment, their passion and their dedication. I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who gave me my proudest day in this parliament when he delivered the national apology and initiated this important process on the journey of national reconciliation. I acknowledge the First Nations people who, like many parliamentarians, are watching from afar.
Tonight, when these speeches are done, I ask that you turn your eyes upwards. From Arnhem Land to Cape Leeuwin to Bruny Island, the sky will, clouds willing, fill with constellations. Many of them we know by the names bestowed by early astronomers in what we think of as the 'old world'. Here, in a world in fact far older, astronomers also saw patterns and stories in the night sky—some different, some uncannily similar. But those first astronomers here looked not just to distant suns but to the shapes formed between them—most famously the Emu, which stretches vast and black across the Milky Way. The more you unpick the findings of those early stargazers—whether they were Greek or Yolngu, Wiradjuri or Babylonian—the more it becomes clear just how much unites us. Across continents, across millennia, they found stories. They found points of navigation. They found the changing of the seasons and the very passage of time mapped out.
The light of the sky has underscored the common bonds of our humanity, and yet we are still in so many ways apart. Despite occasional flashes of hope, we aren't coming as close together as we need to. Like the gulf between the stars, the distances that separate us do not budge. This year's delayed Closing the Gap report gives indications that we are letting this harden into a state of permanence. More than a year after the new Closing the Gap agreement was signed, First Nations people are still far more likely to be jailed, far more likely to die by suicide and to have their children removed than non-Indigenous Australians. Out of the 17 targets that have been set, only three are on track. Dwell on that: three out of 17.
Ordinarily, we would be making these statements around the anniversary of that apology—each time we hear rhetoric that all too rarely has its counterpart in action. We are yet to find within ourselves even a fraction of the courage shown by members of the stolen generations on that magnificent day for our country in 2008. They came with grace and patience to this parliament which, for so long, had been the pinnacle of a system that had simply failed them. That indictment falls on both sides of this House; governments of all persuasions have failed First Nations people. We cannot rest on the false laurels of anniversaries. We cannot warm our consciences with the annual ticking of a box. Nor should we take false comfort from the linguistic sleight of hand that is the word 'gap'. A gap is something that is easily crossed or closed. The unflinching litany of lopsided statistics before us make it clear that this is a chasm. As I said recently, we remain committed to our position on stolen generations reparations—and we very much welcome the government's announcements here today. But we are surrounded by unfinished business. Even worse, we are surrounded by business that hasn't even been started.
It doesn't have to be this way. Earlier this year I had the enormous privilege of travelling to Uluru with my dear friend the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians. There we sat down, along with the member for Lingiari, with the traditional owners at Mutitjulu. They explained the importance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and how disappointed they are at how little movement there has been on it. They also spoke about the importance of employment and opportunity for their young people. They spoke about housing and the massive problems they have in those communities. They too are looking for a way forward.
It is more than two years since this government said it would change the approach to closing the gap and I want to acknowledge the role played by the Coalition of Peaks, led by the remarkable Pat Turner. But there is still no measurement of progress on the four priority reforms: shared decision-making, building the community controlled sector, transforming government organisations and shared access to regional data. These are meant to form the backbone of working with First Nations organisations and to underpin the path to self-determination. I share concerns that this hasn't moved beyond rhetoric.
The government has reset most of the targets, essentially sweeping prior failures under the carpet. It might be a good marketing exercise but it is yet to deliver.
Earlier this year, as we marked the 13th anniversary of the Apology to the Stolen Generations, I said that we had to look to the removal of Indigenous children going on right now. Last year's Family Matters Report, put together by the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, tells us that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children represent 37.3 per cent of the total population of all children removed from their parents. They represent just six per cent of our child population. Let that sink in. Between 2013 and 2019, the rate at which those children had been placed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers actually fell from 53.6 per cent to 43.8 per cent. If we don't address this, we will have the makings of another apology in the future. And it is a challenge for all of us here to make sure that we address this.
We can find a way forward: methodically, practically, realistically. The new targets include the social and cultural factors which determine overall health—things like housing, access to services, child protection, family violence, culture and language, and land and water rights. There is no pathway to ensuring First Nations Australians live as long and as healthy lives as non-Indigenous Australians without steadily addressing each of these interconnected targets.
It has been more than 30 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody handed down its findings, along with 339 recommendations. Tragically, hundreds of First Nations Australians have died in custody or in police pursuits since then. I commend the Change the Record movement here, and the Black Lives Matter movement internationally. I know we have to start somewhere. I know small steps are important. But some of the new targets do not go far enough. Even if the adult incarceration goal were to be met—a 15 per cent reduction by 2031—the rate would still be more than 11 times higher than it is for the non-Indigenous population. Eleven times higher. Even if the youth incarceration goal were to be met—a 30 per cent reduction by 2031—the rate would still be more than 12 times higher than it is for the non-Indigenous population. Think about that. This is a 10-year target—a target for all of us as a nation, as well as both sides of this chamber. And, yet, it envisages an incarceration rate for our youngest Australians who happen to be Indigenous that is 12 times greater than it is for the non-Indigenous population.
There are proven ways to reduce the causes of incarceration and deaths in custody. I have announced a plan to turn the tide on incarceration and deaths in custody, building on the success of the existing justice reinvestment programs in Bourke by tackling the root causes of crime and reoffending, which include rehabilitation services, family or domestic violence support, homelessness support, and school retention initiatives. Where we see programs that are working, we should try to replicate them. A Labor government would ensure coronial inquests into deaths in custody are properly resourced and include the voices of family members and First Nations communities. Labor will provide specific standalone funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services to ensure First Nations families can access culturally appropriate, timely and fair legal assistance before, during and after all coronial processes. And Labor would ensure that deaths in custody are nationally reported in real time. It is extraordinary that, in 2021, this counts as an innovation.
The Indigenous Ranger program is a hugely successful environment and employment program which Labor invested heavily in when we were last in government, and we will do it again. Labor will double the number of Indigenous rangers to an equivalent of 1,800 full-time positions by the end of the decade to help protect and restore both our biodiversity and our cultural values. Likewise, funding for Indigenous Protected Areas will be increased by around 50 per cent to ensure appropriate management of these areas. And Labor will deliver the $40 million of cultural water promised in 2018 but not yet delivered by the government.
Australians understand the strength of connection to our country. Our farmers often say the land they work on is in their blood. We talk of knowing we are home when we feel the hot sand of our favourite beach beneath our feet so we should have at least a partial understanding of the depth of connection for those of us whose ancestors have been here for millennia. The Indigenous rangers program repairs our soils and landscapes, provides jobs, but, consistent with this year's NAIDOC theme, it also heals country and that cannot be separated from healing its people.
First Nations Australians have significantly lower rates of employment, lower rates of workforce participation and higher rates of unemployment across all age groups. The government's punitive Community Development Program has been a failure. It has caused real hurt in communities across the north and Labor will abolish it. In its place we will develop a new program, in partnership with First Nations peoples, which will be focused on jobs and community development. This program will be community based and run locally. Some of the largest and most significant employers of First Nations peoples are community controlled organisations which work across a range of sectors. They are central to self-determination and we will work with them to address their employment and training needs.
The First Nations population is young and rapidly growing and an increasing number will be moving into the workforce in coming years. Economic security and opportunity are fundamental to our wellbeing. The opportunity to share in Australia's good fortune should be available to all Australians. As employees, business owners and entrepreneurs, First Nations Australians should be represented at a level consistent with the First Nations working-age population. This is something for business and government to turn around together. I must say many businesses are already leading the way and I pay tribute to them. They are working with partnerships with Reconciliation Australia.
Labor in government will build on the good work of many of Australia's largest employers to continue to increase the rate of First Nations employment by introducing public reporting of the proportion of First Nations employees for Australia's 200 largest employers, in line with the reporting requirement for gender balance on boards. We will also work with those businesses to ensure the employment level of First Nations, working-age Australians is consistent with the share of population by 2030.
It is heartening that so many large employers already perform well and have reconciliation action plans in place that include employment targets, but we can and we should do more. Labor in government will lead by example. We will set a target to increase First Nations employment in the Australian Public Service to five per cent by 2030. Some agencies have already achieved that but overall the Australian Public Service employment rate is around three per cent.
We cannot afford to miss any opportunity to align the financial security of First Nations Australians with that of non-Indigenous Australians. That's why a government I lead would get behind inclusive growth for Indigenous owned businesses in both domestic and international trade and would re-affirm the importance of Indigenous rights, inclusive trade, sustainable development, traditional knowledge and the protection of the integrity of Indigenous arts and cultural products in future international trade agreements. We can better protect First Nations jobs and businesses that rely on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art, culture and intellectual property. Labor in government will get on with a Productivity Commission inquiry into the market for First Nations arts and crafts. Fake art alone robs many Indigenous artists of income, and it needs to be stamped out. We will work with First Nations people to legislate protections for traditional knowledge and cultural expressions.
Underpinning it all is the Uluru Statement from the Heart—that powerful and eloquent invitation to us all to go further as a nation. It calls for three things: voice, truth and treaty. Let us have the voice to parliament, constitutionally enshrined, that First Nations people have asked for with a patience so great that it counts as an expression of profound generosity. It's not a big ask: 'Just consult us on matters that affect us.' It's not a third chamber; it is an act of generosity on behalf of a people who deserve at least this, but there's an argument for much more. If we are to finally consign to history what Bill Stanner called the 'great Australian silence', there must be a voice.
We can be proud of so much we have achieved in our history. But we cannot short-change ourselves. We must come to grips with our past. Frontier wars, massacres and dispossession must be part of our reckoning with the truth. But so too must be our triumphs and our blessings. As Senator Dodson has reminded me from time to time, amid the wrongs there was also great kindness. Without truth, we can never be all that we can be as a nation.
The Uluru statement contains another of the great keys with which we can unlock our potential going forward—a makarrata commission, which would oversee a national process of truth-telling, agreement-making and treaty-making. As a priority, Labor will establish a makarrata commission with responsibility for truth-telling and treaty. It will be established through a process of open nominations and review. The commission will facilitate local truth-telling and advise on a national framework for treaty-making, and it will work with a voice to parliament.
This is how we can go forward. Until promises are transformed into reality, a production line of announcements and re-announcements amounts to nothing more than building a mirage. When we have a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament and we advance on the process of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including truth and treaty, people will look back like they look back on that day in 2008 when the apology was given in this chamber and wonder what the fuss was about; wonder why it was that we didn't embrace the opportunity to advance reconciliation, to bring the country together; wonder what all the fear campaigns were about; and remember, in the long period leading up to the apology, what some of our national leadership said would occur if that word 'sorry' were uttered in this chamber on behalf of Australians. We're stronger for it. We'll be stronger for it as well if we advance reconciliation through the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
I have great hope for our future. I'm an optimist. I think there is something better within our reach if we extend ourselves even a little. I'm also buoyed by one element of the present, and that is, as the Prime Minister said, quite frankly, the remarkable achievement of Indigenous Australians, community leaders and governments to keep COVID-19 out of those remote communities. We can be very proud of that as a nation. This is one more example of Australians being magnificent and working together in the face of the pandemic.
Let us work together for the future in that spirit. When the pandemic is behind us and we're all striving to lift ourselves beyond its effects, let's lift all Australians. The direction is lit for us clearly and brightly, like it was for those early astronomers. If you see the Southern Cross tonight, up there, resting upon the head of the emu, look to the most softly twinkling star within it. It is the one star of the Southern Cross that isn't on New Zealand's flag, but it is crucial on ours. A few years ago, the International Astronomical Union formally recognised that star as Ginan, the name given to it by the Wardaman people in the Northern Territory. To the Wardaman, it represents a red dillybag filled with special songs of knowledge. Let us be worthy of that star.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (10:15): I move:
That the House take note of the Commonwealth Closing the Gap implementation plan.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the House take note of the document. The ayes have it. The Acting Leader of the House.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (10:15): With that, I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned and that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business—yes?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:15): Given the standing order on misadventure, can I just ask that we deal with the motion originally, before that was just put to the vote.
The SPEAKER: That the House take note of the document?
Mr BURKE: That's right, and we ignore the vote that we just had and go straight to the motion that was moved by the minister—or I could now move that the debate be adjourned.
The SPEAKER: You should be moving that the debate be adjourned.
Mr BURKE: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Yes; I think so.
Mr BURKE: If that's okay.
The SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr Albanese: He needs to withdraw his previous motion.
Mr BURKE: That's why I was raising the standing order on misadventure, which allows us to deal with it.
The SPEAKER: I think that's right. I think that the Leader of the House is right; I think we can deal with it that way, because I haven't put that question.
Mr BURKE: Yes. So I'll just move:
That the debate that we take note be adjourned.
The SPEAKER: Okay. The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to. All those of that opinion—sorry?
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Okay. The question is that the debate be adjourned and that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (10:18): I, on behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: 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 that the Australian Defence Force has reliable access to suitable military training areas and weapons 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 level of interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and our allies, including with the United States military force through expanded cooperation and increased opportunities for combined training and exercises. The total estimated capital delivery cost of the project is $474 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 12 May 2021. The committee has now recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18 (7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, the construction works are expected to be commence in late 2021 and be completed by mid-2026. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
Report
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:20): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2019–20.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr ZAPPIA: by leave—The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 requires the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, to examine the annual report of the Integrity Commission and to report to parliament on any matter that arises from the report. The report reflects the work of former Integrity Commissioner Mr Michael Griffin AM and his successor, Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, who took over as commissioner on 10 February 2020. I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Mr Griffin for his professional and dedicated commitment as commissioner.
The report notes that ACLEI's jurisdiction was expanded on 1 January 2021 to include the ATO, the ACCC, ASIC and APRA and that this was the first stage in the establishment of the Morrison government's proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission.
Labor members of the committee have made additional comments to the committee report, with specific reference to the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission model. The model has been widely criticised by legal and corruption experts as falling well short of what is needed to investigate and tackle corruption. There has also been a lack of urgency shown by the Morrison government in investigating and tackling corruption and establishing a national integrity commission.
The committee is satisfied that ACLEI performed well against its performance criteria for 2019-20, despite facing several challenges, including an increased workload, staff recruitment difficulties and the COVID pandemic. In particular, ACLEI concluded 93 investigations and completed 75 per cent of all assessments within 30 days of receipt.
The committee commends Commissioner Hinchliffe and her team for their work in tackling corrupt conduct within Australia's Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. I also take this opportunity to thank the ACLEI committee secretariat for their diligent support of the committee's work.
Law Enforcement Committee
Report
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (10:23): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Operation of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Act 2019.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr SIMMONDS: by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement I'm pleased to present the report today. The SOCI Act, or the Special Operations and Special Investigations) Act,passed on 5 December 2019 and amended the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 to confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations and change the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission board authorises future special operations and investigations.
The SOSI act did not expand the powers available to the ACIC when undertaking a special operation or investigation. The committee, in its review, appreciated that the SOSI act changes were crucial to safeguard the ACIC's ability to fulfil its statutory functions and how integral that is to their purpose, which is to tackle serious crime impacting on Australians and Australian families. The committee notes that the ACIC has a pivotal role in intelligence gathering and its activities have a significant effect in disrupting criminal enterprises and help inform our law enforcement agencies about the extent, impact and threat of serious and organised criminal activity.
The committee has thoroughly considered the concerns raised in the course of the inquiry regarding the operation and effectiveness of the SOSI act. Some inquiry participants questioned the introduction of the public interest test and whether the oversight of the board's decision-making process is sufficient. Some expressed concern regarding the retrospective validation provisions of the SOSI act. However, it is the committee's firm view that the board is comprised of highly experienced individuals who are well versed in preventing and disrupting serious and organised crime and protecting our community. The committee notes that the board takes into account a wide range of public interest test matters when authorising a special operation or investigation. The committee intends to seek further information from the ACIC and the board regarding the decision-making process to determine a special operation or investigation as part of its ongoing role in oversighting the ACIC.
Overall, the committee is satisfied that the SOSI act is effective as it stands and has achieved its aim of enabling the ACIC to continue to fulfil its statutory obligations of protecting Australians against organised crime. Furthermore, the committee considers it has an important oversight role regarding the function and performance of the ACIC and the committee will continue to actively monitor the ACIC's work with vigour into the future.
I would like to thank the participants who contributed to the inquiry and the witnesses who took the time to appear before the committee. It was very helpful. I would of course also like to thank all my fellow committee members for their contributions, as well as the secretariat, who put forward a lot of work. Thank you.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (10:27): by leave—I want to add my comments to those of the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, as the deputy chair, just to reiterate some of the points made by the chair. The report on the SOSI act, the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Act, is actually quite an important report. As the committee heard from the witnesses that appeared before us, this legislation, which was introduced for special ops and special investigations, gives the ACIC certain powers of determination. It is the only legislation that does not come under the auspices of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and it has a quite unique oversight mechanism. As the chair mentioned, that oversight mechanism is with the specially appointed board of the ACIC that makes determinations about special operations and special investigations. The other form of oversight and part of that mechanism is of course the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, of which I am the deputy chair and the member for Ryan is the chair. Some of the witnesses argued that there should be more oversight or a different oversight mechanism. But the law enforcement witnesses who appeared assured the committee that more oversight would not result in fewer cases being challenged by the High Court by those who have been charged with serious crimes and who want to continue their criminal enterprise.
In closing on this, I would like to reiterate the important function of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement in its oversight of this act under section 7 of the SOSI act, and that function of oversight should continue. I would like to thank Dr Sean Turner and the secretariat, the chair and other members of the committee. I commend this report to the House.
BILLS
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) most families receive no extra support from the Government's changes to the child care subsidy;
(2) the Government's changes do nothing to stop out of control child care fees;
(3) the workforce participation rate is projected to decline over the forward estimates; and
(4) Australia ranks 37 out of 41 OECD countries for child care affordability".
Dr ALY (Cowan) (10:30): It seems like only a minute ago I was up on my feet! I understand that I am towards the end of a long list of speakers on this bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, so I will keep my comments brief and I will try not to repeat any of the points made by the litany of previous speakers that we have had.
I want to start my contribution to this debate by reminding those here in the chamber today about the attitudes of some members on the government side towards child care and some of the comments government members have made about child care; in particular, the comment about child care being the outsourcing of parenting. I acknowledge that that certainly isn't a sentiment that is carried broadly among those opposite, particularly the women; however, it does speak to the attitudes carried by at least some of those in government.
That comment that child care is outsourcing parenting reminded me of my first husband, who called me on the phone one day and demanded that I come home because he was done with babysitting the children. I had to leave work early to go home because he was done with babysitting the children. It is no surprise that I am disinclined to have complete trust that the government will take meaningful action on child care when those kinds of attitudes are expressed by members of that government, even if they are in the minority, and this bill actually proves that.
We have a broken system in Australia. Our childcare system is broken—so broken that UNICEF ranks Australia 37 out of 41 countries, based on an assessment of childcare policies, affordability of childcare access and quality of child care. According to UNICEF, Australia is one of only eight countries where child care consumes at least a quarter of the average wage. A quarter of your average wage is a big chunk when you think about how much is also consumed by mortgage or rent and how much is consumed by fixed costs like utilities, gas and electricity. A quarter of your average income spent on child care is actually quite a frightening statistic. Under this government, childcare costs are higher than they've ever been, higher than they were before this government came in eight years ago. Costs soared 2.2 per cent in the past quarter—that's three times the CPI—and 3.7 per cent over the past year, and 23 per cent of parents say that they are not working mainly due to the cost of child care.
That's just a very brief snapshot of the state of our child care. I know speakers before me have given further detail on just how grim that picture is and just how badly our childcare system is performing, not just in comparison to the rest of the world but within our own standards domestically—on domestic measures as well as comparative international measures. Moving to this bill and whether or not it goes any way to repairing some of those great deficiencies that are currently present in our system, I have to say that it does go some way, but overall, my assessment of this bill is that it is a ham-fisted and mealy-mouthed response by this government to an issue that needs much, much more reform, and the bill needs to go further. This really is no surprise. Every question time, as those watching would know, the government likes to ask what are called 'dorothy dixers', questions that give ministers an opportunity to wax lyrical and pat themselves on the back and say, 'Good boy, Angus'. But what's very interesting is that, as part of those questions they're asked about alternative approaches, they've never asked about alternative approaches to child care, because, if they did, they would be forced to talk about Labor's alternative approach to child care, which really does outshine this bill that this government has put before us for consideration.
Schedule 1 of the bill removes the annual cap from family assistance law, removing the limit on the childcare subsidy that families can receive, and this is a good policy. It is Labor's policy. It was a policy that Labor had before this bill was introduced to the parliament by this government. It is a good policy. In that, we can agree that this will go some way to reforming child care in Australia. But, really, when we go to schedule 2, that's where the difference is. Because in schedule 2 of this bill the rate of childcare subsidy—I will call it 'subsidy' in this speech—increases by 30 points for second and subsequent children under the age of six, up to a maximum of 95 per cent. All of these figures are very confusing! But, effectively, what that means is that families will only receive the higher rate of the subsidy for subsequent children as long as there's an older child and that older child remains under the age of six and has attended a session of child care in 14 consecutive weeks. In other words, once the oldest child turns six, the rate of subsidy decreases. There it is. There's the fine print. There's the caveat emptor. There is the bit that differentiates this government's approach to child care from our approach to child care.
In contrast, Labor's policy does not differentiate based on family size. It has no age cut-off, and it applies to all children outside school-hour care and during primary school. Analysis shows that 86 per cent of families will be better off under Labor's policy—that's 86 per cent of families better off under Labor policy. Six per cent will be the same, whether it's the current policy that the LNP Morrison government is bringing forth today or whether it's the proposed Labor policy. Eight per cent—just eight per cent—will be better off under the Morrison government's system. Compare the pair, as they say. The Morrison government policy that we have here before us, this bill, provides only a small amount of relief for a small minority of families for a short amount of time—until the oldest child turns six. The vast majority get nothing: zero, zilch, no subsidy, no relief, not a single thing. What kind of bill is this to repair child care when we've seen all of those statistics, when we have all of that information about just how bad our system is?
How is it that those on the other side can stand up and defend a policy that will only benefit a few and will contribute nothing substantial to addressing the abysmal state of our childcare system?
In a country where people from all corners of the globe come to provide better opportunities for themselves and better opportunities for their children, how can the Minister for Women speak about women's economic empowerment, as she did yesterday in question time, while defending a policy that actively discourages women's economic participation? In 2018, KPMG developed the workforce disincentive rate as a measure of the economic deterrence facing women wanting to return to work after having children. A 100 per cent disincentive rate basically means that a family is no better off with the mother working more hours, and over 100 means the family is, of course, worse off financially when the mother goes to work for more hours. That rate is calculated, and it takes into account increased income tax, loss of family payments and loss of childcare subsidies that often occur when women go back to work.
The KPMG study found workforce disincentive rates of between 75 and 120 per cent are common for mothers seeking to increase their work beyond three days. It was professional university educated women who were most affected by this. The impact is profound not just on the economy and the productivity gains to be had from increasing women's workforce participation but on women's career progression. Women make up 37 per cent of all full-time employees and 68 per cent of all part-time employees. They have traditionally borne the cost of child care not just financially but in their careers. This is not just about gender equality, because men are parents too, even those men who do believe that looking after your own children is babysitting. Fixing our broken childcare system doesn't just benefit women, even though that's what I've chosen to focus on in part of my contribution today. It benefits families. Most importantly, though, it benefits children.
It benefits the children of those families, because we know that those early years are critical to development. There's enough research out there, there's enough analysis out there, there's enough information out there to tell us all that what we have before us in this bill just doesn't go far enough. The implications of not substantively addressing the glaring issues with our childcare system go to child development, go to women's economic security and safety, go to social and individual community wellbeing as well as our productivity. So, while Labor is supporting this bill, we have put forward some amendments and we will continue to say: for those parents, for those families for whom child care is taking up one-quarter of their household income, there is a clear choice at the next election, a clear choice between a policy brought to you by the Morrison government that will only have a positive benefit for a small number of families for a short amount of time and a policy brought to you by the Labor Party that benefits the vast majority of families for a longer period of time and actually goes some way to fixing our childcare system.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (10:44): I'm pleased to make a contribution to the debate on this bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, and the related amendment, and to highlight the vastly different approaches of Labor and the coalition to child care and early education. This should really be a bipartisan issue. All of us agree on the fundamental and important role of child care for all our children's growth and development, and for boosting economic productivity and participation. But the approaches of the coalition and Labor could not be more different, and I think they reflect an underlying philosophical difference in our two party rooms. You just have to look at the debate about this bill within the coalition party room to understand that there are dinosaurs in the coalition party room who still see early childhood education as a replacement for parenting. It is not a replacement for parenting. It is an essential measure. It is about early childhood education for our kids and it's about raising labour force productivity and participation in our workforce.
People concerned about the cost of child care should be asking themselves two questions. Firstly, is my family better off now than we were when the coalition was elected? Secondly, which party would provide more support for my family after the next election? The truth is that there can only be one answer to that second question, and that's the Labor Party. When I meet with constituents, one of the main issues that is raised with me by people from all walks of life is the exorbitant cost of child care. Childcare costs and fees are totally out of control. This is a problem created by the Liberals and one for which they have no solution.
I want to draw to the attention of the House some startling figures. Since 2013 when the coalition was elected, childcare fees have skyrocketed by 36 per cent. There is no way of getting away from this. The coalition has been in power for eight years, and on their watch cost-of-living pressures have risen dramatically, impacting young families right across Shortland, from Buff Point to Caves Beach to Cardiff and Charlestown and everywhere in between. The Prime Minister likes to pretend that his election to the Liberal leadership marks year zero and that he is not responsible for the five years of the coalition government before this. Well, he has been a senior cabinet minister since 2013 and, in fact, he was the minister responsible for early childhood education for many of the years when we saw fees skyrocketing.
Another significant factor for families to consider is that, under the Liberals' plan, the cost of child care will continue to rise. The Commonwealth Department of Education, Skills and Employment forecasts that childcare fees will increase by over four per cent every year for the next four years. This increase vastly outstrips inflation, which the childcare subsidy is pegged to. Families need to know that, under the Liberals, out-of-pocket expenses will be higher in the years to come. The economic result of the Liberals' chronic childcare increase is staggering. Data from the Productivity Commission—that well-known leftie institution—shows that 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force because of their caring responsibilities, an increase of nearly six per cent, and the number of parents saying they are not working because of the costs of child care has risen by 23 per cent, a massive increase. Australia is being held back economically by this government through their poor excuse of a childcare policy. It does not make economic sense to have policy settings in place which prevent people contributing to economic activity and opportunity. The government are stifling the potential and promise of Australia with their flawed approach to child care.
I now come back to the second question that I want my constituents to ask themselves: which party will provide more support for child care and for my family after the next election? The independent Parliamentary Budget Office has shown that 86 per cent of families will be better off under Labor's policy and six per cent will receive the same benefit. That means that one million families will be better off with child care under an Albanese Labor government—four times as many families as under the Liberals' plan. The simple message I want my constituents to know is that Labor's plan is superior to the Liberals' plan, and families will be economically better off. Put simply, Labor will provide more support for families. That is what governments should do: support people and families to have the opportunity to work, to grow within themselves, to contribute to society and to grow the economy.
Childcare policy should deliver good results for families and good results for the economy and the nation as a whole. Labor's plan is not only good for families; our policy will see a boost to GDP three times as large as under the Liberals' policy. In the truly turbulent times we are living in, we need all hands on deck and as many people as possible working to secure our economic recovery. Labor's plan will ensure that there are more workers, particularly women, working, earning and contributing to Australia's economy. That's why sound childcare policy is so important.
Having discussed both approaches to childcare policy, I also want my constituents to consider how Australia compares with other developed, wealthy countries. The statistics, again, are damning of this tired and out-of-touch coalition government. UNICEF has recently released a report entitled Where do rich countries stand on childcare? It ranks countries on childcare policies based on affordability, access, quality and parental leave. Australians will be shocked to learn that we rank 37th out of 41 countries. For example, Mexico, Romania and Hungary all rank above Australia. We see ourselves as an advanced, prosperous and modern country, and yet we are totally failing in this fundamentally important social and economic policy. In terms of cost, UNICEF found that we are one of only eight countries where child care consumes at least a quarter of the average wage. This is a real cost-of-living issue, where families are better off if a parent doesn't work. This should not be the case, and Labor's plan will ensure that families are better off.
This bill is being debated in the context of a parliament that's much reduced because of COVID restrictions and in a period where 11 million Australians are in lockdown, including 30,000 of my constituents on the northern Central Coast. Those families that this bill goes to are being affected by that lockdown every single day. That situation has been made much worse overnight, with the information that there have been some cases at Lake Munmorah Public School in my electorate and across the border at Morisset High School. In fact, there's an exposure site at the other end of Lake Macquarie, at Target in Glendale, and, very worryingly, significant COVID fragments were found in three local sewage treatment works. This affects the families that this bill goes to; this affects their quality of life; this affects their ability to get on and earn a living; this affects their health most fundamentally. That is why I am so, so angry with the state and federal Liberal governments because of what they have done around the vaccine rollout. The failure of this government to ensure there are adequate supplies of the vaccine has left this nation exposed. It has left the electorate of Shortland exposed.
Adding to that is the insane and offensive policy decision from the New South Wales Liberal government to withdraw vaccines from my electorate of Shortland and the broader Central Coast, Lake Macquarie and Hunter area to go to Sydney on the premise of vaccinating HSC students, even though the Liberal government have made it very clear they don't have a plan. In fact, they've delayed this plan, but they're still withdrawing the vaccines right now. They're cancelling first doses, particularly for people in priority categories 1a and 1b, who this federal government committed to being vaccinated by Easter at the latest. This is offensive. It's insane. And it's insane because this decision was made even when there were active COVID cases in the northern Central Coast, in my electorate, in communities that were using the Belmont vaccination hub as their primary vaccination source. For the state government to withdraw those vaccines is abhorrent. And for the Prime Minister yesterday to throw the New South Wales Premier under the bus on that decision, while maintaining that they're still providing Pfizer doses to my electorate, was wrong. It was wrong and it was mendacious. I did a vaccine eligibility check yesterday afternoon for my electorate to see whether I could get a Pfizer dose in the seat of Shortland, and not a single GP in the seat of Shortland had an available Pfizer dose at all—not a single one. The Prime Minister was completely mendacious yesterday in question time when he claimed that the Pfizer doses were still getting to my electorate.
In summary, the state Liberal government has withdrawn much-needed Pfizer doses from their vaccine hub at Belmont, and the federal government is failing to get Pfizer doses to my GPs in Shortland. That's affecting families who are the subject of this bill right now. That's why I'm angry about what is going on here. This government is hurting families in my electorate, families that they profess to be supporting through this childcare subsidy bill right now. This demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Morrison Liberal government. They attack families through an inadequate childcare subsidy policy; they attack families through botching the vaccine rollout; they attack families through the failure of the national quarantine system; they attack families by claiming that they're maintaining adequate Pfizer supplies to the seat of Shortland, when in fact you cannot get a Pfizer appointment at a single Shortland doctor's surgery right now. They are attacking families left, right and centre.
We saw another announcement by the Prime Minister this morning that somehow they've found doses somewhere, out of thin air, that they are going to be providing to the Hunter and Lake Macquarie on the northern Central Coast. Well, I'll believe it when I see it, because every single commitment this government has made and every single target this government has claimed around the vaccine rollout they have missed by a country mile, hurting families that are the subject of this bill. As I said, 30,000 people in the seat of Shortland are already under a lockdown, and I think there's a decent chance that by the end of today the New South Wales government will be announcing a lockdown for the other 120,000 residents of Shortland.
That will affect families that are the subject of this childcare subsidy bill, and I am filled with righteous fury about that, because this likely would have been entirely avoidable if this government had done its job around the vaccine rollout, if this government had instituted a national quarantine system and if the New South Wales premier had instituted a proper lockdown of the eastern suburbs rather than a Claytons lockdown, clearly afraid to hurt her own constituents, her own backers of the Liberal Party in the wealthy eastern suburbs. And what happens? Working families and pensioners in Western Sydney and on the Central Coast are hurt because of the Liberals' two-tier strategy: that they will look after their own but will hurt families in electorates like mine.
That's the context of the debate around this bill. That's the context for this discussion about how we support early childhood education. I've ranged far and wide because this bill should be seen amongst broader support for families and the fact that families in my electorate either have had to pull their kids out of early childhood education because they were subject to the lockdown, because they were on the Central Coast, or will soon probably have to pull their kids out of early childhood education in the Lake Macquarie LGA.
I just think that this government is at sea, and it's the families of Australia that are suffering because of the government's incompetence and arrogance, and the attitude of a Prime Minister who is not fit for the job. I say that with a heavy heart, because at times of national crisis Australians' inclination is to support their leaders, to support the national cabinet, but this Prime Minister and this government are clearly not up to it. They are failing the Australian people, and they should go.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:58): [by video link] This is the first time that I'm participating in virtual parliament, from my electorate office here in Bendigo, and it's also the first time that I'm speaking post returning from maternity leave. My little one, Charlie, is almost four months old. So, this bill is quite dear to my heart, as well as to many in my electorate and to many of my colleagues who are participating remotely. COVID has changed how we do things, and I do want to thank the parliament and our presiding officers for making virtual parliament a possibility, because for many of us the ability to be away from our families for five weeks and then the two weeks quarantine is a challenge. Just as all workplaces around Australia are adapting, it's great that our parliament is as well.
This morning I dropped my daughter Daisy off at child care and spoke to the educators about how her morning was. It's the usual thing that families now do when doing their childcare drop-off, 'Have they had breakfast, did they sleep well last night?' That's so the educators and teachers are best placed to know how your little one is going to go today. It's the modern way that families work. Mum, dad or the guardian does the childcare drop-off and then heads into work. Whether our children be in child care at Parliament House or in the electorate, it's what a lot of us are now doing in the modern world.
What disappoints me the most about the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021 before us is that it actually doesn't go far enough to support the sector. It actually doesn't go far enough to support families navigating not only a changed world because of COVID but the working world of today for working families. It does help families who might have two children in care and it does help families in relation to the cap, but it's not enough to really help the sector navigate COVID and beyond COVID. It's also coming too late. This bill is not being implemented instantly in the new financial year, or even from 1 January. It's not until after the next election, and who knows when that will be? Only the Prime Minister knows that. These reforms are needed now.
Firstly, I want to touch base on the impact that COVID is having on the sector and how the government hasn't done enough to support the sector to get through. I really feel for the sector in New South Wales—for the educators and teachers in New South Wales, and the families. We went through this last year in Victoria and the federal government just messed it up—it made an absolute mess of the sector. As a result, a lot of our casual educators in Victoria—people working casually—have not come back. They've found other work and dropped out of the sector, or they've dropped out of work altogether. That's putting pressure on the sector going forward: will they have the staff required?
The other challenge that we've had in Victoria too is that this government kicked early childhood educators off JobKeeper first. That had a huge impact on the sector. In the end we got there, and in the end our centres are doing quite well now. But every time there's a policy scramble, and chopping and changing, because the government haven't got it right it puts the sector on edge, it puts providers at risk and it has educators and teachers questioning if this is where they can work. They too have bills to pay. That's why the government needs to do better.
An example from last year of how the sector is in crisis and how the measures that the government have put forward aren't going to solve the long-term challenges that we have is Lauren, who is a nurse in my electorate. She had two children in early childhood education. It's a pandemic; we want our nurses to be working if they're able to. She said to me that because of the cost of child care she didn't want to take up that fourth or fifth day of work because it meant that she would have been paying to go to work. The way in which this system is structured currently penalises her for wanting to work extra shifts. The cost barrier becomes the absurd situation where she is actually paying to go to work. That's an economic disincentive for her family and it also has an impact on our health sector: we have nurses choosing not to return to work full-time in the middle of a pandemic because of the way in which the sector is structured.
We've had other examples: a couple—a midwife and a builder—with children in child care for two days a week. If the government were to adopt the Labor reforms that have been put forward and are suggested in our amendments, that couple would save about $2,630 a week. So it wouldn't cost them to go into child care, they would actually save money. That's another example of why these amendments being put forward by Labor—the Labor proposal—would help people in my electorate. A local pharmacist and a teacher with one child in child care for two days a week would save about $2,000 as well. It means that there is that real option of being able to return to work full time if they choose to do so. Here's another example. A police officer and nurse whose son is in child care three days a week would save about $3,300, and they can then look at the real option of picking up those extra shifts. These are three examples of health workers in our electorate whose partners are pharmacists, teachers, builders and police officers. These are people we want and who are critical to our postpandemic recovery, yet the barrier for them returning to participate in our workforce full time or even picking up some extra hours is the fact that we don't have a universal child care system. The reforms that the government has put forward aren't enough to ensure that people will take up the extra hours if they choose to do so.
Under this government, childcare fees in the Bendigo electorate have increased by 34 per cent. That's not just a statistic; that's an impact on household budgets. That's when we see families dropping out of early childhood education altogether or pulling back their hours. That places pressure on the family unit, but it also places unfair pressure on the children. We've created a system in Australia where child care is not universal, so that young people—our littlest people—can't get access to early childhood education because of what their parents earn or because of the career that their parents may have. We're not talking about millionaires. We're talking about teachers and nurses. We're talking about builders and police officers. Right now in Victoria, because of the health crisis and because of the rolling lockdowns and restrictions we've had for the past year and a half or two years as this has rolled out, we have a generation of what we've called 'COVID babies' or 'COVID toddlers'. The only way that they can get access to genuinely engaging with their peers, week to week for an extended period of time, has been organised early childhood education. With restrictions comes the cancellation of playgroups or the cancellation or pausing of any organised activity like Tumble Tots or mothers groups. They're happening via Zoom, and it is good for mum or dad to participate that way, but the little ones aren't getting together peer to peer.
Victoria is an example of how critical the early years are. We already knew that the science is in, but, for the government, here is another example. We have a generation of little people who will have gone a year or two years, in some cases, without having that consistent activity week to week, catching up with peers. Whether it be swimming lessons or a playgroup, those activities have not occurred regularly. In not even a generation's time, these children will start to go into kindergarten and into school and be having to do early skills development around sharing, being conscious of others, language development, working with others—the informal skills that they get by being around children their own age. There's going to have to be a catch-up period, but it's not even on this government's radar. All we've got before us in this bill is a little bit of relief for families.
All we've got in this bill is, again, the government still in an old mind-set that access to early childhood education is all about women's workforce participation. It is not. We need to move beyond the idea that this is just about women's workforce participation. Yes, it will help, but we need to move ourselves into a place where early childhood education is about education. It's about education and care. That's where we need to start getting towards a model which is universal, and that's where Labor's model is going. It's about reducing the costs for the vast majority of Australian families. It's about removing those tough conversations: 'Will I go to work three days a week or four days a week? If I go four days a week, it's going to cost us to have our children in early childhood education.' We know the benefits are there. We're seeing the benefits roll out in a different way in Victoria, as I've demonstrated. This is an opportunity for the government to actually move us into a space where we're saying we really believe that early childhood education should be universal, rather than just tinker and make some minor adjustments. It's about stopping the out-of-control fee increases.
I do have to say that the providers are trying to do their best. The cost of early childhood education is expensive. But they don't have a partner—a genuine partner—in the federal government helping to meet the costs. At the same time, our educators are on minimum wages. These are teachers and educators—people who have skills, who have diplomas, who have certificates, who do a remarkable job and yet are not being paid for the value of their work. And I'm not just saying this because I'm a mum with two children under two, saying, 'I don't know how educators can manage three.' That's the ratio for this age group: one to three. All of us who have been parents know what it's like, and all of us who aren't parents can appreciate the importance of what our educators do. But, if we truly want to value the work that our educators do, then we need to increase funding to the sector and to look at wages. Yes, we need to look at fees, and, yes, we need to look at the subsidy. The government have started to do that work, but they need to pick up Labor's plan too, about pushing this off to the Productivity Commission, or at some way to link wages into the sector.
Why is it that we can get it right when it comes to primary school funding and when it comes to independent school funding, and not get it right for the early years? It's long overdue for us to be looking at how we value early childhood education, as well as the people who are teaching and caring for our children in those early years. Every Victorian family, every family in Australia, who's going through this pandemic and who has children in early childhood education understands and appreciates and thanks the educators for what they're doing. The previous speaker, the member for Shortland, highlighted a really challenging time for his electorate and for New South Wales. I really hope the government listens and learns from Victoria and that they get on board and fix the challenges that are happening. It's long overdue that we have a sector that is focused on the educators and universal childhood education.
I strongly encourage the government to take on board and support the amendments Labor is putting forward, particularly in relation to fees. The sector in New South Wales could be on the brink of collapse if they don't act quickly. If people start to withdraw their children, if people can't afford to pay fees because they've been stood down, and if centres can't pay a predominantly full-time, permanently engaged workforce and a part-time workforce, then the sector is in trouble. Don't repeat the mistakes of Victoria. Fix this now. I strongly urge the government to support the amendments that Labor is putting forward. We want our little people to have the best start, we want our educators to be paid properly, and we want families to have real options when it comes to accessing early years education. It shouldn't be about penalising doctors and nurses and pharmacists. It shouldn't be about penalising people who are doing their job. Their little people should have access to quality years.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (11:13): [by video link] I'm pleased to join this debate on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill. I'm always pleased to follow the member for Bendigo, who made an outstanding contribution and really highlighted some of the important issues in our sector and, as always, has advocated for working people and working families. I want to take this opportunity to wish her and all of her family congratulations, and I look forward to seeing her and the whole crew up in Canberra soon.
This is a really difficult day. We have just got news that New South Wales has had probably their hardest day in the pandemic. We have cases around South-East Queensland. And Victoria is dealing with a major outbreak. Despite all of this, our childcare workers and our early educators have been a constant source of reliability and reliance for Australian working families.
Our early educators have done an amazing job of keeping our early education centres ticking along throughout this pandemic. My family is no exception. We have a beautiful baby daughter, and she has been going to pre-kinder and hasn't missed a beat. She's growing and learning and playing and doing all of that, even as I speak right now. I want to thank all of her educators, all of her early childcare workers, but also all of the workers around the country who have really turned up each and every day. They are absolutely on the front line, and they pour their hearts and souls into looking after our little people. They do it with expertise, they do it with skill, and they do it with energy and effort, and we really appreciate it. I want to start this contribution by saying thank you to our early educators for everything you have done, for everything you'll continue to do and for the work that you do not get paid enough for. Your work is valued and important, and we need to support you in that quest.
The Labor Party has a really simple approach when it comes to early education and child care. We do not see access to child care and early education as a welfare measure. We see it as an economic one. We see it as an economic imperative for this country to make sure that families, especially working women, are able to get back to the workplace if they choose to and access affordable child care or early education services. It's not about supporting families and welfare and all of the things that the government likes to label Labor's policy on; it's about making sure that families are able to get back into the workforce. We know that child care has become extremely unaffordable under this government. The cost of child care, including in my own electorate of Macnamara, has become unaffordable for too many families. It has become a barrier for families, especially women, returning to the workplace, especially on days four and five.
Affordable, good local early education and child care is crucial. It's not just crucial for families; it's crucial for our economy. It's crucial for careers. It's crucial for women to be able to get back into the workforce and return to making money and receiving superannuation. This doesn't even go into all of the benefits for the child and the development of young people and young Australians. Of course, that is central to our philosophy. Of course, that is central to the way in which Labor sees it. We value the social interaction, the learning, the play and the activity that comes with our outstanding early education centres. On top of that, the big struggles for families at the moment are around affordability and access to early education and childcare services, and we need it to improve. That's why Labor, like so many times throughout our time in opposition, has come up with constructive suggestions to help Australian families. It wasn't about politics; it was about constructive suggestions.
We released our alternative childcare plan as part of the budget-in-reply a couple of years ago. If an idea comes from Labor, this government has to fight it. There is no grace; there is no humility; there' s no attempt at trying to find good outcomes for the Australian people. Everything that Labor suggests, this government tries to shut down, and our childcare policy is no different. We put forward a plan to help Australian families afford more child care. What did we see? We saw the then minister for child care, Minister Tehan, come out and criticise it, label it, and use his big platform in the media to criticise Labor. He wasn't willing to work constructively and admit that there's a problem in that Australian families can't afford the increasing cost of child care and early education, that maybe the Labor Party is right and is connected to the needs of working families, that maybe, in the interests of the Australian people and Australian working families, instead of just criticising the Labor Party, we should work together and listen to good ideas. But, of course, that is beneath this government, and that is beneath the ability of the Prime Minister.
We're seeing exactly the same thing happening with this vaccine rollout. The Labor Party has put forward a really constructive suggestion. We want to see Australians get vaccinated, plain and simple.
We want to see more and more people protected from this awful virus. We have 260-odd cases today in New South Wales. Five people have lost their lives. We want to see an incentive for people to get vaccinated. That's why we put forward the idea of $300 for people to get vaccinated. Just like the childcare policy, the Prime Minister is incapable of showing any grace, any humility or any willingness to work together in the interests of the Australian people. It's all about politics with this bloke. It's always about fighting elections and not about doing what's in the interests of the Australian people. The Prime Minister could have had a little bit of humility and just said, 'Look, we'll consider it. We'll consider Labor's good-faith policy proposal. We understand that there's a massive need. This is a difficult thing. We're all in this together.' Imagine if we had a leader that was actually capable of sounding like a leader? Instead we have a Prime Minister who is constantly looking for fights with the Labor Party. That's all this is. It's all he ever wants to do. Whether it's child care or our incentive ideas for the vaccine rollout, this government is not interested in working collaboratively, this government is not interested in leadership, and this government is not interested in doing what's right for working Australian families. All it is interested in doing is punching on with the Labor Party. That's it, and it's pretty sad because the people who lose out are working families across the country and the people who miss out are Australians who we need to get vaccinated in order to get through this awful pandemic.
The Labor Party obviously isn't going to stand in the way of this bill, but, like so many things, our proposal would leave families better off. Our proposal would leave around 86 per cent of families better off. Almost a million families would be better off under the Labor Party's policy to make sure that child care is more affordable. It's hardly surprising to see that the government is angry with the Labor Party putting child care on the agenda when you see some of the comments made by government members in their own party room around child care. We see reports in the media about how government members say that child care is outsourcing parenting. That's how the dinosaurs in charge of this government see child care and early education in this country. It's hardly surprising, because it's not just in the party room. Senator Rennick—the gift that keeps on giving for the federal coalition party room—invoked Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz and insisted that the best place for children is at home, not child care. What? What planet are these people living on? What planet are these dinosaurs living on where they cannot see the value of early education, the value of play, the value of learning, and the value of our early educators who turn up to work each and every day to help develop and grow our young Australians to become everything that they can be? We know that essential learning happens in those formative years. We know that it is so important for young Australians to have access to social situations, to reading and to playing. For Senator Rennick and his colleagues to say that child care is outsourcing parenting or that a child's place is at home and not in child care just reinforces the values of the federal Liberal Party and the values of the Morrison government. They want to take Australia back to the 1950s. They are doing it in terms of climate change—they are not accepting the science on that—and their values of the family structure are really clear and apparent when it comes to their comments on child care. The Labor Party is in a completely other world to the federal government. We do not see this outdated way of thinking as being in any way appropriate. We have faith in and we back our early educators. We thank them for turning up during this pandemic each and every day to help our youngest Australians learn, grow and develop.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of the local early educators and all of the workers and staff in the electorate of Macnamara. We have some outstanding local childcare and early education facilities. Many of them are community run or council run facilities, and many of them are run by local families who give up their time to help volunteer on the board. They are outstanding organisations, and we really are so grateful for all of the effort they put in to help our youngest Australians grow and develop.
Unlike the dinosaurs in the coalition party room, we support our early educators and we want to see our childcare and early education system be one that's more affordable. We want to see Australian families able to access good education and early education. We want to make sure that our families are not put off by the rising costs of child care under this government—that child care isn't a barrier to getting back into the workplace but rather an essential part of the Australian economy, enabling Australian women to get back into the workforce and, most importantly, enabling our youngest Australians to learn, grow and develop.
I just want to point out and pay thanks to the member for Kingston, who, throughout her entire time as the shadow minister, has led and pushed for greater support for the workers, our amazing early educators, and more resources for our littlest Australians, while also making sure that the Labor Party is putting forward constructive ideas and constructive policies that will help get Australian women and Australian working families back into the workforce with access to quality education at affordable prices. I want to acknowledge her contribution.
Finally, I would say we support quality education and early education; we support our educators, and we sincerely thank them for all of their work during these difficult days of the pandemic and for all of the time that they've put into our youngest Australians. We say thank you very, very much.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (11:26): In rising to sum up the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, I firstly thank all the members who have contributed in the discussion on this particular bill. I particularly thank the opposition for not opposing this bill, so that it can go to the Senate, get through the Senate, hopefully, and then be implemented, because this bill will make a very significant difference to the lives of 250,000 families.
What the bill does, as members know, is provide an additional childcare subsidy for the second and subsequent children that a family has in child care. Why are we doing that? Because we know that, despite the fact that the childcare system is geared towards supporting families with all their children, when you have two, three or more children in child care at any one time those bills really start to add up. Additionally, it can be an impediment, particularly to women, going back into the workforce or working more days of the week as they might want to do. Hence, this bill provides additional funding in a very targeted way to address that particular problem.
As I said, 250,000 families will be beneficiaries of this bill. The average family that uses the childcare system, who is on a median income of $110,000 and has a couple of kids doing four days a week, will be $95 per week better off as a result of it. This is good for the cost of living and it's also good for the economy, because it means that people are likely to be back into the workforce. That, of course, boosts the overall economy and wealth of this nation. So it has those dual purposes there, and I thank all the members for their contributions to this bill.
Of course, it works off the architecture which our childcare system already has in place, and that is a system whereby the greatest subsidies are provided to those of the least means and the lowest subsidies are provided to those of the most means, exiting at $350,000 per annum. That is, if you're a family and you're earning more than $350,000 you don't get any subsidy at all, because our view is that those families are able to afford the child care for themselves. I will point out that, as a result of this bill, this government's total contribution to the childcare system will now be $11 billion per annum, which is about double what it was when we came to office. So it has been important for us to support the childcare system, to support the families that need it and to support the economy in doing so.
The main critique from the opposition that I want to address in this summing-up speech—and I was listening to the contribution from the member for Macnamara—is effectively that we didn't adopt Labor's policy. The reason that we didn't adopt Labor's policy on child care is that it is fundamentally very different to what we are proposing here. Whereas our proposal is to provide the most support to those families of the least means, tapering off to no support when you are earning above $350,000, the Labor Party policy is to provide the most support to those who are on very high incomes. I just find that astounding coming from the modern-day Labor Party. For example, under the Labor policy, a family on $400,000 with two children in full-time care would effectively be getting $1,000 per week from the workers of Australia to pay for that wealthy family's child care—$1,000 per week from the taxpayer to pay for a family's child care when that family is earning $400,000 or $500,000 per annum.
No wonder the Labor Party are in all sorts of turmoil about what they stand for these days, when the most amount of money that they are going to put into the system will go to the very wealthiest people in our society. The cost to the taxpayer of this policy? It would be $20 billion. That would be the cost to the taxpayer. So, under Labor's policy, $20 billion would be paid for by all of those working families in the Hunter and out in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Queensland to pay $1,000 per week for the child care of those families earning $400,000, $500,000 or $600,000 per annum.
That is what the Labor Party's policy is, and that is the reason that this government isn't supporting the Labor Party policy. It is very clear. Our measures are targeted and fair and they support those families who use the childcare system who need the support the most. But our measures are also fair for the over 50 per cent of the families who don't use the childcare system at all. So it is a modest additional outlay on top of what our expenditure is already in the childcare system.
I commend this bill to the House. I again thank everybody for their contribution to this bill. I note there will be some amendments that the Labor Party will be moving which we won't be supporting, but I do thank them for agreeing to not oppose this bill in this House, so that 250,000 families across Australia can be better off.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
The House divided. [11:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (11:42): by leave—I move together amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in the name of the member for Kingston:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
|
5. Schedule 3 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
(2) Page 12 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Exception to duty to enforce payment of hourly session fees because of stay at home directions etc.
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
1 After subsection 201B(1)
Insert:
Exception because of stay at home directions etc.
(1AA) The provider is not required to take reasonable steps in relation to a session of care provided by the service to the child if the child is not able to attend the session of care because of a law of a State or Territory (e.g. a public health direction) that:
(a) is enacted or made in reponse to the coronavirus known as COVID-19; and
(b) restricts the ability of persons to:
(i) leave their homes; or
(ii) travel a certain distance from their homes.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
2 After paragraph 201C(1)(a)
Insert:
(aa) if the provider is not taking reasonable steps in relation to the session of care because of subsection 201B(1AA)—the provider charged immediately before the coming into force of the relevant restriction mentioned in that subsection; or
3 After paragraph 201C(1A)(a)
Insert:
(aa) if the provider is not taking reasonable steps in relation to the session of care because of subsection 201B(1AA)—the provider charged immediately before the coming into force of the relevant restriction mentioned in that subsection; or
4 After section 201C(1A)
Insert:
(1AA) If the approved provider of a child care service is not taking reasonable steps in relation to a session of care provided by the service to a child because of subsection 201B(1AA), the provider must not charge an individual who is eligible for CCS for the session of care an hourly session fee that exceeds the hourly session fee that the provider charged immediately before the coming into force of the relevant restriction mentioned in that subsection.
5 Subsections 201C(2) and (3)
After "(1A)", insert ", (1AA)".
The member for Kingston will lead the debate on these important amendments. However, in moving them, I want to take the opportunity to take Stefano Passeri from Insight Early Learning Throsby for having me to visit last week for Early Learning Matters Week. Early Learning Matters Week is an initiative of Early Childhood Australia and a terrific chance to see the great work being done by early childhood educators across Australia
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. I call the honourable member for Kingston.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:43): [by video link] Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to speak to these amendments, because these amendments have one purpose—that is, to give families relief from childcare fees during COVID-19 lockdowns, when parents are asked to stay at home and not using child care but legally required to pay the full fees. I note that this is the second time that opposition has tried to move these amendments. It is disappointing to hear that, despite lockdowns across this country today, the government has signalled it will vote against these amendments again.
It is a feature of the current childcare subsidy system that, under normal circumstances, providers are legally required to enforce payment of their hourly session fees. Section 201B of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 states this. In practical terms this means that families are slugged with gap fees during the pandemic lockdown, unless the government grants the centres an exemption. The minister already had the power to grant exemptions for centres from charging gap fees under section 54A of the Child Care Subsidy Minister's Rules 2017. When the government passed the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020, it added a subsection to the family assistance administration act. This subsection created the ability for the minister to grant exemptions from the requirements to charge gap fees in particular events and circumstances. Section 54A of the minister's rules outlines the COVID related circumstances in which the minister is able to waiver the requirements of section 201B. So the government has the power to give families relief from gap fees during lockdown, but the government has chosen to use this selectively, only when it seems to suit it. It chose to use this power during the national lockdown last year and during the second lockdown in Victoria last year, and now finally it has been dragged kicking and screaming to use it in the current Sydney lockdown. Unfortunately, it has not used this power in the more recent lockdowns in Adelaide and Melbourne and isn't using it in the current lockdown in South-East Queensland.
Under the public health lockdowns in these cities, families are urged to stay at home with their children to protect the community, and childcare centres stay open to serve essential workers. But, in the circumstance where the government fails to provide the ability to do a waiver, then those centres are still legally required to charge all families gap fees. Even in Sydney, the Prime Minister waited two weeks before granting families this fee relief. One can only assume the government's hesitancy is because it doesn't want to then assume pressure for actually providing a decent relief package for the early education and care sector as, while it has finally provided the waiver of gap fees in New South Wales, it hasn't implemented a Victorian-style support package for the early learning sector.
The country needs to have certainty. Families need certainty. They need to know that, when stay-at-home orders are issued, they will not be slapped with gap fees, especially at a time when they may have lost their jobs or are doing it tough. So I urge the government today to support our amendment, to give some certainty to the early learning sector, certainty to families in the event that we will continue to see rolling lockdowns, because the government has botched quarantine and the vaccine rollout. I urge the government to provide this certainty and at the same time seriously look at a support package for the early learning sector in New South Wales, one that gives certainty, because this sector is unique: it is keeping its doors open, despite enrolments being down, so that essential workers still get that support. Please, give families this certainty. I plead with the government: give them the relief and make sure it's consistent across the country. I commend `this amendment to the House.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (11:48): We won't be supporting Labor's amendment to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, which, in effect, brings into primary legislation an automatic system of a applying gap fee waiver where this power currently rests in ministerial rules. I don't deny what the shadow minister is trying to achieve here. The reason why we haven't put this into legislation is that at the moment it can rest with the ministerial ruling, which enables greater flexibility to be applied to take into account the particular circumstances of each lockdown in each jurisdiction. As members would be aware, every lockdown has had its own unique attributes. Sometimes they're for a very small number of days. Sometimes they might start out as a week and go longer. Sometimes childcare services are closed from day one and other times they're not. By enabling this flexibility we can properly adjust our settings to both ensure families are spared their cost and ensure the viability of the sector remains strong. We've got to achieve those two objectives.
In New South Wales, we actually introduced the gap fee waiver at the same time as business support was put in place. When services waive the gap fees, it does start to place financial pressure on businesses and their viability, so we deliberately aligned those two things, and I think that made sense to maintain the viability of those services. I'll just point out briefly to the shadow minister and to the House in general the supports that we do have in place, particularly in New South Wales, which is going through a more extended lockdown period. There are three important features of the support that we are offering—support for the families, support for the businesses and indeed support for the childcare workers.
For the families, we are allowing services to waive the out-of-pocket costs and we've extended the number of days families are allowed to keep children absent before they lose access to the childcare subsidy. That decision was just made recently. For childcare businesses, we have partnered with the New South Wales government to facilitate very quick support through JobSaver to help businesses meet payroll costs if they've experienced a 30 per cent decline in their revenue. As members may know, this provides 40 per cent of those payroll costs, if there's a 30 per cent decline in revenue. Then, for the childcare workers—and this is a critical workforce for Australia, for our economy and for parents, and we thank them very much for the great work that they do—where a worker has had hours reduced, they're eligible to apply for a COVID disaster payment, which is worth up to $750 per week.
As you can see, we've got a three-pronged approach to the support that we're providing to the childcare sector—to the families, to start with; to the businesses, to ensure their viability; and to the workers, to ensure that they are looked after as well and can stay connected to their businesses so that we don't lose those very important workers for this very important industry. That's what we have in place. I appreciate the arguments that the shadow minister articulated, but I think it's important we maintain that flexibility in this particular area, and that's why we won't be supporting the amendments.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
The House divided. [11:58]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (12:01): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (12:02): On behalf of the member for Brand, who will be speaking shortly by teleconference, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) the Government has known about the impending decommissioning of a range of offshore assets in Australian waters since it was first elected eight years ago;
(2) while this legislation compels the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to regulate the financial assurance capabilities of offshore oil and gas producers, the Government has not provided any additional funding to the agency to undertake this critical task;
(3) the current legislation fails to include a comprehensive definition of what the permitted alternatives to complete removal requirements will be, making it possible for pipelines and concrete structures to be left in place without certainty over environmental, safety and well integrity outcomes; and
(4) the Government's lackadaisical approach to decommissioning reform has resulted in Australian taxpayers footing the bill for the Northern Endeavour fiasco, which has to date wasted $210 million of public money".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Swanson: It is seconded. I reserve my right to speak.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (12:04): [by video link] I thank the member for Perth and the member for Paterson for moving and seconding my second reading amendment in my absence. Briefly on indulgence, I would really like to thank the Speaker and all the presiding officers as well as the Department of Parliamentary Services, especially those in the broadcast team, for being able to organise my first remote access into this parliament from my electorate office in Rockingham, in the seat of Brand. Thank you very much.
Today, on behalf of the Labor Party, I am speaking in support of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 as well as the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021. Again, I note the second reading amendment, particularly point 4: the government's lackadaisical approach to decommissioning reform which has resulted in Australian taxpayers footing the bill for the Northern Endeavour fiasco, which has to date—as the member for Perth noted—wasted over $210 million of public money.
I for one am very glad that the government has finally accepted the need for reform in this crucial policy area, the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas assets. The minister argues that the time is now ripe for Australia's regulatory framework to catch up with demand. But I would ask: Why now? Why not two years ago? As with many things with this government, they are far more concerned with the announcements and political stunts rather than meaningful reform in the interests of all Australians. This government, which has been in power for nearly a decade, had to wait for the Northern Endeavour fiasco and bail out disaster to address the glaringly obvious reform that is required. The government weren't the ones to foot the bill for this problem; it is the Australian taxpayer that foots the bill for this problem. If it wasn't for the Northern Endeavour fiasco falling at the foot of the government, would they have acted at all? I question that entirely.
I will take us through the background of what's happened here in the lead-up to bringing this bill to this parliament. To explain, decommissioning is a process through which all equipment, infrastructure and wells associated with petroleum and gas activity are safely removed when no longer used or required. Currently, the complete removal of infrastructure and the plugging and abandonment of wells is the default decommissioning requirement under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. This is entirely consistent with Australia's international obligations, primarily under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the London Convention associated protocol, to remove disused installations and structures to preserve and protect the marine environment.
Options other than complete removal may be considered; however, the titleholder must demonstrate the alternative decommissioning approach delivers equal or better environmental safety and well integrity outcomes compared to complete removal and that the approach complies with all other legislative and regulatory requirements. However, this is set out only in guidelines, and the legislation at hand does not adequately define the criteria by which alternative decommissioning approaches will be permitted.
The risk here is that unscrupulous facility owners will seek to avoid costs and may seek to leave pipelines and other structures in place. This opens the door for producers to undertake a less than full and complete removal, where they opt to repurpose petroleum exploration infrastructure to become an artificial reef. On the face of it, that seems kind of okay. But we cannot let producers have free rein to use a pretend environmental fig leaf to cover up what they have put on the seabed to avoid their responsibilities and of course the great expense that goes with that.
There is no doubt that leaving infrastructure in the sea is a less expensive option for producers; however, it does carry environmental risks that need to be rigorously assessed. I accept that, in the right circumstances, artificial reefs that build up over gas infrastructure can provide a habitat for a range of different species. Once corals and invertebrates make themselves at home they produce additional biomass in the food chain, creating a food source for fish and other marine species. I note, for example, that WA has six purpose-built artificial reefs, with a location spread from Esperance to Exmouth. Nevertheless, it is critical that the complete removal of assets remains the undisputed objective of proper decommissioning of these gas and petroleum assets.
Currently, it is the titleholder that identifies and then collates the information necessary to assess or evaluate the different options for decommissioning petroleum infrastructure via an environmental plan. As you can imagine, maintenance of and the subsequent decommissioning of offshore petroleum assets is a costly enterprise. That is why government oversight is critical—to ensure that titleholders have the financial capacity to actually do it. Until now, business deals brokered by cowboy operators have been able to go on unabated with little attention by the government on what the end result may end up being.
It's really important to put on the record, and I will do so, what has happened to the one such example that is far too big to ignore and that has brought on this legislation—that is, the Northern Endeavour-Northern Oil and Gas Australia incident. For members and for the Hansard record, the background is that the Laminaria-Corallina oilfields are situated approximately 550 kilometres offshore from Darwin, as is the associated Northern Endeavour floating production storage and offtake facility, the chief infrastructure for extraction and development. Production of Northern Endeavour and associated wells commenced many years ago, in 1999. By 2015 the titleholder for the fields was a joint venture of Woodside and Talisman Oil and Gas, with Woodside operating the Northern Endeavour.
In 2015 Woodside announced its intention to cease production from the Northern Endeavour in the second half of 2016, and moved to decommission the field soon afterwards. However, before the decommissioning could occur, Woodside sold its share to its joint venture partner Talisman, which later became known as Timor Sea Oil and Gas Australia; they have been acquired by Northern Oil and Gas Australia. The sale was facilitated through the regulator, NOPTA, and was perfectly allowable in the current legislative environment. At the time, NOPSEMA identified concerns about Timor Sea Oil and Gas Australia's capability and capacity to respond to an oil spill—an obvious and fundamental titleholder responsibility. This led to a formal intervention and enforcement matter just three days after TSOGA became the titleholder. TSOGA and its contractors were unable to convince NOPSEMA, as the regulator, that it had identified the baseline of the corrosion hazards on the facility or undertaken the subsequent assessment prioritisation and planning to address those risks.
By 2019 NOPSEMA had lost confidence in the ability of the titleholder and the operator to fulfil their statutory obligations and resolve the identified concerns of the adequate safety and environmental management of the Northern Endeavour facility. An environmental inspection identified that TSOGA could not demonstrate sufficient financial assurance to cover its liabilities in the case of an oil spill, and this required prompt regulatory enforcement to resolve. As a result NOPSEMA issued a prohibition notice on the contractor on 10 July 2019 and a general direction on TSOGA on 18 July 2020, enforcing the cessation of production on the Northern Endeavour until a range of longstanding serious issues were resolved, particularly relating to the corrosion on the facility.
The Northern Oil and Gas Australia association group was loss making and had not generated a net profit after tax for the past four consecutive years. Essentially, the companies could not afford to maintain let alone decommission the Northern Endeavour asset. On 20 September 2019 the Northern Oil and Gas Australia Pty Ltd group of companies went into voluntary administration, and subsequently, on 7 February 2020, went into liquidation. This was when the government knew it had to step in. The Commonwealth set up the Northern Endeavour Temporary Operations Program, taking control of the facility until a longer-term solution could be found. To date, from that time, it has cost at least $210 million to maintain the vessel, all at the expense of the Australian taxpayer, and costs are still mounting.
This is at a time when the industry is battling on multiple fronts against some activist extremists that like to push their own agendas, and when a social licence to operate in oil and gas, particularly offshore oil and gas, is absolutely pivotal. The industry is faced with cleaning up a mess, and it will do this via a proposed levy across the whole industry. The bills we're speaking of today do not impose the levy, and I understand that consultation on that rate is ongoing and will come forward in another piece of legislation. That levy will apply to the whole industry to fund the decommissioning of the Northern Endeavour, and we look forward to seeing legislation on that in due course.
I want to add that Labor recognises the key role gas plays in creating economic growth and export income for Australia. Labor recognises the many thousands of good jobs the industry creates and sustains. We understand the importance of gas as a critical feedstock for Australia's manufacturing industry, as well as in electricity generation and in providing the energy that millions of Australian households need for heating, cooking and their everyday activities. We recognise and acknowledge the role of natural gas as a transitional fuel and in capitalising on renewable energy opportunities. And we support opening up new gas reserves, subject to independent scientific assessments, effective environmental regulation and effective and authentic consultation. Gas will play a major part in reducing carbon emissions in Australia and will assist our regional neighbours on their own journeys to decarbonisation as they seek cleaner-burning fuels as part of their energy mix. I might also add that the decommissioning bill will provide many jobs as well in the oil and gas sector for the work that will be required to bring these facilities to an end safely and to remove them from the seabed. That's an important part to think about when we talk about this bill.
I will go to more of the detail of the bill. It strengthens Australia's offshore oil and gas regulatory regime to ensure that emerging decommissioning challenges facing the industry will be managed effectively, and it addresses a loophole that fails to ensure that the costs of decommissioning an offshore project remain with the entity or the entities who were responsible for, or had the capacity to, influence how that decommissioning might happen. The bill aims to strengthen the framework of decommissioning from cradle to grave and to better protect the marine environment and the taxpayer from bearing very high costs. These are important objectives, but I would also point out again how important it is to remember the significant jobs that will emerge out of the highly specialised work that has to go on and which will be drawn from an already highly technical oil and gas workforce.
In pursuing successful decommissioning and the jobs it creates we must also be mindful of the workplace safety requirements that will need to be enforced to keep this dangerous workplace safe. The bill increases regulatory oversight and scrutiny by providing for specific decision-making criteria at decision points across the OPGGS Act to ensure that entities are suitable on entering into the regime and remain suitable throughout the life of the project. It expands the type of information that may be requested by the relevant decision-maker from the applicant or the applicants seeking to enter into or to progress through the oil and gas regime.
There are four key pillars to the bill which provide oversight for changes in the control of titleholders through corporate merger acquisition. The sale of an offshore project is meant to be captured as the transfer of the title related to the project, which is already provided for under the act. It is also common for the industry, both in Australia and overseas, for an offshore project to be transferred by the sale of shares in the company which is the titleholder. Such transactions are not captured by the current act because there is no transfer of the interests to the title or titles. The bill provides a specific decision-making criteria and expanded information-gathering powers to assess the suitability of entities that want to go through our oil and gas regime, and the bill includes minor and technical amendments to improve the operation of the acts, including—at last—enabling electronic lodgement of applications.
Very importantly, this bill mandates trailing liabilities—expanding existing powers to call back, literally, previous titleholders to decommission infrastructure and to remediate the marine environment in a title area where the current or immediate former titleholder is unable to do so. It aims to ensure that the risks and liabilities of the petroleum and gas activities remain the responsibility of those who held, or had the ability to influence, operations under the title. It also aims to change industry behaviour by increasing the due diligence undertaken by companies regarding who they sell these assets to. This is best practice on the global stage and it is very good that at long last Australia has now introduced into its regulatory regime world's best practice.
In coming decades, there will be a number of offshore projects which will have exhausted their reserves and will require decommissioning. This is a normal part of the resource development lifecycle. With an estimated $60 billion in anticipated decommissioning liabilities falling due over the next 30 years, the government needs to ensure that it can call upon former titleholders to decommission and remediate the area in the event that the current titleholder is unable to do so. Labor understands that the industry, led by APIA, is comfortable with these proposed reforms. We are a little concerned that, while NOPSEMA acts as an regulator under the act and will continue to oversee decommissioning activities in the Commonwealth waters, there's been no additional funding allocated to the agency to carry out these extra tasks. We need to ensure our regulatory agencies are appropriately resourced to continue their vital work and this extra work. It's pivotal that we get this right. As the world continues to power towards decarbonisation, the management and eventual retirement of these assets will be absolutely critical. It's critical to the marine environment and critical, of course, to the whole gas industry being able to retain its social licence to operate offshore in Australian waters.
While I believe this legislation has taken too long to get to parliament, I'm glad that it is here. I believe it can be improved to ensure full removal of facilities at the end of their life. Although we have some reservations about the effectiveness of the current legislation, we do support it to ensure Australians receive the assurances they require to ensure offshore oil and gas facilities are safely and appropriately decommissioned and removed.
To conclude, I want to endorse the second reading amendments moved by the member for Perth and seconded by the member for Paterson, and I thank them for supporting me in relation to this bill. I thank the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the House now is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (12:22): It's a real pleasure to rise today and speak on the really important Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I would like to start by acknowledging the comments from the member for Brand, who thankfully just made such a sensible contribution. She talked about the important role of natural gas as a transition fuel. I'm deeply pleased to hear that sort of commonsense approach. I certainly hope that the member for Brand is able to convince many more of her colleagues in the Labor Party and of course their business partner the Greens, many of whom absolutely demonise hydrocarbons in any form. This is a deeply irresponsible position to take. I certainly note the efforts of our wonderful Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction with our Technology Investment Roadmap. With our Technology Investment Roadmap, we are looking at that transition towards a lower carbon future, but we are doing it absolutely responsibly. We're doing it through technology and not through taxes.
I have a little bit of experience in the oil and gas sector. After my first career as an Army officer over about a decade, I spent almost a decade and a half in the mining and oil and gas sector. The roles that I had were to lead risk management programs, business continuity planning, which is obviously extremely important, and risk and crisis management. I have worked with companies like BHP, Chevron and Woodside Energy as well. I've been out to the sources, the actual gas fields, I've walked the processing facilities, and I've even driven the pipeline from the north of Western Australia, where those important hydrocarbons are transported, down to Perth and beyond—that natural gas which we all use in and around our homes and we know is so important. For over half a century, our oil and gas sector has really supported economic growth and jobs right here in Australia. We are the second-largest exporter of LNG in the entire world, and we see those benefits flowing through to our families, our communities and, of course, our economy. For the same thermal output—for the same amount of energy—natural gas burns at half the carbon dioxide output of coal. That just helps put into perspective how important natural gas is as a transition fuel as we move towards that lower-carbon future.
We have continued, on the back of a strong oil and gas industry, to develop and grow our economy. This is important, obviously, because this is the future that we'll be passing to our children. This is the future in which we will see manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries be viable. And also, of course, it's this investment in a strong economy that will help underpin our continued provision of adequate defence capability, helping to keep Australia sovereign and secure in the complex and challenging world ahead. As a country, it's crucial that we also remain prepared to respond to future challenges in the oil and gas sector. This includes decommissioning of offshore facilities, wells and pipelines which have exhausted their reserves. It's equally important that this is done with effective regulatory oversight and with the utmost safety to ensure protections for Aussie taxpayers, workers and the environment.
Whilst we are seeing the end of a life cycle for some facilities in coming decades, it's also a time when we are seeing exciting new ventures and new players enter the field—smaller companies that provide a fresh perspective and a different risk profile. This includes the development of the $10 billion Scarborough gas project off the coast of WA, which is set to deliver 3,200 jobs during construction, and the Dorado oil project, also off the coast of WA, which is another significant investment expected to create hundreds of jobs over the next decade whilst also being one of the lowest emission intensity oil projects in the region.
This bill will strengthen Australia's already successful offshore oil and gas industry by providing stronger regimes to address regulatory shortcomings and to reduce the risk of another incident like the Northern Oil & Gas Australia incident occurring. Implementing aspects of the Morrison government's enhanced offshore oil and gas decommissioning framework, this bill ensures that decommissioning is managed effectively by businesses involved in oil and gas development. It's these companies operating in Australia's offshore oil and gas regulatory regime that will be entirely responsible for making sure that their projects are capable and competent, in turn protecting taxpayers and the environment.
This bill provides for better government oversight of transactions involving a change in control of a petroleum or greenhouse gas titleholder through a merger or takeover. Such transactions are not currently captured by the act because there is no transfer of the interests of the petroleum title or titles. But, under this legislation, failure to obtain regulatory approval for this type of corporate transaction could now result in a significant civil penalty. In addition, the title can now be cancelled. This approach is consistent with similar regimes across the Commonwealth in acting as a deterrent to corporate misconduct. It's important that we also have the capability to call upon former titleholders to amend problems that a current owner or operator is unable to amend or that they have left behind, also known as a 'trailing liability'. As the act stands now, only an immediate former titleholder can be directed to decommission or remediate an area. But, with an estimated $60 billion in anticipated decommissioning liabilities due over the next 30 years, it's vital that this government has the power to make these directions. It must be made clear, though, that trailing liability is a measure of last resort where all other options have been exhausted. It ensures risks and liabilities remain in the hands of those responsible for developing the project. It sets an expectation that sellers will undertake due diligence before selling titles and assets to avoid being called back to decommission and remediate title areas in years to come. Not only this, it also reduces the environmental, health and safety risks associated with the abandonment of assets and ensures the financial obligations of decommissioning won't fall on the Australian taxpayer.
This bill increases regulatory oversight and scrutiny by providing specific decision-making criteria to ensure entities remain suitable to undertake petroleum project activities. This will better equip the government to screen applicants to determine whether they meet financial and technical capability requirements. It also provides for amendments to improve the administration of greenhouse gas titles, including enabling electronic lodgement of applications and documents. This legislation is all about enhancing regulations and reducing risks.
Even as Australia's offshore industry matures, significant new investments continue to be made. This includes the $4.6 billion Barossa LNG project, delivering another 600 jobs during the construction phase. Australian LNG is playing a significant role in reducing emissions, with our country being, as I said, the second-largest exporter globally. The International Energy Agency has found that, since 2010, coal-to-gas switching has saved about 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. To put it into perspective, that is the equivalent of taking 200 million cars off the road in that same period. There are some pretty staggering benefits, and it's a fantastic outcome. We know that natural gas is a flexible, reliable energy source that helps lower emissions. It supports renewables, keeping lights on when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
The Morrison government is also investing in carbon capture and storage projects, which are also referred to as CCS. CCS is a proven and versatile technology. It cuts emissions from energy-intensive industries and helps create a hydrogen export industry for Australia. It's our government that's investing more than $300 million over the next decade in carbon capture, utilisation and storage projects and hubs, including the $50 million CCUS Development Fund and the $263 million CCUS hub and technologies investment stream. The additional investment will establish a new $250 million CCUS hubs and technologies program. This is set to fund large-scale CCUS projects in proximity to high-emitting industrial areas and to accelerate the development of carbon utilisation technologies with export potential.
This is an exciting new initiative, which has been welcomed by industry and energy leaders as providing greater certainty for projects to deploy and help transition Australia to that lower carbon future. In fact, in September last year, the Morrison government released its first new low emissions technology statement, highlighting CCS technologies in CO2 compression, transport and storage as one of five priority technologies for Australia, with an economic stretch goal of under $20 per tonne of CO2. Only the Morrison government recognises that CCUS is a critical technology for sustaining the resources and hard-to-abate sectors whilst promoting new market opportunities in LNG, hydrogen and carbon recycled products.
This bill is yet another way that the coalition is securing Australia's future in the oil and gas industry, making it more reliable and secure for generations to come. It embodies the government's unwavering commitment to having a globally recognised oil and gas sector which continues to deliver significant employment and economic activity right across Australia.
I'll conclude shortly with some comments around where I began, because it's worth highlighting again that we as a government are committed to transforming and moving towards a lower carbon future. We have a road map of how we're going to get there and we're going to do so responsibly. This is despite calls from those opposite and their business partners in the Greens, who would not act responsibly in the same way that this government does. I will tell you why this is important. We value our economy. We don't value our economy just because it gives us pretty graphs or figures that are positive to talk about in government; we value our economy because of what it provides. It provides a future, it provides jobs for our children and their children into the future and it also gives us the ability to invest, as we are significantly, in our defence force—an area that I have a great passion for.
So this government has committed $270 billion to defence capability over the next 10 years, and we're doing that because, again, it's responsible, given the contested nature and the uncertainty within our region and across the globe. But we can only make these investments if we continue to have a strong economy—these investments which provide that future for our children and the security, the stability and the sovereignty which we must continue to have, into Australia's future. We've heard before, and it bears repeating here, that we are moving towards a lower carbon future via technology and not taxes. We are promoting, here in this bill, a regulatory environment that lowers risks to help us achieve those objectives. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (12:35): [by video link] I'm glad for the opportunity to speak in support of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and particularly in support of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Brand, the shadow minister for resources, and I endorse the contribution that she made earlier in this debate.
The bill addresses some serious regulatory blindspots in the way we manage oil and gas infrastructure, especially in relation to the way such infrastructure is properly and responsibly decommissioned and also the way we ensure that such infrastructure doesn't come to be sold off towards the end of its operational life, when safety and maintenance issues become more acute, to a company that has insufficient experience and capability to manage those risks to our marine environment and our ocean biodiversity. Unfortunately the blind spots in question are not being caught in advance of serious regulatory failures. They are being caught because very serious and costly failure has already occurred in the form of the Northern Endeavour fiasco, through which the disposal of an asset by Woodside has resulted in a bill to the Australian taxpayer of $230 million, and rising. I'll talk a bit more about that in a minute.
I do want to acknowledge at the outset of my contribution that the changes contained in this bill are, broadly speaking, sensible and welcome. The minister and his department have taken heed of the Walker review into the Northern Endeavour fiasco. They have not been swayed by some reflex opposition from industry, and they've brought forward what appear to be some meaningful and well designed reforms. At a time when people need to have faith in our system of governance they should be able to see that politics and parliament not just accommodate but actually look for collaborative and constructive approaches to problem solving. There are plenty of areas in which I have made and will continue to make strenuous criticism of the Morrison government, but the reforms being made here, especially the application of a trailing liability, are a step in the right direction. There's quite a lot more to be done, and I've written to the Minister for Resources and Water and the Minister for the Environment separately on some of those outstanding issues, in my role as shadow assistant minister for the environment. But this is a good start.
To go back to the beginning: Australia has a long established and large oil and gas sector which involves dozens of offshore operations with related infrastructure of platforms pipelines that sit within our precious marine environment. When all goes well, those projects form a key part of our current energy industry, and that sustains very significant economic activity, jobs and exports from which we benefit as a nation. If things go badly—which has been extremely rare in Australia—it puts lives at risk and it presents an enormous hazard to the marine and coastal environment. When offshore oil and gas projects are approved, there is always a requirement that the company that owns and operates the offshore asset will properly decommission the infrastructure at the end of its life. And, as the shadow minister for resources made clear, the presumption is that the infrastructure will be safely removed in its entirety as much as possible.
We're now at the stage where a lot of that activity is falling due. It's estimated that $50 billion worth of decommissioning work will be required in the next few decades, with more than half of that work to commence in the next 10 years. That's according to analysis from the recently established oil and gas industry group called Centre of Decommissioning Australia.
The regulation and oversight with respect to who owns our oil and gas assets is the domain of NOPTA, the titles administrator. Regulation and oversight with respect to the ongoing proper and safe operation of the assets, and the approval of decommissioning activity, is the province of NOPSEMA. One of the things that we would expect, and which is absolutely right for the Australian community to expect, is that a company that owns, operates and has profited from a piece of offshore kit will be responsible, come hell or high water, for its safe decommissioning. One of the glaring problems in our system to date, unfortunately, has been the ability of companies to dispose of assets in a manner that does not trigger or require an assessment and approval from NOPTA with respect to the capability of a new owner to operate and decommission offshore infrastructure safely.
To understand what can happen in the absence of such a requirement we only need to considerthe Northern Endeavourfiasco. Woodside operated the Northern Endeavouroffshore oil platform, situated about 500 kilometres from Darwin, for a number of years. In 2015 it decided to dispose of the asset, which occurred in 2016. It's really hard to describe the disposal as an effective sale in the way that ordinary people would understand a sale, because Woodside actually paid NOGA $20 million to take the asset off their hands. By getting rid of the Northern Endeavour Woodside saved itself what is estimated to be the decommissioning cost of something like $130 million, and that appears to have been a very conservative estimate. NOGA had no experience or background in running offshore oil and gas operations so, not surprisingly, it ran into serious problems from the very beginning. NOPSEMA issued a series of breach notices and took other action in relation to safety, maintenance and other failures within a few weeks of NOGA taking over the asset. The Northern Endeavour was found to be riddled with rust, lacking a proper fire suppression system and at risk of a major accident event occurring.
In 2019, NOPSEMA issued a notice for the Northern Endeavour to cease operations. In early 2020 NOGA went into liquidation. By March of this year, the value of contracts issued by the Australian government to maintain the facility in lighthouse mode and to prepare for decommissioning amounted to $231 million—and I note that the EOI process in relation to the decommissioning itself closed last week, on 29 July. Ridiculously, in my view, that includes $8 million paid to Woodside for their provision of expert advice in relation to the Northern Endeavour. In other words, $8 million of taxpayers' money is going to Woodside for their advice on how to clean up the mess created by their ill-judged disposal of that asset.
This quote is from an article by industry commentator, Peter Milne:
The responsibility for the ageing and corroded vessel moved from one of Australia's largest companies to an inexperienced, single-owner, single-director, single-asset undercapitalised company with no input from the regulator.
Three days after NOGA gained the title in 2016 it was already in trouble with offshore safety regulator NOPSEMA for being ill-prepared for an oil spill.
NOGA, as title holder, subcontracted the operating responsibility to Upstream Production Solutions.
UPS was 'unable to convince' NOPSEMA that it was managing the "extensive corrosion present on the facility" when the regulator first inspected the vessel under its new ownership.
And yet Woodside's new CEO has said:
The sale to NOGA was done with full expectation that that player will be able to generate enough revenue to cover the decommissioning obligations.
Taking the summary from the Peter Milne article that I just read, we do have to wonder what the basis of such a flawed expectation could possibly be. In any case, we might think that our regulatory system would have been geared towards preventing the disposal of such an asset from a big profitable company to a tiny and, clearly, incapable company. We might even think that Woodside, as a responsible corporate citizen, would have undertaken its disposal process with something much closer to due diligence than what occurred. It's genuinely hard to understand how it came to this.
But it came to this because without a rigorous and effective regulatory system there's no doubt that companies will make decisions that are guided principally by their own bottom lines. When risks, or serious harm or enormous costs result they will fall on all of us. They will fall on our environment and on the public purse. The next time that we hear anyone—someone in the current government or in the corporate world—banging on about the need to remove red tape at all costs, perhaps we should stop and think about why proper regulation is absolutely necessary and what happens when it doesn't exist. This is a bill from a coalition government that introduces some additional red tape, the absence of which puts our marine environment at risk of a serious oil spill, the absence of which has already cost the taxpayer $230 million.
As I've said, it's welcome that these reforms will address some of the glaring regulatory gaps, specifically there are changes that address the way an offshore asset can move from one titleholder to another. There are changes that seek to improve the information gathering powers and decision-making criteria that should be at the foundation of a due diligence process with respect to determining whether a company can be trusted to take ownership, but, of course, the most important change is the introduction of a trailing liability, which allows the government to call back a previous owner to undertake decommissioning work where a subsequent owner proves incapable of doing so. That change is eminently sensible. Clearly it is necessary. It was recommended as part of the Walker review and would strike any reasonable person as the kind of thing that should have been there from the very beginning.
Not long ago in the process that led us to this bill, the industry was protesting loudly about the prospect of a trailing liability. That was daft. I'm glad the representative peak bodies have since changed that view. Companies that make very substantial profits from resources that, from the outset, belong to all Australians and that do so having promised to clean up after themselves should not complain in any circumstance about being held to that promise and that obligation. The company seeks to dispose of an end-of-life asset, it should only do so with 100 per cent confidence that the new owner will keep that same promise to the Australian people. This trailing liability, if it works as the government intends, will ensure that's the case, or else it will require the original owner to make good on the promise themselves. Nothing could be fairer than that.
While these changes are an important step in the right direction, there is more work to be done. The Northern Endeavour fiasco should lead to an audit of existing offshore oil and gas infrastructure to make sure current environment plans are up to date based on rigorous assessments of what's required, when it's likely to occur and what it will cost. There also needs to be sufficient transparency and reassurance about the provision that companies have made to meet their decommissioning obligations. The greatest risk is the disposal of an asset from a large and capable company to a small incapable company, but we do need to watch closely that even large companies retain the funds necessary to properly decommission their infrastructure. In relation to both these issues, I note that, as far as I'm aware, neither NOPTA nor NOPSEMA have been provided with additional resources by government. I question whether that's sensible given the work that's going to be required. I make the point here that, where the original operator remains in a position to undertake their decommissioning responsibilities, we need to be wary of companies that might seek to do so in a manner that focuses on avoiding costs rather than meeting their agreed obligations to the Australian community and the Australian environment.
I note that earlier this year, Woodside sought permission from NOPSEMA to alter its decommissioning obligation with respect to the Nganhurra riser turret mooring, located off the WA coast. As a result of poor maintenance and a failure to undertake proper inspections, there's currently an inability to deal with some aspect of the ballast arrangements with that bit of infrastructure, so, according to Woodside, it needs to be sunk. NOPSEMA didn't agree with that initially, which is not surprising when you consider that the infrastructure contains 6½ tonnes of polyurethane foam and is proposed to be sunk two kilometre from the Ningaloo world heritage area. NOPSEMA has grudging and belatedly approved the proposal, but it can only go ahead under the sea dumping act, which is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. I've written to the minister in my role as a shadow assistant minister asking for a briefing on that process. I wrote back in April and I'm sorry to say I still haven't had a response. In any case, this is another example of the difficult and environmentally sensitive issues that will keep rising in the years ahead.
In conclusion, this bill is welcome because it fixes a gap that should never have existed in the first place. It creates, quite rightly, a trailing liability to ensure that operators of offshore oil and gas infrastructure remain on the hook for meeting their obligations when it comes to properly decommissioning their infrastructure, for meeting the promises that they made when they set off to develop and benefit from oil and gas resources that ultimately belong to all Australians. Sadly, it has taken a $230 million, and rising, fiasco to bring us to this point. We should take from this bitter lesson a sharp imperative to apply much greater scrutiny and rigour to this critical area of oversight and regulation, or else it's quite likely there will be further outrageous costs landed on the Australian taxpayer in the future, not to mention quite serious risks to our marine environment.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (12:50): I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution in relation to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and the associated bill. As I join the debate, I note its particular relevance to the people of Gippsland. That is not news to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews; as a Rosedale boy who went to school at St Patrick's College, I'm sure you're very familiar with the role that the joint venture partners in the Bass Strait have played in creating the wealth of our nation and supporting the great community of Gippsland. I wouldn't be surprised if some of your classmates from St Patrick's College from the seventies ended up working on the Bass Strait fields.
Gippsland is home to Australia's first offshore oil and gas producing wells in the Bass Strait. More than 50 years later the Gippsland Basin joint venture partners, Esso and BHP, have helped to transform the Australian economy. I can't think of any way to overestimate the role that those offshore oil and gas producing wells have played in the development of the Sale community but in Gippsland more broadly in terms of jobs, social benefits and the skills development that we've seen with young people in the community.
The facts are quite staggering. I don't know who takes the time to come up with facts quite like this, but, according to ACIL Allen Consulting, between 1967 and 2015 the Gippsland Basin joint venture produced more than half of Australia's crude oil and hydrocarbon liquids, and, in that same time period: provided enough fuel to fill every car currently on the road in Australia 500 times; provided enough gas energy to power the MCG's lights for 3.3 million years; improved the real income of Australians by more than $640 billion—which is $780 per year for every person in this country; and contributed an average of 2.5 per cent of all Commonwealth government tax receipts—that's over $220 billion in 2016 terms—making it one of the largest Commonwealth sources of revenue in history.
I say to the men and women who have been part of that incredible story in the Bass Strait: thank you for the work you've done, sometimes in perilous conditions. The joint venture partners take safety as absolutely paramount but there have been occasions where we've lost lives onshore, such as during the Longford gas explosion. Week after week we've had men and women flying out to those platforms on helicopters, doing their job in sometimes very difficult circumstances and continuing to provide energy for our country. I thank them for the work they've done.
Australia's offshore oil and gas regime is regarded globally as international leading practice. The Commonwealth recognises that, as our offshore industry matures, the regime must adapt to meet the needs of the industry and regulate the development of our resources safely and responsibly. I commend the minister on these bills, which strengthen Australia's offshore oil and gas regulatory regime to ensure that the emerging decommissioning challenges facing the industry are able to be managed effectively.
As the previous speakers have indicated, and as others will as well, decommissioning is a normal stage in the lifetime of an offshore petroleum project that should be planned from the outset and matured throughout the life of the operations. Decommissioning involves the timely, safe and environmentally responsible removal of, or otherwise satisfactorily dealing with, infrastructure from the offshore area that was previously used to support oil and gas operations. For petroleum wells this is permanently plugging the well to ensure it can be safely left, and for other offshore subsea infrastructure, like wellheads and pipelines, it may mean removal or being able to leave in an environmentally safe way. There have been conversations in Gippsland already about what assets can remain on the sea floor in terms of artificial reefs.
The main bill mitigates the risk of oil and gas companies walking away from their responsibilities to decommission these facilities safely and effectively. It ensures entities demonstrate their suitability and financial and technical capacity to undertake petroleum activities. As the previous speaker indicated—and I agree wholeheartedly—the costs of decommissioning cannot fall to Australian taxpayers.
The bill amends the OPGGS Act to provide for oversight of changes of control of titleholders; expand existing powers to call back previous titleholders to decommission infrastructure and remediate the marine environment in the title area where the current or immediate former titleholder is unable to do so, which is known as a trailing liability; and provide for specific decision-making criteria and expanded information-gathering powers to assess the suitability of entities wishing to enter into or progress through the regime. This came about, in some ways, in response to the failure of the company Northern Oil and Gas Australia, and NOGA were reliant on the offshore regime. As a result, there is heightened interest in the implementation of the decommissioning framework. These amendments aim to ensure that, as projects reach their maturity, titleholders will manage their assets and infrastructure responsibly as they reach the end of life, and it includes how assets may be onsold by the companies and how decommissioning is included in the planning.
I go back to the experience in Bass Strait. The previous speaker referred to the need for responsible corporate citizens. From my experience in dealing with the joint venture partners and, in more recent times, with Esso itself, I have found the company to be acting in a responsible way, and I am pleased to report that the Bass Strait operations are aware of their decommissioning responsibilities. In fact, they have already spent in the order of almost $500 million on this work. Over the last few years there's been significant progress on the well plug and abandonment work, which puts non-producing platforms in a safer state until the final decommissioning actually occurs. There's been a detailed and extensive program of works, which has seen the successful plugging and abandonment of the Blackback, Whiting, Seahorse, Tarwhine and Mackerel wells, in a campaign that cost in the order of $300 million. Even this work is not without its perils.
Plugging and abandoning wells involves extensive planning and careful execution by specialist vessels, by people involved in the technology and having the right equipment to get the job done safely. It includes engaging crews who are trained and competent in the operation of semisubmersible, jack-up and platform based rigs and remote operated vehicles. Again, we are talking about a workplace in Bass Strait where it's a challenging remote environment, subject to weather and rough sea conditions, and all that work is taken in close consultation with regulators and the other relevant stakeholders. There's also work underway. Esso has mobilised a second platform based rig in Bass Strait, and the two platform based rigs will allow the company to plug and abandon wells at Kingfish B and Fortescue fields as well as remove platform based conductors from the Mackerel platform, in a campaign that will again cost a very sizable amount—$160 million. We will see in the following years Esso continuing to progressively plug and abandon wells as they reach the end of their production life, while they continue to progress the extensive planning and preparation for the final decommissioning program.
From a Gippsland perspective, the legislation before the House is very significant. Energy production is synonymous with the Gippsland and Latrobe Valley region. I would like to take the opportunity today to briefly update the House on another energy initiative in the Gippsland Latrobe Valley region, which is of great significance. The minister at the table would be well aware of the role the Latrobe Valley has played and its rich heritage in energy production. As much as the Latrobe Valley has a rich heritage and proud history of being an energy powerhouse, we are also ambitious as a community for a significant future role in energy production. Still, today, we have the brown coal production of Loy Yang A and Loy Yang B at Yallourn, very significant contributors to the National Energy Market.
We are now seeing a great deal of interest in new energy projects. The Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain pilot project, the HESC project, is underway at Loy Yang power station, turning brown coal into hydrogen. This project has been co-funded by the Australian government, and I thank the minister and acknowledge the minister's work in that regard, along with the Victorian state government, the Japanese government and the joint venture partners of some Japanese companies involved. The HESC project produces hydrogen from the valley's abundant resource of brown coal, and it's the world's first demonstration of hydrogen supply chain from the fuel source. The pilot will turn the brown coal into hydrogen to continue to diversify our energy sources for use in cars, electricity generation and industry. I was there last week to meet with some of the operators, and they are very optimistic about the work they're doing and the role it will play in meeting our future needs. We expect to see great opportunities for the Latrobe Valley region and the nation more broadly, creating 400 jobs both in the Latrobe Valley and the port of Hastings, and we believe there's potential to create more.
In concert with the work that's occurring with HESC, the federal government has also invested over $95 million in the CarbonNet project, which is involved in carbon capture and storage. Again, these are bold new initiatives, technology-led solutions to the challenges we face as a nation in meeting our future energy needs. When I talk to people in my community, they are very focused on the need for reliable and affordable energy, but also maintaining our role and continuing to contribute to the global challenge of reducing emissions. The CarbonNet project, our commitment to carbon capture and storage, is an initiative that has the potential to allow the future use of some resources that would otherwise not be able to be used if we have a emissions constrained environment going forward. The HESC project and the work with carbon capture and storage are very exciting for the Gippsland and Latrobe Valley region and we see a huge upside for our community.
The final point I'll make as I wrap up my contribution on this bill is that we are incredibly thankful for the work of the people involved in the oil and gas industry and also those involved in the brown coal industry in the generation of power in Latrobe Valley. As a community we are incredibly grateful for the contribution they have made to the wealth of our nation. Victoria would not be the state it is today and would not have the manufacturing base it has today without the energy production that has occurred within my electorate over more than 50 years. In terms of Latrobe Valley power stations, I am incredibly proud to represent the blue-collar workers in that industry and appreciate their ongoing commitment to keep the lights on at an affordable price for Australian industry and for the mum and dad householders of our nation. Again, I take the opportunity to thank the workers in the energy industry in Latrobe Valley, Bass Strait and onshore at the Longford gas plant. You have helped to power our state for generations. I look forward to continuing to work with you as the industry transforms—and, in the case of the Bass Strait oil field, that the decommissioning occurs in a safe manner—and we look for future opportunities to ensure the Gippsland and Latrobe Valley region maintains its strong economic contribution to the wealth of our nation. I thank the House.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (13:02): I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and cognate bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021. These bills aim to change Australia's offshore oil and gas regulatory regime so that the inevitable decommissioning of oil rigs is managed and that the costs of the decommissioning do not land on the taxpayer. The decommissioning of wells will be a growing issue over the coming years. The industry has no problem putting rigs in the ocean; it has serious difficulties in decommissioning safely at minimum cost and taking responsibility for doing it. This is exacerbated by the industry struggling to find buyers for ageing assets as more investors are now conscious of the risk, climate or otherwise of taking on such assets.
As the Rystad Energy report projects, the number of oil and gas wells waiting to be decommissioned will rise from 160 today to 440 by 2026. So this is clearly a growing problem. This will be the largest amount of decommissioning to take place that we have seen for decades. It's important that the costs of decommissioning are not heaped on the taxpayer, because the invoice and the cost will be substantial. The worst example is that of the Northern Endeavour. The facility is 274 metres long and is located 550 kilometres north-west of Darwin, in the Timor Sea. The owners of the facility, Northern Oil and Gas Australia, were placed into liquidation in February last year. That has left the unprecedented clean-up costs on the taxpayer that could run up to $1 billion. Decommissioning will take several years and the taxpayer is footing the bill of $5 million a month just to maintain the facility. Wood Mackenzie modelled that the Australian petroleum industry's decommissioning liability, both onshore and offshore, will be more than $60 billion over the next 30 years. With Australia's net debt approaching $1 trillion, Australia needs to be absolutely cognisant, more than ever, of this cost and we cannot put this on taxpayer. Unsurprisingly, there has been opposition to this measure, but it is absolutely one that has to occur.
From a technical point of view, the bills will amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to increase oversight of entities throughout the life of an offshore project. The proposed regime is sensible and will ensure proponents manage the decommissioning and restore the environment. One of the more controversial parts of this legislation is the introduction of the 'trailing liability', whereby a former title holder can be liable for decommissioning. This measure is already used overseas, including in the UK, where massive decommissioning works are happening in the North Sea.
Probably the most controversial part of this bill is a plan to introduce a levy on the industry, which is ironic, coming from a government that continually talks about not wanting to introduce taxes. But this is the exact point where a levy is incredibly important. In the 2021-22 budget the government announced that there will be a temporary levy to offset the cost of decommissioning the Northern Endeavour. This levy will be set at 38c per barrel, and it will cease when the Northern Endeavour has been decommissioned. The levy is projected to raise $367 million per annum. Of course, the industry has issues with the levy, but it's well past time that oil companies started paying their way for the consequences of their business. But what I disagree with is the temporary nature of this levy.
We know that there is much more decommissioning that will be necessary in the future. In fact, hundreds of wells will need to be remediated in the mid-2020s. We know that many of these companies are probably going to fold as the world transitions to net zero emissions. Who's going to pick up the bill then? What assurances is the government providing to the Australian people? We need to pre-empt the inevitable decommissioning crisis by establishing a permanent decommissioning fund. We can't have this land on the taxpayer at a time when our national debt is already so high. Many of the previous speakers from the government spoke about the great achievements of the Morrison government on emissions reduction and its focus on carbon capture and storage. Of course there's always a focus on technology rather than taxes, but this is a clear point where this levy needs to be made permanent. We need to ensure we have a fund to deal with the issues of decommissioning in the future. This is something that needs to be maintained. This should not be a temporary measure.
I would say we need to go a step further. We actually need to place on the industry a national climate disaster levy to collect money from oil and gas companies that are contributing to climate change, for which the taxpayer is picking up the bill. It is the taxpayer who is ultimately taxed for the cost of these disasters. Oil and gas companies should be on the hook for a lot of the consequences that they are causing. Too many of these corporations don't even pay significant taxes in Australia. We know that the greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere are directly linked to the worsening extreme weather events that severely impact our economy, our communities, our health and our environment. Fossil fuels are the major contributing cause of increased gas emissions. Currently it is the Australian taxpayer who pays in taxes or directly when disasters hit. It is not the oil and gas majors. If we were to set a $1 per tonne for embodied carbon and oil and gas extracted from gas wells, this would raise money to meet the considerably escalating costs of natural disasters. One estimate has natural disaster costs growing to almost $39 billion per annum to the economy over the next 30 years. Who is going to pay for that? The Black Summer bushfires alone were projected to have cost the Australian economy over $50 billion. The Australian public has been asked about this type of measure—a natural disaster levy—and supports it. In the Australia Institute's 2020 climate of the nation report, the majority of Australians, some 65 per cent, support a levy on fossil fuels to pay for climate disasters. It's time for oil and gas majors to pay their fair share for the clean-up of the climate mess and obviously the clean-up of decommissioning wells.
I support the bill, but I would say that, ironically, the government is working against its own interests with respect to other decisions. Just recently, on 15 June, the federal government released a further 80,000 square kilometres of offshore petroleum exploration acreage. Some of that acreage is in prime tourism areas. For example, there is now acreage just six kilometres away from the Twelve Apostles, near Port Campbell, off the Victorian coast. It will be terrible for the local economy and tourism, the climate and the local environment if that acreage is developed.
The International Energy Agency has said there can be no new fossil fuel developments from this year. If we are to stay true to our commitment to the Paris Agreement, to actually limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, we need to reach net zero prior to 2050, and that means no new acreage can be developed. Of course, the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and the Prime Minister will talk about 'preferably' reaching net zero by 2050, and the spin is always that it's about technology, not taxes. It's absolutely empty and meaningless, because the reality is that technology needs targets. You need targets and legislation to drive investment and the uptake of technologies.
We must double our targets to reduce emissions, at the minimum, by 2030, and we must stop all new gas exploration and drilling. The push for gas is just a cynical short-term move, I would argue, from regional MPs who are trying to win votes on promises that these fossil fuel industries will be around forever. They will not. It is selling an empty promise to communities that do face a serious transition risk and are not being properly protected. We must abandon this folly, this short-sighted policy, and actually put in place plans to assist these communities.
The gas folly that the government is continuing is clear. Gas will not lower prices. We have tripled supply, and gas prices have increased 130 per cent. Gas is not a transitional fuel, and it's disappointing to hear both sides of the political spectrum continually harp on like that when it's clearly not. Grid batteries outperform gas peakers on cost by as much as 30 per cent now. The market has spoken: it has invested over $4 billion in batteries just this year. We don't need more gas supply for domestic markets, as over 70 per cent of our supply goes offshore anyway. There will not be a market for gas in 30 years, as most of our major trading partners have committed to and are putting in place plans for net zero targets by 2050 or 2060. It's an entirely counterproductive measure. It is short-sighted. Continuing down this road just shows political opportunism versus actual good planning.
The issue of offshore gas platforms is very sensitive and hot in Warringah and on the east coast from Newcastle to Manly. We have significant uncertainty about another future fossil fuel project off the coast. Petroleum exploration permit 11, PEP-11, is a permit for oil and gas exploration extending from Newcastle to Manly Beach. It is the most ludicrous project. Some areas of this permit are just five kilometres offshore. Bounty Oil & Gas NL and Asset Energy Pty Ltd are the titleholders, and they are intent on pressing ahead against the wishes of the community, who overwhelmingly reject the proposal. It must not go ahead. It would be a calamity for the environment, the local economy and the coastal region. It just defies common sense. The IEA has found that no new fossil fuel projects should go ahead, so it is clear that these projects should be cancelled. PEP-11 expired in February this year, but the minister continues to maintain that the fate of the program is undecided. The Minister for Resources and Water, the member for Hinkler, continues to threaten to extend this licence. He should be forthright with the community and end the uncertainty. It has already been rejected at the state government level and it should also be rejected at the federal level.
This bill before the House to force oil and gas producers to start paying their way, paying for their responsibility for decommissioning, is important. Many of the measures in this bill are prudent, but what we need to see are permanent measures—a permanent levy in this respect. Decommissioning liabilities are likely to be north of $60 billion, and that cannot fall on the taxpayer. It should not be a question of taxpayer bailouts to these companies. It is clear that we need to make sure we have a permanent, long-term fund to address these issues. We need to have a levy to address the growing cost of natural disasters. Many in the community agree with this. We absolutely need to move on this. We as a government and we as a parliament all have a responsibility for the legacy this parliament will leave, and at the moment it is a short-sighted, short-term policy. We absolutely need to stop increasing oil and gas exploration acreage and to address all the transition aspects and decommissioning aspects that are coming. Finally, I call again on the minister to cancel the PEP 11 licence that currently exists off the coast from Manly to Newcastle.
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Local Government) (13:15): I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. This bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and the related bill amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to strengthen Australia's offshore oil and gas regulatory regime. The measures contained in these bills will ensure that the offshore industry manages emerging decommissioning challenges effectively. They ensure that decommissioning remains the responsibility of those involved in the development and production of the resource. They guard against Australian taxpayers being left to bear decommissioning and remediation costs. The bills afford government oversight of corporate transactions causing a change of control of a title holder, increase scrutiny of entities at key decision points, and expand the types of information that can be requested by the decision-maker and the regulator. These measures ensure that entities operating in the offshore regime are capable, competent and responsible in managing offshore projects, including undertaking decommissioning.
The bills also provide for a more comprehensive trading liability regime, a feature of comparable international jurisdictions. This measure expands current remedial directions and powers to enable any former title holder or a related person to be called back to decommission infrastructure and remediate the title area, in the unlikely event that the current or immediate former title holders are unable to do so. It sets the expectation that a company that sells an asset and titles will undertake appropriate due diligence to minimise the risk of being called back to undertake decommissioning. The bills also make minor and technical amendments to improve the administration of titles, including the electronic lodgement of applications to modernise the regime.
The Offshore Petroleum And Greenhouse Gas (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021 makes consequential amendments to the Offshore Petroleum And Greenhouse Gas (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2003. This enables the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to recover its costs from former title holders and related persons if a remedial direction is issued.
These bills strike an appropriate balance between implementing regulatory safeguards for Australian taxpayers, managing the impost on industry, and encouraging continued investment in oil and gas development. I commend these bills to the chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Local Government) (13:18): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Local Government) (13:20): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:21): I speak today on the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021 and three related bills: the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2021, the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:
(1) that the Government has damaged Australia's world-class higher education system, placing thousands of university workers' jobs at risk, and jeopardising Australian research; and
(2) the Government's actions will make it harder for Australia to recover from the COVID-19 recession".
This motion is being seconded by the member for Macquarie. These four related bills form part of a broad shift by the Morrison government to cost recovery for the regulation of higher education providers. These bills intend to give effect to the Morrison government's 2021 budget announcement that charging for regulatory activities associated with overseas education would be simplified. The intent of these bills is to reduce charges levied on international education providers by an estimated $7 million a year, and Labor supports this legislation.
The principal bill being debated today amends the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997, or the ESOS Act. The ESOS Act regulates international education and provides that all education providers that deliver education to students in Australia on a student visa must be registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, or CRICOS, the acronym that people would know. This applies to all sectors, including higher education; English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students, or ELICOS; vocational education and training, or VET; and schools. So, various ESOS agencies handle the CRICOS registration for each sector. For example, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, or TEQSA, is the regulator for higher education; the Australian Schools Quality Authority, or ASQA, is the regulator for VET and stand-alone ELICOS providers; and schools are handled by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, or the DESE. The department is also responsible for other functions relating to the ESOS framework and managing CRICOS. Charges for those functions are a condition of registration under the ESOS Act and are recovered from non-exempt CRICOS providers.
The bills that are being debated today will repeal and replace current charging provisions with a framework to allow charges to be set in regulations. The bills will prevent providers from being double charged under the new arrangements and ensure the relevant agencies are all properly resourced to fulfil their ongoing compliance, analysis and monitoring obligations—crucial when you have a world-class education system. It wasn't too long ago that we had 20 per cent of the overseas students in the world coming to Australia. The bills aim to ensure the quality and integrity of Australia's international education and training system is maintained.
Labor is not opposed to cost recovery, in principle, if it is well thought through and justified. Labor has previously opposed parts of the Morrison government's broader shift to expanded cost recovery for higher education providers. Labor opposed the TEQSA cost-recovery legislation for good reason. Moving to full cost recovery for higher education providers when they've just been forced to bear the brunt of the COVID pandemic, mostly without any government assistance, is not good policy—not right now.
Labor supports the bills being debated today, because they are expected to actually reduce charges on international education providers and prevent providers from being double charged for basically the same regulatory activity. I say 'expected', because most of the details of the new framework will actually be set through regulation, not through this parliament. So the minister will be doing it away from the parliament. I philosophically think that parliamentary scrutiny should be the No. 1 thing, rather than leaving it to ministers to do things in their own portfolio.
The bill provides the minister with broad discretionary powers. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills particularly singled out this aspect of the bill as being significant for comment, saying:
… that this Bill:
Provide[s] the minister with broad discretionary powers to exempt providers from the requirement to pay a charge by legislative instrument in circumstances where there is no guidance on the face of the bill as to when these powers may be exercised.
This is a pattern that is becoming the hallmark of the Morrison government. It is a play to avoid transparency and accountability for their decisions. All legislation, if it's good legislation, should go through the prism of parliament, and then let the ministerial decisions be scrutinised by the parliament.
Earlier this year, the same committee, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, commented on the cost-recovery bill, where they said:
… the committee notes that a legislative instrument, made by the executive, is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny inherent in bringing proposed changes in the form of an amending bill.
This has been the bedrock of the Westminster system for years. It's not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That's becoming a design feature of Morrison government legislation, I would suggest. Labor is so concerned with this lack of accountability and the lack of transparency of this Morrison government, that Senator Gallagher is introducing a bill this week in an attempt to make this government comply with process and be accountable. It's not enough to say, 'We got elected; we get to decide everything.' That is not how the Westminster system works. Sadly, the Morrison government are happy to make higher education providers more accountable to compliance but won't apply those same rules to themselves.
I have hosted meetings with vice-chancellors from universities right across the country over the past week or so. The shadow education minister, the member for Sydney, has joined some of the meetings, and together we have heard time and time again about the burden of compliance faced by universities, particularly during this most difficult of COVID times. The government's foreign veto laws introduced last year—and I'm not making comment on what motivated them—have placed a heavy burden on universities attempting to comply with a complex process for assessing whether a foreign university is autonomous or has some influence by the state. We know that it is a significant cost. We are talking two, three or four bodies that have to go through that compliance process even when universities are under the pump in terms of their budgets.
University of New South Wales Deputy Vice Chancellor Professor George Williams was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald last month saying:
There are a number of countries where it's really quite challenging as a matter of law to determine whether it does have institutional autonomy or not. Often it will depend upon the interpretation of foreign language legal documents.
Compliance with complex and unclear regulatory schemes cost money—money that would otherwise be spent meeting the educational needs of students. And this is all at a time when universities are grappling with revenue losses of around $3 billion. How can universities make plans when they've had that sort of hit to their budgets? We need universities to get Australia through COVID and, research-wise, prepare Australia for a better future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Tokyo Olympic Games
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (13:30): In the middle of tough times, our Olympians have lifted our entire nation: 15 gold medals and, hopefully, more to come; Emma McKeon, our greatest ever Olympian now, winning the 50-metre and 100-metre freestyle as well as being part of the relay team, which delivered, of course, two golds in women's swimming events; Kaylee McKeown winning the women's 100-metre and 200-metre backstroke double; Ariarne Titmus winning the 200-metre and 400-metre freestyle; Zac Stubblety-Cook winning the 200-metre breaststroke; our men's four and women's four rowers both winning; Jess Fox winning gold in the canoe slalom; Logan City's Logan Martin winning gold in the first-ever BMX freestyle event; and two golds in the sailing, to Mat Wearn and to Matt Belcher and Will Ryan. Hopefully, there's more to come. Our team is still competing.
But, of course, it's not just about winning. Peter Bol last night: a courageous run to finish fourth. Peter thanked Australia. Trust me, Peter, Australia thanks you! The wonderful 10,000-metre runner Patrick Tiernan—I'll never forget seeing him there struggling to get across the line, making sure that he finished.
Good luck tonight to the Matildas! Good luck to the Boomers! While we're in question time they will be playing the US dream team. Congratulations to all the athletes. We look forward to working up to 2032, when Brisbane hosts the Olympic Games.
Anti-Semitism
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (13:31): Last week Julian Burnside, a Greens candidate at the last election, tweeted a post where he equated Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the actions of Nazi Germany. This was not condemned by the Leader of the Greens. The Labor member for Cooper recently joined a rally proudly calling for Israel's destruction. They shouting a chilling Hamas slogan: 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' Neither she nor the opposition leader condemned this propaganda. The Queensland Labor conference this year accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Again: silence from Labor's leadership.
In 1960, then Prime Minister Robert Menzies said, 'There is absolutely no room in Australia for anti-Semitism, no justification for it.' Those comments are as true today as they were then. Anti-Semitism is not accepted; it should never be acceptable. Recently, the Prime Minister told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce: 'I do not accept that anti-Semitism, cloaked in the language of human rights, serves any justified purpose nor the cause of peace.'
Australians look to their leaders to ensure all Australians are safe. We believe in a country where those from different faiths feel supported and protected. Now is the time for leaders across the political spectrum to condemn the despicable and anti-Semitic behaviour that is alive and thriving in the depths of their parties.
Western Victoria Transmission Network Project
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (13:34): Major infrastructure projects often divide communities, but not in the case of the western Victoria transmission lines. The project has, with very few exceptions, united the community. From Darley and Myrniong through to potato country in Newlyn, Mount Prospect and surrounds, the community have come together to fight against the plan put forward by AEMO and being built by AusNet. It has united Labor and Liberal MPs, tourism operators, the Victorian Farmers Federation, big businesses like McCain, residents in suburban growth areas and those in regional farming communities. It's increasingly clear to all of us that the northern corridor proposed to build the transmission lines and the transfer station at Mount Prospect is simply unviable and that it's time to go back to the drawing board. AEMO, AusNet and state and federal governments, who need to sign off on this project, need to start again.
A much better plan for this project should look at the corridor from Bulgana to Mortlake, Mortlake to Geelong and then Geelong through to Sydenham. In doing so, it should be using existing easements as the corridors. We should be looking to use the latest in technology, undergrounding where we can, battery storage along the way and ensuring that there is local community benefit, not just through community funds but through cheaper access to renewables in the corridors and proper ongoing remuneration for all affected landholders. The social licence for renewables depends on it and we need to get this right.
Flynn Electorate: Port of Gladstone
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:35): I rise today to talk about one of our great assets: the Port of Gladstone. The Gladstone port is Queensland's largest commodity port. It handles over 30 different products, including coal, pork, bauxite, aluminium, fuel, grain, cement and liquid natural gas—LNG. The port has eight main wharves and about 15 smaller wharves. Of the eight main wharves, three are situated on Curtis Island, one at the RG Tanner coal terminal, one at South Trees, one on Boyne Island, the Western Basin wharf and one on Williams Island.
Last year the port trading performance remained strong, despite the pandemic. In total, the port handled more than 122.5 million tonnes of commodities, led by coal, LNG and aluminium. Royalties alone from the export of coal to Japan, South Korea, Italy, India and France keep the lights on at home. The LNG companies—APLNG, QCLNG, Santos and their partners—have exported more than 500 cargoes each to all parts of the world. This is truly a great commodity. It keeps more than the lights on; it helps our Australian economy.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:37): The Morrison government's failure to secure vaccines is the country's most pressing issue as tragic lockdowns on the mainland attest. But the vaccines will come, so the next challenge is to get them into arms as quickly as possible. The vast majority of Australians will absolutely roll up their sleeves without hesitation. But there are 10 to 20 per cent who will need encouragement.
Labor's proposal for a $300 payment to every Australian who gets vaccinated by 1 December will drive up vaccinations to the 80 or 90 per cent, which is where we need them to be to make the community safe. It would put $300 in the pockets of Australians who are doing it hard—especially casual workers, who lose a day's pay to get vaccinated—and low-income families. And it would put money in the cash registers of supermarkets and small businesses, many of them suffering.
Labor's plan is a $6 billion shot in the arm for the economy. It's a plan that pays for itself if we avoid just three more weeks of lockdown. But this Prime Minister dismisses it as a 'cash splash'. A Prime Minister who is happy to splash cash on rorts and Liberal mates draws the line at $300 going to my constituents in Bridgewater, Deloraine and Sorrell. A Prime Minister who is happy to give $22 million of taxpayer money to billionaire Gerry Harvey says 'Get stuffed,' to $300 going to the mums and dads of Brighton, Campbell Town and New Norfolk.
Australians deserve a better leader than Scott Morrison, and the choice is easy: Albanese!
Barker Electorate: COVID-19
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:38): I rise to speak about an issue affecting many around the country but, in particular, I speak for those living on the eastern edge of my electorate of Barker, which borders Victoria and New South Wales. 'Cross-border communities' are what these communities have come to be known as.
These communities have lived a really tough COVID life, despite having limited, if any, cases in those communities. These are communities which straddle two states, and not since Federation have they experienced much of a physical border at all. People have built lives in these regions—shopping, playing sport, going to school and work, attending medical appointments and visiting family and friends—on either side of the border, oblivious to its existence. Until border closures, that is. They meant that these everyday activities now include checkpoints, travel permits, testing, face masks, sporting competition cancellations and school holidays spent away from family and friends. The social cost is immense, but the economic cost is too. The cost to small businesses grows every time restrictions are tightened, loosened and tightened again. Our forestry and transport sectors are severely impacted.
We're working towards vaccination targets to see lockdowns end and borders open. In the meantime, state governments must take a commonsense approach to restrictions in cross-border communities. Where there are no cases, there is limited risk. I implore state governments to gain a better understanding of these communities, what you're asking of them, and why.
Dobell Electorate: Covid Vaccination
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:40): [by video link] People on the Central Coast have been left confused, frustrated and angry because of the Morrison government's botched vaccine rollout. The Central Coast has been in lockdown for six weeks now, and locals are told the way out of lockdown is to get vaccinated. What does the New South Wales government do? Cancel Pfizer appointments on the Central Coast to help vaccinate year 12 students in Sydney instead—students who are unlikely to be back in the classroom. What's more frustrating is that some of these people are teachers living on the Central Coast who teach those same students in Sydney—teachers like Ana, who, after countless attempts to make a booking, finally found an appointment for Pfizer at Gosford Hospital on 2 September. Then, on Sunday, Ana received a message saying her appointment would be rescheduled because the vaccine was being redirected to Sydney. In her words: 'I was recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and as soon as I was diagnosed I was advised by my GP to get the Pfizer vaccination. To be informed that my vaccination will now be cancelled is upsetting. I need Pfizer.'
This rollout is in chaos. We have active cases on the Central Coast today and local schools closed, and now we learn the government will be sending extra doses to the regions to make up for what's already been taken. Does that mean doses will be sent back to the Central Coast too? What my community deserves is the certainty to know that, when they make an appointment, when they make a booking, they will get their jab. What my community deserves is to be a priority and to have all vaccines replaced now. If the PM had secured enough vaccines for all Australians in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation now.
Braddon Electorate: Education
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (13:41): Last week I had the pleasure of opening the Study Centre Circular Head in Smithton. This facility signals a new era for north-west Tasmania, which has historically lacked accessibility to education past high school. I've said time and time again that education is everything, and education shouldn't be reserved for just the big cities. Whether you're seven or 70, or anywhere in between, everyone should have the opportunity to connect with education at any time that's right for them. That's why this project is so important. Over the last two years I've had the privilege of opening both the Study Hub West Coast at Zeehan and now the Study Centre Circular Head in Smithton. Both were funded through the federal government's Regional Study Hubs program. These facilities will be life-changing for those who live in our bush. They demonstrate both my commitment and the federal government's commitment to improving educational opportunities in rural and remote areas.
Congratulations to the study hub team at West Coast and in Smithton; to Phil Vickers, to Nicky Bolt, to Mayor Shane Pitt, and everyone involved. I firmly believe that the work these people have done, the courses they've developed and refined, will become the gold standard across regional and remote Australia when it comes to education.
Welfare Reform
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (13:43): [by video link] The decision to extend cashless debit card trials is a terrible one. Remember, the card has been trialled since 2014, at the cost of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Moreover, reports from the Australian National Audit Office and the University of Adelaide remain inconclusive as to whether the card has successfully reduced social harm. Yet the government continues to pour money into a program that, after seven years of trials, cannot be deemed a success. A majority of cardholders have reported feelings of discrimination, embarrassment, shame and unfairness as a result of being on the card. Recipients of government pensions and payments are terrified of becoming part of the trial. I've had hundreds of people contact my office fearful that, despite not drinking, gambling, smoking or taking drugs, they will still lose their financial independence and be forced to carry a card. Indeed, a petition seeking to immediately end the cashless debit card trials, signed by 17,613 people, is to be tabled in the parliament next Monday.
There is, perhaps, a place for these cards to assist with addiction or other social harms, but they should be court ordered and not indiscriminately applied to all Centrelink recipients. Frankly, this is a bandaid solution to complex social problems. The money would be much better spent on more targeted programs.
Grey Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:44): In the middle of July, I had the great pleasure of hosting the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, Linda Reynolds, in my electorate. I picked her up early in the morning in Adelaide and we headed 200 kilometres north to Port Pirie to spend a day largely enmeshed with matters concerning the NDIS. Let me say what a pleasure it was to have somebody in the electorate that was so obviously connected to the people to whom she is endeavouring to give services. We visited Bedford Industries and watched them putting light switches together. It was a very happy workplace. Then the Port Pirie council and mayor hosted a large roundtable session in their council boardroom where we listened to those who are delivering services, advocates for those that need services—things like physiotherapists—and health professionals, and they fed back to the minister how different it is to try and provide services in a regional area, with the extra cost of doing so. The minister was very engaged and the group was very thankful for her presence. Later, we visited Orana, a wonderful workshop where they make high-quality furniture. I nearly snapped up a heap. I bought some bags for me and the kids to put tools in. We then visited the Centrelink, because Ms Reynolds is the Minister for Government Services, where she was warmly welcomed by the staff. It was a very touching day and I applaud her for her work. (Time expired)
Werriwa Electorate: COVID-19
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (13:46): I'm sick of my community being vilified by government leaders and by the media. The virus didn't start in my community; it started from another breach of quarantine spread from Bondi. We've followed the health advice and we have complied. We've only left the house for the allowed essential reasons. There were lines kilometres long to get tested so that we could simply go to work. Yet my community has been subjected to innuendo, police on horseback and now the Army, with boots on the ground. Just yesterday, we had major news publications' graphics pointing out in red that we are the worst vaccinated part of Sydney. There is a very good reason for that. The vaccination rollout in south-west Sydney has been abysmal. Opportunities for vaccinations have just not been available. Add to that mixed messages and constant changes about who can get vaccinated and when. The consequences are just heartbreaking. Yesterday, Aude Alaskar, a 27-year-old man, died. He was a man who had his life ahead of him. He leaves behind grieving family and friends. Today, there were five more deaths and families have been affected. I send my sincere condolences to everyone who is grieving today. My community would be out of lockdown if we had taken the lead of other states and gone hard and gone early. We need governments, particularly the federal one, that take responsibility for quarantine and vaccinations.
Wentworth Electorate: Childcare and Early Childhood Education
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:47): [by video link] Last week was Education Week in New South Wales and, with the theme of lifelong learners, celebrated education and educators from early childhood through to tertiary education. I want to make special mention today of the 63 childcare and early education centres in Wentworth that remain open as a critical service to support the community and care for the young children of working families. Last week, I held an online forum with some of the early childhood education centres to hear about their concerns, answer their questions and thank them for their enormous contribution to the community in very challenging times. Most centres reported that 70 to 80 per cent of enrolled children are still attending the centres daily, which tells you what vital services they are. With public health orders as they are, community anxiety and transport difficulties, it is a difficult time to be working in early childhood education, so I want to place on record how much we appreciate and recognise all that these people are doing to provide the essential service of caring for the youngest members of our community during this testing time.
I particularly want to mention a few who joined me last week: Bambini's Childcare Centre, Bennett Street Childcare Centre, Clovelly Child Care Centre, Clyde Street Child Care, Emanuel Woollahra Preschool, Iluka Child Care Centre, KU Kira Child Care Centre, Mill Hill Early Education, Moriah College Preschool, Mother Goose Childcare Centre, Mount Zion War Memorial Kindergarten, North Bondi Kindergarten, Wee Care 2 Child Care Centre, Woollahra Preschool, and Yeladim Early Learning Centre.
Newcastle Electorate: COVID-19
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:49): This week my office has been inundated with calls from disappointed and frustrated Novocastrians who were notified that their Pfizer vaccine appointment had been cancelled in order to redirect supplies to Sydney. Today that disappointment has turned to white-hot anger with the news that the PM has miraculously found 165,000 Pfizer vaccines to replenish our stocks—but it's way too late to prevent Newcastle from going into another snap lockdown at 5 pm today.
This morning I called on the Prime Minister to tell the people of Newcastle just how long he'd been sitting on this secret stash of Pfizer, while watching our region being robbed of precious vaccines and leaving us all like sitting ducks, vulnerable and unprotected. He's talking big now, demanding that the New South Wales Premier return all the stolen vaccines from the regions, but, seriously, who could trust this Prime Minister? This man has failed on every count to implement a timely and effective vaccination scheme.
Novocastrians like educator Catherine Adams-Nash from Jesmond have been waiting in lines for months for vaccines, way before the New South Wales outbreak. The barriers she's faced would put an Olympics hurdles race to shame. Catherine nailed it when she said: 'It's on account of the federal government's failures that this entire process has been a farce, not to mention that the state government would not have had to make this decision had sufficient vaccines been provided by the Morrison government in the first instance.' Catherine's right. This Prime Minister said it was not a race, and he was wrong.
Ryan Electorate: COVID-19
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:50): As you know, my community's the epicentre of the Queensland outbreak, with many local schools impacted. I want to thank everybody in our community for complying with the state government's lockdown requirements, particularly the 20,000 families who are in quarantine right now as close contacts. They are really going above and beyond to support their community and their families. I know there have been long wait times for testing, but they are coming out in droves so we can get on top of this outbreak. They're also leading the way when it comes to vaccinations. It was reported this week that Brisbane's western suburbs are leading the state's fight against COVID-19, with the most vaccinated population in Queensland. Well done to my community. I want to particularly commend the many young people in the Ryan electorate who are coming out to get their AstraZeneca jab. I'm 35. I went out and talked to my GP and got the AstraZeneca jab. I really recommend people get it right now. There are appointments available right now, and they can get in without delay. It's a reasonable excuse to leave the lockdown requirements.
My team and I have spent the last couple of days calling as many of those in lockdown and quarantine as we possibly can to offer our support. We can connect you to local grocery stores and local businesses who can home deliver. We can connect you with mental health support and provide you with assistance to connect with financial assistance payments that are being made available from the federal government. Thank you again to my entire community for supporting and protecting each other.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:52): Yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister was asked about the member for Dawson's Facebook posts perpetuating vaccine disinformation. He was unable and unwilling to give any assurances that he would take action to stop this. Instead, he invoked the old chestnut of 'freedom of speech' and then had the gall to accuse Labor of contributing to vaccine hesitancy. In the Senate, Senator Birmingham was asked about Senator Rennick's endorsement of an article describing the vaccine as 'experimental gene therapy'. Again, he was unable to unequivocally give assurance that the Prime Minister and the government does not support the spreading of disinformation and misinformation by their own members.
Misinformation and disinformation is not a minor matter. It's a serious issue that is made even more serious in the midst of a global pandemic, where our only way out of lockdown and disruption is through vaccines. The member for Dawson regularly uses social media to undermine lockdowns and restrictions, as does Senator Rennick. Senator Canavan appeared on Steve Bannon's far-Right show War Room, criticising the public health advice of his own government.
This government doesn't have a counter-narrative strategy to combat disinformation and misinformation. It doesn't even have a communication strategy to improve the uptake of the vaccine. Show some leadership. Do better on this. It is dangerous.
COVID-19: South Australia
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:54): I'd like to take the opportunity to thank my community in Sturt and all the people of South Australia in the wake of the lockdown that we went through just a little over a fortnight ago. I think it came as quite a surprise to the whole community. I heard the news on a Monday morning. I was at a citizenship ceremony at the Port Adelaide Enfield Council. When I emerged from that, I saw that there had been a positive case in South Australia. It escalated quite quickly, and within 24 hours the announcement was made that South Australia would go into lockdown. Thankfully, it was a very quick, sharp lockdown that lasted seven days, and we as a state were able to overcome that outbreak and—touch wood—at this stage it looks as if that risk to South Australia has been defeated. No doubt others will come our way. We only overcame that outbreak because everyone in my home state of South Australia came together. People understood that they needed to follow the health advice. It was an excellent decision by our state premier, Steven Marshall, implemented excellently by the South Australia Police and health authorities, but mainly it was because we had such excellent cooperation, across my electorate and throughout the state, and so I stand here as a very proud South Australian. We have faced what could have been a catastrophic outcome in South Australia that, instead, because we all came together, we were able to defeat. It reminds us all that when we come together and work together to meet these challenges we can defeat them.
Centrelink
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (13:55): I recently found out via a Facebook post advertising office space that the government is looking to close the Braddon Centrelink office in my electorate. There has been no community consultation at all. I wrote to the minister, who confirmed this and extolled the benefits of dealing with Centrelink online. That the government would be considering closing down vital government services in a pandemic is absolutely unthinkable, when fresh in our minds is the vision of people lining up outside Centrelink in their hundreds as the pandemic broke, and when more and more people are relying on this assistance.
We've already seen from this Liberal government the disaster of robodebt and a failure to increase JobSeeker in a meaningful way to address the poverty in this country. Now we're seeing Centrelink offices close down around the country: on the Central Coast and in regional Victoria, and it looks like Canberra is next. This government want to take the human out of human services, and that's part of their broader disdain for the social security system and for their responsibility to deliver this vital safety net. They certainly don't care about vulnerable Australians, and they certainly don't care about my community of Canberra. The Braddon branch is the only Centrelink office in my electorate. When it goes, there will be no Centrelink office in the central business district of Canberra. Over a thousand Canberrans have already signed my petition to save the Braddon Centrelink. They will not accept having no access to Centrelink services in the central area of Canberra, and they will not accept a government that doesn't deliver the services that Australians need.
Tokyo Olympic Games
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:57): The world is in a pretty dark place right now, and millions of Australians are in lockdown. But there's been a big shining light over the last couple of weeks and that's been in the form of arguably the most successful Australian Olympic team in history. They've been lifting the spirits of the nation and, in turn, the nation has loved them back. In fact, we could not be more proud. We love the gold, the silver and the bronze, but, more than that, we love the everyday Australian whose passion overlaps with their ability and who with gritty determination unleashes their talent on the world stage, wearing the green and the gold. As the Olympic Games comes to a close this weekend, can I say to all Australian Olympians: Thank you. Thank you not just for your performance and your achievement. Thank you for the character that you have displayed, whether it is on the field, on the court, in the water, on the road, in the stadium or in the arena. Thank you for bringing light to the darkness of a global pandemic. Thank you for sprinkling some celebration into Australians' isolation. Thank you for bringing us all together and giving us that one thing we all need at this time: hope—hope for a better future.
Closing the Gap
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (13:58): Today the Closing the Gap report was tabled in this parliament. In a really terrific speech the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, made a number of commitments to take real action for Closing the Gap. I wanted to mention a couple of actions in my shadow portfolio of environment that I am really pleased to see Labor has committed to. Firstly, the doubling of Indigenous rangers is an incredibly important commitment that Labor has made. It has been welcomed by the Country Needs People campaign, and I'm very pleased to see them welcoming that. More importantly, I'm sure it will have been welcomed by people across this country, because we know that Indigenous rangers do an incredible job caring for country and, as Anthony said this morning, healing country. We've also made a commitment to a significant increase in funding for Indigenous Protected Areas. These protected areas are key to conservation in this country; in fact, they already make up almost half of the National Reserve System. They will be so important to reaching the commitment that Australia has made as part of the High Ambition Coalition to reach 30 per cent protected areas on land and sea by 2030. It's a commitment that's been made, but now we need to actually deliver on it. It's not enough just to make announcements; this country needs to deliver. The third thing I wanted to mention is also highly significant: cultural water. Water entitlements are so important. Aboriginal people are underrepresented in water entitlements in the Murray-Darling basin and that needs to change. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Vaccine supply in the Central Coast and Hunter region right through to Greater Sydney is an absolute mess. Isn't it true that there wouldn't be a desperate shortage of vaccines in New South Wales if the Prime Minister had done his job on quarantine and vaccine in the first place?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:00): I reject the assertion made by the member in putting the question forward. I particularly thank the member for Robertson for her advocacy and for working closely with me, the Minister for Health and, of course, Lieutenant General Frewen in working through the challenges of the supplies to those on the Central Coast and the Hunter.
The Commonwealth government continued to provide all doses to GPs, pharmacists and all those distribution points and points of presence right across New South Wales, with no changes to those supply arrangements. The New South Wales government made a choice to redirect supplies from state hubs in New South Wales, some 20,000. Last night I was able to advise the Premier that 180,000 additional doses would be brought forward to support the effort in New South Wales, on the condition also that the 20,000 doses went back into the regions, went back into the Central Coast, went back into the Hunter, went back into Armidale, went back into the South Coast of New South Wales and went back into those communities that needed them, and the Premier readily agreed. That means that we're able to do the rephasing over the course of the next month. And, when I spoke to Premier Palaszczuk last night, we were able to do the same. We were able to provide over 111,000 brought forward doses to support the vaccination in South East Queensland.
I appreciate and welcome the work that has been done by the Minister for Health, the secretary of Health and, of course, Lieutenant General Frewen in looking at what the urgent needs are and ensuring that we're able to rephase those supplies to get supplies where they need to go without taking a single dose from the vaccination program in any other state or territory or in any other place anywhere else around the country. We manage the program to deliver in the areas of critical need but ensure that we continue to support the program right across the country.
We've had another record day, with over 220,000 doses administered in a single day and well over million doses being delivered a week. Over 80 per cent of those aged over 70 now have had their first dose. The vaccination program goes from strength to strength. When the Leader of the Opposition finally decides to sit down and talk to Lieutenant General Frewen later today, I'm sure he can get the information. He has been absent when it comes to getting advice from those in the system who could assist him with his lack— (Time expired)
Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:03): [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the minister outline to the House how the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme, announced today by the Morrison government, will support the healing and wellbeing of stolen generations survivors in the Northern Territory, the ACT and Jervis Bay territory?
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:04): I thank you, Member for Reid, for your question and I also want to acknowledge the contribution you've made in respect of matters associated with social and emotional wellbeing, mental health and youth suicide. I appreciate the opportunity the Prime Minister and I had today to announce all of the significant elements of the Closing the Gap Implementation Plan after 12 months of signing this agreement with state and territory first ministers.
What's important is the elements that are within the Closing the Gap strategy, including the stolen generation, were based on us listening to what community said to us and working with the peak organisations. What's important about this one is: at the beginning of the year Maisie Austin, along with Fiona Cornforth, came to see us and met with the Prime Minister and I, and they talked about the impact of our policies and the lingering legacy of the pain they were still feeling. So we worked this through to seek a resolution, to give them hope and aspiration, to give them an opportunity to be in a position in which they can make some solid decisions about the remainder of their time, because most of them are now well aged, and the impact of those policies has had its mark. This will provide an opportunity for them to make decisions about entering aged care or finding an alternative to aged care. It helps in the process of the healing that we all talk about on both sides of the chamber. But what's important is that we'll provide support and interventions that will assist them individually. It is part of telling the truth of this nation. They will tell their stories. We will provide individual apologies to them because of the work that has been done.
The reaction from members of the stolen generation to our announcement this morning has been overwhelming in appreciation for the recognition that they have a special place in our history and that we as a government have been able to create an opportunity for them to be acknowledged. What I want to do is make sure, as we progress the rollout of the scheme, that they're informed of what our agency will provide. We'll provide access to social and emotional wellbeing programs, mental health support, financial counselling and any other support they need in order for them to live a quality life as an outcome of this. They have waited for a long time. It's a privilege, today, making that advice and providing legal advice to them as well. I want to thank all my colleagues in cabinet who overwhelmingly supported this initiative.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Simone, from my electorate, has to drive the youngest of her five children to Westmead Hospital in Sydney three times a week for dialysis. She had her vaccine appointment cancelled and redirected to a Sydney student. My office had to intervene to restore her appointment, because Simone feared she may infect the immunosuppressed children she regularly comes into contact with. Isn't it the Prime Minister's fault that he failed to order enough vaccine when it counted? (Time expired)
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:08): I thank the member for her question, and I'm very pleased the vaccination was able to be delivered. Like all members of this place who deal with the urgent requests of their constituents, we are very pleased that the health minister or various other ministries and portfolios—where members need that assistance to support their constituents, members around this place know that that is provided, and it always should be, particularly when it comes to the health needs of those in our community.
I don't accept the assertion that was put forward by the member. As I explained in my answer to the last question, there were no doses redirected from GPs or pharmacists or any of the primary care networks as a result of the government's national vaccination program. As the member would be aware, the New South Wales government had made a decision about redirecting from state clinics, and our government has taken notice to re-phase supplies, which means that those doses are going straight back into those regions, like in the member's electorate. The state government had made a decision to reallocate those doses; that was against the advice of our government. We continued to provide that support. I again thank those members who raised those issues with the health minister and I, and we were able to ensure that they were redressed and that they were able to get those doses back into the regions. I would have thought that the opposition would welcome that. Once again, this leader of the Labor Party is full of negativity—all opposition, no substance.
The SPEAKER: Just before I go to the next question: when questions don't mention the Leader of the Opposition it's not an invitation for the Prime Minister, at the end of his answer, to make a political statement. I've made that point a number of times now.
National Agreement on Closing the Gap
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask him to please outline to the House how the Morrison government's first Commonwealth implementation plan to deliver outcomes under the National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap will work to give our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities the same opportunities and expectations as any other Australian.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:10): I thank the member for his question and for his passionate work in the many Indigenous communities up in his very large electorate in South Australia.
In about five minutes time or less the Australian Olympic flagbearer, and proud Indigenous Australian, Patty Mills, will be leading our Boomers in their semifinal at the Olympics against the United States. He will be leading his team there—his Australian team. Today, here in Australia, in our national parliament, we took another very important step; a very important step to work together as one team in this country to close the gap for Indigenous Australians. I want to thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians and I particularly want to thank Pat Turner, the leader of the Coalition of Peaks of Indigenous organisations, with whom—together with the state and territory governments, and local governments—we have formed this team. We have formed this partnership because we have learned that we must work better together and work out a better way to actually deliver on this important objective of closing the gap.
And that's what we've done. In the new Closing the Gap initiative we have shared goals with Indigenous Australians, we have shared responses, we have shared responsibility and we have shared accountability. We are all in to address the very urgent and important issue of closing the gap. One of the most important jobs of a government and, indeed, of a Prime Minister is to focus on this issue as an enduring issue—to close that gap to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians so that every boy or every girl who are an Indigenous Australian can grow up with the same opportunities and with the same expectations as every Australian.
There will be discussion of those goals and those targets, and some will say that they're not enough and some will say that they are too little. But what these goals are is shared. These are goals and targets that have been agreed between Indigenous Australians, the Australian government, the state and territory governments and at the local government level that we can work together to achieve. For the redress for Territorian stolen generations people there is some $378.6 million. There is $250 million and more for renovating health clinics and housing health professionals, to get those services to Indigenous Australians. There is $122.6 million for early childhood education and access to support for children of those ages. There is $745 million to support maternal health and infant health, $75 million for country boarding schools and so much more.
This is a team approach to addressing this task. It's an approach that sees the responsibility of all Australians brought together to close that gap. That is the important job in which we're engaged.
COVID-19: Quarantine
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. In May, the Prime Minister announced that he had increased the capacity of the Howard Springs quarantine facility to 2,000 people. But last Friday his own department told the Senate COVID committee that Howard Springs has never accommodated 2,000 people and will never accommodate 2,000 people. Why won't the Prime Minister stop making announcements that don't result in any action and start delivering a safe, national quarantine system?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:14): We have expanded the capacity of the national resilience facility to 2,000. That has happened. It does exist—that capacity exists at Howard Springs, and I thank Chief Minister Michael Gunner for the partnership where he has worked together with us to establish that capacity at the national resilience facility. In addition to that, I welcome the partnership I formed with Premier Andrews to ensure that we can move forward on the quarantine facility in Melbourne, where we have let the contract, and they're underway. I welcome the partnership we've established with Premier McGowan in Western Australia to see the Jandakot facility put in place. I welcome the partnership we're working on with the Queensland government on these important facilities.
The facility at Howard Springs has played an incredibly important role, especially in facilitating the return of Australians with the commercial flights that the government has been able to put on to bring Australians home when the capacity has been reduced all around the country to deal with the delta variant. As those facilitated commercial flights arrive, they are taking up the capacity, which is there at Howard Springs to support those flights. That will continue to increase in relation to the demand of commercial flights. I will ask the health minister to add further to my answer.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:15): I'm happy to add to the Prime Minister's answer and happy to respectfully correct the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. The advice that we have from the Department of Health, and, in particular, from the Northern Territory government, is: 'The 2,000 capacity will be reached on 13, 22 and 31 August.' Numbers obviously rise and fall as people enter with different flights. But we have been working very closely with the Northern Territory health minister, Natasha Fyles—somebody we've found extremely capable and cooperative, as we have the Northern Territory Chief Minister when dealing with him. Just to repeat: the presumption in the Leader of the Opposition's question was, respectfully, categorically incorrect. The 2,000 capacity will be reached in Howard Springs on 13, 22 and 31 August.
The SPEAKER: Is the Leader of the Opposition wishing to table something?
Mr Albanese: It's a report that I'm sure won't be allowed to be reported: the Senate COVID committee report. It's the evidence of Ms Frame from Prime Minister and Cabinet, who reported, 'There are practical reasons that we haven't got up,' and that we'll never get there.
The SPEAKER: Do you want to seek leave to have it tabled? Are you seeking leave?
Mr Albanese: Yes, I'm seeking leave.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr Porter: It was a good guess. Leave is not granted.
Housing Affordability
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (14:17): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Last fiscal year, Hobart's median house prices increased by almost 20 per cent, and average rent rose by nearly nine per cent. Consequently, Tasmanians increasingly can't afford to purchase or even rent, the result being that many families are crammed into tiny and substandard properties as well as increasing couch surfing and homelessness. The good news, though, is that the dreadful decision by the ALP to abandon its housing tax changes perversely creates an opportunity for the parliament to develop a bipartisan response to the housing crisis. So, Prime Minister, will you seize the moment with every option on the table, including by looking afresh at negative gearing and capital gains tax?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:17): I'll ask the Minister for Housing to add to my answer. At the last election, we took on a very important program, the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which has been taken up and extended time and again and is getting more young Australians, in particular, into their first homes like never before. It is a proud history of the Liberal Party and, indeed, the National Party since we were first forming governments under Sir Robert Menzies. Home ownership and the promotion of home ownership is in the DNA of the coalition parties. This is something that we are forever committed to. We come forward with those types of programs to ensure that Australians can realise their ambitions for home ownership. The programs we've done to support that have indeed been very successful. In addition, through the course of the COVID pandemic, there was the HomeBuilder program, which was mocked by those opposite, who thought this was a program that shouldn't be introduced. It was one we persisted with, and it has ensured that it's got many, many Australians—thousands of Australians—into their first home. These are the policies that my government continues to pursue, because we are passionate about Australians getting into their first home and ensuring they can get that job so they can pay lower taxes and so they can save for that first home and realise their ambition. Owning your own home, getting a job, getting trained and being able to provide for your own retirement are the great goals of life in this country that the coalition government supports and our policies are supporting. I'll ask the minister to add further.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (14:19): Thank you to the Prime Minister and to the member for Clark for his question. The Prime Minister rightly points out that, between the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, HomeBuilder and the First Home Super Saver Scheme, we actually have first home buyer levels at their highest for nearly 15 years. It's counterintuitive, I know, in the middle of a pandemic, but first home buyers are re-entering the market at the highest levels for 15 years. We are working with the member for Clark, and we have worked very constructively together. We've made additional investments in Tasmania through the Hobart City Deal, with 100 social and affordable homes. We forgave $230 million of Tasmania's historic housing debt which is being put now towards additional social and affordable houses. So whether it's helping first home buyers purchase a home or helping other Australians get secure housing, we've worked very constructively with the member for Clark and the Tasmanian government to do so. But, for six years—and the member for Clark is right to refer to Labor's housing taxes—the Labor Party ran around Australia saying the answer to all of the problems were their taxes. Now they are very quietly walking away from that. The Leader of the Opposition should apologise to Australians for misleading them for six years about their housing taxes. We all know— (Time expired)
Closing the Gap
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (14:20): [by video link] My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is delivering critical infrastructure projects, creating jobs for Indigenous Australians and driving growth in rural and remote communities as part of the government's commitment to closing the gap outcomes?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) (14:21): I thank the honourable member for Mallee for her question on this auspicious occasion of closing the gap. I say to the people in the Gamilaraay areas at home: '[Indigenous language not transcribed]', which basically means 'Good afternoon, how are you all?' I note that what the member for Mallee has been in her time in this building is an incredible champion for infrastructure in regional areas, especially in her electorate of Mallee. In her electorate of Mallee, she has been a champion of especially the Murray Basin railway line, as well as such things as the South-West Loddon pipeline. She is always pestering me about making sure we get further infrastructure into our area, be that roads or rail. That is absolutely pertinent to how we make sure we also include Indigenous Australians—in my area, they call themselves 'Aboriginal', and I respect that—in getting more economic opportunities from the investment by the Commonwealth.
We see Aboriginal families, Indigenous families, such as that of Heath Christison, who, in the northern part in the Gulf area, with work around Mapoon, the Torres Strait and Batavia districts, has created a business as an Indigenous person with 67 employees, 38 of whom are Indigenous, with eight apprentices. This is the sort of success that you see. We have got to make sure that we do further to inspire those businesses and we do that by such things as making sure that any government contract in excess of $7½ million that the taxpayer has put in has to have an Indigenous component. This is incredibly important. In the forward plan of infrastructure, which I know is a vital part of it, as does the member for Riverina, there's $400 million of benefit that goes towards Indigenous people.
We will look at major pieces of infrastructure such as the Inland Rail and the benefit will be to places like Dubbo, Narromine, Narrabri, Moree, Goondiwindi and Toowoomba. Note that all of those are Indigenous names. It's infrastructure in Indigenous areas helping Indigenous people. And that's what I think all of us have to do. Economic advancement through participation in infrastructure, giving people the opportunity of trades, showing them that they can run their own businesses—like Mr Christison does and like I saw when I was in St George, where there are so many Indigenous businesses—is vital. This is a vital component of closing the gap in a real and deliverable way that will sustain itself through generations as family members come into family businesses.
We have come a long way since Eric Deeral was the first Indigenous state member of parliament in the Bjelke-Petersen government, but we've still got further to go, In closing and looking back to the Gamilaraay people: '[Indigenous language not transcribed]'.
Vaccination
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (14:24): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in this House the Prime Minister admitted it was not possible to have domestic manufacturing of mRNA vaccines for years. So why did the former industry minister say in October last year it was achievable this year?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:25): The simple answer to that is: that's not at all what the former industry minister said, and that's why you won't quote directly. The former industry minister was talking about capability, and if you have a look at capability, for instance, at the University of Monash, they have created an mRNA prototype. The capability in the science to create these things, these remarkable vaccines, exists, and that was acknowledged by the former industry minister; it's acknowledged by this government. The complexity of the project if we are to domestically invent, if you like, the vaccine and to create the IP and the tech that would otherwise need to be transferred here—that needs to go through three clinical phases of trials and then has to be married to a commercial manufacturing facility domestically that has to have the scalable productive capacity to go from zero to 25 million doses. That's a matter of significant complexity.
In fact, it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald not that long ago that some other countries in the region had, in the words of that article, signed major global partners for local mRNA facilities, and they mentioned Singapore and South Korea. To give the member who asked the question some idea of the complexity of this, in Singapore, the German company Beyontec announced in May that it would seek to establish a manufacturing facility in Singapore. That is looking to commence the sorts of operations that we're talking about here in 2023, and that is similar to the type of advice that we are getting as to what is doable and achievable. Where that article mentions South Korea, what needs to be noted is that the deal, it appears, in South Korea is with Moderna and merely for fill and finish, not for the full manufacture from the lab through to millions of doses. So this is a matter of some complication.
I'd respectfully say to the member that the reason why we, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, have pinned things like Australia's international reopening to the domestic manufacturer of mRNA is there are simply too many uncertainties on the timeline to do that.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr PORTER: Well, it's precisely what you've done. Journalists: 'What's your plan to reopen Australia to the rest of the world?' The Leader of the Opposition: 'I have a four-point plan, and it's a four-point plan that I've been advocating now for all of this year and from the end of last year. No. 4 is to manufacture mRNA.'
The SPEAKER: The minister for industry is now seeking to answer a question he wasn't asked, and he needs to stick to the—
Mr PORTER: There are unfortunately uncertainties in this, but they're uncertainties we're working through on a timeline based on all of the expert advice that is available to us. Now, it may be the case that Labor will treat this in a policy fashion, as they've treated other matters recently, and that would be a grave error.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call, seeking to table a document.
Mr Burke: I'm seeking to table the transcript of the interview with the previous minister where, in answer to a question as to how long it would take to get the production line up and running, the previous minister said nine months to 12 months.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business just needs to seek leave.
Mr Burke: That's what I'm seeking leave for—the nine to 12 month time frame for getting the production line up and running.
Leave not granted.
Morrison Government: Economy
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (14:28): [by video link] My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain to the House how the Morrison government's strong economic management is empowering Indigenous businesses and supporting Indigenous workers and their families throughout Australia?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:28): I thank the member for Berowra for his question and note his longtime, genuine and deep interest in Indigenous affairs. Indeed, he is the chair of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the co-chair of the joint standing committee on constitutional recognition, and I note his extensive experience prior to this place in advancing the interests of Indigenous Australians.
Since 2015, $4.3 billion in Commonwealth contracts have been awarded to more than 2,300 Indigenous businesses, including, over the course of the last year, 200 Indigenous businesses receiving their first Commonwealth contract. These contracts have been awarded across all sectors of the economy. Indeed, in research, technology and engineering, we have seen in the last five years a ninefold increase in those contracts being awarded: up to $90 million. We have seen in the broadcasting and telecommunications space over the last five years a tenfold increase in the amount of contracts being awarded, up to $45 million. And in this year's budget we have put more money into the skills and the training of Indigenous Australians, because workforce participation, economic empowerment, is absolutely critical to a person's wellbeing. So there has been more than $240 million for new skills employment programs, for Indigenous girls academies, for Indigenous entrepreneurs and for community organisations.
The various programs being supported by this government are helping many individuals and communities across the country—like one Ashley Rayner, who, when he left school, became a tradie. He wanted to enter into starting up his own business in the engineering space. He is a proud Indigenous man. He established GWS Engineering, and he participated in a developing Indigenous business and leadership capability project which helped his business secure the welding certifications that were needed for that business to go and secure larger sized contracts. Now he's also received a $40,000 grant and we have seen the number of employees in that business increase over recent times from 15 to 27 employees, including more Indigenous workers. Each and every year, with that support, he's been increasing substantially the revenue of his business. This is what's happening on the ground: substantial contracts being awarded to Indigenous businesses and economic empowerment improving the lives of Indigenous Australians.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Tokyo Olympic Games
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Lockdowns
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today was the worst day in the Sydney outbreak so far. Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the failure to lock down Sydney in the early stages of the outbreak, given how he congratulated the Premier for doing just that?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:32): The decisions that all premiers take across the country in relation to lockdowns are difficult decisions, and, over the course of this last 18 months, right across the country, the premiers, chief ministers and I have worked together to ensure that in this country we have one of the lowest rates of death as a result of COVID of any country in the world. And despite the fact that we continue to see those fatalities—and they are dreadfully, dreadfully tragic, and no-one in this House would think otherwise—the fact is that I commend the work that is being done by governments around the country and by state premiers, chief ministers and those doing their jobs every day, as indeed it is ours to do our job, working together to save lives and to save livelihoods.
It is true that, on many occasions, the New South Wales government took decisions not to lock down and they were able to contain those outbreaks.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: They were able to support jobs and support livelihoods. They were able to do that. On this occasion, that hasn't been the case. On other occasions premiers have made decisions to lock down when it could then have been argued they could have kept their states open, and there have been hindsight decisions on those also. The premiers have difficult calls to make. I seek to support them all in the work that they do in this country to save lives and to save likelihoods.
All I know is that each and every day during this pandemic—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: Each and every day during this pandemic the lack of support from the opposition has been appalling. Their constant pursuit of politics has undermined our national effort. The negativity of this Leader of the Opposition has been appalling.
Closing the Gap
Mr WALLACE ( Fisher ) ( 14:35 ): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's measures in relation to health and mental health are helping to close the gap?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:35): I particularly want to thank the member for Fisher for his passion for Indigenous affairs but, more generally, for his deep focus on mental health across all communities but especially in Indigenous Australia. Today, very sadly, the world past passed 200 million cases of COVID. It passed 4¼ million lives lost. Around the world indigenous communities have been devastated by the impacts of COVID—in Brazil, in the United States, in Canada and in so many other countries. Whilst our Indigenous community here has not escaped, perhaps no Indigenous community in any major country has been able to manage and to achieve the results in saving lives and protecting lives in any way comparable to that which has occurred in Australia's Indigenous communities. We have had 183 cases on the latest advice that we have but no lives lost. There is no case of coronavirus in any remote Indigenous community in Australia. That is an almost unimaginable outcome. It is a national achievement, in terms of Closing the Gap, of the highest order. There is a rate of COVID amongst Indigenous Australians of one-sixth of that of the national average. The efforts—in terms of placing biosecurity bubbles, in terms of rapid point-of-care testing using the GeneXpert kits, in terms of the Aboriginal community controlled health services, in terms of all of the programs that were put in place—have made a profound difference.
These are part of a much broader plan not just related to COVID. In terms of mental health we know the challenges. We know that the suicide rate is unacceptably high. Any suicide rate is unacceptable, but to have a rate in Indigenous communities that is double the national average is a tragedy. In order to close that gap we invested $134 million on top of the $700 million per annum as part of this most recent budget. In particular, the focus on Gayaa Dhuwi and Lifeline working together with over $16 million, the focus on Indigenous suicide prevention trials—all of these things are coming together. More broadly, the work we are doing on Indigenous health is closing that gap. It's not done yet. There's more to do. Extraordinarily Indigenous children's vaccination rates for five-year-olds, on the figures available just today, are higher than the national average. Ninety-seven point one per cent of five-year-old Indigenous kids are vaccinated and 95.2 per cent of Australian kids more generally are vaccinated. What that means is that we're saving lives and protecting lives. Perhaps most importantly of all, over the last seven years we've seen a 25 per cent drop in Indigenous children's mortality rates.
COVID-19: State and Territory Border Closures
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister just said he, 'seeks to support all the premiers in the work they do in this country to save lives', so why did he intervene in the High Court case to support Clive Palmer's attempts to tear down the WA border?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:38): I was also the Prime Minister which, after discussions with the Western Australian Premier, decided to withdraw our case.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: That is what leaders do. They work with each other. It is the standard process for Commonwealth governments to engage in High Court cases involving those types of matters, as the previous government would've done and any other government has done. As the issue unfolded I discussed the matter with Premier McGowan and I worked through the issues with Premier McGowan. We took the decision, which we thought was in the best interest of the country and of Western Australia.
I know the Labor Party wants to only look at things going back; I understand that. I understand that. But what they will not acknowledge is that where there are issues that have to be turned around and addressed and fixed, that's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what we're doing. So last night I was on the phone to a Labor Premier in Queensland and a Liberal Premier in New South Wales, as I am regularly, working through the issues. During the course of this last week, I've been working with the Western Australian Premier, working with the minister for transport and working with the assistant minister for transport, to resolve important issues regarding crews on ships entering Western Australia. We work every single day with the premiers and the chief ministers to work through the national response to COVID, which is to save lives and to save livelihoods. That's what the government is doing. That's what the state and territory governments are doing.
What the Labor Party is doing is politicising a health crisis for their own gain, and the Australian people can see it. Every single day: undermining the national vaccine program, undermining partnership, constant negativity. This is a leader of the Labor Party who couldn't even be bothered to come to Canberra to meet with the head of—
The SPEAKER: No, the Prime Minister—
Mr Dreyfus: Withdraw!
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned! I have said to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions that it is not an opportunity for him to launch a political attack on the Leader of the Opposition when he's been asked a specific question by a private member about a specific issue. I'm making that very clear. The Leader of the Opposition?
Mr Albanese: Yes, Mr Speaker, on a point of order. It goes to the standing orders and your previous rulings about when a personal explanation has been given, outlining the facts. I outlined the facts regarding Lieutenant General Frewen yesterday, including the details that are there in emails: the fact that my office did not hear from them between 25 June and 20 July; the fact that a briefing was offered for this parliamentary sitting week; the fact that I offered three dates—two on Tuesday, one on Thursday—in accordance with the request; and that the health minister's chief of staff responded, accepting, saying: 'Let's lock in 4 pm on Thursday. Invite to follow.' The Prime Minister has twice during this question time repeated something that he should know is untrue and that is untrue, and I ask him to withdraw.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I just say to the Prime Minister that it is not a question under that standing order of being asked for a withdrawal. That's not right. I'm very familiar with the standing order. I say to the Prime Minister that saying he is not going to withdraw is very unhelpful for the debate. I'm saying that is very unhelpful, when I'm seeking to rule. As it happens, on this occasion the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition would not warrant a withdrawal because there's a specific standing order. But I'm making the general point: if the chair does ask for a withdrawal, then that has to happen.
Now, I'm going to rule on the standing order. This is a problematic standing order, as I've said before. This was introduced in 2013 by the then Leader of the House. And what that standing order essentially says is that if a claim has been made and a personal explanation has been taken, that claim cannot be repeated. That is what that standing order says, and that is what former Prime Minister Abbott and former Leader of the House, Mr Pyne, introduced, citing a whole lot of instances in opposition. I will say I was in a different seat, where the Prime Minister at the time, then Leader of the Opposition, kept making personal explanations about health spending.
Frankly, when the standing order was introduced, I thought it was problematic. The then Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, thought it was problematic and said so. But that standing order is there. What it requires, of course, is for the Speaker to have heard it and to have heard all the material. As it happens, I have heard that and so, under that standing order, I don't think that claim can be made again unless there's new information. The Prime Minister.
Mr Morrison: I am happy to do this through another form of the House at the conclusion of question time because I believe the Leader of the Opposition has misrepresented the claim that I have made. I have made no suggestion about the arrangements for this week. I have simply made the point that Lieutenant General Frewen has been in the role since the start of June and at no time over June or in early July did the Leader of the Opposition seek to be informed by him, and that's a fact.
The SPEAKER: I'm just going to say to the Prime Minister that one of the reasons we are discussing this is because he has ignored my earlier rulings about attacking the Leader of the Opposition when he hasn't asked the question and the subject of the question is not about him. So I've now made that point for a fourth time. Let's move on with question time and see where we end up. The member for Bass.
Closing the Gap: Indigenous Women
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs, representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's implementation plan on closing the gap will help to deliver outcomes for Indigenous Australian women across the country?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:46): I thank the member for her question. Safe, strong and successful local communities are our government's goal for all Australians. But the gap between outcomes in Indigenous communities and other Australian communities has, unfortunately, proved an obstinate challenge for successive governments.
Today, our government has outlined a practical implementation plan. It's a $1 billion commitment to action and accountability on truly closing the gap. It methodically sets outcomes that have been developed in partnership with Indigenous community leaders. These outcomes are on health, education, employment, cultural connection and, most importantly, safety. The right to feel safe in our homes and communities is fundamental, especially for women and children.
Today's plan sets a target to at least halve all forms of family violence and abuse against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children over the next decade. It's a crucial goal as we progress towards further reductions. As with all aspects of the implementation plan, this goal will be driven by Indigenous partnerships. In that regard, we acknowledge and welcome the Women's Voices report, which was finalised last year. It was informed by a nationwide consultation process with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and girls, and will be used to inform future policies, including the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. We've already invested $1.1 billion as a down payment on that plan, which will be further developed at the national women's safety summit next month.
The plan is, of course, part of the Women's Budget Statement, which includes many practical measures to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women to achieve economic independence. Just a couple of examples include over $63 million to provide an extra 2,700 places for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander girls and young women to participate in girls academies or close to $14 million to establish an early stage social enterprise foundation, helping Indigenous women get the financing to set up new businesses to improve their economic security. Practical programs like these, together with the implementation plan we've set out today, will ensure ongoing support for Indigenous women as they lead their communities in an effort to close the gap and create a safer and stronger future.
Urban Congestion Fund
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the answer the minister for urban infrastructure gave yesterday on the Commuter Car Park Fund. Yesterday the minister claimed decisions were based on departmental advice, yet the Auditor-General found not one of the 47 car parks were recommended by the department. If it wasn't the department and it wasn't the minister, who recommended these car parks in target seats, and is the Prime Minister's own role in this fund the reason he won't establish an anticorruption commission?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (14:50): I do thank the member for Ballarat for her question. I remind the House of some of the key points made by the Auditor-General in his report:
The department has provided clear funding recommendations in respect to the 33 projects for which it had submitted written briefings to the Minister. Reflecting the results of the department's assessment of project eligibility and merit, on each occasion the department recommended that funding be provided.
The Auditor-General's report also makes it perfectly clear:
Under the Infrastructure Investment Program arrangements, the Australian Government may commit funding to an investment project at any time for any phase based on information it deems appropriate.
So the minister had the authority. The minister was acting within authority. What the Auditor-General also said was:
the recording of reasons for funding decisions did not adequately explain how the preference evident for projects located in Australian Labor Party (ALP)‐held electorates had resulted from a merit‐based process.
I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I have accidentally gone to the wrong Auditor-General's report. I have accidentally gone to report No. 9 of 2014-15, The design and conduct of the third and fourth funding rounds of the Regional Development Australia Fund. And who was the minister? It was the member for Ballarat.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Burke: On direct relevance: if the minister can't spend three minutes defending this decision, I think it says it all.
The SPEAKER: The minister has the call, but there will be no more accidents.
Mr FLETCHER: Mr Speaker, 'Lord, make me pure, but not just yet' is a well-known prayer of St Augustine. 'Lord, make me pure, but not until we go into opposition' is the prayer of the 'Ballarorter'.
The SPEAKER: No. The minister will withdraw that phrase.
Mr FLETCHER: I withdraw.
Indigenous Australians: Education
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children through better access to early childhood and school education?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (14:53): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question and also for what I would regard as being his lifelong commitments towards the advancement of Indigenous Australians, not only in his electorate, of which there are many communities in Far North Queensland, but right across this great nation.
If we want to close the gap, we have to start at the beginning and we have to ensure that kids have the best possible start in preschooling. We've got to back them right throughout their school years, because, if they do well there, the chances are that they are going to do well more generally throughout the rest of their life. But, at the moment, we're not achieving where we should be. In fact, only about one in three children arrive at school fully prepared to learn. If you're not arriving at school fully prepared to learn, the chances are you will fall behind during schooling, and that's exactly what happens. In fact, by just year 3, the average Indigenous kid is already two years behind the average non-Indigenous Australian. This is unacceptable, and we have to do better in this regard collectively.
Today, as part of the Closing The Gap Implementation Plan, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Indigenous Australians and I announced $250 million to boost quality early childhood and school education for Indigenous kids. What we've done with this money is specifically focused on initiatives which we know have already worked, and we're scaling them up to have more impact on more children. For example, the Connected Beginnings program, which has been so successful already in 23 communities in not only boosting preschool attendance but actually boosting vaccination rates, as well with helping with maternal health. We're rolling that out to a further 27 communities, and that will benefit 8½ thousand children. We're also extending the funding of a highly intensive preschool program which is focused very much on the really at-risk kids. What it's been shown to do is take those at-risk kids—and by the time they start school they're at the level of every average Australian kid. It's a fantastic program, and we're boosting that as well.
For the school years, we've put $25 million into programs specifically focused at implementing phonics and explicit instruction, because we know that works, and it's so important, particularly for disadvantaged kids. And that will make a difference, again to hundreds if not thousands of kids learning to read, which is so important. We're creating more boarding school opportunities, supporting our top independent schools to engage with remote schools to support them with resources and teachers and other things. This is so important, because every kid, no matter where they live, should get the best possible start in life. They should have the opportunity to have a world-class education, and this will— (Time expired)
Western Sydney Airport: Morrison Government
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Can the minister confirm that he signed a brief on 1 February 2018 about the Leppington Triangle purchase for 10 times its value? The land evaluation was jointly conducted with the landowner. The department proposed a persuasive package of incentives for the landholder, and the deal would be kept secret. How could the minister possibly say this rotten deal for taxpayers 'seems perfectly sensible to me'?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (14:56): I do thank the shadow minister for her question, and I make the point that the Auditor-General's report to which she referred said:
The approach taken by the department of omitting key information in the briefings to decision-makers and Ministers was inappropriate and inconsistent with acting ethically.
So the Auditor-General's report itself made it clear that inaccurate information was provided in the brief and also made it clear that the decision-maker was not the minister but the deputy secretary of the department. But it's also noteworthy, Mr Speaker, that if you go to the Sententia report tabled to a Senate committee, an independent audit of the department's decision-making, the lead reviewer of this report was a former national president of the Institute of Internal Auditors in Australia. That report found:
It is likely that the land had value to both the seller and the Commonwealth above and beyond the 'going rate' for agricultural land in Western Sydney.
… … …
The determination of the amount to pay for a property is a judgement—
—was the wording of the independent audit—
Officers exercised that judgment in the case of the Leppington Triangle, and paid a price per square metre that is not inconsistent with numerous recent transactions in the region.
Those are not my words but the words of an independent review.
Let's be clear: we are getting on with delivering Western Sydney Airport. For six years, the Leader of the Opposition was the responsible portfolio minister and he could not get it delivered. It took our government, in 2014, to make a commitment to deliver Western Sydney Airport. We've committed to spend $5.3 billion on delivering Western Sydney Airport and, as we speak, we are now at a point where earth-moving is extremely well advanced and we're on track to commence construction of the terminal within coming months. We are getting on with delivering this transformational project which the Leader of the Opposition never managed to make progress on.
Closing the Gap: Access to Justice
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, representing the Attorney-General. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to improve access to justice for all Australians, particularly Indigenous Australians?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (14:59): I thank the member for her question and for her longstanding interest in the education and advancement of Indigenous Australians and her deep experience in the field of education. The Morrison government is committed, of course, to the refreshed national agreement on Closing the Gap, and I particularly congratulate the Minister for Indigenous Australians on his leadership. There are two justice targets within that agreement—to reduce incarceration rates of Indigenous adults by 15 per cent and to reduce incarceration rates of Indigenous youth by 30 per cent.
The minister, with the support of the Prime Minister and the cabinet, has delivered and committed to an implementation plan, with more than $1 billion in total in new measures. I'm pleased to say that that includes a $25 million package of funding directed to the justice targets that form part of the plan. It includes $9.3 million for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services for expensive and complex cases and to support criminal justice reform through coronial inquiries. It includes $8.3 million in funding for culturally safe and appropriate family dispute resolution for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It includes $7.6 million in funding to establish and support the justice policy partnership between all Australian governments and Indigenous representatives, and it includes funding to provide support for the jurisdictional implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The funding for culturally safe and appropriate family dispute resolution for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will enable selected Aboriginal community controlled organisations to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families to resolve post-separation parenting and property disputes through culturally safe and tailored models of family dispute resolution to best meet the needs of those families.
The Commonwealth's investment in the justice policy partnership is a key first step in improving justice outcomes through a joined-up, Australia-wide approach, in line with the commitment under priority reform 1 of the national agreement. The actions I've mentioned in relation to the implementation of the optional protocol for the convention against torture directly contribute to achieving justice targets 10 and 11.
Our government is committed to this very important work, and we are backing that commitment with a substantial allocation of financial resources.
National Integrity Commission
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (15:02): My question is to the minister for urban infrastructure. Has the minister been interviewed by fraud detectives in the course of the Australian Federal Police's investigation of the Leppington Triangle land deal? Wouldn't it be perfectly sensible to establish an anticorruption commission so that ministers and public servants who rip off taxpayers are held to account?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (15:03): No, I have not been interviewed, and on what possible grounds would I be, I might further ask? I also make the point that, in relation to the broader question the shadow Attorney-General has asked, our well-developed plans for a Commonwealth integrity commission are widely understood.
Closing the Gap
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline how the Morrison government's partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on biosecurity, including through Indigenous ranger programs across northern Australia, will help achieve Closing the Gap targets?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (15:04): I thank the member for Flynn for his question. The member for Flynn represents a rich and proud agricultural area, and he knows better than anyone the importance that biosecurity plays in protecting our agricultural landscapes but also our reputation as a clean, green producer of some of the best food and fibre in the world. It gives us a competitive advantage to send our product around the world and command a premium for it. That's why, as part of the Australian government's Ag2030 plan, one of the key pillars of that plan is around biosecurity. Between the budget in May and the budget back in October, the federal government has committed $1.2 billion worth of projects and programs to support biosecurity, to protect Australian agricultural production and to protect our environment. That's not just investing in technology; that's also about investing in boots on the ground, because the threats are evolving. We are seeing these pests and diseases sweep across the globe to South-East Asia and the front lines of those are not just in our airports and ports. They are now at the north. They are now on the ground. We are facing African swine fever in Papua New Guinea and other threats that are literally blowing in from South-East Asia. So it's important that we invest in boots on the ground, and the Indigenous ranger program has been pivotal to that. The biosecurity piece of the ranger program has been at the forefront of protecting Australia's borders.
This investment is not just about us protecting it. It's also an investment in businesses—Indigenous businesses. There are 64 Indigenous ranger biosecurity groups. These are all businesses that are paid a fee for service to the Australian government and to the Australian taxpayer. These are businesses that have been set up to employ local Indigenous people. It is important that we are also complementing this with grants to the businesses to build the capability and capacity of young Indigenous Australians. I'm proud to say that, with that, we're also creating traineeships. This month there will be five new trainees that will start as Indigenous rangers in northern Australia, from Cairns right across. We are making sure they are part of the new breed of Indigenous rangers protecting Australia.
We're also investing in their education. A Cert IV in Tropical Biosecurity will give them the tools to understand the work they're undertaking, whether that be trapping, surveillance or data collection that feeds back into the department of agriculture. We understand the threats that are there to our environment and to agricultural production systems. The important thing about this is that we are matching generations of traditional knowledge with today's science and technology to make sure our borders are as safe as they can be and that we are protecting agricultural production systems and the environment into the future.
Minister for Education and Youth
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. I refer directly to comments he made yesterday regarding his previous portfolio. The minister said in regard to the commuter car park fund that sites were 'chosen on need'. Given we now know that not one of these sites was recommended by the department, how can that possibly be true?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (15:07): I thank the member for her question.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
Mr Porter: That is a question about the minister's previous portfolio.
The SPEAKER: I'm ready to rule on the matter. This has come up a number of times, and certainly the Leader of the House is quite right that a minister can't be asked point blank about their previous portfolio in this House. There are some exceptions, though, and one exception is:
A Minister may not be asked a question about his or her actions in a former ministerial role. However, in a case when a Minister had issued a statement referring to earlier responsibilities, a question relating to the statement was permitted.
He did make comments yesterday, and there are a couple of precedents there. I could go through them, with the most recent being in 2006 where Speaker Andrew ruled a question in order—in fact, he didn't even get to rule. The minister was Minister Truss, who answered about his previous ministerial responsibilities based on the fact he'd made some comments. So I will allow the question. Of course, it's up to the ministers as to how they respond.
Mr TUDGE: Yesterday I spoke at a press conference and addressed a number of questions in relation to the commuter car parks commitments that we had made. I gave very comprehensive answers to those questions, and I stand by those answers.
Veterans
Indigenous Australians
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is continuing to support our veterans, including our Indigenous veterans and including our Indigenous defence businesses?
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:09): I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He is, of course, a decorated veteran with 20 years of military service, and I thank him for that and also for his enduring interest in defence and veterans affairs. The contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to our armed forces has been enormous and dates back to the Boer War, over 120 years ago.
In 1914, Indigenous Australians weren't counted in the census and had few rights, but when war began many volunteered to serve our nation. The Australian War Memorial notes that more than 1,000 Indigenous Australians signed up to fight, even though at the time they weren't officially allowed to join, on the grounds of race. But the reality is that there are no precise records. When World War II began, Indigenous Australians again answered the call to defend our country. That long and proud history of service continued through the years. Indigenous Australians served with distinction in Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam and in all modern conflicts and peacekeeping operations over the past few decades. Our country must always honour that service and sacrifice, never forget it and ensure that all veterans, including Indigenous veterans and their families, receive the best possible care that our country can give.
Reconciliation is a vitally important piece of national work. While we have come a long way, that work is unfinished. It's incumbent on all of us in this place and all around Australia to keep walking down that road of reconciliation. The Department of Defence is committed to closing the gap and enhancing outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their communities and has now set a target of five per cent Indigenous participation by 2025. The Defence Reconciliation Action Plan contains 61 actions targeted at supporting Indigenous businesses, community engagement, recruitment and retention. Under the plan, Defence has awarded $1.86 billion in contract value to more than 550 Indigenous businesses since the Indigenous Procurement Policy commenced in July 2015. And, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, we continue to support all veterans, including Indigenous veterans, with our wellbeing centres. I visited one in Townsville, Australia's largest garrison city, just a couple of weeks ago, with the member for Herbert. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has established the role of national Indigenous liaison officer and a network of Indigenous veterans liaison officers to work with Indigenous veterans to assist them in accessing entitlements and services.
I would like to thank and acknowledge all of our Indigenous service men and women, veterans and their families for their service and their sacrifice for our nation.
Mr Morrison: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. And the Boomers are up 45-42 at half-time.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do.
The SPEAKER: You may proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: Today, in question time, the Prime Minister repeated the suggestion that I was somehow responsible for not getting a briefing from Lieutenant General Frewen over June or early July. That is not correct. The facts are these: on 23 June, my office received an email from Nigel Blunden, offering to have a briefing with Lieutenant General Frewen about his role as head of Operation COVID Shield. On 25 June, just two days later, my office responded: 'Thanks very much, Nigel. Just checking this is being coordinated through the minister's office or the department. My contact details are below.' Later that day, on 25 June, we received an email from Mr Blunden, saying: 'We would be proposing to coordinate through the department. I've copied in Leanne Ringwood, who overseas MP engagement, and we will coordinate with you re timing.' From the director of the communications team in the department, also on 25 June, there was an email, 'Thanks, Nigel. Sandra and the team will reach out to you next week to start pulling this together.' That was on 25 June. On 20 July—and there was no contact between 25 June and 20 July—we received an email, again from this person in the department, cc'ing in Mr Blunden, to my office: 'I just wanted to touch base with you on planning for this. Are you able to provide a couple of options on days and times that would work for a briefing when sitting resumes on 3 August? We can then lock in the CMO and JJ to provide the briefing.' Following that, there was correspondence about timings from my office on Monday 2 August: 'I am hopeful one of the following times will suit the COVID-19 taskforce principals: tomorrow, Tuesday 3 August at 11.30 or 3.30 pm; Thursday at 4.00 pm.' We received back an email from the minister's chief of staff, saying to my diary secretary: 'Hi. Let's lock in 4.00 pm on Thursday. Invite to follow.'
They're the facts. This should not be an issue of politicisation or ongoing statements from the Prime Minister that he knows are not true. The Prime Minister also knows that on a range of issues relating to national security, which we don't discuss in this chamber, I have received briefings at very short notice in recent times. The Prime Minister said in question time today that I couldn't be bothered travelling to Canberra. He knows full well that I have been basing myself in Canberra, have been here regularly and have been in contact with him to organise various briefings.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (15:17): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19: Morrison Government
The SPEAKER (15:17): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Macquarie proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact on communities of the government's failures on vaccines and quarantine.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (15:18): 'You're resilient until you're not.' That's what a mental health expert said in the last fortnight in one of my committee hearings into mental health and suicide prevention. You're resilient until you're not. No-one can accuse my community of the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury of being anything but resilient. This is a community that knows natural disasters like few others: the 2019 bushfires, the 2020 flood, COVID and the 2021 flood. People rose to the challenges they faced. They rallied, they cleaned up, they rebuilt, they pivoted. And then they did it again. They've done it since November 2019, when the smoke was so thick that people stayed away. They stayed away for months, yet businesses tried their best to keep workers on, or to get them back as soon as there were green shoots emerging in the bush and in the local economy. Even though the support that came didn't come fast, wasn't perfect, often had to be fought for and left many people out, there was still gratitude and a belief that soon it would get better and that they would survive and thrive. There was still a sense of hope.
But the mood has changed. With the latest lockdowns, retail and cafe owners have said to me in the last few days that they're at a critical tipping point, with decisions needing to be made within days about whether they can keep going. These are not decisions that they should be forced to make, but it's come to this because of the total failure of this government to protect its citizens by getting quarantine right and having a proper vaccination rollout. We wouldn't be in this situation were it not for that, and it's also compounded by the failure of the state to help distribute the partial federal funding and state funded packages to business and individuals.
The lack of coordination between the state and federal payments in the system that has been put up by the Prime Minister means that people are holding off applying through Centrelink in case their small business, their microbusiness, their sole trader, their partnership, is eligible for a business grant. That means many have received no income since the end of June; they're in their sixth week of no income. They laugh at the comment I heard the Prime Minister say in a media conference a few weeks ago: 'Businesses have built up a buffer.' The kindest response I have had from a small-business owner is, 'He's out of touch'; the rest would not be acceptable in this chamber.
I spent 25 years in business. I know what it was like in the recession of the nineties and what it was like in the GFC, and I've never seen anything like this—nor have long-running businesses, particularly tourism businesses in the Blue Mountains. The government's failure on vaccines and quarantine has led so many of them to the precipice. We're fortunate in Macquarie not to have had a large number of cases—and, thank God, no deaths. Our hearts go out to the families who have lost loved ones. I want to commend the member for Werriwa for her moving speech today about the losses her community is experiencing. But we can see it getting closer. And none of us should be in this situation. It is a direct consequence of the Morrison government's complacency.
As one owner of several popular businesses across the mountains for more than 20 years tells me: 'Over the last few years, because of fires, floods and lockdowns, we have as a family poured every last cent we have into keeping the business going. We have no more personal funds to inject. I've done all the paperwork for grants and funding. There's been no communication or funding provided. This week I have to make a decision about whether to continue trading or close down. If I close, it's forever.' The owner of another retail and cafe business, in Katoomba, warns that he's looking at voluntary administration if the money he applied for weeks ago, when the details were finally released, doesn't come in by Monday. He has spent hours holding on the phone to speak with someone at Service NSW. One time it was three hours and 20 minutes in a single go. This is how small businesses are being treated. They are paying a terrible price for the Prime Minister's vaccine and quarantine failures. This is the Morrison government's idea of supporting small business, and it is bringing them to the brink. There are scores of similar stories across the tourist areas of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury and across a range of businesses—any businesses that need customers walking through the door.
Another flaw in the support the government belatedly stumped up in its stubbornness not to bring back an improved version of the model that everyone understood—that would be JobKeeper—is that the link between employer and employee is gone. For businesses that are still able to operate, that really hurts. It's compounded for some businesses, because government has failed to deliver a package to support the big attractions like Scenic World in the way that it has for zoos and aquariums. They've just been left out. You cannot maintain major attractions like cable cars and railways without some funds; it doesn't happen for free.
The hint of a tourism recovery campaign post bushfires, called for by the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury in January 2020, has never eventuated. By the time the very latest funded campaign hits, operators are worried they won't be around to benefit from it. And these business owners are locals. They live in our community. They employ locals. This is their home, and the effect is far reaching. It's the consequence of government not going fast enough or hard enough. We saw it in the wake of the fires and the floods, and we're seeing it now. It's time the Morrison government stepped up to help New South Wales make sure this financial support gets out the door. Even then, there are going to be many who fall through the big gaps of eligibility, of the available support, including people whose businesses were affected by the fires and who were told there would be exceptions for them. But in reality they're missing out. Businesses that are new and have grown are now just closed.
When I think about the Prime Minister's performance, I think about how he's helped small businesses. I can't help but contrast it to the amazing achievements we have all seen of our Olympians. It's like being in an Olympic heat and holding back your best effort for the final. But the problem is that you might miss that race; you might miss that final. But this Prime Minister always holds back. He does just enough to be able to tell people how good he is but never throws everything at it. We saw this in the bushfires. Good on paper, big announcements, less than impressive on the ground. You also need to have done the preparation just to be at the starting gate.
Our position was enviable last year. We had low deaths, outbreaks that were tough but managed well by the states, especially Victoria. But while that was happening, the government didn't do two jobs. It didn't shift from temporary hotel quarantine to secure, purpose-built quarantine, and it didn't plan how to get a jab in everyone's arm. Complacency, incompetence, a sense of being bulletproof, stubbornness or all four—who knows? All we know for sure is that the hard work getting a mix of vaccines and making sure there were different ways of getting them to different populations just didn't happen. It doesn't matter how many times you channel our Olympic victories and achievements at the Olympics, if you haven't done the hard yards, you won't even make the final.
That's where we are now with the vaccination rollout. In my area, there are hundreds of people trying to get an appointment and struggling to find one. There are people following the advice, 'Go and get vaccinated now.' They're trying; they are really trying. The first hurdle is to find availability. The cumbersome online system that the government set up means that many people are falling back into phoning around to GPs. That's just the extra load that GPs don't need. This is no reflection on our GPs, who have put up their hands and are doing all they can with the limited supply and capacity they have. The promise of pharmacies hasn't eventuated. There is no delivery through pharmacies. The booking system that they've created is as effective as their COVID tracking app. Remember that? People are turning to Facebook with appeals for somewhere that will vaccinate before October. Teachers are desperate to get vaccinated before they have to teach face to face in the hotspots. These are the people who want to do the right thing. But the problem is, of course, supply; we all know it. We have never had enough supply—no contingency, no room for error. What we are seeing in Sydney, on our worst day of COVID, is a failed vaccine rollout. We need mobile services in the mountains; we need our own hub. That's what will give people hope. Until then, we don't have any.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Regional Health) (15:28): It's my great pleasure to be here again this week. If you were designing a system that was always watertight, you'd only have to look at the figures out of the hotel quarantine system that the members on the other side have criticised. There have been 409,095 arrivals since 3 August, of which 4,187 have tested positive for COVID. There was 0.01 per cent identified with COVID in the intake. That is a pretty good system. The vast majority of those were isolated, treated and effectively quarantined.
The Commonwealth resilience centre in the Northern Territory has been built up to take a capacity of 2,000 people. Just in the last month, there have been 10 or more facilitated commercial flights. That will ramp up to another 19 in August.
As the members on the other side would appreciate, the restrictions on arrivals—whilst we stamp the passport at a federal level, there is input via the states, and they have limited the numbers that have been able to arrive. Also, the commercial nature of flights means that there is never a full flight because they have to be socially distanced on the plane, which has led to very high costs for flights. That's why the Commonwealth government has stepped up to facilitate these commercial flights. But the quota has been reduced by the states by 50 per cent or so. That's only 1,505 per week into New South Wales, which has been carrying the biggest weight of incoming arrivals from overseas, and pro rata across the other states. I'm not saying it's perfect, but that is the result of our Commonwealth acting with the states.
In our Commonwealth, the constitutional powers for public health orders rest with the states. We haven't given them a whole new set of powers. As John Howard mentioned on the weekend:
The commonwealth cannot make public health orders for the states. The impression is that the premiers have taken up new powers. But that is not the case. The situation has always been that if something was required in public health, it had to be done by the states.
It's a rock solid fact of life in Australia that we in Canberra can't do everything. We rely on partnership with the state governments that run the hospitals and the health system, and we're partners with them together as a nation. We have initiated these regular national cabinet meetings for that very reason. What are those opposite suggesting? We don't meet with the premiers? No, we do it as a team.
I know it's been a big week for everyone. 'Thank god it's Thursday,' many on the other side must be thinking, because they have been obsessed with criticising the national vaccination campaign. I just want to reiterate some of the facts. We are ramping up our vaccination program. It's obvious to anyone except the people on the other side who won't accept the fact we have been ramping up the vaccination program. We have just hit 13 million vaccinations. That's 221,000 in the last 24 hours. They have been criticising us for something that the state of New South Wales decided to do, and there's a lot of logic in it. It was disappointing to see those vaccines retargeted into the pandemic hotspots in Sydney because we do realise that young people are good spreaders of this horrible disease. It is very infectious. It is different with delta. I can follow their logic, but it's their call. They have to make these big decisions, but the Commonwealth program has continued.
We haven't changed anything; in fact, we've ramped it up. There's another 183,000 doses we have redirected that are going into New South Wales out of the accelerated delivery by Pfizer. By 9 August and the week after, those doses will be back on track. The pharmacies have been brought on a month earlier than planned. We have got GPs around the nation delivering vaccines. They still have access to Pfizer and AstraZeneca. In fact, 80 per cent of those over 70 are vaccinated with their first dose and 44 per cent with their second. Because of the nature of the AstraZeneca vaccine, those figures will rapidly increase as they come around for their second dose. Two out of three over the age of 50 have had a vaccine. That is a really good outcome.
There were 280 million doses ordered by the Commonwealth. They criticise us for not having enough vaccines. Is not 280 million enough? The last time I looked, we don't need a census; there are 25 million people in Australia, so we have 10 times more vaccines. Apart from the AstraZeneca facility that CSL is making in Melbourne, and other researchers and developers, that is what we have had to deliver. The Pfizer supply out of the US stayed in the US. We tried to access them earlier, but they weren't available for sale. Similarly, they weren't available for sale in Europe. We ordered a protein subunit vaccine, a viral vector vaccine and messenger RNA vaccines. We have got more Moderna coming on. When more supplies of messenger RNA turn up we will have 3,600 pharmacies. That will increase the ramp up. It'll be even quicker than what is happening now.
In the first month there were 34,000 vaccines. In the last day we've had 221,000 vaccines injected into people's arms. That's an amazing increase. We will be on track for 1.4 million doses per week and that's before we have 500 pharmacies and more GPs signed up to vaccinate. A lot of the general practice systems have increased their efficiency and the amount that they are getting through each week. They are the predominant and the largest source of vaccination to this day—bigger than the jurisdiction system. We have had the whole health system with their shoulder to the wheel. Everyone has been under pressure. The state health ministers, the state hospital systems, the general practices, the pharmacists—everyone has been under pressure. The Commonwealth have had our shoulder to the wheel—$11 billion in direct spending for vaccines and pandemic support.
As you know, delta is different. Anyone would think that we have something unique. Even in vaccinated countries there's been a second wave of delta. Around the world—in America, in the UK, in Asia, in the Middle East—the same thing has happened.
In regional Australia we've been exceptionally efficient given the size and breadth of this land. In the Modified Monash Model categories 2 to 7—that's outside the capital cities—we've had at least 2.3 million first doses. If you count the second doses that's 3.4. Some of the highest rates of vaccination have been in regional Australia. In fact, it goes through to the Apple aisle of Tasmania with over 50 per cent. Here in the ACT they have similarly done that. But even on the North Coast, where I live, some of the highest rates were in that region compared to south-west Sydney. So regional Australia has been looked after very well.
As more supplies come online, both the state-run hubs and the Commonwealth vaccination centres—more GPs, more pharmacists and we've got the commercial operators mopping up the last residential aged-care facilities and the disability sector. We've had the flying doctor on the job. They visited 88 remote sites around the nation, including down in Kangaroo Island. Around the nation we've got systems in place. Sure, it was a slow start off because of those factors I've mentioned before. There would've been 3½ million more AstraZeneca in people's arms if the EU hadn't put an embargo on them leaving Europe. That was quite reasonable because we were victims of our own success. We had the disease under control. It is just a fallacy that we have failed in the vaccination system or the quarantine system.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:38): Today what we've heard from the government is excuses and excuses and excuses, attempts to deflect blame and, of course, the Prime Minister's trademark belligerence during question time when he was held up to scrutiny—something he absolutely dislikes, doesn't he? Today, as a nation, we are pretty worried. We've got delta ripping through communities. Just today we've had more announcements of lockdowns in some areas. My heart goes out to those people in Newcastle and around the Hunter who are going into lockdown pretty shortly after we finish this debate today. It's been a very, very difficult time.
It has also been a time where, as I said, the government has been attempting to deflect blame because as the coalition knows the Prime Minister had two jobs this year. He had to get the quarantine system right. He had to get the vaccine rollout right. He has absolutely botched those two jobs. He has comprehensively failed in relation to the vaccination rollout out and the quarantine system. We know that because we are seeing the consequence of that right now. We are seeing the consequences of the breaches of the hotel quarantine and the fact the COVID pandemic is now leaving people in lockdown. We've just had two states come out of lockdown. We've got people across New South Wales and my own state of Queensland, or at least the south-east corner of it, in lockdown. As I said, there are some more people going into lockdown in New South Wales today. We've really seen the consequences of these failures, particularly in relation to hotel quarantine. At the other end of that, if the vaccine rollout had been done properly, then this wouldn't be posing the substantial risk it is now posing to the communities affected.
I was really relieved, frankly, this morning when the deputy premier and the chief health officer of Queensland and the health minister of Queensland gave their press conference and made clear that there was only 16 locally acquired cases today. But, importantly, they were all directly linked to the Indooroopilly outbreak that the member for Ryan spoke about before. The other important thing about today's numbers is that of those people only three had been infectious in the community for one day and one had been infectious in the community for two days, so a very small proportion of those new locally acquired cases were infectious in the community. That's really because of the swift and sensible action of the Queensland Labor government in bringing in the lockdown at very short notice for Queenslanders very recently, on Saturday last weekend.
Queenslanders did what Queenslanders do: they sought to do the right thing. They sought to comply in vast numbers. People stayed home if they could. If they could stay safe at home, they did. And, if they had to go to work, they did that too. What we've also seen are Queenslanders really stepping up to do the testing. A Queensland record for number of tests done in a day was broken yesterday, with more than 52,000 tests done yesterday.
I want to pay tribute to everyone working in pathology, everyone working in the vaccine centres, everyone working in primary health, everyone who's doing everything they can to keep people safe. I also want to mention the pharmacists. It's really delightful to see that the Queensland government is providing doses of AstraZeneca to Queensland pharmacies with deliveries starting today—22,600 doses of AstraZeneca to 113 Queensland pharmacies. People should go to their community pharmacies. I want to thank those community pharmacies and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia for the work that they're doing too.
I also want to say something that I think probably goes without saying, but the fact is that there is a rivalry between Queensland and New South Wales, particularly at Origin time.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Ms BUTLER: I hear my mate the member for Shortland claiming that's not true, but there is a rivalry from time to time between our two states. But I'm absolutely confident that that rivalry is entirely the last thing on anyone's mind in Queensland. I know that Queenslanders' hearts are going out to our friends in New South Wales. Anyone who has listened to Susan Templeman speak today, to Anne Stanley speak today about the communities they represent really suffering, anyone who's heard any of those New South Wale's MPs speak today knows how devastating it is. Five deaths today—people in their sixties, seventies and eighties. And, of course, there have been a number of deaths across this outbreak, including yesterday one man in his twenties. So our hearts, as Queenslanders, go out to our friends in New South Wales. We want to see all of those people in New South Wales really come through this crisis, and we want to see the Prime Minister stepping up and representing the whole country, doing the right thing, improving the quarantine system and improving the vaccine rollout. The stuff-ups are not going to be fixed by defensiveness and by blame-shifting. They need to be fixed by leadership, and he needs to lead. (Time expired)
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters and Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service) (15:43): Yesterday we saw another record-breaking day with 221,859 vaccinations having been administered across Australia. We're now seeing a million doses administered every six days, and 1.2 million Australians are getting vaccinated each and every week, with over 13,030,000 vaccines having been administered since the rollout began. Eighty per cent of Australians over 70 have received their first dose and over 44 per cent are now fully vaccinated. Two-fifths of Australians over 16 have now had their first jab and a fifth are already fully vaccinated.
Let's put this in context. Globally, there have been over 200 million known cases of COVID-19 resulting in, sadly, four million known deaths. In Ireland, Israel and Germany their death rate is 20 times higher than Australia. In the UK, Italy and the US combined, they have faced over 860,000 known deaths from COVID-19, more than 50 times the death rate in Australia.
But no success is achieved without some setbacks along the way. We know that, and the Prime Minister has acknowledged that. We've had our problems. We have not hit the mark on the vaccine rollout that we aimed for. Not all calls the government has made have turned out as we hoped, and I respect the Prime Minister for acknowledging this. But one thing has not changed. We can be very proud of the health and economic response that Australian governments working with the Australian people have delivered in this country.
Decisions taken early in the pandemic have ensured that we didn't make calls under duress. Our early success allowed us to understand the evolving variants as they occurred, and our early success did impact on the vaccine rollout. It's true that, in the UK and the US, the vaccine rollout got underway more than two months before Australia's, and for very good reason. In December 2020, when both the UK and the US gave emergency approval for their vaccines, the UK was averaging 14,600 COVID cases a day and 452 deaths a day. The US was averaging 215,000 cases a day and, very sadly, 2,500 deaths daily. I recall seeing those terrible pictures of Bobcats placing pine coffins in mass graves in Brooklyn. But, at the same time that that emergency approval for those vaccinations was given in the UK and the US, in Australia, we had 74 new cases all in hotel quarantine and, sadly, one single death in the first week of December 2020. So I understand why emergency approvals for vaccines were given in the UK and the US, and I can understand that it didn't make sense to do so here in Australia. I understand that the Therapeutic Goods Administration's more cautious approach, which was supported by the government, was the right way forward. I accept that. I believe the Australian people accept that. But the question is: do those opposite accept that same rationale applied by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, supported by the government at the time? Obviously that is not the case.
The Labor Party has talked about an 'all eggs in one basket' strategy by this government, but it couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, that type of politics is completely consistent with their petty politics, with no solutions—just complaints. We know that the government entered into five different agreements for prospective vaccines and established a domestic vaccine manufacturing capability that was non-existent a year ago. Not only are we back on track with our vaccine rollout, we are making up ground very fast. I got my first dose of AstraZeneca from the GP. If you're not already vaccinated and if you're under 60, like I am, I encourage you to go and talk to your GP. If your GP recommends it, get vaccinated. I actually made my booking for my AstraZeneca vaccination only one day before receiving it. If you're over 60 and you haven't been vaccinated, please join the 74 per cent that have already had their first jab.
We cannot be complacent. Each of us has a part to play in beating this pandemic. It's time to roll up for Australia. It's time to ensure that we put behind us the petty politics of those opposite—those who want to talk Australia and Australians down. The government has acknowledged the issues that have occurred with the rollout of this vaccine. We have been able to support the state governments in ensuring that there is a rollout across the country, and now is the time to roll up for Australia.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (15:48): [by video link] I am speaking from Kogarah in the St George region in New South Wales in Sydney. It is one of the local government areas, the Georges River council, that is of great concern. The other local government area in the region that I represent, the seat of Barton, is the Canterbury Bankstown council. I listened carefully to the previous speaker who spoke about Labor entering into petty politics. You come and tell the people who live in Georges River council and come and tell the people who live in Canterbury Bankstown that this is petty politics. My office has been inundated with residents, business owners, workers and householders. They are anxious, they are fearful, they are upset and, in many instances, they're confused. They are finding it almost impossible to get the answers that they need. They are good people from very many different cultural backgrounds, as people would know.
I absolutely endorse the member for Griffith's comments and the member for Macquarie's comments: Sydney is in the grip of a terrible, terrible situation. Today was the worst day on record for not only the number of infections but also the number of people in the community who circulated whilst infected, and we're seeing the extension of lockdowns in New South Wales. People in the electorate that I represent are asking the government and this Prime Minister: 'Why do you always wait until something goes wrong before you take action? We saw that happen in the bushfires of course.
The Prime Minister didn't take the pandemic seriously. While medical experts, state and territory governments and Labor were calling for a national response, the Prime Minister was still attending football games. But, as the lines formed around Centrelink right across this country, there was the realisation: 'Oh, there might be a problem.' Well, let me tell you: there is a problem. We are now 18 months into this pandemic and we still do not have a national quarantine system—18 months and the Prime Minister is only considering incentives and other ways to accelerate the rollout. I hear the members of the government saying that the vaccine rollout is on track. Well, come and tell the people of Georges River and Canterbury Bankstown that things are on track. They are losing loved ones and they are being hospitalised. The Prime Minister is always playing catch-up. He never takes responsibility and just does enough to say, 'I'm a man of action.'
I also want to highlight the disparity in the number of First Nations people who are receiving a vaccine. Yesterday, I met with the Shire of Broome, the Shire of Derby and West Kimberley, the Shire of Halls Creek and the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley. They are terribly worried about the vaccine rollout. It is the responsibility of the federal government, not to pat themselves on the back saying, 'Haven't Indigenous communities done well'—that's because of Indigenous organisations—but to actually recognise that there is a problem with the vaccine rollout and the vaccine take-up. It has to be addressed; otherwise the good fortune and good luck will not continue.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (15:53): Well, what an MPI debate point! Honestly? I think it's quite extraordinary that those opposite don't realise that this is a moment in our nation's history when it's about team Australia. We've just watched the Olympics. We've just watched how Olympians have dealt with a really tough COVID period and how they have pivoted and worked hard to deliver some fantastic outcomes that Australians can be proud of. Now is the moment for us to work together, to understand that this COVID pandemic has been extraordinary. I don't think anyone would question that the whole world has been dealing with a crisis. It's been a global pandemic, a global crisis.
We heard the previous member saying, 'Oh, not good enough.' It's very easy to be backseat drivers when you don't actually know what's going on. You are obviously not listening to what the Prime Minister has been saying day after day and in press conferences, and the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, has been out there. They've been listening to experts. They've been listening to evidence-informed advice. They're in meetings day after day, sweating the decisions that are leading us through the carnage and chaos that is this COVID global pandemic. And I would like to hear from those on that side—please, tell your supporters—'Go and get vaccinated,' because, honestly, you don't ask which flu vaccine brand you're looking at. As the Victorian vice-president of the AMA, Chris Moy, said: when there's an emergency you don't ask what brand the seatbelt is, or the brand of the emergency life belt; you just put it on. At this point in time, it's time for team Australia to stand up and get behind the vaccine rollout.
There is absolutely no question that there have been issues. In fact, I remember that in January Professor John Skerritt briefed the coalition members—he also briefed the opposition—and said, 'We know it's going to be messy.' That is because COVID is messy. That is because this is a new vaccine that no-one has had to deal with before. This is a new technology, and we need people to get behind it with their confidence, their certainty and their leadership. I implore those opposite: put aside your petty politics and get behind the vaccination rollout, because people are hesitant; there is no doubt about that. People are nervous. That is understandable, because in the first five months of this year there were no COVID deaths. I'll just say that again: in the first five months of this year, there were no COVID deaths. Now, that wasn't sheer luck. That was good, certain, stable, strategic decision-making by a calm, confident executive government—one that all Australians should feel proud of. That outcome was delivered by each and every Australian—doing the right thing, listening to the quarantining measures, following up through the contact tracing recommendations by the public health experts and then doing their bit with physical distancing, mask wearing and hand hygiene. Now the fourth layer of our safety measures has come online, at speed, and that is the vaccine rollout.
We need every Australian to get behind the vaccine rollout, and on both sides of this parliament we need people to get behind the vaccine rollout, so that there's not a concern such as: 'There's something going on. We don't know what it is, but people are playing politics, so we'll just leave it. We won't make that decision.' We want people to go and see their GP and work out whether they're eligible. Go to www. hotdoc, and that will let you know how you can find out which GP has a supply and understand that both Pfizer and AstraZeneca are helping to deliver a great outcome for Australia.
We know that the national plan, which has been agreed across political lines between the national, state and territory governments in national cabinet, is delivering a plan, which is that once we get 70 per cent of the adult Australian population double-jabbed with one of the vaccines then we will know that we are going to be able to put lockdowns into a different category. There won't need to be the suffering that everyone is having to deal with. It's a terrible situation with the delta variant, but we need to work together.
I just want to say something about quarantining. No-one opposite said that we should decommission hotel quarantining. I want to say that 350,000 people have successfully come back through hotel quarantining. There have been 3,500 positive COVID cases. We have continued, through federal government support of the states, to improve the quality of quarantining, which is something that's had to be stood up at speed. But there have been fewer than 20 outbreaks from quarantining. That is actually an incredible outcome when you consider how many positive cases there were. And I would say that some of the improvements have come through frequent rapid antigen testing. (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (15:58): [by video link] If there's one thing this country doesn't need right now it's this hokey jingoism and hypocrisy evidenced so far though this MPI by government MPs, like the one who just spoke, invoking the Olympics as a way to cover or distract people from the failings of this government over the course of this pandemic.
To be quite frank: when you have a situation where government MPs are calling for a 'team Australia' moment, after they spent months tearing at states who were trying to get the job done and using politicking themselves to undermine state responses to this pandemic, you should know straightaway that the 'team Australia' invocation that's been urged upon us is designed to distract from failures. People were, in the main, quite happy to cut governments slack early in the pandemic, understanding that people were scrambling to get things done, but at this point in time they've had ages, more than a year, to prepare for the vaccine rollout, prepare for national quarantine and prepare a public health campaign to bring people together to fight this. For more than a year now they've been saying they would prepare for mRNA manufacture onshore, and now we're being told it will take years. We don't need hokey jingoism; we need results right now.
I want to extend huge congratulations to my community out here in Western Sydney, from Mount Druitt to Blacktown, because they have stepped up. They are in eight local government areas that have been put into lockdown due to the Bondi cluster and they are going out now and getting tested, going out now and getting vaccinated. They are trying to follow the rules and do the right thing, and they absolutely deserve support and assistance at a time when they are trying to do the right thing. They deserve, for example, a comprehensive public health campaign mobilising community, sporting and religious groups in neighbourhoods to get the message out, encourage vaccination and take on vaccine hesitancy. That is simply not happening right now. It staggers me that neither the federal government nor the New South Wales government is working with community groups to get this happening; in fact, community groups are trying to do it themselves in the absence of leadership.
Communities such as mine deserve a quality vaccine rollout program, Mr Deputy Speaker, yet if you open the government's vaccine clinic finder, enter 'Mount Druitt' and look for the next available COVID shot for an eligible person you'll find that the pickings are scarce. There is a Pfizer vaccine hub in Rooty Hill that's been so heavily booked that it has stopped accepting appointments. I've had GPs in my local area point out that they don't know the rhyme or reason behind how the government is allocating vaccine doses. Pharmacists in my area say they'd love to be involved but are being neglected and overlooked.
My community deserve, too, financial support that doesn't require people to jump through hoops in the way that has happened and that encourages people to stay home instead of having to chase work because they're worried about how they'll make ends meet. And they deserve clear, easy, understandable rules and regulations that they can follow, which is certainly not happening. More than anything else, Mr Deputy Speaker, they deserve a health response, not a police and military response as has been witnessed in our part of Western Sydney.
The reality is that the federal coalition can't muster an effective public health campaign to take up the fight against the pandemic because for years they have campaigned against the Public Service. They have pushed out Public Service jobs. They have brought in consultants. Now they are outsourcing the Public Service role to the ADF. Basically, in many respects they have drained the Public Service. We have gone from consultants to khaki when what we need right now is public servants to lead this campaign and work with communities in our area.
We cannot have inconsistency, which we've seen from this Prime Minister on a regular basis. One minute he's arguing against lockdowns, then he's arguing for them. One minute he's saying it's not a race on vaccination, then he's saying it is. We need to have support in our communities, who are doing it tough and who are being let down by the federal and New South Wales Liberal governments, who are not doing the job that people want them to do.
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (16:03): It's always interesting when the opposition look at ways to try to take some political points off the coalition government. With the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, it's been acknowledged right throughout the world that Australia's effort in looking after both the health of our people and the livelihoods of our people has probably not been surpassed by any other nation. So we now have the opposition trying to zero in and find some chinks where we have not done as well as we would have liked.
There's no problem with the Prime Minister acknowledging that we wish we had done better with our vaccine rollout, but, also, it's common knowledge that there's been so much hesitancy. There didn't seem to be a real panic in Australia and that has led to the lethargy and most Australians are not getting the vaccine. It's simply because we haven't been witnessing what we saw in the early stages of the virus in Italy, where the health system couldn't cope. As the assistant minister said earlier, we haven't seen the backhoes and the excavators building mass graves like we saw in New York. We haven't seen the incredible health failures that we've seen all around the world. We've seen the business community strengthened by JobKeeper and JobSeeker but then saw things rebound. It's as though some of the members that have spoken from Sydney have only just realised how damaging and how hurtful these lockdowns are. Unfortunately for us in Victoria, we've had a bit more experience than you have had in Sydney. We have a very strong understanding of the damage and the pain associated with lockdowns. We've been through five of them and we're about to go into our sixth. There's the whole concept about pain and damage to people's health, their mental health and their financial situation. We're well cross that in Victoria, because, even with the less contagious variant of COVID-19 that we had for the first seven or eight months, we had a state government in Victoria who refused to actually lock down the source of the virus, which was Melbourne. They simply just locked down the entire state. We then saw the reaction from New South Wales.
The other thing that's staggering with this debate is how many people love to use hindsight and then become incredibly smart with the use of hindsight. I'm sure that, if we all had hindsight in our back pocket and we could project what was going to happen into the future, we would have done a whole range of things slightly differently. Three months ago, the New South Wales' way of handling an outbreak was the gold standard. Everybody was envious of the New South Wales government's attitude and their practical way of chasing down these outbreaks: at the same time as closing down particular suburbs, they kept the rest of their state operational. They were held up as the gold standard on how to react to COVID. The new delta variant and the infectious nature of it, the way it is able to be passed on within 30 hours, has made the staying-open option one that doesn't seem to work. Again, we weren't to know this prior to the occasion. I would urge everybody who has a strong opinion, which is probably 70 per cent of Australians, to please understand that governments all around Australia are trying to work with the knowledge that they currently have at their disposal. Yes, they will be better educated into the future, but unfortunately we don't have that option in advance.
In relation to the quarantining, and Minister Gillespie spoke about this earlier, the federal government does have quarantining responsibilities, but what the states have captured and are never going to let go is the component around health orders. It's always the state imposed health orders that differentiate each state's performance. We need to be realistic about that as well.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:09): I want to take on a few points that some of the speakers on the government side have raised today and I'm going to do my best not to drop the F bomb. I had to apologise to my staff the other day for doing just that, having spent three days trying to get basic information on the business support grants. I phoned two federal ministers and two ministers at the state level and was not able to get basic answers about why those opposite said that JobSaver is based on maintaining your payroll when everything online said it's based on maintaining your employee headcount.
They're two different things. The confusion that's out there is because those on that side of this House do not know their own policies and are confusing people, whether it's about AstraZeneca, or whether it's changing the figures for the disaster payment every week so that businesses can't make rational decisions about how they do the best thing by their staff or whether it's standing up in this House and giving wrong advice to business about how JobSaver is being calculated every single day. Every single day, people on this side of the House are using every power we have on this. Nobody out there in my community has that power. I've got it, I can phone a minister, but I still can't get the answers.
I go to Services New South Wales to find out about JobSaver and hang on there for half an hour. When I finally get through they say, 'Oh, no, you have to go to Services Australia.' I go to Services Australia and it's not even listed—it's not even on the website. The Prime Minister gets up and says, 'Disaster payments are now tax free.' I spent three weeks telling people that they were taxable. I went to the ATO website and the Centrelink website, and they still say that they're taxable. Then I had to go out and tell everyone again, 'Oh, sorry, the decision you made last week about how best to support your staff, to keep your relationship going with your employees and to keep your business open and going as best you can is now wrong.'
For the fourth time: it was $500, $600, $750 and now it's not taxable. It's great that it's going up, but I know businesses, because I've been one. I have sat there with the algebra with some of my businesses, asking what their hourly rate is and what the best position is that they can get for them and their staff with the system that's in place. We've done the algebra—and it's really fun algebra, by the way, until it changes the next day. Both this government and the New South Wales government change their minds every day—'Don't go more than 10 kilometres.' On the next day, 'Oh, by the way, it's five.' Then, 'You have to shut your business down at 11 o'clock today,' but then tomorrow they change their minds and you don't. But the member of parliament has already told businesses that they have to close down and now can't contact them. Every single day it's changing.
The information we're getting from the government, whether it's on AstraZeneca or whether it's business support—no matter what it is—is not up to standard. We are suffering a crisis of leadership that I don't think this country has ever seen. This isn't just the guy who stands up and says, 'I don't hold a hose, because I'm too important.' I can tell him that my husband does hold a hose and that's what he heard: 'I'm too important to hold a hose. I'm the Prime Minister.' And we say: you've two jobs which, incidentally, is what he said in June last year. But now he's saying, 'Oh no, I'm far more important than just those two jobs; I've got lots of other jobs.' I'm telling him: they're the two that count!
The previous speaker got up and talked about hindsight. What does he mean? Chris Bowen was saying in June last year that we needed more vaccines. Every other country did it. If we look at it, in July last year the Americans bought 100 million doses of Pfizer and the British bought 90 million doses. We were offered 40 million doses and didn't take them in July last year, and then we put in an order in November and signed in December. It has cost us $5 billion so far to order these vaccines. How many weeks of lockdown is that? If we had better vaccinated now we'd probably still be in partial lockdown, but it wouldn't be as crippling as it is now. That $5 billion pales into insignificance and it doesn't take hindsight to know it, because every other country knew it. We were in one of the best positions in the world and we have blown it because this lot don't know how to lead and they don't know how to keep their messages straight. They're not paying attention to their own rules and they're putting out false advice every single day.
I'll say to the previous speaker, who got up and said, 'We all understand lockdown' that no, we don't. Nobody in this House knows what families in my community are going through. We all have a job, we haven't been sacked, our pay is going and we all live in reasonable places. We can actually get exemptions and we know the rules. We are not the people who are suffering from lockdown—we are not. There are families in my community at home with more people than rooms, no computers, no real NBN and trying to homeschool their kids when English is not their first language and they didn't finish high school. They know what lockdown is. They're out of work and they were out of work last year. They know what it is; this is ridiculous. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): There being no further speakers, the discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No. 2) Bill 2021
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered immediately.
Senate's amendment—
(1) Page 9 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 6 — Publication of information about COVID 19 payment recipients
Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020
1 Section 6
Insert:
annual turnover of an entity for a financial year is the total of the following that is earned in the year in the course of the entity's business:
(a) the proceeds of sales of goods and/or services;
(b) commission income;
(c) repair and service income;
(d) rent, leasing and hiring income;
(e) government bounties and subsidies;
(f) interest, royalties and dividends;
(g) other operating income.
If the entity is a non-profit body (within the meaning of section 23-15 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999), treat the operations or activities carried out by the body as the business of the body.
jobkeeper payment means a payment under the jobkeeper scheme.
jobkeeper scheme means the scheme for the Coronavirus economic response payment known as the jobkeeper payment provided for in rules made for the purposes of subsection 7(1) in relation to the period 1 March 2020 to 28 March 2021.
2 After section 19
Insert:
19A Commissioner must publish information about entities that received jobkeeper payments
(1) The Commissioner must publish the following information about each entity covered by subsection (2) that has received a jobkeeper payment:
(a) the name of the entity;
(b) the number of individuals for whom the entity received a jobkeeper payment;
(c) the total amount of jobkeeper payments received by the entity;
(d) whether the entity has voluntarily paid to the Commonwealth an amount equal to all or part of the amount referred to in paragraph (c), and if so, the amount of the payment.
(2) An entity is covered by this subsection if the annual turnover of the entity for a financial year in which the entity received a jobkeeper payment is more than $10 million.
(3) The information must be published as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on a publicly available website maintained by the Commissioner.
19B Commissioner must publish information about entities that received certain Coronavirus economic response payments
(1) The Commissioner must publish the following information about each entity covered by subsection (2) that has received a Coronavirus economic response payment provided for in rules made for the purposes of subsection 7(1B):
(a) the name of the entity;
(b) the total amount of such payments received by the entity;
(c) whether the entity has voluntarily paid to the Commonwealth an amount equal to all or part of the amount referred to in paragraph (b), and if so, the amount of the payment.
(2) An entity is covered by this subsection if the annual turnover of the entity for a financial year in which the entity received such a payment is more than $10 million.
(3) The information must be published as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on a publicly available website maintained by the Commissioner.
(4) Information published under this section must be kept up to date.
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:15): I move:
That the amendment be disagreed to.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (16:15): I want to make it abundantly clear that the Labor Party in the House of Representatives will do nothing that prevents the passage of this legislation, which allows for much-needed support to go into the communities around Australia which desperately need it as a consequence of these lockdowns made necessary by the Prime Minister's failures on vaccines and quarantine. I also want to say that the amendment proposed and passed in the Senate, and supported by the member for Melbourne as well, is a good amendment. It's an amendment that goes to transparency. This government has got a problem with transparency and with making sure the money it announces finds its way to the right place and isn't wasted and isn't sprayed around. This is the most wasteful government since Federation. So, where there's an opportunity for more transparency, there should be more transparency.
Every single taxpayer dollar is precious. There's already a trillion dollars of debt. We want to make sure that, where money goes to people and businesses that need and deserve it, it is spent effectively. So I implore the government to pick up and run with the suggestion put forward in good faith and passed through the Senate, and supported by us there, which goes to more transparency. We will do nothing that prevents that support going out into communities but the government should be looking at ways to make sure we avoid the situation we have seen with other payments, so that we shine a light to make sure it's going to the right places.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:17): The House should agree to this amendment, because it doesn't require the government to pay one extra dollar. In fact, it might ensure that money that's being spent by the public, to get people through this crisis to which the government's failures have led us, doesn't go to billionaires to buy private jets, like the last JobKeeper payments did. For an amendment to pass the Senate, it requires a broad range of support from right across the political spectrum and from right across the country. And that's what happened with this amendment. It's a good amendment that was moved by Senator Patrick, that reflects legislation the Greens have put to the Senate, to ensure greater transparency and ensure that JobKeeper and money like JobKeeper doesn't go to billionaires or big corporations that don't need it but finds its way to where it is needed.
What's telling is that the government could not even be bothered putting forward one argument about why the amendment should be rejected. They just said, 'Reject it.' And, when you look at the details of the amendment, you can see why. The amendment requires the publication of a list of, effectively, the financial situations—in broad, so no confidential details—of the corporations that receive this new form of financial assistance. Why is that necessary? We know it's necessary because the government has previously given billions of dollars to corporations that then went on and increased their profits or paid out executive bonuses, or to billionaires who bought private jets. We know that is what the government has done, and we know we need to fix it for next time.
This amendment doesn't even restrict the government from making any payments. All it does is require the publication of information about certain corporations. So there's no need for this amendment to hold up the money that needs to flow, and quickly, because the country is hurting, because the government has failed in its vaccine rollout. That is the situation. We are in a situation where we need to get money to people quickly. But nothing in this amendment will slow things down. If the government is serious about supporting people through the pandemic and also ensuring that money does not go to billionaires and corporations that are profitable anyway, just to help them pay some more executive bonuses or buy another private jet, then it should support this amendment.
I reiterate that when an amendment passes the Senate with the support of Independents, the Greens, the Labor Party and One Nation it should tell the government something about where it sits. This government is afraid of transparency. We know why, because we see rort after rort after rort. This is an opportunity to restore a bit of trust. We all agree—and there's going to be support for this bill—that financial assistance should be provided, because people are doing it tough. But what the majority of the Senate agrees on too is that there should be some transparency about whether corporations who don't need the money are getting it because the government has failed to design the scheme properly. Perhaps the government might want to deign to give even some small justification about why they're going to knock this back.
I say to the opposition: this isn't going to hold things up. This amendment could be passed today—bang—right now. Not one additional obligation is imposed on the government to pay an extra dollar. In fact, it might save a bit for the kitty. But people would get the money they need. Nothing in this amendment is going to hold anything up. The money will flow as quickly as it did before. I say to the opposition and others here: support this amendment and say no to the government's proposal to knock it back.
Question agreed to.
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:22): I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Report
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (16:23): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating additional comments by Labor members, on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr DREYFUS: by leave—I'll have more to say when the bill is ultimately brought on for debate, but I want to draw attention to a few aspects of this report. The committee has made 34 unanimous and bipartisan recommendations for improvements to the bill and to the oversight regime in respect of the Australian Federal Police and the ACIC more generally. In particular I note that the committee has unanimously recommended that the oversight remit of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Intelligence and Security Committee be extended to include the oversight functions of the AFP and the ACIC—all of their intelligence functions.
The committee has also unanimously recommended that the Department of Home Affairs stop engaging in the practice of making submissions that purport to be authored by the Home Affairs portfolio. The Home Affairs portfolio, of course, includes ASIO, the AFP, the ACIC and the AUSTRAC, all of which are independent statutory agencies. It is not appropriate and it has never been appropriate for the Department of Home Affairs to pretend or to suggest that it speaks on behalf of independent statutory agencies. The fact that the department has done so repeatedly is of considerable concern to me and clearly also to other committee members.
This is not some abstract point of principle. It's not only important to preserve the independence of ASIO, the AFP, the ACIC and the other statutory agencies from the government of the day in substance and as a matter of law. It's also important to ensure that those agencies are perceived to be independent from government. Public confidence in those agencies depends on it. The Department of Home Affairs is a department of state, and it is subject to the direction of the Minister for Home Affairs. It would therefore be open to the Minister for Home Affairs to dictate to the department what a submission to the committee says, word for word.
By contrast, ASIO, the AFP and the ACIC—to pick up just three of the key agencies—were established by acts of this parliament. The relationship between those agencies and the Minister for Home Affairs and the government more generally is governed by statute. It would not be open to the minister to dictate to those agencies what a submission to the committee should say. By claiming to speak on behalf of ASIO, the AFP, the ACIC and other independent statutory agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio, the department has repeatedly obscured the absolutely fundamental distinction between an independent statutory agency and a department of state. The committee has recommended in clear and unambiguous terms, unanimously, that the department must stop this practice. I welcome that recommendation.
Turning to some of the key recommendations in relation to the bill itself, the committee is seeking a range of additional and stronger safeguards. By way of example, the committee has recommended that only a Superior Court judge may issue a disruption warrant or a network activity warrant and that only an eligible judge, as defined in the Surveillance Devices Act, may issue an account takeover warrant. We've also recommended that the bill be amended to strengthen the issuing criteria for each of the proposed new powers. There is one recommendation—recommendation 10—that in the view of Labor members should have gone further. That's why we've tabled additional comments to the committee's report.
All members of the committee have acknowledged that the powers in the identify-and-disrupt bill are extraordinary. As Labor members note in the additional comments, the need for these extraordinary new powers have been justified by reference to the most serious types of offences in the explanatory memorandum. For example, the government has said:
This Bill addresses gaps in the legislative framework to better enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence, conduct investigations, disrupt and prosecute the most serious of crimes, including child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations, and the distribution of weapons.
This statement deliberately mischaracterises the breadth of the new powers. In fact, the new powers would enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence, conduct investigations, and disrupt and prosecute all relevant offences as defined in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004. The definition of 'relevant offence' includes all offences against the law of the Commonwealth that are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of three years or more. This includes the types of crimes listed in the explanatory memorandum but it also includes tax offences, trademark infringement offences and a range of other offences that do not fall within the categories of child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations and the distribution of weapons.
I'm not suggesting that the other types of offences are not serious. But what I and my Labor colleagues absolutely are suggesting is that the government and the agencies failed to make the case for why these extraordinary new powers are needed to 'collect intelligence, conduct investigations, disrupt and prosecute' crimes that are not 'child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations and the distribution of weapons'. Obviously it's easier to justify the introduction of extraordinary powers by focusing only on the most serious crime types, especially crimes like child abuse and exploitation and terrorism. But, as Labor members argue in the additional comments, it's incumbent on the Intelligence and Security Committee and the parliament to require the government and agencies to engage in the more difficult task of justifying the introduction of extraordinary powers by reference to how the powers could actually be used.
Labor members consider that recommendation 10 and the other recommendations in the committee's report go a long way to ensuring that these new powers will be used only in relation to the most serious offending. However, in recognition of the extraordinary nature of these new powers, the way in which the government and agencies have sought to justify their introduction, Labor members think the committee should have gone further by recommending that the references to 'relevant offence' in the bill be replaced by a new concept of serious offence. The upshot of such an amendment would be that these extraordinary new powers could only, as a matter of law, be used to achieve the objectives that, according to the government, the powers are intended to achieve. As a matter of principle, the scope of coercive and intrusive powers should be no greater than the arguments advanced by the government to justify them.
On behalf of all members of the committee, I'd like to extend my appreciation to everyone who made a submission to this inquiry. This is very complex and important piece of legislation, and the committee could not have produced this report or made such detailed and extensive recommendations without the contribution of submitters. I'd like to thank the committee secretariat for the work they've done on this report and for the valuable assistance they provide. Finally, I'd like to thank my colleagues on the committee, Labor and Liberal, for their work on this report. In particular, I'd like to thank the Chair, Senator Paterson, for the constructive and cooperative way in which he has approached this inquiry and his role as chair of the committee more generally.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Isaacs wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
Mr DREYFUS: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (16:30): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:31): It being 4.31 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
National Anti-corruption Commission
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (16:30): [by video link] A federal Labor government will establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. The people of Australia are, frankly, sick of this federal government taking the mickey out of the taxpayer dollar and using it for their own purposes. We must restore accountability and transparency in government. There's been program after program. We have had sports rorts, where my community missed out on a much-needed and highly sought after sporting and community facility. We've had car park rorts, where only one car park was committed to in WA in the seat of the member for Canning. That hasn't even started yet. There was the airport land scandal in Western Sydney. Think of the extraordinary waste of money by this government, rolling out money for electoral and political advantage against the advice of public servants—a la sports rorts. The failure to comply with process, guidelines and criteria is just gross. The Prime Minister's office seems to have a dedicated rorts team filled with colour-coded spreadsheets.
The sports issue has been going on for years. In 2018 One Nation former senator Peter Georgiou handed out $3 million worth of federal government funding to a sports club in Perth on behalf of the government, leaving many questions hanging. Why was it him presenting this grant and not the government? Was this quid pro quo or something else? Then there was the member for Moore, who left us wanting an integrity commission. In 2018 he was promoting a lobster business in which he had financial links and earnt commissions through the striking of export deals. There was the heck of a sale in early 2019 when the Minister for Finance at the time struck a massive deal, a pay nothing now, pay nothing later deal with Hello World, where he received multiple free flights to Singapore from a Liberal donor. We need an national anti-corruption commission, because Australians have had enough. The Commonwealth absolutely needs one.
There's the member for Fadden, who was dumped for using his position for private interests but he is back. Despite numerous disasters under his watch, he maintains his ministerial pay cheque. Then there's the member for Farrer, who was sacked after an expenses scandal and then rewarded with a new portfolio. There's also Senator Cash, who misled the Senate multiple times and wouldn't cooperate with the AFP about an investigation. She has been rewarded with, wait for it, the position of Australia's Attorney-General. Then there's the member for Hume. Well, it's hard to stay across all of his scandals. All I have to say is, 'Well done, Angus.' There's also the member for Dickson, who has overseen numerous contractual disasters, used ministerial powers to prevent deportation of au pairs and ignored responsibilities in relation to dealing with money-laundering matters. You would think that our Treasurer would be rather more careful with money, but he handed over $444 million to a small foundation without a competitive tender process or even an application for the money. There's also the Minister for Health, who has questions to answer about two lucrative MRI licences that were awarded to Liberal Party connections. The list goes on. Perhaps the real issue here is that, if the government did install an anti-corruption commission they would have no-one left in their cabinet.
The Morrison government's failure to fulfil its promises is allowing corruption to go unchecked and enabling ministers to avoid being held to account for their actions. But worst, in a sense, is that it is undermining the public's confidence in the integrity of our Australian government. An Albanese Labor government will put an end to the Morrison government's shameful inaction by establishing a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission that will investigate serious and systemic corruption in federal government. It will also take on the learnings from the equivalent state commissions across the country about what works and what doesn't. Critically, the commissioner will be independent and only serve a single term with appointments requiring confirmation by a bipartisan statutory joint parliamentary oversight committee. We need to see a powerful anticorruption commission at a national level, and only Labor will deliver one.
Religious Freedom Legislation
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (16:35): Australians pride ourselves on being fiercely patriotic and free. In fact, we also have a spirit of egalitarianism. As a former army officer, I can attest that we were always very familiar with our troops—much more so than, for example, the British. We also have tall poppy syndrome, which can be a bit extreme at times, but what it signals is that we're letting each other know that we see ourselves as equals. For my part, as a parliamentarian, for example—I'm sure everyone in this place is the same—when we walk down the street, we just think we're normal people, and, certainly, that's the way others treat us.
That is why it is important to acknowledge that politicians are fallible. It's important to acknowledge that we do not have any God-like skills. We cannot see the future. But, when we do realise that we can do things better, that's when we change, we pivot and we make different policies. The very last thing that suits our national psyche, then, is that we should elevate ourselves as politicians to being the champions and, in fact, the arbiters of thought. Some other nations around the world think this is actually a great idea. For example, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has, in his own image, proclaimed Xi Jinping thought, and this centralised thought is being leveraged to practise socialist core values, including Marxism, communism and socialism, with Chinese characteristics. Comparatively, here in Australia, we are committed to upholding the beliefs of our democracy. We cherish fair elections, equal opportunity and the fundamental freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association.
The Morrison government is steadfastly committed to these beliefs. However, I am disappointed to report that it appears that there is at least one state government which is not. I was greatly troubled to learn that a group was being barred from hiring a publicly owned venue in Western Australia. The Perth Theatre Trust manages the Albany Entertainment Centre and a range of other facilities on behalf of the WA government. The trust's policy states that government owned facilities not be used where the views of certain individuals do not represent the views of the Western Australian government. By this measure, anyone who disagrees with WA Labor would be denied the lease of a whole range of public venues to meet and discuss their views. So who was this organisation which so offended the sensibilities of the WA Labor government? It was the Australian Christian Lobby, hardly a bastion of evil.
We worry, rightly, when the Chinese government imposes its thought upon its people, and we must fight this practice here on our own soil. If it weren't for Western Australians raising their voices in absolute protest, this policy would never have been overturned. The Morrison government, on the other hand, believes absolutely that all Australians should be able to participate fully in our Australian democracy, regardless of their religious beliefs, and to operate within the confines of Australian law. This is why we've prepared a draft package of legislation to implement recommendations from the religious freedom review, including a religious discrimination bill. The government has conducted two rounds of extensive public consultations, and here in this place, as parliamentarians, we have contributed as well. Around 13,000 submissions have been received regarding the draft legislation across 2019 and 2020.
More recently, I've been communicating with faith leaders, including Margaret Court at Victory Life church, Mark Varughese at Kingdom City, and Dr Rateb Jneid, who is the national president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. All of these faith leaders have said: 'Vince, please get on with the job. Please get out there and protect our religious freedoms.' And that's absolutely what this government is committed to doing. We are working hard to bring forward this legislation this year.
This bill will protect Australians from religious discrimination just as we are protected from discrimination based on our age, our sex, our race or any disability. We made that commitment and we are keeping it, because religious discrimination still exists in Australia. It is being displayed by the likes of WA Labor, who are trying to suffocate the free speech and, it seems, thought of my fellow Western Australians. The Morrison government will stand up and protect our cherished but seemingly fragile democracy. (Time expired)
Morrison Government
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (16:40): We all remember the Prime Minister saying repeatedly that the vaccine rollout was not a race and that we didn't have to hurry. And we all know where that has got us, with my own home state of Victoria going into a snap lockdown again today. The Prime Minister was probably the only person in the entire country who did not see the urgency of rolling out the vaccine program and taking us away from COVID lockdowns. In isolation, the government's lax approach to the vaccine would be remarkable, but, in comparison to their energetic rorting of taxpayer funds, it is truly incredible.
The government may not think vaccination is a race, but they've certainly raced to pork-barrel funds into our marginal seats. We're at the back of the pack for vaccines, but the Morrison government is at the head of the field when it comes to rorts: airport rorts, sports rorts, car park rorts, Building Better Regions rorts and Safer Communities rorts. There are so many rorts that it's becoming impossible to keep up with them all. Today I want to focus particularly on two of them: airport rorts and car park rorts. Both of these scandals have achieved new attention this week, and, the more we learn the more questions there are.
First, on airport rorts: I'm sure we all remember the purchase of the Leppington Triangle. Just to recap, the Morrison government paid $30 million for a piece of land valued at $3 million. The price paid per hectare by the Morrison government was 22 times higher than the price paid by the New South Wales government for its portion of the Leppington Triangle. The then Deputy Prime Minister described it as a bargain, and the Prime Minister and minister for urban infrastructure brushed it off with a 'nothing to see here'. This week, finally, we saw the ministerial briefs that led to the purchase. How did the minister describe the purchase? He said: 'It seems perfectly sensible to me.'
Reading the brief, it is no wonder the Morrison government waited 10 months to release it. Addressed to the returned minister for urban infrastructure and implicating the returned Deputy Prime Minister, the brief describes the Leppington Triangle as being 'a small parcel of land', but then describes the purchase price of $30 million as 'reasonable, albeit reflecting the recent sharp increase in property prices in the area'. Without any further explanation, the brief claims that 'a small window of opportunity for the purchase exists' due to the 'mutual goodwill' that existed between the landholders and the Commonwealth. Given that the landholders received $27 million more than the property was worth and were then able to lease the property back from the Commonwealth on favourable terms, including having an underpass built under a road at the cost of $10 million so they could get access, it's not hard to guess where this goodwill came from. Hinting at the resulting scandal and attempted cover-up, the briefing notes the potential public interest in the purchase and offers the minister talking points with which to explain the high price. The brief even outlines the close relationships between the government and the landholders.
It's extraordinary that any minister could read this brief and conclude, 'Seems perfectly sensible to me.' It's even more extraordinary that both ministers who received this brief have since returned to the same portfolios. At best, these two ministers are incompetent. The Prime Minister and his ministers need to explain why their own officials chose to appropriate $32 million for this and other transactions even before negotiations with landholders were held and ahead of a deadline deliberately designed to beat New South Wales rezoning the land to agricultural land.
Now we have carpark rorts. This is a scandal that's got everything—it's got rampant under-delivery, it's got 20 marginal seats targeted, it's got spreadsheets being passed between the Prime Minister's office and Minister Tudge. It's $660 million with 87 per cent going to Liberal held or targeted seats. We saw the Prime Minister's ridiculous press conference this afternoon, where he said: 'I've got nothing to do with this. The minister had authority. It was all the minister'—when he personally signed off on the letter approving the funding on the day the government went into caretaker mode. And there are numerous email exchanges between his office and his staff and the minister's office in selecting what projects were to be funded. The Prime Minister is claiming nothing to see here? Give me a break! This is the fund that everybody wants to rort but nobody actually now wants to own up to making the decisions on. The Prime Minister is up to his neck in this, and he needs to own up to it and tell the Australian people why he did it.
Cowper Electorate
Aviation
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (16:46): I'd like to start by thanking all the business owners in my electorate for the efforts that they have put in over the past two years, over and above COVID. For almost six months in Port Macquarie we had bushfires and a peat pit that burnt, causing disruption to many of the local trades, particularly tourism. And then, over the last 18 months, small and medium-sized enterprises and mum-and-dad businesses have worked tooth and nail to ensure that they have financial viability and to ensure the economic stability not only of the local area but also throughout Australia—and, furthermore, to ensure that there are jobs in regional and rural areas, because at times they're like hen's teeth. So I would like to thank those business owners for pivoting, for being resilient and for being there for our communities.
Just like those businesses, governments at both state and federal levels have had to pivot and have had to change, and that's exactly what we have done. And I have never stood in this place and criticised any state government, whether a Labor state government or a Liberal state government, because, just like the federal government, they do not have a crystal ball. Things change day on day, and governments are required to make those informed decisions to ensure the health of the nation and the economic health of the nation. Hindsight is a very comfortable carriage to travel in. We shouldn't stand here and be critical of any government. What we should be doing is looking forward and ensuring that we as a nation move through this together.
That's exactly what we have done as a federal government over the past 18 months. We saw the implementation of JobKeeper and JobSeeker. There is no doubt that that was a complete success. We've seen the rollout of the vaccine. The Prime Minister, in his own words, has apologised and has acknowledged that it could have been done better, but, again, we didn't have that crystal ball. We have pivoted. We have moved. We didn't know—nobody knew—we were going to see the delta strain of this virus come into this country and hit us as hard as it has. But in my own electorate we've had nearly 171,000 vaccine doses administered since the program began, and in the past week a record 12,330 doses have been administered.
We have also seen, and I have also tried to champion, support for the regional aviation industry, for travel agents, and for business operators in tourism in my electorate. These have included $1.2 billion for the Tourism Aviation Network Support program; the expanded Domestic Aviation Network Support program and the Regional Airline Network Support program; $250 million for the consumer travel support package; and registration fee waivers for higher education.
What I would like to highlight in the last minute that I have, is that the international aviation training sector is in my electorate but it's not limited to my electorate. There are 38 across the nation; 20 of them are in LNP seats and 18 are in Labor seats. What we have here is an industry that has, unfortunately, fallen through the cracks. It does not fall into any of the categories which have been very generous and which have been very well received across the nation, such as the RANS or the DANS—the domestic Aviation Network Support program. These are businesses that employ up to 50 people in my electorate and support over 200 businesses.
I would urge both sides of this parliament to come together to assist those people in the international aviation industry, to help them through this pandemic.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:50): Sixteen per cent of Australians are vaccinated, the second-lowest rate in the advanced world. The Grattan Institute estimates that we need to reach 80 per cent vaccination of the entire population, which is 90 per cent of adults, if we are to avoid overwhelming the hospital system. The government has a lower target; its phase C triggers when 80 per cent of adults are vaccinated. Until now, the problem has been supply—going back to that fateful decision the Morrison government made in July 2020 not to pay Pfizer a billion dollars for enough vaccine to vaccinate every Australian adult. But the government tells us that by 1 December there will be no problems with supply and that the challenge will then switch to getting the available vaccines into arms.
That's why Labor has proposed a $300 payment for everyone who gets vaccinated by 1 December. According to Essential polling, 11 per cent of Australians say they will never get the vaccine and 27 per cent say they wouldn't get it straightaway. Saul Eslake's analysis suggests that Australia has a higher rate of vaccine hesitancy than 13 other advanced nations. We have seen vaccine uptake slowing sharply in the United States, below the 80-per-cent mark, with daily vaccinations dropping from three million doses in April to about half a million today. The same pattern holds in the United Kingdom. In fact, no OECD country has yet vaccinated 80 per cent of its population, the highest being Iceland at 75 per cent.
Surprisingly, the Prime Minister called Labor's constructive proposal 'a bad idea' and said that 'financial incentives are likely to discourage vaccination', which is pretty strange, because back in July he said he would change the laws so a pub could give away beer to encourage people to get vaccinated. The international research shows that cash payments encourage vaccination. A recent randomised trial by Raymond Duch, Laurence Roope, Mara Violato, Philip Clarke, Adrian Barnett and Maciej Filipek found that cash incentives boosted COVID vaccine uptake by around 50 per cent. The same study found that vaccine lotteries had no impact on boosting uptake.
But ignoring the evidence isn't the strangest thing about the Prime Minister's rejection of Labor's positive proposal. The strangest thing is that he himself set up a financial incentive plan to get kids vaccinated. Every parent knows it: it's the No Jab, No Pay scheme. If you don't have your kids vaccinated then you're ineligible for the child care subsidy and family tax benefit part A. Indeed, in his second reading speech, the now Prime Minister described it as:
… an important initiative, aimed at boosting childhood immunisation rates.
So we asked him in question time this week: what's the difference between Labor's proposal to use cash incentives to boost COVID vaccinations and the policy you spruiked of using cash incentives to encourage childhood vaccination? I won't take the House through his entire answer. Instead, I'll quote former Liberal adviser, Niki Savva, who described the Prime Minister's answer as 'convoluted, unconvincing gobbledegook'.
And, stranger yet, the federal government provides plenty of financial incentives to encourage people to do what the government is keen to get them to do. There's the research and development tax incentive, the mature aged worker incentive, the apprenticeship incentive, the HomeBuilder incentive, the harvest trail incentive, renewable energy incentives, rural doctor incentives, the private health insurance tax incentive and the bulk billing incentive—an incentive paid directly to general practitioners who encourage unvaccinated kids to get vaccinated. Incentives worked. It's time we used them to get Australia vaccinated.
Inland Rail
Mr COULTON (Parkes) (16:55): I'd just like to update the House on the progress of the Inland Rail. There would be no one in this place that wouldn't know about the Inland Rail—that corridor of commerce that will connect Melbourne and Brisbane, transporting freight efficiently in less than a 24-hour time period. Just 100 days ago, construction started in the section between North Star and Narrabri, largely south of Moree. In the last 100 days, the Trans4m Rail team up there have stripped 45 kilometres of track, they've installed 418 culverts, they've removed 7,295 sleepers and 124 kilometres of old rail, and they've demolished five bridges. They are absolutely going flat out up there with the idea of getting half the section from Moree to Narrabri done down to a place called Bellata and opening that up so that the grain harvest from Moree can be transported to the port and construction can move north of Moree towards North Star.
I just want to point out that the Inland Rail is not a train; it is a spine from which other things will grow. A great example of that, as the former minister sitting here with me knows, was the $44 million that he secured to connect Inland Rail to the Hunter line at Narrabri so that those higher axle weights and longer capacity trains carting grain to the Port of Newcastle could connect to the Inland Rail. Another example is the program that's looking at the upgrade of the New South Wales state line to Coonamble and back to Gilgandra and also the recently discussed possibility—once it's completed—of a connection through to the Port of Gladstone. That's the idea. Not only will there be a connection between the two cities but, for the first time in the history of our country, every capital city will be connected by a standard-gauge railway.
Narrabri is developing a port, in conjunction with the local gas supply there, and setting up industries such as fertiliser production and the possible recycling of plastics and other things. Moree, in conjunction with the New South Wales government, has their Special Activation Precinct looking at the possibilities there. I was at Narromine on Friday, where a thousand hectares have been secured by Inland Rail for a construction zone, working with the council at Narrabri, so that they can progress with what will ultimately be an intermodal site there.
It is important to remember that the business case on this line is built on an intermodal train travelling between capital cities in less than 24 hours. Only about 15 to 20 per cent of all freight will actually go to port. It is designed to compete with those trucks that are coming up and down the Newell Highway now at an interval of about every 70 seconds. That's the business case that will pay the bills. The producers right along the line, including the large section in my electorate, will get the benefits of cheaper freight, and the communities will get the opportunity to establish businesses to connect to every capital city in the country. I think it's the most exciting project this country has seen in over 100 years. Certainly, it's fantastic to see local contractors and people from my home town of Warialda using trucks to cart gravel and aggregate, Narrabri contractors, who make up a large proportion of the workforce now, and local Indigenous people—Gamilaraay people—working on that. It's a magnificent project.
In the last few seconds, I'd just like to pay tribute to the former CEO, Richard Wankmuller. He finished up on Friday; that was his last day. He took this project basically from a concept and got it to a point where we are seeing major construction and have the confidence that this rail will be concluded. I'd just like to thank Richard for his commitment to the project and the leadership he has shown, and I wish him all the best for his future endeavours.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Mr Connelly to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises and celebrates the centenary of the Australian national flag which occurs on 3 September 2021;
(2) honours the ideals for which our national flag stands including our history, geography and unity as a federated nation;
(3) notes that this is the world's only national flag ever to fly over one entire continent;
(4) acknowledges that our flag has been Australia's pre-eminent national symbol in times of adversity and war, peacetime and prosperity;
(5) further recognises that our flag now belongs to the Australian people and has been an integral part of the expression of our national pride; and
(6) expresses its respect for the Australian national flag as a symbol of our profound achievements as a federation, our independence and freedom as a people, and our optimism for a common future together.