The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Appropriations and Administration Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:31): I present Report No. 22:Annual report 2020-21 of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration of October 2021.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
BILLS
National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (09:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021 amends the National Health Act 1953 to implement reforms negotiated with the medicines industry to improve and guarantee access to medicines for Australian patients.
1. Industry agreements
The amendments reflect new five-year agreements with Medicines Australia, the representative body for the innovative medicines sector in Australia, and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association, which represents generic and biosimilar medicines suppliers in Australia. These agreements build upon the longstanding partnership this government has fostered with Australia's medicines industry with the goal of supporting Australian patients.
Australians have world-class access to medicines. In the 2020-21 financial year, over 300 million prescriptions for around 16 million Australians were supplied through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (the PBS). Without the PBS, many of these treatments would be beyond the reach of ordinary Australians. An Australian who, for example, is diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a type of bone marrow cancer, would face costs of around $160,000 per year to access the medicine needed to treat that condition. However, through the PBS, that Australian would only need to pay $6.60 per prescription to access treatment if they hold a concession card, or $41.30 otherwise—a mere fraction of the actual cost of the medicine.
Every year, and in fact nearly every month, new medicines are added to the PBS and access to existing medicines is expanded to new patient groups in line with emerging evidence about the safety and effectiveness of those medicines for treating health conditions. Treatment options for patients are ever expanding and the PBS has continued to expand with them. Since 2013 the government has approved close to 2,800 new or amended medicines listings on the PBS at an overall cost of around $13.9 billion.
The Australian government recognises that this is fundamentally important to Australians—that Australians continue to gain access to the best available medicines. And to that end, in 2020, the government committed to the PBS New Medicines Funding Guarantee. This guarantee safeguards the government's policy to list all medicines on the PBS as recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, or PBAC. It will deliver new funding each year for the listing of new medicines on the PBS, to be replenished each year to meet the expected cost of new and expanded PBS listings.
In entering new agreements with the medicines industry, the government recognises that delivery of this world-class access in a way that is sustainable over the long term requires partnership with the Australian businesses and industries that supply, distribute and dispense the millions of medicines that Australians need and use every day.
Through these new agreements, the government and the medicines industry have co-developed a comprehensive package of reforms to the PBS:
1. to ensure that Australians continue to gain access to new, breakthrough, medicines as early as possible;
2. to deliver robust and uninterrupted supply of the medicines that Australians need and use every day; and
3. to keep the PBS on a long-term sustainable footing.
The industry agreements do this:
1. by securing commitment from the medicines industry to new savings for Australian taxpayers through improved statutory price reductions which will be reinvested in the PBS—helping to make headroom on the PBS for listing new medicines; and
2. by securing commitment from the medicines industry to holding a greater level of stock in Australia of a number of commonly prescribed and older medicines that, in recent years, have become susceptible to global medicines shortages.
These reforms will generate savings of around $1.9 billion over the terms of the agreements. These reforms also target Commonwealth investment towards securing supply of commonly prescribed medicines that have lower margins and are often in short supply globally.
Increasingly, global shortages are interrupting supply of medicines that are the mainstay of treatment for some of the most prevalent health conditions in the Australian community. Recently, global shortages have interrupted the supply of medicines for high blood pressure and diabetes, and medicines for mental health conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
These reforms agreed with the medicines industry will ensure that manufacturers are better placed to compete for supply of these medicines in the global medicine market and hold greater reserve supplies to buffer the Australian market when interruptions occur. These reforms are critical to ensuring the continuity of access that is so important to the proper treatment and management of common medical conditions.
The agreements with the medicines industry strike a balance between affordable access for Australians, a PBS that is sustainable over the long term, and providing the Australian medicines industry the right conditions for it to thrive, launch new and innovative medical treatments in Australia, and provide reliable supply. The agreements support the medicines industry in a number of ways. They do this:
1. by recognising the importance to businesses that they have certainty about government pricing policy settings;
2. by committing to reinvest savings from the agreements in the PBS; and
3. by supporting industry investment in supply chain redundancies with stable and once-off higher subsidised prices for medicines most at risk of global medicines shortages.
These enhancements to the PBS agreed between the government and the medicines industry are to be delivered through amendments to the National Health Act 1953 made by the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill.
The legislative elements of these landmark agreements are in addition to the significant policy and process reforms committed to in the strategic agreements with Medicines Australia and the GBMA, which include:
At least $5 billion of uncapped new investment in PBS medicines listings over the life of the agreement; which consists of the PBS New Medicines Funding Guarantee and the reinvestment of efficiencies agreed with the sector.
This is designed to make sure that that which occurred in 2011, when the previous government stopped the listing of new medicines recommended by the PBAC, never occurs again.
The co-design and implementation of an Enhanced Consumer Engagement Process to better capture the patient voice early in the medicines assessment process.
Ongoing timely access to medicines through a review of Australia's already world leading Health Technology Assessment (HTA) policy and methods to support its continuous improvement.
A Horizon Scanning Forum to ensure Australians have early access to breakthrough treatments.
Commitments to policy stability and predictability for the industry and government. These landmark agreements also build on the government's strong record on the PBS which is demonstrated through:
the Seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement (7CPA) between the Australian government, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia signed in June 2020.
The related improvements to the pharmaceutical wholesaler arrangements designed with the National Pharmaceutical Services Association (NPSA) and enacted through the 7CPA.
2. Improved statutory price reductions
The savings under the new agreement are to be delivered through improved statutory price reductions that will apply to brands upon the fifth, 10th and 15th anniversary of a drug listing on the PBS, and when the first new brand of a medicine lists on the PBS.
New statutory price reductions
The new anniversary price reductions in the bill will apply:
1. a five per cent price reduction to brands of a drug on the fifth anniversary of the drug being listed on the PBS;
2. a five per cent price reduction to brands of a drug on the 10th anniversary of the drug being listed on the PBS; and
3. a 26.1 per cent price reduction to brands of a drug on the 15th anniversary of the drug being listed on the PBS. This will increase to 30 per cent on 1 April 2027 for drugs that meet their 15th anniversary in the year to that day.
4. Catch up price reductions for medicines that have already been listed for 15 years and have not had these new price reductions apply.
Under current legislation, a company seeking to list the first new brand of a drug on the PBS that is bioequivalent or biosimilar to an existing PBS listed brand of the drug must agree to list at an ex-manufacturer price that is 25 per cent lower than the ex-manufacturer price of the existing brand. These arrangements will continue but will not apply if the existing brand has taken a new 15-year anniversary or catch-up price reduction.
The new statutory price reductions will be capped at 60 per cent off the original listed price of the medicine.
Ministerial d iscretion
Under current legislation, the minister can determine that anniversary and first new brand price reductions should be a lesser amount or not apply at all. These are important powers to ensure that the minister can intervene if a legislated price reduction were to have an unintended adverse consequence—such as the withdrawal of an important medicine from the Australian market. These powers, which are currently legislated to cease after 1 June 2022, will now continue.
3. A medicines supply security guarantee for Australia
In 2019 and 2020, brands of over 500 PBS items were affected by medium to critical impact shortages, with medicines supplied by manufacturers for $4 or less per pack being the most susceptible.
The amendments in the bill will give effect to commitments from the medicines industry made in the agreement to invest in holding greater stocks of medicines most at risk of global shortages and invest in greater supply chain resilience. In return, the PBS subsidised prices of those brands will be maintained at a sufficient level to support industry investment in greater stockholdings and ensure that manufacturers are better placed to secure supply in the competitive global medicine market.
Stockholding requirement
The amendments will require manufacturers, from 1 July 2023, to keep in stock in Australia at least four months of their usual demand for any brand that is protected from further price reductions, and six months of usual demand for any brand where the ex-manufacturer portion of PBS subsidy is increased. This will cover over 600 PBS items when it commences including nearly all PBS brands that have an ex-manufacturer price of $4 or less, which are most susceptible to medicines shortages—in other words, guaranteeing medicines for those most at risk and most in need.
The government and the medicines industry have agreed that the PBS should, in future, only subsidise brands supplied by manufacturers that maintain the required stockholdings and employ business models that support long-term reliable supply. To that end, the amendments in the bill will provide the minister with express powers to make up PBS listing decisions to ensure that this occurs.
The amendments will provide the minister with powers to remove any brand, or refuse to list any brand, supplied by a manufacturer if that manufacturer is not maintaining the required stocks of their PBS listed brands in Australia. And for PBS listed brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price that is less than $4 and are protected from further price reduction, the amendments will provide the minister with power to remove any brand, or to refuse to list any brand, supplied by a manufacturer if the additional Commonwealth investment for those brands that is intended to support supply, is instead used by the manufacturer to provide discounts to supply chain customers. In making such a decision, the amendments also provide for the minister to take into account the extent to which supply could be compromised in these circumstances and any other relevant matter which would include any potential impact of a decision to remove a brand from the PBS.
Price reduction floor
The investments by the medicines industry in additional stockholdings and improved supply-chain risk management will be supported by the introduction of a new price reduction floor.
The amendments in the bill therefore will prevent PBS listed brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price less than $4 from taking any further price reductions.
The amendments in the bill will also prevent further price reductions to brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price that is more than $4 when it is likely that further price disclosure reductions will be detrimental to reliable supply and where it is clear through market behaviour that significant discounting is no longer occurring.
Increases to the subsidised prices of low - cost PBS medicines
In recognition of the already low margins of brands that have an ex-manufacturer price less than $3.50, the increased frequency of shortages for medicines in this category, and the additional costs to manufacturers in holding greater stocks of these brands, the subsidised prices for these brands will be increased.
The amendments in the bill provide for one-off increases to PBS subsidy for brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price that is less than $3.50. Brands with an approved ex-manufacturer price that is less than $2 will be adjusted to $2.50. Brands with an approved ex-manufacturer price that is more than $2 will be adjusted by 50c to a maximum of $3.50.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the amendments in the bill will deliver a number of enhancements and improvements to the operation of the PBS for the benefit of patients, taxpayers and the medicines industry. Delivery of a program such as the PBS relies on close partnerships with the medicines businesses that support it. The amendments in the bill reflect the outcome of extensive negotiations and could not have been possible without the strong, collaborative partnership between the Australian government and the medicines industry.
I particularly want to thank the negotiation teams from Medicines Australia, the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association and my department who have demonstrated incredible commitment to achieving this fantastic outcome that will benefit all parties and put the PBS on the best possible footing to meet future challenges.
In particular I would like to thank Liz De Somer and Anna Lavelle from Medicines Australia; and Jane Halton, Marnie Peterson and Dennis Bastas from the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association for their hard work, creativity and ingenuity that they have contributed to the new strategic agreements and the innovative reforms in this bill. From the Department of Health, I want to thank Penny Shakespeare, Adriana Platona, Nikolai Tsyganov and Daniel Chaston for their extraordinary and unstinting work around the clock. And, from my own office, I want to thank Sam Develin and Belinda McEniery for their extraordinary work. They, along with the departmental leaders and all of their teams, literally sometimes have worked around the clock, through the night, in preparing the documents, in helping to solve the problems.
The net result of all of this is lower prices for Australians, better stocks and guaranteed medicines for Australians, and more medicines through reinvestment of these savings in bringing on, earlier and faster, newer medicines for Australians. That is literally the definition of a win-win-win.
Ultimately, the Australian government's commitment to the PBS is rock solid. It is one of the proud articles of faith of this side of the House. It is a commitment we have had, and, whether it's new listings for cardiac, cancer, for genetic conditions and so many others, each time we list a new medicine we know that that is one of the reasons we are in government.
In that context, the reforms provided for by the amendments in this bill reflect this commitment, and will ensure that the PBS will continue to meet the needs of Australians well into the future. Sometimes the term 'landmark' is overused. On this occasion, this truly is landmark legislation to guarantee the supply of and access to medicines for Australians into the future.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tudge, for Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:49): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2021 establishes the Financial Accountability Regime, which replaces and extends the Banking Executive Accountability Regime following a number of recommendations from the financial services royal commission.
The bill underscores the government's commitment to take action in response to the royal commission, which uncovered too many instances of misconduct across the financial sector, and highlighted that industry practices were too often not meeting community expectations.
The new Financial Accountability Regime extends the existing banking sector responsibility and accountability framework to the insurance and superannuation sectors.
The regime ensures that where misconduct occurs and financial institutions act below community expectations appropriate consequences will follow.
I would now like to turn to the provisions of the bill.
The regime imposes heightened accountability obligations for prudentially regulated financial institutions; meaning banks, insurers, and superannuation entities. These institutions are referred to as accountable entities in the regime.
The regime also regulates directors and the most senior and influential executives of accountable entities, referred to as accountable persons in the regime.
The regime imposes four core sets of obligations. Firstly, accountable entities and accountable persons must conduct their business in a proper manner, which includes acting with honesty and integrity, and with due skill, care and diligence; dealing with Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in an open, constructive and cooperative way, preventing adverse impact on the accountable entities' prudential standing and preventing breaches of certain specified financial services laws by the accountable entity.
Further, accountable entities must ensure clear identification of accountabilities for accountable persons in the organisation across key areas of operations, and defer at least 40 per cent of the variable remuneration of accountable persons for a minimum period of four years. Variable remuneration will be reduced where accountability obligations are breached. Ensuring there are financial consequences for accountable persons who do not meet their obligations will increase their focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions.
The regime will be supported by the imposition of notification obligations which require accountable entities to provide APRA and ASIC with certain information such as information relating to the responsibilities of their accountable persons or breaches of certain obligations by the accountable entities or their accountable persons.
Both APRA and ASIC will jointly administer the regime. They will have the power to disqualify accountable persons, investigate suspected breaches of the regime, direct entities to take remedial action and apply to the Federal Court to impose a civil penalty on accountable entities.
The regime will commence from 1 July 2022 for banks, and from 1 July 2023 for superannuation entities and insurers.
Through this bill, the government is taking action to ensure that financial institutions operate in a manner that is consistent with community expectations.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 3) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tudge, for Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:55): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 3) Bill 2021 is part of a package that delivers on two of the remaining key commitments made by the government in response to the financial services royal commission.
Schedules 1 and 2 to the bill make minor and consequential amendments to various Commonwealth laws, including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998, Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and other industry Acts administered by APRA, to support the new Financial Accountability Regime, and provide transitional arrangements relating to the repeal of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, known as BEAR, under the Banking Act 1959.
Schedule 3 to the bill establishes a financial services compensation scheme of last resort to compensate consumers where the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has made a determination in their favour that remains unpaid. This bill is part of a package of three bills to establish and fund the compensation scheme of last resort, the CSLR.
The 2017 Ramsay review of the financial system external dispute resolution framework noted that existing redress arrangements are inadequate to ensure all consumers and small businesses are compensated for losses. The Ramsay review recommended the establishment of an industry funded and forward looking CSLR that targets the areas of the financial sector with the greatest evidence of need. This was supported by recommendation 7.1 of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
The bill establishes a CSLR consistent with the recommendations of the Ramsay review and extending the scheme beyond personal advice failures.
In particular, the scheme will pay compensation to claimants with an unpaid AFCA determination relating to the following four financial products or services: personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients, credit intermediation, securities dealing and credit provision, up to a cap of $150,000, which is consistent with the caps in operation under similar schemes in other jurisdictions.
The $150,000 compensation cap also balances the provision of compensation to claimants with scheme sustainability for those firms that are not responsible for the misconduct giving rise to the compensation being claimed but are nonetheless being required to pay for it.
Under the scheme, after a claimant has notified AFCA that their determination remains unpaid, AFCA will be required where appropriate to take steps to ensure the AFCA member pays the compensation owed. A defining element of the CSLR is that it would only provide compensation as a last resort where no other schemes are available to do so. The operator of the scheme will confirm that no other statutory arrangement, including a relevant state or territory statutory arrangement,is able to pay all or part of the determination.
If the CSLR compensates a claimant in relation to an eligible unpaid AFCA determination, ASIC will be required to cancel the financial firm's Australian financial service licence and/or Australian credit licence. This will incentivise licensees to meet their obligations in relation to AFCA determinations. It will also deter licensees from seeing the CSLR as an opportunity to avoid meeting those obligations. The operator of the CSLR will be a subsidiary of AFCA, limited by guarantee and operate on a not-for-profit basis. The scheme operator must administer the scheme in accordance with primary legislation and regulations and will be overseen by a board with an independent chair appointed by the minister, the AFCA Chair and an actuary with at least five-years experience in actuarial analysis.
Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified in relation to the bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Tudge.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (10:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2021 is one of two bills which form the levy framework for the financial services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR).
The framework imposes a levy on relevant industry entities to fund the CSLR on an ongoing basis.
An annual levy, to be first issued in January 2022, will raise the funds needed to operate the CSLR in advance of the financial year in which claims are to be paid.
The annual levy will be payable by entities who are members of a sub-sector that provides financial services that are within the scope of the CSLR.
The annual levy will cover the costs of administering the CSLR, including compensation amounts payable to applicants, associated Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) complaint handling fees and ongoing administrative costs for the CSLR operator and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
The method to determine the exact amount of annual levy payable by relevant industry entities who are members of a sub-sector will be prescribed in regulations and will be proportional to their size and draw on concepts already in place for similar calculations in the ASIC industry funding model.
Amounts to be paid by sub-sectors under the levy framework will be subject to caps. A cap of $10 million will apply for individual subsectors and is designed to provide assurance to relevant financial market sectors about the maximum amount expected to be levied. The overall scheme cap, which is the total amount that can be levied across industry in a single year, is $250 million. This amount is designed to allow the scheme to respond to significant and unforeseen 'black swan' events, such as the failure of a large financial firm, if they arise.
In addition to the annual levy, the levy framework provides for a one-off levy to be imposed in the 2022-23 financial year to fund compensation and costs expected to be payable for complaints lodged with AFCA by the date the bills were introduced into the House of Representatives. The one-off levy will be payable by the ten largest financial sector entities, excluding private health insurers and superannuation trustees.
More broadly, the levy framework provides the minister with flexibility to respond to higher than expected outlays, including 'black swan' events, by issuing special levies to in-scope and out-of-scope firms.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tudge.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (10:05): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2021 is one of two bills which form the levy framework for the financial services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, the CSLR.
The framework imposes a levy on relevant industry entities to fund the CSLR on an ongoing basis.
The levies consist of an annual levy, to be collected in advance of the financial year in which claims are to be paid and starting from January 2023, and a one-off levy to be imposed in the 2022-23 financial year.
Under the levy framework, the CSLR operator estimates the compensation and Australian Financial Complaints Authority complaint-handling costs to be paid out in the next financial year, as well as the costs of administering the scheme. These estimates then determine the total amount of levy to be paid by each subsector to meet expected outlays in the next financial year.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, will be responsible for issuing levy notices and collecting all levies imposed under the CSLR levy framework.
The bill provides ASIC with a range of powers to support its administration of the levy. These powers include the ability to seek information from relevant firms for the purpose of correctly calculating the firm's levy, the ability to impose penalties for late payment and the ability to impose a shortfall penalty where incorrect information has been provided.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tudge, for MrRobert.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (10:08): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
NDIS Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021
This bill implements the Morrison government's commitment to a focus on improving the experience and outcomes of people with disability who engage with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS.
This bill is the product of extensive consultation. The 2019 review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, known as the NDIS Act, undertaken by Mr David Tune, AO, PSM (the Tune review), made recommendations to improve the participant experience, including new standards and processes to support the delivery of the Participant Service Guarantee. Fourteen of these recommendations will be implemented through amendments presented in this bill, as well as through new and amended NDIS Rules.
Building on the extensive consultation undertaken during the Tune review, the government sought input from the disability sector on this bill through an exposure draft period, in which 313 submissions from individuals and organisations were received.
While the majority of feedback was positive, there were a number of small, but important, issues raised across the submissions. The government listened to this feedback and amended the bill prior to introduction.
Significantly, this bill delivers on the Morrison government's election commitment, by bringing a new Participant Service Guarantee into law.
The guarantee will mean that the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) must make decisions about a person's access to the scheme and their plans within certain timeframes. The guarantee will also require the NDIA to meet specific service standards when working with people with disability and their families and carers.
The NDIA will need to report on how well it is delivering each part of the Participant Service Guarantee, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman will be given powers to independently monitor and report to the government on how well the NDIA is improving the participant experience. This will provide greater clarity and transparency around decision-making, improving the experience for participants, their families and carers.
The bill adds three important additional general principles guiding actions under the act. The first recognises that people with disability are central to the NDIS and should be included in co-design of the scheme. The second gives recognition and respect to the relationship between people with disability and their carers. The third is the right to a diverse and sustainable market for disability supports so NDIS participants can exercise choice and control over those supports.
This bill also provides the NDIA with additional flexibility to assist participants where market challenges may otherwise prevent them from accessing supports. The bill enables the NDIA to provide funding for early intervention supports to children under seven as soon as possible. These changes give effect, in part, to recommendations 13 and 17 of the Tune review and ensure that participants have timely access to much-needed supports.
The bill is focused on making the NDIS experience better and more streamlined for participants. In response to a key concern of participants and Tune review recommendation 21, the NDIA will now be able to make quick changes to plans without needing to go through a full plan review. This will make it easier and faster for participants to get their NDIS supports. It will also be particularly helpful when a quote is needed for a support, and will mean adding the quoted amount to the plan will not result in a full plan review.
This bill clarifies that an episodic or fluctuating psychosocial disability can be considered permanent; it gives more protection to participants who want to use a registered plan management provider; and adds flexibility to how payments are made under the NDIS, enabling the NDIA to make direct payments on behalf of participants, in addition to current payment methods.
Another demonstration of how this bill puts people with disability at the centre of the NDIS is the revised criteria for appointing members to the NDIA Board. The revised criteria ensures that at least one person with disability or lived experience of disability is on the board, putting them at the centre of the scheme's decision-making.
An important aspect of this bill is that it will tidy up the legislation and make sure the law is up to date. This bill will delete provisions relating to things that have already happened, such as the trial and transition phases of the NDIS rollout. These are no longer relevant because the NDIS is available across all of Australia. Importantly, these changes will not impact people with disability.
Sitting alongside the NDIS legislation are the NDIS rules. Together, they make up the NDIS legislative framework.
As the bill changes the existing NDIS Act to make the NDIS more flexible and responsive, the government is also proposing to update the NDIS rules to give further effect to these proposals.
The government is proposing to create two new NDIS rules. These are:
The Participant Service Guarantee Rules; and
The Plan Administration Rules, which will include the new plan variation powers.
The Participant Service Guarantee Rules will give effect to recommendation 25 of the Tune review by setting timeframes for key NDIS processes, including access decisions, plan approvals and plan reassessments. These rules will also set engagement principles and service standards for how the NDIA works alongside people with disabilities. Importantly, these rules will also set details for the reporting and monitoring of the Participant Service Guarantee.
The Plan Administration Rules will give effect to recommendations 17, 20 and 21 of the Tune review by outlining when the NDIA can vary a plan without requiring a full plan reassessment or the creation of a new plan. These rules also outline when the NDIA will complete a plan reassessment, and when the NDIA can enter into alternative funding arrangements to help participants access their supports.
The Plan Administration Rules will also set out how and when NDIS funding is paid, the record-keeping requirements for funding, by both participants and NDIS providers, and specifies when a participant may leave Australia without impacting their NDIS funding, such as if a participant takes holiday or studies overseas.
The government is also proposing to amend two existing NDIS rules to reflect the amendments contained within this bill. These rules are the:
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Plan Management) Rules 2013
The Becoming a Participant Rules will be amended to reflect the provisions in the bill and recommendation 8 of the Tune review by setting out when a psychosocial disability may be regarded as permanent when someone is applying for the NDIS. The rules also remove information relating solely to the trial and transition period, including arrangements for each state and territory.
The Plan Management Rules will allow the NDIA to determine that a particular provider must not provide supports. This will protect participants from risks to their wellbeing and poor outcomes, and provide additional protections from providers with conflicts of interest and providers exercising undue influence over participants.
The Plan Management Rules will also outline factors giving rise to unreasonable risks for a participant to manage their own NDIS plan. This provides participants with the same protections as participants who want to use a registered plan management provider, or have their NDIS funding managed by a plan nominee or child representative.
Lastly, the government is proposing to update three NDIS rules to tidy them up and make sure they are up to date. These are the:
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Children) Rules 2013
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Nominees) Rules 2013; and
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020
The Children Rules and Nominee Rules will be updated to give effect to recommendation 27c of the Tune review, by reflecting best-practice drafting standards, removing unnecessary repetition and correcting drafting errors.
An existing definition will be moved into the Specialist Disability Accommodation Rules, but there is no change to existing policy relating to eligibility to receive support or funding for specialist disability accommodation.
The NDIS Act sets out the conditions under which NDIS rules can be made, including the level of agreement required by state and territory governments. Each of the NDIS rules outlined will be considered by states, territories and the Australian government, in line with their joint responsibility for managing and funding the NDIS.
In summary, this bill is the culmination of the representations from the disability sector, dedication from state and territory disability ministers to improving the scheme, and the Australian government's ongoing commitment to improve the experience for participants, their families and their carers.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Taylor, for Mr Morton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (10:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Bill 2021.
Elections are a critical part of Australia's system of representative government. It is vital to the continuing success of Australia's democracy that Australians are able to participate in the electoral process, and exercise their franchise safely, whatever the situation.
The bill futureproofs the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, by enabling the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to duly conduct elections in situations where a Commonwealth emergency declaration is in place.
The measures in this bill respond to recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' Report of the inquiry on the future conduct of elections operating during times of emergency situations.
This morning I also table the government's response to the report.
Modification powers
The bill introduces powers for the Electoral Commissioner to make limited operational modifications to the Electoral Act by legislative instrument where a Commonwealth emergency law is in force, to a region or sub-region covered by the emergency law.
The modification powers granted to the Electoral Commissioner are limited to the following in the specified emergency area:
Expanding the grounds on which a person can apply for postal or pre-poll vote;
Extending the period during which applications for pre-poll votes may be made to a pre-poll voting officer;
Adjusting the number of scrutineers a group of candidates is entitled to be represented by at a Senate scrutiny being undertaken in an emergency area;
The bill also enables the Electoral Commissioner to allow persons to travel or be present for campaigning activities within 100 metres of a polling place, and actions under the Electoral Act such as the ballot draw or attend the scrutiny.
These modification powers can only be exercised when a Commonwealth emergency law is in force and the emergency interferes with the safe conduct of an election. Modifications will also be limited to the specified geographical area affected by the emergency. The specified area can be a subset of the area affected by the emergency law.
Before making a modification, the Electoral Commissioner will be required to notify the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in writing, including the reasons why any modifications are considered necessary.
The Electoral Commissioner will also be required to publish the legislative instrument detailing these modifications on the AEC website as well as the Federal Register of Legislation.
This modification power can only be in effect for as long as the Commonwealth emergency law is in force or until the return of the writs for the election, whichever occurs first.
Temporary suspension and adjournment of the polling
The bill amends the existing power to adjourn or temporarily suspend the polling by uplifting the decision-making authority from the presiding officer of each polling place to the Electoral Commissioner.
This amendment aligns the power to temporarily suspend or adjourn polling with the decision-making authority of the Electoral Commissioner, reflecting the significance of the decision to adjourn or suspend polling as a measure of last resort.
Where polling has been adjourned, the commencement of the scrutiny of House of Representatives votes for that division will be delayed until the close of polls for the adjourned polling place.
While the scrutiny of Senate ballots can proceed, the release of any information about the Senate election in a division where polling has been adjourned will also be prohibited. This prohibition is lifted following the close of polls at the adjourned polling.
This is to protect the integrity of the election result by ensuring electors can cast their vote free from the influence of any indicative results which may have otherwise been released.
Postal Voting
This bill also provides additional flexibility for the AEC when printing postal vote certificates, to assist in managing the heightened demand for postal votes along with supply chain disruptions that can occur in emergency situations.
The bill also amends the deadline for the receipt of postal vote applications from the Wednesday three days before polling day to the Tuesday four days before polling. This will provide extra time for the delivery of postal vote ballot papers to electors to ensure they can vote on or before polling day.
These amendments safeguard electors' ability to cast a postal vote in an emergency situation if they are unable to attend a polling place.
Conclusion
These amendments will assist the AEC to conduct safe, efficient and timely elections, and ensure continued public confidence in Australian elections.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Taylor, for Mr Morton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (10:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I introduce the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021.
The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918(Electoral Act) and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984(Referendum Act) to implement the government's response to voting identification recommendations arising from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) inquiries into the conduct of recent elections.
The bill will further improve public confidence in the integrity of Australian elections, and reduce the risk of fraud in the form of voter impersonation by requiring voters to present identification documentation prior to receiving a ballot paper during pre-polling, and at polling locations on polling day.
The measures in this bill will bring Australia into line with voter identification practices of other liberal democracies, such as Canada and Sweden, and with other everyday activities in Australia that require proof of identification, such as driving, opening a bank account, or collecting a parcel from the post office.
This bill changes the existing requirement under the Electoral Act and Referendum Act for a voter to identify their name and address verbally, to a requirement to provide a proof of identity document.
The bill includes a broad range of options for voters to verify their identity by proof of identity document, including:
current photographic ID, such as a drivers licence, passport, or proof of age card;
government-issued identification card or documentation, such as a Medicare card, birth certificate, citizenship certificate or Australian Electoral Commission(AEC)-issued enrolment confirmation notice;
recent proof of name, such as a utilities account statement, taxation notice of assessment, bank account statement, mobile phone account notice;
a credit card or debit card; or
a document issued by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land council or native title body.
These forms of proof of identity can also be provided in electronic form—such as a digital drivers licence on a mobile phone.
No voter will be denied a vote because they do not have a proof of identity document. There are two options for voters who do not have a proof of identity document when they go to vote:
the voter can have their identity attested to by another enrolled person who has a proof of identity document, using an approved form; or
the voter will be issued with a declaration vote.
An attester to the identity of another voter must show a proof of identity document to a polling official. They must also complete an approved form which records the attester's full name, enrolled address, details of the identity document utilised, and the name of the voter whose identity is being attested. Both the attester and the voter must sign the approved form. The form is to be retained as evidence by the AEC, in case of any suspected instance of multiple voting.
There are already checks and balances used by the AEC to verify the identity of a person casting a declaration vote, as well as safeguards to prevent multiple voting.
It is also consistent with other everyday activities that require proof of identification, such as driving, opening a bank account, or—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Order! Enough, please.
Mr TAYLOR: collecting a parcel from the post office. To ensure privacy is protected, a voter's proof of identity document must only be used by the AEC to establish the voter's identity.
The requirement to present a proof of identity document will not apply to electronically assisted voting, otherwise known as 'telephone voting', which is used by vision-impaired voters and Antarctic electors.
Postal voting, as a form of declaration voting with its own rigorous preliminary scrutiny processes, will also be exempt from these requirements.
This bill will also replicate amendments to the Electoral Act in the referendum act, to maintain consistency between the two acts.
The government has committed additional funding of $5.6 million to the AEC to implement these measures, including communication and community engagement activities to inform voters about electoral participation with these new requirements.
These changes will help to safeguard the integrity of Australian elections and referendums by reducing the potential for voter impersonation and provide additional assurance to Australia's free and fair elections.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:31):
I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
I ask that the question on the adjournment and the relisting of the item be put separately.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Mr BURKE: I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the first sitting after 1 January 2023".
The effect of this is simple. The effect of this motion is to put beyond the next election an attempt, on the eve of an election, to deny people a vote. Let's not mince words about what this is about. We know exactly what this is. This is about undermining support for the democracy here. It's about the exact tactics that we saw from Donald Trump. That's what this government's doing. They wait for the eve of an election, they wait for the final months leading up to an election, and they take one of their far-right-wing ideas—to try to deny people a vote—and whack it in front of the parliament right now
Let's make no mistake about who gets affected by this. People who are homeless and who are poor get affected by this. People who live in remote communities get affected by this. People who are elderly, who have given up their drivers licences, get affected by this. Everybody who turns up and sees endless queues on polling day gets affected by this. There is one outcome: the government is trying to make sure that fewer people vote.
Well, we happen to have a bit of faith in the Australian people, and our position is really simple: we want Australians to vote in Australian elections. That didn't use to be controversial, but in the last 24 hours, on the eve of an election, they've decided that's going to be a partisan point. Well, if you want to go to the next election telling Australians you want barriers between them and the ballot box, you're making it clear right here, right now. The Prime Minister, about to scoot off overseas, leaves this until the last day, because everything about this is about denying scrutiny. It's a desperate attempt to undermine the democracy we have in Australia.
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
After the last election, after millions of Australians voted, the AEC then did the check to work out if there was a problem with the integrity. Guess how many people ended up being prosecuted? Zero. Zero! So, for the sake of fixing a problem involving no Australians, the government want to stand in the way of thousands of Australians voting. This should be put off till well after the election.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:35): I second the amendment. Let's be very, very clear about this. This is just an exercise in voter suppression—nothing more, nothing less. It's designed to deny Australians the legitimate right to vote in our democracy. It's part of a piece. I have railed in this chamber on a number of occasions against the way in which this government has dealt with people who are trying to enrol to vote—where they were attempting to deny people the right to enrol, let alone get a vote. And what we are seeing now is a second part of that piece: 'We've denied the right to vote by not having you enrolled, and now what we want to do is make sure that, when you turn up to the voting place, you don't get to exercise your right to vote in our democracy.' That's what this is about.
I'm sick to the back teeth. I've been here 33 bloody years and I've never seen anything like this. It's racist, it's discriminatory and it's all about suppression. Don't shake your head, because that's what it's about. You have no idea. I know what will happen in my electorate. People from remote communities will turn up to the polling booth to vote, if they're lucky enough to be on the roll, and be asked, 'Do you have a piece of identification?' 'No.' 'Does the person next to you have a piece of identification?' 'No.' 'Well, they can't verify your identification because they don't have their own.' This is a farce, an absolute assault on our democracy.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The House divided. [10:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:47): The question now is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
The House divided. [10:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
MOTIONS
Electoral Roll
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (10:48): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) voter fraud is a "vanishingly small" issue in Australia according to the AEC;
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right. The minister for education.
Mr ALBANESE: I continue:
(b) there were no—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the opposition will just resume his seat. The minister for education will cease interjecting. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will begin again.
Mr ALBANESE: Thanks, Mr Speaker. I move:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) voter fraud is a "vanishingly small" issue in Australia according to the AEC;
(b) there were no prosecutions for multiple voting at the last election;
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar is warned!
Mr ALBANESE: I continue:
(c) on the eve of an election, the Morrison-Joyce Government is trying to ram through a bill to stop Australians voting;
(d) this is a desperate attempt to undermine our strong democracy and deny Australians their basic democratic rights;
(e) the Morrison-Joyce Government is trying to bring the politics and tactics of Trump's America into Australian democracy; and
(f) the bill will mean Australians who vote in the next election will spend even more of their weekend waiting in long lines stretching around the block to vote; and
(2) discharges Government business notice number 6 relating to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 from the Notice Paper.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Dutton: Leave is not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) voter fraud is a "vanishingly small" issue in Australia according to the AEC;
(b) there were no prosecutions for multiple voting at the last election;
(c) on the eve of an election, the Morrison-Joyce Government is trying to ram through a bill to stop Australians voting;
(d) this is a desperate attempt to undermine our strong democracy and deny Australians their basic democratic rights;
(e) the Morrison-Joyce Government is trying to bring the politics and tactics of Trump's America into Australian democracy; and
(f) the bill will mean Australians who vote in the next election will spend even more of their weekend waiting in long lines stretching around the block to vote; and
(2) discharges Government business notice number 6 relating to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 from the Notice Paper.
Our Prime Minister was the only world leader who didn't condemn those attacks on the Capitol Building.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (10:51): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:57): Is the motion seconded?
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:57): This is a shameful attempt to undermine the democratic rights of Australians to vote. It's a shameful, gutless attempt—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
Mr Dutton: I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Lingiari be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:00): They don't want people voting, because they are scared of the election. The Morrison-Joyce government—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr DUTTON ( Dickson —Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) ( 11:00 ): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put. The minister for education will cease interjecting. He mightn't be aware his mask is not on properly.
The House divided. [11:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (11:02): The question now is that the motion moved by the honourable Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
The House divided. [11:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Taylor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill 2021. This bill responds to recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto and amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to assure the security, accuracy and transparency of the computerised scrutiny of Senate votes.
The bill also makes technical amendments to streamline the process for counting Senate ballots in computerised scrutiny and to clarify the procedure for resolving ties between candidates.
Security assurance
This bill requires the Electoral Commissioner to arrange for a security risk assessment of the systems used for the computerised scrutiny of votes in a Senate election. The assessment must be conducted by an independent provider who is accredited by the Australian Signals Directorate.
The assessment must be conducted before a Senate election and following the assessment the Electoral Commissioner must publish a statement on the Australian Electoral Commission's website advising of its completion.
Ballot paper sampling
This bill further requires the Electoral Commissioner to assure the accuracy of the computerised scrutiny of Senate votes by arranging a statistically significant sample of ballot papers to be checked during course of the scrutiny at each counting centre. This will compare the electronic data captured by the computerised count with physical ballot papers.
The Electoral Commissioner must publish the methodology to be used for the ballot sampling process and the process used for reconciling preferences before the election as well as the outcomes of the sampling process after the election.
This ballot sampling process is not part of the scrutiny for the election. However, for transparency, scrutineers may inspect this process.
Right of scrutineers to access ballot papers
Candidate scrutineers play an important role in ensuring the transparency and integrity of Australia's electoral system. This bill grants scrutineers the right to request a physical ballot paper to be recalled during the computerised scrutiny of Senate votes in cases where the scrutineer makes a challenge that is unable to be resolved on the scanned computer image of the ballot paper. This will allow the challenge to be resolved on the original physical ballot paper.
Only an Australian electoral officer, a Commonwealth statutory office holder, may refuse a scrutineer's request. This request can be refused only if it would unreasonably delay the scrutiny of votes due to multiple instances of frivolous or vexatious behaviour on account of the scrutineer and where such behaviour could risk the return of the writs prior to the 1 July commencement of Senate terms.
Counting votes and publishing information
The bill also makes a technical amendment to how ties between continuing candidates in a Senate election are resolved. This is to address any unintended results that may occur in the rare case of a tie between three or more candidates. It also ensures that in instances where two or more candidates are in an unbreakable tie during the count, that the exclusions are determined 'by lot', as occurs in the House of Representatives.
The bill further amends the act to clarify that the 'bulk exclusion' process is not required to be used in the computerised scrutiny process. The 'bulk exclusion' process simplifies the manual counting of Senate ballot papers, but is unnecessary in a computerised count.
To support transparency and public confidence in electoral outcomes, the bill requires the Electoral Commissioner to publish detailed data on votes and preferences in a Senate election within seven days after the return of the writs.
Accuracy assurance
This bill also requires, the Electoral Commissioner to arrange for an independent accuracy assessment of the counting software used in the computerised scrutiny of Senate votes.
This highly technical assessment is to provide the public with confidence that the software used distributes preferences and counts votes in accordance with the processes set out in the Electoral Act.
The Electoral Commissioner must publish a statement on the Australian Electoral Commission's website advising the software accuracy assessment has been completed, and to advise whether the accuracy of the software has been assured to the appropriate standard.
No more than seven days before the election, the Electoral Commissioner must publicly verify that the software to be used in the computerised Senate scrutiny is the assured version, and must further advise of any variations to the software within seven days of the return of the writ.
Conclusion
This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to supporting voter confidence in election processes and the legitimacy of election results, which is essential to the integrity of Australia's democracy.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021
Reference to Committee
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (11:12): On behalf of the Treasurer, I move:
That the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report by 19 November 2021.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee
Report
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:13): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Mobile payment and digital wallet financial services.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr WALLACE: by leave—Australia's payment ecosystem is of a foundational importance to Australia's economy and society, supporting around 55 million payments, worth up to $650 billion, each day. The system is highly complex and is evolving rapidly. New platforms and technologies are changing the ways in which consumers and businesses transact, with mobile payment predicted to become the most popular contactless way for Australians to pay by the end of 2021. A growing number of powerful multinational technology firms are playing increasingly central roles within Australia's payments architecture, often with little regulatory oversight. The global reach and market dominance of these so-called 'fintechs' has left Australian businesses and consumers using their platforms and services with little influence and few opportunities to negotiate favourable agreements.
The committee's self-referred inquiry began in March this year, aiming to explore these imbalances in bargaining power operating between providers of mobile payment digital wallet services and the merchants, vendors and consumers who rely upon them. The committee looked to assess the adequacy and performance of Australia's regulatory regime compared to the rest of the world, and the implications of mobile payment and digital wallets for competition and consumer protection.
The committee received 23 public submissions, as well as a range of confidential correspondence and answers to questions on notice. Public hearings were held on 26 and 27 July of this year. The committee found that much of the existing legislation governing the payment space is predicated on outstanding structures and systems, while the effectiveness of the multitude of regulators covering the payments ecosystem has been undermined by outdated concepts of what constitutes a payment platform. These gaps have allowed some of the most important players in the system to operate outside the reach of our regulators.
The committee therefore recommends that the Department of the Treasury report to parliament on gaps in the current self-regulatory model and provide policy advice on the merits of regulating payment platform providers as participants in the payments ecosystem. The committee also calls for the definition of a payments system within key regulations to be expanded to encompass new and emerging payments technologies, and recommends that the Reserve Bank of Australia be given additional powers to request information from mobile payment platform providers related to their fees and costs.
Evidence before the committee suggested that anti-competitive practices, such as restricting third-party access to key technology, may be jeopardising consumer choice, stifling innovation and driving up payment costs. Equally, the breadth of access to sensitive consumer information concentrated in technology companies and the potential for misuse of transaction data concerned the committee. As such, the report recommends that the current inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into Apple Pay consider these matters as part of their investigations.
The committee also heard extensive evidence on Least Cost Routing, a process where merchants rout transactions through the card scheme that attracts the lowest costs. This capability is not currently supported for mobile payments, often driving up the costs of acceptance for merchants and, ultimately, consumers. The committee welcomed the further attention from regulatory agencies on this issue but, at this time, remains unconvinced that legislation is required to mandate Least Cost Routing for mobile payments.
Throughout the inquiry, it was emphasised to the committee that the rapid evolution of Australia's payments ecosystem is likely to continue. The committee believes it is therefore critical that our legislation, regulators and regulatory approaches are nimble and flexible enough to adapt to the future of the sector. The committee considers: first, that legislation and regulations must be updated to keep pace with practice, and become as technology-neutral as possible; second, that the coverage of existing voluntary codes of practice should be expanded and closely monitored; and, third, that new powers should be vested in the government to allow it to designate firms as participants in the payments system, to ensure that they fall under the existing legislation.
The committee would like to thank the individuals and organisations who contributed to this inquiry by preparing written submissions and giving evidence at public hearings. As well, I would like to single out the outstanding performance of this committee's secretariat, led by Dr Patrick Hodder and Mr Jon Bell, Ash Clements, Shelby Bassett and Ele Fionga—without their dedication this committee would not be able to do its work. I commend the report to the House.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:19): by leave—I will pick up where the chair left off, and acknowledge the good work of the secretariat. I also thank the chair for his leadership of the inquiry. I think everyone got a fair say and the evidence was robust and well tested.
The chair said that there was a dissenting report; we tried to style it as 'dissenting comments' in that the Labor members who have signed these dissenting comments agree with the vast bulk of the report and back in the comments the chair has made, even in his tabling statement. So I want to outline on behalf of all Labor members and the deputy chair, who can't be here today, the four areas where we don't agree with the committee's findings and issue these dissenting comments, but overall the report is robust and the recommendations are supported.
The first one relates to the government's poor track record. They are in their ninth year, and there is an optimistic sentence in the report, at 473, where they say:
with the release of the Farrell Review, the committee is cautiously optimistic that much-needed reforms are progressing.
Labor members of the committee don't share the government's unfounded optimism that urgently needed action on payments policy and regulation may finally happen. Whilst we may hope for action, the government is in its ninth year and they've received yet another review but they haven't done anything with the years of reviews they already have. During that time, as the chair well outlined, the payments landscape has transformed rapidly with the rise of Google Pay, Apple Pay and Buy Now Pay Later. It's been transformed in the terms of this government. But the government has received multiple reports over eight years with increasingly urgent recommendations for change, yet has implemented few to none of those reforms. The stored value facility recommendation, to use that as a case study, was recommended to the Abbott government in the 2014 financial system Murray inquiry, then again in the 2018 Productivity Commission report into competition and financial services, by the Council of Financial Regulators in 2020 and now the 2021 Farrell review. The government's done nothing for eight years with these recommendations, so excuse the Labor members if we don't share your optimism that now something might happen. I do note Scott Farrell completed two previous inquiries for this government, the first of which has been responded to, but the government hasn't even responded to his previous inquiry received in October last year and released in December, so I think the context is important. But, look, if something happens, that's terrific.
The second point is the need to avoid the politicisation of payments regulation. Recommendation 1 of the report calls for Treasury to exhibit 'leadership' in the payments space. We're not convinced that payments policy and regulation should be led by Treasury under this Treasurer. We do agree that the Treasury clearly needs to enhance its capability and capacity to engage in this. Their performance at the public hearings was woeful; it really was. But, as the chair has kindly written in the report, we'll sheet that home to the systemic issues in Treasury and not the poor bunnies who happened to appear on the day. But we do risk a very different approach under this Treasurer if payments policy is rested off the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, as the government is trying to do. There have been media reports that the well-respected head of payments from the Reserve Bank has quit and that the government's looking to take the entire payments division from the Reserve Bank, where it's been, and put it under the political control of the Treasurer in the Treasury. We've seen this Treasurer's decision-making record—delays, capriciousness, accommodation of vested interest close to the Liberal Party. He has again and again failed to put the interests of consumers first and ensure appropriate policies. So, in our view, significant regulatory changes are absolutely urgently needed in the payments space—there's no doubt—to set the system up for the future, and they may well need to be designed outside, or at least with, the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Reserve Bank is characterised by a very cautious, prudent evolutionary culture. That's probably what you want in a reserve bank, and it might not be the best culture to do rapid policy change, but there may be benefit in allowing payments policy still to be led by an independent regulator or body outside of the direct control of the Treasurer and hence impervious to vested interest, lobbyists, rent-seeking behaviour and politicisation.
The third point, which is of great public interest I know, is access to Apple's NFC chip. It's a controversial issue which has vexed parliaments and regulators across the world. Government members conclude:
the committee does not recommend Apple be forced to grant direct operating-system-level third-party access to its NFC antenna at this time—
going on to note the ACCC's examination of this issue now. Labor members—and we've thought about this carefully—consider the onus needs to be reversed. This is really important. The default position should be a presumption of open access of critical hardware on reasonable commercial terms, and this should include Apple.
Parliament is no stranger to these regulatory issues. Sectors such as the railways, telecommunications and ports have long had regulatory architecture and access regimes to promote competition and innovation and prevent unfair or uncompetitive use of market power or dominance. A reasonable analogy, if you like, is the telecommunications network infrastructure where the network cables that send the signals are subject to open access regulation that the parliament has put in place. This is our point of principle: the presumption of parliament and regulators should be in favour of open access regimes on reasonable commercial terms to maximise competition and innovation, and it should then be up to Apple or any other handset manufacturer to argue why they should be an exception. Of course there can still be controls for security and privacy, and it's acknowledged that new payments technology—we understand QR codes are coming into supermarkets later this year—may mitigate or reduce competitive concerns about Apple's behaviour in banning third-party access to the NFC chip, but Apple can make these arguments to the ACCC.
The final point: recommendation 13, regarding BNPL, is vague and unnecessarily obtuse. We can't go into what happened in the committee, so that will remain a mystery, but industry self-regulation via the BNPL code of practice has been a reasonable approach to date as the sector has developed and matured. But industry self-regulation of BNPL is unlikely to be appropriate forever, and there's a prima facie and growing case for fit-for-purpose regulation of the BNPL sector to entrench consumer protections, to ensure that credit providers are placed on a fair regulatory playing field and promote competition and reduction in fees. Interestingly, on Friday the Reserve Bank saw fit to land a report about merchant surcharging in the BNPL sector. I think it, in some sense, contradicts aspects of the report and backs up this view in favour of competition and consumer regulation and transparency.
This should be the subject of a focused inquiry in the next term of parliament, and it would have been preferable if the committee had simply said so. I will leave it there. I commend the rest of the report, and again thank the chair for his work leading this inquiry.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 66th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:26): I present the Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 66th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, virtual meeting, from 18 to 23 November 2020.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) (11:27): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Holt, resigning from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In accordance with the Intelligence Services Act 2001 the honourable member for Goldstein ceased to be a member of the committee on his appointment to the ministry. I have also received advice from the honourable the Prime Minister nominating members to be members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (11:28): by leave—I move:
That,in accordance with the provisions of theIntelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Wallace and Mr Khalil be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
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 urges the Government to improve the bill as recommended by Government Senators on the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, and to ensure safety for workers and benefits for local communities".
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (11:29): I am in continuation. There are a lot of reasons why offshore wind must be harnessed for the good of our country. In the long run there is potential not just to generate electricity for us here in Australia but also to export that energy into other countries. There is potential for export to Southeast Asia. The rest of the world is already taking advantage. Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, has pledged that by 2030 wind farms could power every home in the UK. Imagine that for Australia. One of the already proposed offshore wind farm projects in Victoria is the Star of the South, off the Gippsland coast. If built, it would have the potential to supply up to 20 per cent of the state's energy, or energy for around 1.2 million homes. That's 1.2 million homes that would get the power for their heating, their washing machines, their microwaves guilt free from the gusts that blow around our state. And I tell you it is very windy there in Gippsland. What I find amazing is that one turn of a wind turbine provides as much energy as a solar panel out in the sun for one day. They're big turbines, and these turbines turn 15 times a minute. If you multiply the number of turbines in the installation, it gives you an idea of the scale.
But the other story of offshore wind is the jobs that it creates. It is labour intensive: you have the construction phase and the maintenance. And, because they are offshore, the workers cannot swim there. Well, maybe some of us can, but certainly it is not practical, so they have to be taken there by a crew, so this creates maritime jobs and port jobs. Estimates suggest that the offshore wind industry could create as many as 8,000 jobs each year from 2030, and these jobs will be created in areas that are going through economic change and transition, like the Hunter Valley, Gippsland, Latrobe, Illawarra and in Central Queensland. Twenty-six thousand people already work in the offshore wind industry in the United Kingdom. Another 70,000 are coming on board by 2026. In Australia, green energy partners have two projects they are looking to start exploratory work on off the Illawarra and off Newcastle. They want to use Port Kembla as a construction hub. The government likes to talk about technology not taxes, but here we see them late to the game yet again. They're always late, always laggards, when it comes to offshore wind technology.
There are some issues with the bill that we don't feel are adequately addressed. The Senate committee examining the bill, including government senators who lead the committee, made some suggestions that it considered important to legislation. These include amending the objects clause to better incorporate electricity transmission and exports, and an amendment on the consultation requirements for declared areas. And the government should consider amendments to the changes in control provisions. These three suggestions were made by government as well as non-government senators on the relevant committee. It's surprising, then, that the minister has so far decided not to listen to his own colleagues. It's becoming a pattern, where even government members of various committees make recommendations or support recommendations and the minister ignores them.
We are also concerned about the bills' work health and safety framework. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonised national WHS laws in the bills. Instead, the committee heard the government has amended those laws into an unrecognisable state. Without a harmonisation of these WHS frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker would be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while working on the offshore renewable project. That poses confusion and risks for both workers and employers. Another concern we have is that the bills do not require local benefits to be included in merit criteria for licenses. When the minister of the day is considering whether to grant an offshore electricity licence, he or she should be required to consider benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people. Currently, the bills, as they stand, do not do this. We would welcome an amendment to ensure benefits for local communities where these new industries will be situated.
Despite these concerns, I am shocked to see the government's change of attitude on wind farms. Once upon a time they were too noisy and unappealing to look at: that was the narrative that the government was pushing. And it's flip-flopped all over the place on this. It's only taken the government eight years to finally make a decision on climate change policy, and after all the melodrama we've seen over the last couple of days—the infighting, the scare tactics, the huffing and puffing in the Nationals party room. All that hot air in the Nationals—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KHALIL: Well I could feel it when I walked past in the corridor, there was so much hot air coming out of there! And then the government rocked up with a reheated policy announcement from last year, talking points that the Prime Minister delivered just reheated from last year's so-called technology roadmap. He whacked it on a PowerPoint and he thought that, by doing that, 'Oh, I can call it plan'—and I think he mentioned 'plan' about 94 times in his speech. This so-called plan is as hollow as the Prime Minister. It shows a lack of conviction. Also, the so-called plan is as shambolic as the Deputy Prime Minister, who is flip-flopping all over the place, wanting to be both the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and a rebel against the government—a rebel with a cause against his own government. Talk about schizophrenia; talk about not knowing who you are! Ultimately this government acts in its own self-interest when it comes to climate change policy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I will interrupt the member for the moment. The minister?
Mr Howarth: Just in relation to that last comment, he linked the Deputy Prime Minister and then used a word which could reflect on him. I would ask him to withdraw that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to withdraw that particular reference.
Mr KHALIL: I withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. The member has the call.
Mr KHALIL: The substantive point is that the government have a track record in maintaining their self-interest above all else—their interest in maintaining their power. They are not using the political power that they have in the executive to implement policies in the interests of the Australian people. They are not doing it in the interests of Australia or even the interests of the rest of the world when it comes to what is clearly a global problem in reducing emissions. That's probably why it has taken so long to get even a whisper out of them, or even a policy, or similar to a policy, out of them, and even then it is a zero plan when it comes to net zero emissions.
Unlike that mob over there, unlike the government, we on this side of the House believe—we have conviction—in a set of policies that will make a difference. It is the right thing for Australian jobs, it is the right thing for our climate and our environment and it's the right thing for future generations. We are committed to climate policy for those reasons. It's not about us; it's about the future generations. It's about what is important for Australians today and into the future. And it is not because it is politically expedient either; these are hard decisions that have to be made.
For all the talk and criticism of Labor, on the opposition benches, we are still in opposition, but we are a party that can form government. We are an alternative government to the Australian people, and we have policies that will take action on climate change—real, substantive action on climate change. It is about Australia being brought back into the community of nations who will fight the good fight on this global issue. Unlike the Liberal Party and The Nationals, whose policies are not really based on scientific evidence but on a lot of hot air, we base our assessments, our analysis and our policy work on the science. That's why we committed to net zero emissions by 2050. That's why we committed years ago. That's why we will have more ambitious targets. If elected, we will invest in electric cars to make them cheaper—a critically important transition. We will invest in 10,000 new energy apprenticeship jobs, because it is about jobs and the opportunities that come with renewable energy. We will invest in hundreds of community batteries to power hundreds of thousands of households around this country. And the Leader of the Labor Party has already announced $20 billion to rewire, rebuild and modernise the electricity grid for the renewable energy age. That's the future we are investing in and committing to.
As I said, it is about future generations. It's about what is important for Australians. For Australians, it's about us making us a renewable energy superpower. We have the assets and we have the resources. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources, and we're not taking those opportunities. That's a failure. Offshore wind is part of that future and part of that investment in new jobs, in new industries driving our economy and in a reliable, affordable, clean energy future for our children and our grandchildren. Only the Labor Party, when it forms government, will make this happen for Australians and for our future generations. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I think the member for Gippsland will wait for us; so I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (11:39): Many decades ago, Bob Dylan sang, 'The answer is blowing in the wind,' and, in terms of solutions to drive renewable energy to lower energy costs and be able to manufacture more things here, indeed the answer is blowing in the wind. The answer is also in the sky—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): My apologies. I will just interrupt the Leader of the Opposition for a moment. The member has a point of order?
Mr Chester: On a point of order: I took to my feet to seek the call, and the call would normally alternate. I have no problems with the member for Grayndler making a contribution; I just wanted to make sure that I would have the opportunity to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay. After the Leader of the Opposition, we will go to you and then to the member for Kingston, who will speak virtually.
Mr Chester: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I didn't want to delay the House, but thank you for that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for the clarification.
Mr ALBANESE: If the member for Gippsland gives a character assessment of the Deputy Prime Minister again, we might even hang around to listen to the member for Gippsland on this issue! The answer is blowing in the wind, but it's also in the sky, in the form of the sun. Today we were at a community solar farm run by a cooperative here, just off Majura Road. That is powering 260 homes here in the ACT. This legislation is a recognition by the government—perhaps belatedly, in the pre-election period—that maybe there is something in this renewable energy stuff after all. The Prime Minister, of course, said that renewable energy targets were nuts. He also said that the use of electric vehicles would end the weekend, and he also said that batteries, which of course can store renewable energy, are as useful as the Big Banana or the Big Prawn. He was vociferous in his opposition to net zero by 2050, and he continued to run scare campaigns.
It's interesting that, in spite of the fact that some of the rhetorical position has changed on net zero by 2050—to which wind energy, including offshore wind, can make a major contribution—the Prime Minister continues to try to run a scare campaign at the same time. The big problem for the government in electorates like Mackellar, North Sydney, Higgins, Goldstein and Kooyong is that he undermines the pretence of caring about renewable energy and a transition to a clean energy future by the absurd scare campaign which, at the same time, he's trying to run. So he's trying to do both, and that will not be effective, because they're onto him.
We think that this bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, is a good idea. We'll be voting for it. We called for it a long time ago. This nation has abundant wind resources, and we should be delivering a framework for their exploitation at the earliest opportunity. We have the opportunity to be a renewable energy superpower for the world, as Saudi Arabia is for fossil fuels. We see that with wind projects like Big Kennedy and Little Kennedy in the electorate of the member for Kennedy. I travelled there with Bob Katter, looking at those jobs, which are driving growth in regional towns like Hughenden. When you go into a town like Hughenden and you go to the pub there, as I have done with Bob Katter, you see people who've grown up and lived in that community, some for generations, and who, with projects like Big Kennedy and Little Kennedy—which is particularly appropriate, as the wind comes down the cape and off the gulf—are positioned in such a way as to really maximise the economic benefit.
Or you go to Kidston, a project in which an old, abandoned mine is being used for hydro storage. If you look at the major solar projects that we looked at in North Queensland, you know that there is enormous opportunity with renewables to create jobs, to lower energy prices and, therefore, to make us more competitive. But not for those opposite. The latest example of the childish nonsense they carry on with occurred yesterday, when we saw the Prime Minister putting a mobile phone up here, as if there are people in this parliament who oppose mobile phones. It's a bizarre position that he finds himself in.
I'll give him the big tip as he goes to Glasgow, the town which gave the world Billy Connolly. They do have a sense of humour, but they won't laugh in a positive way—they will laugh in an uncomfortable way—if he starts to do some of the nonsensical, rhetorical positioning that we saw in the announcement, or nonannouncement, on Tuesday, which included no new policies and 94 mentions of plans without actually producing a plan. This is the last opportunity today for him to produce the modelling, which he says has been done. We don't see what that modelling is. How does offshore wind fit into the model that the government has, for example?
All we got on Tuesday were two new initiatives. One was the promotion of the minister for resources into the cabinet and an increase in his salary—the minister for resources who has been out there saying that renewables don't work when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, who apparently hasn't heard of batteries and who, as I've said, must get a real shock when he turns on the tap and water flows out, even though it's not raining outside. This must be seen as another miracle for those opposite. That's one of the two initiatives that we've seen.
The second initiative, of course, is that the Productivity Commission is going to have a review every five years. They'll produce a document saying how it's all going. That does show that they've got a sense of humour, because the Deputy Prime Minister, who trumpets this as one of the big breakthroughs that were got by the National Party, has said that he uses Productivity Commission reports 'when I run out of toilet paper'. That is the respect that he's given to the Productivity Commission. Now he says: 'Guess what people in regional Australia? I won't show you the modelling. I won't show you any of the detail. I won't attend the press conference with the Prime Minister, but I've got you a Productivity Commission report.' It's quite extraordinary.
The truth is, though, that, if we harness renewable energy, we need to do it in an appropriate way. I don't support wind farms off every coast. There's obviously a whole range of projects that would be entirely inappropriate. But, with this government, who knows? The PEP 11 project—the idea that you'd have oil drilling off the coasts of the electorate of the member for Kingsford Smith; Maroubra Beach; Terrigal; the beautiful Avoca Beach, on the Central Coast; Merewether, in Newcastle; Manly; Freshwater and Dee Why is anathema. Similarly, even though offshore wind wouldn't produce the same level of damage to the pristine environment that something like oil drilling might, it wouldn't be appropriate to have offshore wind in those sites either. But who knows with this government? Who knows where this could go?
When you are so obsessed with being defined by what you're against, it's difficult to advance in a way in which you actually promote support for what you're for.
That's why, after nine years, this legislation—just like everything else this government does—is too late. They have denied this nation first-mover advantage over that nine years of inaction. So we do need to catch up. Around the world, more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity are in operation, with expected increases to 80 gigawatts by 2030 and 2,000 gigawatts by 2050. Australia's entire national energy market now, in comparison, is about 55 gigawatts. There are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia and appropriate sites that could power substantial parts of our country—and create jobs; that is important.
I'll give you the big tip as well about what we need to do, which is fix the grid. That's what our Rewiring the Nation proposal will do—a $20 billion fund to make sure that we actually plug in the energy that's being created so that you have the most efficient operation of the grid. If you speak to anyone in the energy sector they'll tell you that this is the most significant thing you can do to drive down our emissions, but it will also drive down energy prices and make the system operate more efficiently. But it is beyond the capacity of those opposite to do that, which is why we'll need to do it if we're successful in the next election campaign. It will be critical.
We have, of course, a range of other plans, including community batteries; that's what we were talking about today with the solar farm operators. They're in the ACT. We have a plan to make sure that Australians can benefit from the jobs that will be created through new energy apprenticeships.
We have a plan for the National Reconstruction Fund—$15 billion. How do you take existing industries and transform them so that they can become more efficient? How do you create new industries as well? We have abundant resources in this country. The Liberal-National Party model is to dig them up, send them overseas, get things made and then buy them back once the value's been added. That's not our model. Our model is that, wherever possible, we should manufacture things here, create jobs here and create value here, and that is what we are absolutely determined to do and that's what the National Reconstruction Fund will look at.
New industries—why is it that we produce everything that goes into a battery but we aren't making more of them here? Why is it that we aren't producing wind turbines here on a mass scale, like we used to? They've actually departed, under this government. The two institutions, above anywhere else in the world, that we should be proud of in terms of breakthroughs in PV solar technology are the Australian National University and the University of New South Wales. But what has happened as a result is that the value's been produced somewhere else. China or other countries overseas have received the value of those scientific breakthroughs. We want to commercialise those opportunities, going forward. But here that will be hard with a government that just isn't fair dinkum.
Tonight, when the Prime Minister leaves Australia, we'll have the Australian politics version of the whoopee cushion in charge. Makes a lot of noise, is uncomfortable about that noise that's there—but he will be in charge of the country. And he doesn't support net zero by 2050; he's opposed to it. So how fair dinkum are they going to be? At least Senator Canavan, the Productivity Commission guy, is fair dinkum and honest about his backward view of the world. But Australia can't trust a government that isn't fair dinkum on these issues. (Time expired)
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (11:55): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 and the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. I will keep my remarks brief and resist the offer from the member for Grayndler to reflect on the characters of my colleagues, but I will acknowledge—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I will endeavour to keep my comments coherent. Can I say, in the interest of full transparency, that the member for Wills is actually my tennis partner, and he handed out a few backhanders today for the National Party. Apart from those political comments, I thought the member for Wills's contribution was very valuable, from a Victorian perspective, and I agree with the basic premise of his argument, that there is enormous potential for Victoria to be an energy powerhouse, just as we have been an energy powerhouse for decades previously. I'm very proud to represent the community of the Latrobe Valley, which has powered the enormous economic wealth and prosperity of Victoria for decades, and proud to represent the energy industry workers, who go to work every day and who have kept the lights on, particularly during the last couple of years of the pandemic, when there have been fairly challenging circumstances from time to time. They have maintained that reliability of supply in Victoria and across the south-east of the country. It's important when we have these debates that we do recognise the enormous contribution of those blue-collar workers—now high-vis workers—and recognise also that this is an unsettling time, when we're having conversations about transition of energy jobs into new areas and ensuring that people are treated with respect as part of that process, their families are treated with respect and their communities are properly supported if there are any economic shocks to those communities.
I welcome the package of three bills that is before the House and acknowledge that it provides a regulatory framework to enable offshore electricity infrastructure projects, including transmission and generation projects, in Commonwealth waters. Projects that could be enabled by this legislation include the Marinus Link project—that's a longer-term project to support Tasmania's Battery of the Nation which would link the island state with Victoria and quite possibly travel through my electorate and the electorate of the member for Monash; the Star of the South project, which is a proposed offshore wind farm off the coast of my electorate of Gippsland, in Bass Strait; and Sun Cable, which is a proposed international transmission infrastructure project between Darwin and Singapore. These are all very significant projects that will support the federal government's commitment to continue to invest in and support the delivery of affordable and reliable energy for Australians but also keep our international commitments in terms of emissions reductions.
This is important legislation because it provides confidence and certainty, particularly certainty around major investments which could result in tens of thousands of jobs in communities like mine. It's hard to know exactly what the full potential is for projects like this, but the Star of the South proposal off the coast of Gippsland is one project that has captured the imagination of my community. I want to congratulate the proponents for the way they have endeavoured to engage with the community in a respectful way. They've certainly met with the local members of parliament at state and federal level. They've taken my advice and ensured that they've had good consultations with the commercial fishing industry, which could be impacted by any activity off the coast of Gippsland. They've also treated the landholders in the region with respect and spoken to them and informed them of their plans for the region. I encourage the proponents to continue to engage in such a respectful and collaborative way.
It's terribly important, as we move forward with the commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, that we are looking at these large-scale renewable energy projects. As I said, in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley we have a rich heritage of generation of energy through fossil fuels, through brown coal in the Latrobe Valley and through oil and gas in the Bass Strait. We know there's a transition underway, in the sense that there will be a greater dependence on renewable sources into the future, and projects like the Star of the South have enormous potential to help fill that gap in the energy market in the future. We have seen large-scale solar and wind projects in Gippsland already. The potential for offshore wind is something that, I think, will have greater capacity to unite our community. It's true that previous onshore wind projects have often divided communities, so I see huge potential for the offshore wind program into the future. I commend the bills to the House.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (12:00): I'm really happy to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. Labor has been calling for this bill for some time. Just as it does with everything to do with securing jobs for the future, this government has dragged its feet when it comes to our transition to a clean energy future. This bill comes from a government that told people at the last election that having electric cars and supporting electric cars in this country would ruin the weekend. It said they would destroy the weekend. That was said at the same time that car companies all around the world are putting no new research and technology into the old cars. All the research is going into electric cars. This is government has tried to run a scare campaign on everything, yet the world is moving. If we do not act quickly, we will miss out on those jobs. That, for me, as a member of parliament, is incredibly frustrating. The government's letting politics get in the way of job creation has been incredibly frustrating.
This bill will bring into place a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area, which will allow for the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. This is a really important piece of legislation for ensuring that we can unlock the potential of offshore wind. Offshore wind is an untapped resource that blows during the day and the night—it might be news to some people in the National Party that the wind does blow at night and during the day—and has huge potential to create large amounts of electricity, which we need as we transition to a clean energy future and as the world transitions to a clean energy future. Not only does offshore wind provide huge potential for creating domestic electricity, but it provides a huge amount of potential for us to export that electricity into the future. That is incredibly exciting.
The world is transitioning. It's not just Australia that is transitioning. Of course, Australia is significantly behind the pack in our transition, but as we move forward, there is going to be demand in our region for electricity that is generated in a clean way. So offshore wind has huge potential, and this framework will play an important role in establishing that.
As I said, the government was slow to act, just as they've been slow to act and adopt net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and as they've been slow to enact a whole range of other policies. It was this Prime Minister who said that a battery in South Australia was as useful as the Big Banana. What we've seen since that battery was installed is that private investment has come along and doubled the size of that battery because it's playing such an important role in making sure that peak demand in electricity provision is met. It's also stabilising the grid; it's playing a critically important role. It's disappointing that the now Prime Minister spent so much time deriding this type of new innovation, because it's going to be this type of new innovation which will fuel the jobs of the future.
This is what it's all about. This is why other countries are trying to move quickly on these types of technologies—to develop and harness these types of technologies. We should look at how we can export these types of technologies and this type of energy, because it is a race. I know that the Prime Minister doesn't love races—that most things aren't a race—but it is a race when it comes to developing these technologies. It's a global race, because it's a global race for jobs. So while it has taken them a while to get here, I'm very pleased that finally the government have got to this position and are introducing this framework.
There are some concerns, of course, about this bill—issues that were highlighted in the Senate committee. The Senate committee examining this bill, including government senators, made some suggestions that should be included in this legislation. It was highlighted that it was important that the objectives clause should be amended to better incorporate electricity transmission and export. This is to recognise Australia's potential when it comes to offshore wind and the storage and transmission of electricity it generates, that it could power South-East Asia—especially after we harness the opportunities of offshore wind. We need to have a mind not just to employ this power in Australia but to look forward at export to other nations.
Also highlighted was that an amendment to consultation requirements for declared areas is important. We agree with the committee in expanding the consultation requirements specifically to include the minister for the environment, affected state and territory governments and energy-planning authorities and developers, and that there should be greater transparency and time frames incorporated into this declaration process. The committee supported further consideration being given to these matters as the bill progresses through the parliament. We need to bring communities, and the states and territories, along, and we need to ensure that these types of development—while recognising their huge potential—are done in a methodical way, in a way that is inclusive and consults with the relevant people. The committee also suggested that the government should consider amendments to the changes in control provisions. These are important recommendations made by the bipartisan committee to ensure that this bill is really fit for purpose, not just for today—not just in the infancy of this—but in really looking forward into the future.
As I said, these are the jobs of the future and this is a component of jobs for the future. Offshore wind electricity generation is very important when it comes to jobs. There are a lot of jobs in the construction and maintenance of these turbines. That is why we've seen already in these early discussions some communities really embracing the opportunities that come with this. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this will not be an option for every part of the coastline but there is some urgency in those parts of the coastline where there is community agreement, where there is huge opportunity, where it really makes sense to unlock this.
The Senate inquiry also heard two additional concerns that were not reflected in the final report. In particular, Labor has concerns over the bills' work health and safety framework. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonisation of national work health and safety law in these bills; the committee heard that, instead, the government has amended those laws into an unrecognisable state. Without the harmonisation of these work health and safety frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker could be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while working on an offshore renewable project. While I wasn't on the Senate committee, to me that seems very confusing—not just confusing in making workers vulnerable but confusing for those companies working in this space, those businesses working in this space and indeed the jurisdictions that monitor such frameworks. I think it needs further consideration. It is something that is crucial, that we need to do, and I think there is very much unfinished business.
The second of Labor's concerns is that the bills do not require local benefit to be included in the merit criteria for licences. When the minister of the day is considering whether to grant an offshore electricity licence, he or she should be required to consider the benefits of local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people. The community heard it was important for these requirements to be reflected broadly in legislation in order to ensure that they are reflected in detail in regulations. We hope that the government will consider not only the committee's bipartisan recommendations but the recommendations made by the Labor Party, in its additional comments.
Finally: these bills are a very important piece of the puzzle, but we need a whole-of-government focus on renewable energies and clean energy technologies, and we need to be at the front of the pack in developing these. We cannot, as we have under the eight years of this government, languish at the bottom as business moves past government, as unions move past government, as communities move past government, as technology goes out on its own and as innovation goes out on its own and doesn't have a government really backing it, and doesn't have a government that has a laser-like focus on how it puts the legislative arrangements in to smooth a transition towards a cleaner energy future. Importantly, we need to grab those jobs that come with a clean energy future and will develop not only as a result of an Australian market, demanding that type of energy, but as a result of a world market demanding that type of energy. There is so much opportunity here, but we need a government that will back that innovation and those opportunities, and only a Labor government will do that. A Labor government has already announced a policy to rewire the nation, allowing renewable energy to connect to the grid. It's coming up with innovation like community solar batteries in places where communities themselves can harness the energy from the sun and trade that energy at low cost; this is a really exciting opportunity.
Of course, if we're going to harness those jobs then we need to train up our workers of the future. That's why Labor's clean energy apprentice program has the real opportunity to skill up those apprentices of the future. This is the type of thinking that we need and this is the type of thinking which will transition our economy and really grab those jobs of the future. Without that, the election of a coalition government instead will mean more of the same: lack of attention to this important issue. People's jobs will be at risk as a result. We will support this bill, but more action needs to be taken if we are going to grab those jobs of the future.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:15): I am pleased to rise at this hour to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and related bills.
I have sat here and listened to the debate on this bill for many hours and I've heard nothing other than complete nonsense from both sides of politics during this debate. Not once have we talked anything about costs and benefits. This debate has been wide-ranging and many speakers have come to the dispatch box and talked about how this bill relates to this net zero approach by 2050. It may be the old-fashioned way of doing things, but I believe that when we have these proposals and when people come in here then rather than simply talking about virtue signalling we should set out clearly what the costs are and what the benefits are, and then argue them—argue them out. Is this best for our nation? And yet amongst all the speakers and in all the hours on this debate, not once has there been any discussion of the cost benefit of net zero by 2050. I'm going to do something a little unusual here in this parliament today and discuss a proper cost-benefit analysis.
So what is the cost? What's the damage for this net zero by 2050? An article published on 14 October in the Wall Street Journal talked about the cost, and it did an estimate for the USA: 'A new study in Nature finds that a 95 per cent reduction in Americans' carbon emissions by 2050 will cost annually 11.9 per cent of US gross domestic product. To put that in perspective: the total expenditure on social security, Medicare and Medicaid'—that's in the US—'came to 11.6 per cent of GDP. The annual cost will rise to US$4.4 trillion by 2050.' They broke that down in America to US$11,300 per person per year in today's dollars. That's around $15,000 in Australia; for a family of three it costs $45,000 per year and for a family of four it's $60,000 per year in today's dollars. I think that if a true cost-benefit analysis were done in Australia it would likely be higher than what it was in the USA.
So I have the costs at $60,000 per family per year. What are the benefits? Everyone likes to stand up here and say: 'The government should do something to stop the bad weather! The government should take action on climate change!' They always fail to quantify it, but we actually can quantify it. There's a UN climate model called MAGICC.org where we can put the calculations in. That has actually been done by Bjorn Lomborg, who has looked at what the reduction in global temperatures would be, assuming this model is correct—and a lot of evidence shows that it's running too hot, but let's just assume the model is correct. If the entirety of what he calls the rich world—the USA, the European Union, the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Turkey et cetera—went to net zero not in 2050 but today and stayed there for the rest of the century, what would the effect on temperature be? Surely this should be the very first thing that we should be asking: what are the benefits of that? The UN's own climate models show that if all those rich nations, including the US, the European Union, the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan—the whole lot of us—decided to go to net zero today and held that to 2050 then by 2100, the end of this century, that may reduce the global temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius, and this benefit—0.5 degrees Celsius—is going to cost each family of four the equivalent of $60,000 per year. To me that sounds like a bad idea. If someone want to argue those figures and put up alternative numbers, let's go ahead and have the debate, but let's not just come into this chamber and debate on virtue-signalling and people trying to feel good
It appears that I am the only member of this House who is going to call out the nonsense of net zero by 2050, but thankfully there are still some sensible commentators in the media who are also calling this out. I'd like to quote from an article in the Australian just a few days ago by one of our most senior economists, Mr Terry McCrann:
IT really is quite extraordinary, the way almost the entire political class has declared economic war on their own country and not just the current 26 million Australians but all future generations as well … They are all united in seeking to attack the Australian economy, plain and simple; to permanently and significantly reduce the standard of living of present and future Australians … the entire political class has signed up to the national suicide note that I wrote about first with Kevin Rudd's carbon tax, by abandoning the use of fossil fuels which have provided the plentiful, cheap and reliable power on which not only all economic progress but indeed our very civilisation has been built.
Hear, hear! It is good to see that we have some journalists actually telling the truth.
The United Australia Party will call this nonsense out. We are not going to sell out our nation's sovereignty to overseas globalist interests just so we can feel good and go around virtue-signalling. We are not going to sell out our nation's competitive advantage to the communist Chinese. How is it possible that we are saying this to China, whose President is not attending these talks in Glasgow, along with India and also Russia? China say, 'We'll get to net zero by 2060, but we expect Australia to do it by 2050.' To agree to that is to give the Communist Party of China an economic, political and military advantage over this nation. That is what everyone in this parliament is doing when they stand up and engage in groupthink and herd mentality and mindlessly chant, 'Net zero by 2050.' They are putting this nation at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the communist Chinese, economically, politically and militarily. I for one am prepared to stand out and say this is a nonsense that damages the interests of the Australian nation.
Some of the other nonsense we've heard during this debate is about the wonderful job creation all this extra investment in renewables will do. We need to ensure the way to create jobs. First, we have to understand that the government does not create job; it is entrepreneurs in the private sector. The secret is that we have to get our electricity costs down and to generate that electricity using the least number of resources possible to give us a lower-cost possibility, so that we can give the entrepreneurs of this nation access to low-cost electricity so they can go out and make things and produce things with new ideas. That's how we create jobs. That's how we encourage wealth creation.
The debates that we've heard in this place remind me of a story that Milton Friedman once told. He was travelling to an Asian country and he visited a worksite where a new canal was being built and he said that he was shocked to see that, instead of modern equipment, such as tractors and earthmovers, he saw thousand of workers with shovels, and he asked the government bureaucrat: 'Why are there so few machines? Why do all these workers have shovels?' The government bureaucrat explained, 'You don't understand; this is a job creation program,' to which Milton Friedman replied: 'I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.' That is the ideology we see when people come into this chamber and say, 'We're going to create all these wonderful jobs in the electricity generation sector.' For every job we create there we destroy jobs in the real sector that produces real wealth for this nation.
During these debates we've also heard about how wonderful all this offshore wind is in Europe at the moment and how wonderful everything is going in Europe. Do those members actually turn the news on or read the papers to see the current disaster that is occurring in Europe? In Europe they put all their eggs in these offshore wind turbines—and what's happened? The price of energy has gone through the roof there. They are suffering an energy catastrophe this winter in Europe. In Europe this winter, because of the ideology that we've heard in this chamber—which comes from Europe to start with—there will be many elderly and the low-income earners in Europe who will die because they'll be unable to afford to heat their homes. That is where this ideology leads us. The poorest and the oldest in society will not have access to cheap, reliable energy and will not be able to afford to heat their homes, and this winter we will see thousands and thousands of deaths in Europe because of this mad ideology that has taken over.
There are a few amendments that I would like to move in the consideration in detail and third reading stage of this bill. But, if we are going to have these policies, whatever these policies are, we have an obligation to the Australian public to spell out what the costs are and what the benefits are. When you do that with clear, calm and rational thinking, instead of using emotive language and thinking, you understand that these policies are contrary to our nation's interest. They are going to put us at a competitive disadvantage against the Communist Chinese. Money will flow out of this country. We know that China has something like 63 per cent of the market of offshore wind turbines globally. The money will flow out of this country to the Chinese. And then there's that beautiful black coal that runs down our eastern seaboard, Australians will not be able to use that. We will put policies in there that will prohibit Australians from using that, but we will be happy to ship if off to China, where they will use it to create low-cost energy and create goods and services,
Our nation is at a crossroads today. We have to decide whether we are going to put Australia's interests first or we are going to put the interests of the UN globalists—those that we see over in Zurich and Glasgow, who will stand up and want to criticise our nation—first. We have to decide who we put first. For as long as I continue to be a member of this House, I'll continue to fight for the interests of our nation ahead of the interests of UN globalists.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (12:29): Firstly, I would like to thank those who have contributed to this important debate on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and related bills. Australia has an abundance of offshore electricity generation potential, which can provide considerable benefits that are in Australia's national interest. This bill delivers on the Morrison government's commitment to capitalise on this potential. The establishment of the offshore electricity sector will deliver significant benefits to all Australians. Importantly, it will promote regional development by enabling substantial investment in Australia's coastal regions, creating jobs and growing local economies. Investment in transmission infrastructure will support a more secure and reliable electricity system. Market competition from new electricity generation capacity will help put further downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices. We can take advantage of evolving and emerging technologies to secure effective electricity solutions for Australia. Thousands of skilled regional jobs can be created, providing both benefits and indirect opportunities for regional businesses.
These bills will help the implementation of critical underwater transmission projects such as Marinus Link, the proposed 1,500 megawatt transmission line between Tasmania and Victoria. Marinus Link will unlock new investment in generation projects, including pumped hydro energy storage and will help deliver a more reliable, affordable energy system, helping keep the lights on and prices low. It will also support development of generation projects, including Star of the South, a proposed offshore wind project already under initial development off the coast of Gippsland in Victoria. There are at least 10 other offshore generation projects that have been proposed around Australia.
This package of bills establishes a regulatory framework to enable offshore electricity infrastructure projects, including transmission and generation projects, in Commonwealth waters. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, known as the main bill, provides a robust mechanism for granting licenses to allow the development of offshore electricity projects in Commonwealth waters, while providing projections for safety of workers and strong protections of other maritime stakeholders. The main bill also establishes statutory authorities to govern the administration, compliance and enforcement of the regulatory framework.
The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 ensures the offshore infrastructure registrar and offshore infrastructure regulator, established under the main bill, are fully cost recovered to undertake the functions required to facilitate the life cycle of offshore electricity infrastructure projects. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequence Amendments) Bill 2021 makes a number of technical amendments to existing acts to ensure the effective implementation of the regulatory framework. Together, these bills will provide a framework to progress projects and keep opportunities for regional communities in our energy sector. This will help create thousands of jobs, strengthen our economy and support a more affordable and secure energy system. I commend these bills to the House.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:34): I move amendment (1) circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 17, page 21 (after line 18), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(d), and without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if any part of the area is in any of the following marine parks:
(a) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;
(b) the Coral Sea Marine Park;
(c) the Hunter Marine Park;
(d) the Solitary Islands Marine Park;
(e) the Murray Marine Park;
(f) the Boags Marine Park;
(g) the Franklin Marine Park;
(h) the Zeehan Marine Park;
(i) the Perth Canyon Marine Park;
(j) the South West Corner Marine Park.
We've seen over recent months and recent years a mass delusion come across the nation in many aspects of policy, and catastrophic mistakes have been made. Therefore, I propose to ensure that we allow the development of offshore wind wherever it is economically viable but protect our sensitive environmental zones. Therefore, I propose and would like to read out the amendment:
… without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if any part of the area is in any of the following marine parks:
(a) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;
(b) the Coral Sea Marine Park;
(c) the Hunter Marine Park;
(d) the Solitary Islands Marine Park;
(e) the Murray Marine Park;
(f) the Boags Marine Park;
(g) the Franklin Marine Park;
(h) the Zeehan Marine Park;
(i) the Perth Canyon Marine Park;
(j) the South West Corner Marine Park.
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the marine parks that we have around our coastal waters so that large industrial scale wind turbines up to 260 metres high and made of steel and fibreglass cannot be built in those areas and cannot be bolted down in the seabed in a marine park. This is the opportunity for members of this House to stand up and show they truly want to protect those marine parks that we have, those magnificent marine parks around our nation. They should be free of these large-scale industrial wind turbines. I commend this amendment to the House, and I would hope that it has full support.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The question is that the United Australia Party amendment (1) be disagreed to.
Question agreed to, Mr Kelly voting no.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:37): I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:
(2) Clause 17, page 21 (after line 18), after subclause (3), insert:
(3B) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(d), and without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if, were a wind turbine to be constructed or installed at any location in that area, the turbine or any part of it (for example, its blades) would be visible from any part of the following beaches:
(a) the Gold Coast's Main Beach, Coolangatta Beach or any beach in between them;
(b) Newcastle's Stockton Beach, Merewether Beach or any beach in between them, including Newcastle Beach and Nobby's Beach;
(c) Sydney's Palm Beach, Stanwell Park Beach or any beach in between them, including Manly Beach, Bondi Beach, Bronte Beach, Coogee Beach, Maroubra Beach, Wanda Beach, Elouera Beach, North Cronulla Beach, Cronulla Beach and Garie Beach;
(d) any other Australian beach that is patrolled by Surf Life Saving Australia or its affiliated surf life saving clubs.
We also need to avoid the catastrophic mistakes that we make when we suffer from groupthink and delusion. The purpose of amendment (2) is to protect our magnificent beaches and the vistas that they have around the nation. These beaches are among our greatest tourist assets. People from around the world come and see the beautiful crystal-clear waters of our beaches and look out in the morning and see the magnificent sunrises on our east coast and the magnificent sunsets on our west coast. I do not want to see a situation where someone goes out and looks at one of those magnificent sunrises or sunsets and sees across the horizon giant industrial structures 260 metres high sticking out. That would be visual pollution and would create far more environmental harm than any benefit that we would get. The purpose of amendment (2) is to protect our magnificent beaches from being despoiled by large industrial wind turbines up to 260 metres high. I'll read out the amendment:
… without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if, were a wind turbine to be constructed or installed at any location in that area, the turbine or any part of it (for example, its blades) would be visible from any part of the following beaches:
(a) the Gold Coast's Main Beach, Coolangatta Beach or any beach in between them;
I'm sure no-one wants to go to the Gold Coast and look out across the magnificent natural beaches and see giant industrial wind turbines on the horizon. The amendment goes on:
(b) Newcastle's Stockton Beach, Merewether Beach or any beach in between them, including Newcastle Beach and Nobby's Beach;
I would hope that the member for Newcastle would support this amendment, because, if the member for Newcastle doesn't support this amendment, she is sending a message to her constituents that she is happy to see large industrial wind turbines built off Newcastle's beaches. The amendment continues:
(c) Sydney's Palm Beach, Stanwell Park Beach or any beach between them, including Manly Beach, Bondi Beach, Bronte Beach, Coogee Beach, Maroubra Beach, Wanda Beach, Elouera Beach, North Cronulla Beach, Cronulla Beach or Garie Beach;
The member for Kingsford Smith is in the chamber, and I know he is a keen surfer and a keen supporter of surf lifesaving clubs. He should support this amendment because it would send a message to the people who love those beautiful beaches in the eastern suburbs that they are not going to be spoiled by having these giant metal and fibreglass installations, up to 260 metres high, installed off them. The amendment continues:
(d) any other Australian beach that is patrolled by Surf Life Saving Australia or its affiliated surf life saving clubs.
This would mean that, if there is a beach in this country that is patrolled by Surf Life Saving Australia or its affiliates where people go to enjoy the magnificent, beautiful coastal waters of Australia, those views will not be spoiled by giant industrial wind turbines visible off the coast of those beaches. I would hope every member of parliament who loves our beaches, who loves our natural environment, would support this amendment, especially those members of parliament who have coastal regions and beaches in their area. I'm sure that they could then go back to their constituents and tell their constituents: 'I stood up to protect our environment. I voted to ensure that there would be no giant industrial wind turbines off our beaches.' That is the opportunity that I'm giving every member of this parliament. I'm going to stand up to protect the beauty of our natural beaches. I hope the rest of this House supports this amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to, Mr Kelly dissenting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (12:42): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) 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 TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (12:44): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) 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 TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (12:45): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (12:45): [by video link] I want to be clear at the outset that federal Labor will be supporting this bill. It is not our intention to hold up this bill, because of the biosecurity risk that could impact on Australia if we were to do so.
As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the purpose of the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021 is to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015, enhancing the ability to manage the risk of pests or diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading in Australian territory and causing harm to animals, plant and human health, the environment and the economy. The bill will effectively separate human biosecurity away from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. The explanatory memorandum states that the health minister would be able to make, vary or administer arrangements and grants for financial assistance relating to diseases or pests that cause harm to human health, while the agriculture minister would be able to make, vary or administer arrangements and grants for financial assistance for other diseases or pests.
The explanatory memorandum also states that the bill 'would strengthen the management of biosecurity risks posed by maritime and aviation arrivals, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the Biosecurity Act, and increase a range of civil and criminal penalties to deter noncompliance and provide proportionate penalties'. The bill would also amend the Biosecurity Act to 'strengthen pratique and human health requirements'. The explanatory memorandum makes reference to the Inspector-General of Biosecurity's report Confidence testing for at-border delivery of critical human biosecurity functions—Ruby Princess cruise ship incident that was published in April of this year. From a human health perspective, the explanatory memorandum states:
The ability to effectively respond to and manage biosecurity risks entering Australia through the maritime and aviation pathways will be a significant consideration in reopening Australia's borders. This Bill would strengthen the legislative framework for international arrivals via these key pathways. The amendments would contribute to Australia's pandemic preparedness and response at the border. New requirements for pratique and pre-arrival reporting aim to specifically support the safe recovery of tourism and related industries.
There's also an acknowledgement that there may be impending biosecurity risks—that 'with recent detections of the khapra beetle and the emergence of a new variant of African swine fever, the number of biosecurity threats and the speed with which they travel continues to increase'. It is asserted that the growth in trade and travel anticipated as part of our economic recovery from COVID-19 will accentuate all of these risks.
This bill would have no financial impact on the Australian government budget.
I note that the government requested this bill go to an inquiry. The inquiry was undertaken by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee handed down its report this month. The report included one recommendation: that the bill be passed.
If you're a farmer or a primary producer, why would you trust this government to deliver anything for our agriculture sector? Why would any Australian trust the Morrison-Joyce government to protect us from pests, disease and weeds coming into this country? Of course, the short answer is you can't. Despite the very hardworking biosecurity staff at Agriculture and our Australian Border Force officials, under this Prime Minister there's a history of epic failures when it comes to Australian farmers and our agriculture sector. There, of course, has been little action on climate change. There's been a crippling workforce shortage, the horrific mouse plague, a severe timber shortage and our biosecurity system has been slammed by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity and the Auditor-General. There is a lot to be concerned about.
I just want to spend a bit of time going through the concerns in relation to our biosecurity system. We know there's a lot of risk when it comes to Australia having a weak biosecurity system. The first question we need to ask is: why hasn't the government prioritised strengthening Australia's biosecurity system? In a nutshell, it has been lazy and complacent. There's been no urgency from the Morrison-Joyce government over the past eight years to protect Australians from biosecurity risks. It's clear that there's been a huge policy void until recently with COVID-19 issues when it comes to the Morrison government doing anything of note around strengthening Australia's biosecurity system. To be frank, it's shocking that more hasn't been done to protect all Australians and our valuable agriculture sector from biosecurity risks.
In terms of agriculture, Australia's biosecurity system underpins more than $60 billion in production and $53 billion in exports. Around $42 billion is contributed to the country's inbound tourism industry and 1.6 million Australian jobs across the supply chain. Talk to farmers, primary producers and those who work in the agriculture sector and biosecurity risks are always raised as a significant concern. Farmers and people in the sector know the serious risks associated with a weak biosecurity system. For example, according to the National Farmers Federation the cost of an incursion in our biosecurity system is estimated to be around $50 billion. I've talked in this place before about the government's piecemeal approach around the legislative framework of our biosecurity system, which continues to be a great concern. There have been numerous bills passed in this parliament recently, just this year, that have amended the Biosecurity Act that focus on agriculture. Having to repeatedly amend the act over past drafting issues reduces the confidence that the sector has in the Morrison government for it to adequately manage our biosecurity framework.
When you look at funding for Australia's biosecurity system you can see the under-resourcing that's been happening under this government. Prior to the 2021-22 budget, funding for biosecurity was actually going backwards. The government abandoned the work it was undertaking to introduce a biosecurity levy in 2020. The department has stated that sustainable funding arrangements for biosecurity are still being considered. Now, we don't know what this looks like or why this is the case and why the government hasn't done the work it needs to find a long-term funding arrangement for what we know is at risk. It's clear that this eight-year-old government has been far too relaxed about the serious risks of a biosecurity incursion and the harm it could cause to Australia's agriculture industry and of course to our human health, which I'll talk about a bit later.
This year alone there have been three damning reports outlining the serious inadequacies that exist across Australia's biosecurity system—two reports from the Inspector-General of Biosecurity and one from the Auditor-General. The first report was released in February this year by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. This report looked at the adequacy of the department's operational model to effectively mitigate biosecurity risks in evolving risk and business environments. The Inspector-General of Biosecurity's broad assessment was that the biosecurity system is not in a strong position to address the diverse and evolving biosecurity risks and business environment expected to prevail in late 2021 through to 2025. The inspector-general made 19 recommendations to the government.
The second report was released in April 2021 again by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, and I referred to this before, of course. It was about the Ruby Princess incident and the human biosecurity issues. This review found weaknesses in the department's management of human biosecurity functions and recommended the strengthening of arrangements for intercepting listed human diseases and human biosecurity risk material to ensure that all efforts be directed to the areas of highest risk. The review also found that the information systems that underpin human health activities need to be transformed. Indeed, the inspector-general made 42 recommendations to improve the management of human biosecurity in the vessel's pathway. I'll have much more to say about the Ruby Princess debacle later on in my speech.
The third damning report was released in June. This was the Australian National Audit Office responding to noncompliance with biosecurity requirements. The Auditor-General made eight recommendations to the department in this report. The performance report's findings included:
The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's arrangements to respond to non-compliance with biosecurity requirements are largely inappropriate.
The department's compliance framework is largely inappropriate.
There is no framework to assess risk across the entire biosecurity system and target regulatory actions accordingly.
Arrangements to detect non-compliance are partially appropriate, but departmental estimates indicate undetected non-compliance is increasing.
The use of regulatory tools in response to non-compliance is partially effective.
The department does not use the full suite of available regulatory tools.
These findings from the three reports are a shocking reflection of the ineptness of this government. It has had eight years to improve and strengthen Australia's biosecurity system, but it's clear this government did not do anything until it got caught out by these reports and by COVID-19 and the Ruby Princess debacle.
We know the amendments in this bill will allow the government to say that it has responded to the issues that were under its jurisdiction in relation to the Ruby Princess. Indeed, the issues in this bill go to the very heart of the Morrison government's biggest failure at the very start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The measures contained in this bill are a frank admission that the responsibility for the Ruby Princess debacle lies directly at the feet of the Morrison government. In a nutshell, the processes in place were disregarded. There were procedures in place, and they were ignored. The Morrison government had failed to stop the one boat that mattered, and its failures led to the first COVID-19 outbreak in this country and, sadly, to 28 deaths. In my home state of Tasmania, of course, it led to a lockdown and to the hospital being closed in north-west Tasmania.
Buried at the back of the explanatory memorandum for this bill is a regulatory impact statement by the department of agriculture. It highlights three issues that the bill seeks to address:
The operation of pratique provisions within the Biosecurity Act
Pre-arrival reporting obligations and the importance of human health assessments prior to entry to a port
Powers to manage human health of groups of arriving passengers.
This passage in particular speaks volumes:
Without the proposed legislative amendments, the Commonwealth's biosecurity framework would continue to be limited in its capacity to effectively secure the objectives of the Biosecurity Act. Australian society would continue to be at a heightened immediate risk of being exposed to COVID-19 or other novel communicable diseases through present and future commercial and cruise vessel operations.
These three issues have been front and centre of Labor's criticism of the Morrison government since day one of the debacle. We've always been told that it was someone else's fault. First it was the captain's fault, then it was the ship operator's and then it was NSW Health's. The reality is that it has always been the Morrison government's fault, and it is the Morrison government's own Inspector-General of Biosecurity who has called it out and recommended significant changes that need to occur. The Inspector General summarised his findings like this:
Frankly, if the department had done what it agreed to do, then the chances of a Ruby Princess incident happening were significantly reduced.
Labor will support these measures, as I said, because they are important steps to secure our community as borders reopen in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, but I understand there are some concerns that have been raised by some of the various parliamentary committees, and I want to say to the government: when it comes to the recommendations from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about some of the things that are needed to improve this bill and to deal with some of the concerns, Labor will support amendments to the bill if the government moves them either here or in the Senate. I want to be clear about that.
The Ruby Princess debacle is a failure of the Morrison government, who did nothing to ensure our frontline officers were properly supported, resourced and staffed to do their jobs. It's taken a long time for the Morrison government to admit it was at fault, but that's what this bill before us does today. Under the Morrison government, Australia's biosecurity system has been underresourced and underfunded. It's clear that this bill lays out the fundamental failures of the Morrison government. It has now been forced to make significant changes by the findings put forward by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity and the Auditor-General—three damning reports outlining the litany of failures that have occurred under the watch of the Morrison government.
Labor will be moving a second reading amendment that reflects our ongoing concern about the Morrison government's inaction. I therefore ask my colleague at the table, the member for Dobell, to move the amendment on my behalf.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:00): I move the amendment circulated in the name of the member for Franklin:
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 the Coalition Government's ongoing failure to provide a strong biosecurity system for Australia".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Mulino: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (13:00): We talk regularly in this place about issues of national security around terrorism and policing and those who would wilfully do us harm and impact our way of life. I have said before in this place 'what you can't see can hurt you', and this statement is true not just of people causing intentional harm to our citizens and our property but of other organisms that can carry within them the same result. The introduction of COVID-19 to Australian shores has caused undeniable devastation to Australian lives and livelihoods. It has altered the Australian psyche in ways that few things really could. The issues posed by difficulties in the detection and the effective and appropriate management of COVID-19 spreading have seemed insurmountable at times, and at other times have shone a spotlight on the areas in which the government has the power to adapt and better control matters of biosecurity in years to come. This bill, the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021, forms part of that important adaptation.
As its primary purpose, this bill seeks to strengthen the management of human health risks across maritime and aviation pathways, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of administration of the act and increase the range of civil and criminal penalties. With the country set to open back up to the world in a matter of weeks—as we certainly need to—it is critical that these measures be in place to preserve the hard-won freedoms that our world-leading vaccination rates have recently allowed.
Much of the detail contained within the bill is a direct result of learning from the Ruby Princess incident on 19 March 2020. I do not believe anyone would deny that considerable mistakes were made when the Ruby Princess was allowed to dock in Sydney Harbour and passengers were able to disembark into our communities. But the fact remains that, at that time, what we in hindsight consider—and hindsight is a very comfortable carriage to travel in—to be appropriate checks and balances, communication channels across departments and necessary tools for containment did not exist. We as a country had not experienced an incident of this magnitude before, particularly in relation to a maritime vessel.
The incident was subsequently reviewed by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, and a New South Wales special commission of inquiry was undertaken. A number of recommendations were then made to prevent a repeat occurrence from impacting on Australians. They included: the operation of provisions within the Biosecurity Act; prearrival reporting obligations and the importance of human health assessments prior to entry to a port; and powers to manage the human health of groups arriving in terminals, including an increase to civil and criminal penalties under that act. It should be noted that none of the above changes are considered onerous or disproportionate to the risk posed.
When looking at the Ruby Princess as a single incident, the ripple effect included at least 28 deaths and 662 coronavirus cases linked to the Ruby Princess, noting that at the time testing was not readily available to the wider community. It was also an immediate catalyst for the lockdown of New South Wales and the nation, as the world braced itself to learn more about the disease and how to manage it. Additionally, it's widely accepted that the first cases of the virus that seeded into my own electorate and, indeed, the first death from coronavirus in Cowper were as a direct result of the Ruby Princess incident.
Taking this into account, I believe the following measures included in this bill to be appropriate. A group direction may require those in the determined classification of people covered by the direction to stay in a certain place or to wear protective equipment. They may be required to provide information for contact tracing or undergo certain testing with consent. It should be noted that, in relation to the use of group directions, protections have been built in so that force will not be used against an individual and appropriate medical standards will be applied.
Decisions about whether to make group directions and what requirements may be included in the direction will be made by human biosecurity officers who have appropriate public health training and experience. Human biosecurity officers must be satisfied of certain things before making a group direction or including a requirement in a direction, such as ensuring that the direction and its requirement will be effective in or contribute to managing the risk posed. Civil penalties will apply if people fail to comply with a requirement specified in a group direction.
I feel it's important to note that the bill has been developed through consultation with the state and territory health departments and through the cross-jurisdictional Chief Human Biosecurity Officer Forum, chaired by the Commonwealth's chief medical officer. It has also been considered by the scrutiny committee of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. While a number of suggestions were given which led to the finessing of finer detail, all conceded that strengthening biosecurity measures at Australia's borders is vital to protecting the environment and the economy, and all accepted assurances that biosecurity group directions would be proportionate to the risk level. It is also accepted that the creation and use of greater penalties for a wider range of responsibilities is a necessary deterrent for noncompliance with the Biosecurity Act.
Whilst this bill refers entirely to marine biosecurity, I want to pay attention to the work that this government has done—both on a federal level and in New South Wales, including in my electorate—with tropical soda apple, which was introduced into New South Wales, unfortunately, in 1988. Whilst tropical soda apple sounds like a wonderful cocktail that you could sip on around the pool on a Friday afternoon, it is an insidious weed from Brazil that was introduced into the Mid North Coast.
This government has invested millions of dollars in my electorate alone to attempt to eradicate tropical soda apple. I would like to commend the Kempsey council, in the Macleay Valley, for the work that they're doing with farmers to attempt to eradicate tropical soda apple. It is a six-foot high weed that, if left for six months, can turn into a very thick privet-style bush and overtake acres and acres of very fertile, high-yield paddocks. It is completely devastating. The farmers around my electorate have spent a great deal of time and a great deal of their own money, but they are very appreciative of this government's financial assistance to look after their own paddocks. Only recently, there was a grant to Kempsey Shire Council for some $300,000 to assist those farmers to continue with their efforts. Hopefully, it won't spread further north into the member for Page's electorate or further south down into the electorate of Lyne. Again, I'd like to recognise the work done by Kempsey Shire Council and the contribution by the New South Wales state government, and also the contribution of the federal government, in trying to eradicate this very noxious weed.
In conclusion: we, as a government, must take all reasonable consistent and appropriate measures to ensure the safety of Australian lives and livelihoods, whether from a conscious human threat or any other. COVID-19 has undeniably altered our perception of appropriate measures and highlighted issues within the current assessment process of risk. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It has provided us with the opportunity to learn, adapt and plan for the future security and success of this country, and this bill is one step in that important process. I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The SPEAKER (13:11): I would like to make a statement and would ask each of you to listen carefully to what I have to say. I decided quite some time ago that I would like to end this last term as a member of this House on the backbench, as the Prime Minister can attest. We discussed this shortly after I announced that I would not be re-contesting the next election. I am not resigning as your Speaker today or tomorrow; rather I'm giving all of you notice of my plans for the future. As I said, I've been thinking about this for a long time and I made the decision some time ago.
I have been your Speaker for six years and two months over the 44th, 45th and this 46th parliaments. Being your Speaker is an incredible honour; I love the job. Obviously, what I'm saying now has been a very difficult decision. I note that many of you appreciate just what a busy and responsible job it is and, as you all know, it has been particularly so these last couple of years—keeping this House running, which has been vital. That's as well as all the other responsibilities of the job which, I can assure you, are much more than question time.
As I said, you already know that I won't be contesting the next election. As your Speaker, I get to speak and, let's be frank: as you know I can speak quite a lot! However, as you also know I don't have the opportunity to contribute in the House on behalf of my constituents in the way that you do every sitting day. That's why, in the final months of this parliament, I want to return to you on the floor of the House as the government member for Casey. I want to spend my remaining time contributing in the House and outside the House, working exclusively for the people of Casey. Without their support in electing me I wouldn't be in this place to be Speaker.
To those on the backbench, can I say that you play a critical role in bringing the issues of concern and priority in your electorates directly to this House and to ministers and shadow ministers. I simply want to rejoin you for the final period as a parliamentarian in this great House of Representatives. Accordingly, I plan to finish up as your Speaker just after we return here in November and return to you on the floor of the House. At this stage, I plan to chair the Monday proceedings on 22 November before resigning and enabling you to elect your next Speaker at the beginning of proceedings on Tuesday 23 November.
I will take the time to make some more extensive and reflective remarks, and some thank yous, after question time on the Monday when we return. Again, I don't want today to substitute for that—for obvious reasons. You might want to say some nice things, but I'm still going to be using 94(a) in question time in about 45 minutes.
As you are aware, a new Senate President was elected just last Monday, so it's important for the parliament that I take the next few weeks to work with him on a whole range of matters that we have joint responsibility for here in the building. I also want to give all members early notice of my decision so they can consider the vacancy.
I've taken the time to outline my reasons, which are simple and clear: I want to finish on the backbench as a government backbencher, and I want to speak in this House again and focus entirely on my electorate. It's not because I'm tired of the job. I doubt I would ever tire of it. It's certainly not because I'm tired of pulling ministers or members into line. I think you know I would never tire of that. I relish it. I just want to return to you.
Let me say clearly: if there is anyone within or outside this House that thinks my decision is the result of some disquiet I have with the government, you are completely wrong. That's why I'm pointing this out so directly now. If, at any point in the last six years and 2½ months, I had felt a decision or action of the House was a direct attack on my speakership, I hope you all know me well enough now to know I would have left the chair immediately.
I have at all times sought to operate fairly, consistently and predictably to be a Speaker for all of you. That's meant disciplining anyone I need to, even when it's a close friend, like the Prime Minister, who I've known for 20 years, or the Treasurer, who I've known for even longer, when he used to draft opinion pieces for other people rather than himself. But we are dear friends—the Treasurer and I—and he's known about my plans for an extensive period of time as well. As I've said, I thought about this over a long period of time. Indeed, had it not been for the responsibility I've had to the operation of the House during this COVID time, I would have been making this speech some time ago.
Given my role and my approach to the speakership over the last six and a bit years, I will conduct myself in a way I believe befitting of a former Speaker still in the House. So I have no plans to ask questions of ministers unless they're directly related to my constituents. Secondly, I have no plans to raise points of order or to point out sound and wise rulings unless absolutely necessary. And I have no plans to interject.
I thank you for your support for the time that I'm here—that's all of today and the coming weeks. And, in the chair today and on the Monday when we return, I'll be enforcing the standing orders as I always have—possibly like never before. Thank you.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (13:18): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Per your wishes, today is not the day when the Leader of the Opposition, I, the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business will sing your praises. That day will come when we come back in November. But I will simply say this: I believe, Mr Speaker, that we have had the privilege to serve in this House at a time when this House has had its finest Speaker, in you. I know that is a view that is shared widely in this place. You are deeply respected. You have been a close friend—and obviously will continue to be—and a trusted confidant for both of us, and I do want to wish you all the very best. I know you haven't arrived at this decision lightly, and I know what has driven your decision to do it, because you love this place. You love what it provides the opportunity for you to do, and you love doing it for the people you love in your electorate, and you want to return to them and to the forms of this House, as you would say, to be able to express that in the best way you possibly can. So we're very grateful. I'm very grateful for your friendship and your constant guidance and counsel, whether from there or elsewhere, and I wish you and all of your family all the very best, my friend.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (13:19): Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to wish you well and to say that I respect your decision and understand how much you care about your electorate. Indeed, we first met as members of the health and ageing committee of the House of Representatives a couple of decades ago now. Since then, but particularly since your rise to the Speakership, we have now a friendship based upon, I would hope, mutual respect. Certainly in my case, that is there. I think that the Speaker is an incredibly important role in this parliament.
Mr Speaker, a word that I would use to describe you, which I regard as an honourable word, is 'parliamentarian'. Not everybody who comes to this place is a parliamentarian. You are. You respect the traditions and the history of the Westminster system, you have been an outstanding Speaker, you have been selected in that position twice unanimously and who knows what might have happened had you stayed on in that position in the future. But, I've said, on the record, even prior to your announcement that you weren't running again, that that was my position.
I also think that one of the things that you've understood is that a good speaker assists the government because order is there, but, most importantly, it supports a respect for our political processes, our cherished democracy, which we should not take for granted. Many of the countries in our region, including ones we have important relationships with, are not democracies, and we should not take it for granted. We should always, always cherish it. You have been one of the finest examples of parliamentarians of your generation. I wish you well. I'll have more to say at the appropriate time when we return on the Monday.
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (13:22): Mr Speaker, I've just some brief remarks, as you've requested. Can I join with the fine words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in wishing you well and thanking you for your service to this parliament and for the sacrifice that you've made in your service to this parliament.
Mr Speaker, wisely, you've delivered your words not as a ruling to the parliament but merely as a statement, because, although I've only been in this job a short period of time as Leader of the House, I would be otherwise inclined to move a dissent to your ruling. I'm sure there would be a unanimous position across the parliament to send whatever message we could to you to say that you will be sadly missed and that it is certainly the desire of this parliament, in any other circumstance, for you to continue on.
Mr Speaker, I consider you a dear friend. We were flatmates 20 years ago, having come into the parliament in 2001—a long time ago. The way in which you have conducted your affairs over that period of time has been reflected publicly over the course of the last six years but was obvious to all of us from the first day that we met you. It has been, in my experience, the case for this House that we have not had a better Speaker over the course of those two decades, and that is a great tribute to your intellect and skills and the capacity that you've brought to the position.
I think the obvious statement is: it's a tough job. There's no question about that. But the grace that you've demonstrated from that chair is recognised by us all. We'll have more comments to make in relation to your service to this parliament when we come back in a couple of weeks, as was pointed out before. But, if you had to script to the end to what has been a graceful period of your service as Speaker—a class act—you couldn't really script a closing chapter more perfectly than this. The desire for you to step down from that chair and to represent the interests, in a very genuine way, of the people who have elected you—and I know that you're someone who takes that very seriously, it's a solemn honour to be in this place as a member of parliament, as a parliamentarian, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out—and that you would give the closing chapter to them, I think, says a lot about you and about the class that you've brought to the position of Speaker.
I can't embellish, Mr Speaker, because I know that it will have no influence on you at all in question time, which is almost upon us, or over your ensuing days in that chair. I wish you every success in the next stage of life and we'll make further comments in due course. Thank you.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:25): Mr Speaker, I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House in saying that you'd never win a vote for this decision in this House. The Leader of the House just offered a pathway for a complete unity ticket, which we don't find very often. None of us know every past Speaker in terms of how they chaired in every way for the 120 years of this parliament. So working out best and fairest awards is not an easy thing to do, but there's a simple fact: there's only been one other Speaker in the history of this parliament who has been elected three times and those elections have never been contested. There's only one other Speaker in the history of this parliament who's been nominated and seconded by both sides of the chamber. I don't think any words speak as loudly as the evidence, and the evidence for best and fairest is strong. The most important thing that I think this House always needs is a Speaker who presides over debate but doesn't become the focus of the debate, who allows the parliament to deal with the issues before us. That has been the case the whole way through.
We wish you well. We'll have more to say later but, if you ever want a parliamentary endorsement for leaving, it's not going to happen.
The SPEAKER (13:26): Thank you, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the House and Manager of Opposition Business, for those very generous remarks. As I said, I haven't gone yet—and I'll have a little bit of lunch and come back for question time. I planned this so that we would run into the time for 90-second statements at 1.30 pm. Thank you, one and all. I'll be back for question time and, as I said, I'll be enforcing the rules as I always have. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (13:29): It being almost 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Morrison Government
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (13:29): The Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower and the Canberra light rail: what do these great landmarks have in common? They were all built faster than this government's promised anti-corruption commission.
It's been 1,050 days since the Prime Minister made that promise and, rather than the promised watchdog, the government has tried to sell Australia a toothless lapdog. The truth is this government has no respect for our democracy or its institutions. This government has an addiction to secrecy. There is nothing this government hates more than transparency and accountability. It despises the public's right to know: the secret trials of Bernard Collaery and witness K; long queues for freedom of information requests; hiding national cabinet documents; Brian Houston's White House invitation—the list goes on and on—gagging important debate around climate action on Zali Steggall's bill this week; failing to answer questions about an alleged sexual assault of Brittany Higgins, one of their own staff members; today introducing Trumpian style voter suppression legislation to block Australians from their democratic right to cast their vote, perhaps the lowest of the low; and trashing 120 years of parliamentary convention in protecting Christian Porter and his secret $1 million donation, which basically means there's no reason for members to have a register of interests. Australians will not accept this. (Time expired)
Child Abuse
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (13:30): As a father, my very first priority is to the safety of my children. Indeed, the Morrison government is committed to the safety of all Australian children. This week, we delivered the first ever long-term national plan to protect children from the scourge of sexual abuse. I'm sure that we can all agree that all of us were shocked and appalled, and rightly so, at the findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We made a promise to do everything we could within our power to end these crimes. Under this 10-year National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, we're targeting abuse in all settings, including in the family and in the emerging online world. We're committing an initial $307 million, which includes more than $22 million to deliver a national awareness-raising campaign on child sexual abuse and $18.6 million to implement a national victim-identification framework for online child sexual abuse. The first phase will be driven by two four-year action plans delivering real protections for Australian children and better support for victims and survivors. With the number of these abhorrent crimes increasing, sadly, we must deliver real measures that will lead to those real outcomes as we better safeguard the innocence and safety of all our children.
Broadband
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (13:32): [by video link] I wish to explain to the House how the beautiful town of Berry, the town of trees, has been so badly impacted by the decisions of this government, given the failed NBN rollout of unequal technologies. Berry has a residential population of just over 3,000 people and a village atmosphere of traditional country charm but a complete maze of access to the NBN. Fibre to the premises is only for the lucky few. Fibre to the kerb is likely just the other side of the street. Fibre to the node: yes, I mentioned it was a maze all right. But it gets worse. There is also fixed wireless and satellite delivery. Is there another town of this size in Australia that holds the full house with five means of NBN delivery?
The compounding impact of this reckless planning is when the NBN fixed wireless meets congested mobile phone towers. Visit Berry on any weekend, holiday times especially, and the population easily doubles. However, tourism brings more than just congestion on the roads. Data congestion is a whole new beast. As the Berry chamber of commerce represented to me, local shops, cafes and restaurants discover interruptions to EFTPOS services, crucial QR-code check-ins and card readers. Small business suffers again under the Morrison government. I'm calling for an urgent upgrade to the capacity of telecommunications services in Berry.
Rogers, Ms Liz
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (13:33): I would like to pay tribute to Liz Rogers, a beloved and treasured member of the Kempsey community, who passed away on Tuesday surrounded by a large, loving family. Liz leaves her devoted husband of more than 60 years, Bevan; seven children: Michelle, Tony, Mark, John, Cathy, Bob and Natalie and their respective partners; 16 grandchildren; and one great-grandson.
Liz was 85 years old. Just two weeks ago she competed in an 18-hole tournament at Frederickton Golf Club. Liz was still the ladies captain at Fredo and had been for many, many years. Prior to her round, she had lamented that she was feeling a little tired and disappointed she would need to use an electric cart for the very first time.
Liz was known to be tenacious and also a quiet achiever. She had a passion for and a lifelong commitment to hockey, playing as a schoolgirl in Taree and then dedicating more than 40 years as a player and coach in Kempsey. Liz had the pleasure of playing hockey with her daughters and played competitively until she was 70, when she was forced into retirement by a broken thumb. This, however, allowed more time for golf, which she addressed with the same passion and commitment.
We honour the passing of a wonderful wife, mother, matriarch, friend and dedicated community member and volunteer. Vale, Liz Rogers. You will be fondly remembered and dearly missed.
Rowswell, Zachary
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (13:35): Sometimes you meet people who are 100 per cent dedicated to helping others, and every day they try to find a way to give back, but it's not often you find this level of altruism in someone as young as Zachary Rowswell from Jerrabomberra Public School. This year, on multiple occasions, eight-year-old Zach has inspired his school and the Jerrabomberra community to give to those less fortunate. In May he held a fundraiser and encouraged people to donate to the Queanbeyan sleepbus. He said, 'Homeless people need somewhere safe to sleep.' He raised over $3,000 for the sleepbus. But he didn't stop there. As the weather turned cold, he had another idea and started collecting winter clothing to donate to people in need. Through his efforts, he managed to collect more than 120 items of clothing, including warm pants, coats and jumpers, and donate them to three local charities.
Now this local hero has set his sights on Christmas, and he's once again encouraging people to give to others. He is collecting gifts to donate to Kids in Care ACT and the Salvation Army. To quote Zach: 'It's cool to be kind, and don't forget: adults need Christmas gifts too.' Thank you, Zach. Not only are you inspiring the next generation to give back, to volunteer and to help others, but you're also proving how one person, no matter their age, can make a huge difference.
Climate Change
Mr COULTON (Parkes) (13:37): In the last two weeks, there's been a lot of discussion about Australia and its commitment to reduce its emissions, and the Prime Minister is heading off tonight to represent our country in Glasgow. Also in the last two weeks, I've been sitting in the House listening to some of the speeches that school students have brought in as part of a competition, and something struck me very hard: a lot of them are quite bleak about the future, largely relating to climate change and the impacts of it. It made me think that there's a responsibility in this place, in the political debate, not to steal the hopes and the futures of our younger people, because what's driven humanity on for millennia is the hope that tomorrow will be better than today and the belief in mankind to overcome the problems that come towards it. To have members in here—the member for Melbourne and others—talking up climate emergencies and a future that is indeed bleak with bushfires and the like is very irresponsible. I can remember that when I was seven years old my school holidays and weekends were caught up in a very severe drought, where my father's farm was completely depleted and our grain was gone, but we always had a belief that tomorrow was going to be better, and we should remember that when we're making speeches in this place. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Immigration Detention
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:38): There are now 21 confirmed COVID cases among the asylum seekers and refugees in the Park Hotel in Melbourne. This is a national disgrace and an abrogation of the duty of care owed to these people by the Morrison government. When COVID came to Australia early last year, I and my colleagues publicly called on the government to release detainees who had cleared security checks. I asked the government why, in a global pandemic, people who posed no risk to the community should be held in hotel detention when the health risks were so clear. The government had no good answer for this. Doctors warned of the risk of infection given the men were confined to a space where they couldn't possibly distance. Hundreds of community members offered to take them in and support them. Despite all the health warnings, this government did nothing. They sat on their hands for over a year and offered detainees Panadol when they presented with COVID symptoms. Despite the cases, the detainees are still living in a confined space. If it isn't incompetence, it's just cruelty—cruelty used deliberately for so-called deterrence.
This is the path the Morrison government has chosen to take, but the government cannot hide from the duty of care to people in its care. I call on the Morrison government to provide immediate medical care to positive cases and transfer and release them into accommodation where their health is not put at risk.
Henderson, Dr Michael AO
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:39): I rise today to acknowledge the service of Dr Michael Henderson, who was appointed an officer of the Order of Australia earlier this year. Dr Henderson was recognised for the significant contributions he made to motor vehicle and motorsport safety and preventing road trauma. Dr Henderson first began his career in the RAAF, an experience which ignited a passion for the prevention of injury in aircraft crashes. This led to an interest in preventing injury concerning motor vehicles. In 1968, Dr Henderson joined a project team which designed a concept safety Formula One, outlining innovation which became foundational for later Formula One regulations. He later joined a research group formed by the New South Wales Department of Motor Transport and served as director of Traffic Safety in New South Wales. In this role, he drafted legislation which led to the enforcement of seatbelts in Australia along with other crucial innovations in road safety. This work influenced significant change and prevented many accidents on the road. Thanks to Dr Henderson's work, Australia became a leader in road safety, and I thank him for his commitment to vehicle and road safety, which has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. It is both an honour and privilege to have somebody of Dr Michael Henderson's capacity and ability and contribution to our society living on the Northern Beaches of Sydney.
COVID-19: Indi Electorate
Dr HAINES (Indi) (13:41): The mental health impacts of COVID are well-known, and one of the most powerful ways we can address that is through simple acts of kindness. Kindness is known to increase self-esteem, empathy, compassion and improve mood. Throughout this long pandemic, the kindness I've seen and the frustration of those wanting to provide kindness but who could not was very moving. I want to acknowledge the professional mental health workers on the coalface at Albury-Wodonga Health, Gateway Health, GP practices, nurses, psychologists and counsellors, who do their work with kindness. I also want to acknowledge the neighbours helping neighbours, the families and community groups finding new ways to connect, the food shares, the kids setting up their postbox libraries and writing letters to the elderly with kindness. I also acknowledge the businesses who face their customers with care and kindness and those who wish they could but restrictions did not allow them to, businesses like Genesis Health and Fitness in Wodonga, with 3,000 members on its books, including many with disabilities who rely on exercise for their mental health. Owner Janene Schubert has been inundated with anxious members desperate to exercise but unable to, and she helped them with such kindness. There are many gyms, fitness studios and businesses who are in this situation, and today I acknowledge the kindness shown right throughout Indi and the intent, and I thank them all for their humanity throughout these difficult times.
Stronger Communities Program
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:43): The expressions of interest have opened for around 7 of the Stronger Communities Program, which gives local governing bodies and community groups the opportunity to nominate projects of up to $20,000. Round 7 will provide $22.65 million across 151 federal electorates. The Stronger Communities Program delivers infrastructure and equipment to our community organisations for them to continue to grow and be successful. Previous rounds of this fantastic program across my electorate have seen football, netball, tennis, soccer, cricket and golf clubs; heritage centres; search and rescue volunteers; men's sheds; and childcare and community centres receive grants. These grants have been for kitchen upgrades, appliances, air-conditioners, security, lighting, play equipment, fencing, flooring, computers, a silo art viewing area, storage sheds, hot water services, toilets for the disabled, wheelchairs, and electrical upgrades. The townships across my electorate that have always been able to access these grants are places like Tungamah, Undera, Congupna, Nagambie, Kyabram, Nathalia, Rochester, Tallygaroopna, Numurkah, Mooroopna, Girgarre, Murchison, Tatura, Seymour, Echuca, Wunghun, Yarrawonga, Tongala, Merrigum, Gunbower, Dookie, Katamatite and Waaia. It's a fantastic program that helps an amazing group of small communities, and I want to thank the government for bringing round 7 to fruition again.
McEwen Electorate: Hazel Glen College
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (13:44): It's my pleasure to rise today to congratulate all the year 12 students at Hazel Glen College, who will be graduating in the coming weeks. Standing here in my Hazel Glen tie reminds me that these year 12 students have faced immense and unprecedented challenges over their final years of school. The disruption to education, to work and to family life that has been felt over the course of the pandemic cannot be understated, but the perseverance of the students, staff and teachers over the course of this pandemic is something that is an inspiration to all of us.
In particular, I want to give my congratulations and praise to the incredible co-captains of Hazel Glen, Alex Mitris and Grace Gillies, and of course the vice-captains, Calizta Jankowitz and Sascha Allen, under the leadership of Principal Anthony Stockwell. Over the course of this pandemic, we've all had to learn, face new challenges and adapt to new circumstances. These students have taken on the responsibility of leadership during one of the most challenging times in our history, and they have done so with courage, conviction, compassion and a leadership far beyond their years.
So to all the year 12 students at Hazel Glen College, I say: congratulations for all your hard work and dedication and good luck as you move into the next phase of your life, whether it's transitioning to university, learning a trade or just taking a well-earned year off. Please know that you have been an inspiration to us, and we thank you so much for everything you have done.
Climate Change
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (13:46): This week the Prime Minister set out our plan for a net zero future. I'm immensely proud of this momentous occasion in Australia's history. Australia has agreed to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. This will have a whole-of-economy impact. Our plan is based on five clear principles. The first is technology; by grasping these opportunities and predicted market trends, we will shape our economy while driving down emissions. The second is expanding energy choices and emissions reduction, both domestically and with our trading partners. The third is driving down the cost of a range of new energy technologies by bringing a portfolio of technologies to cost competitiveness, such as clean hydrogen, low-emissions steel and aluminium and even green cement. The fourth is keeping energy prices down, with affordable and reliable power; our plan will consolidate our advantage in affordable and reliable energy. The fifth, importantly, is being accountable to progress by transparency, which is essential to convert ambition into achievement.
In my first speech, I said there is a major and inevitable transition occurring in our energy sector to a clean and sustainable energy future. It's not just an environmental imperative to act; it's an economic one. This won't be easy, however. We are now witnessing this transition. We have a plan, we have a target and, together, we will secure Australia's environmental and economic future.
Electoral Roll
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:47): This morning we saw another shameful chapter in the government's attempts to cling to power, with the introduction of a bill to introduce voter ID requirements for the first time in our nation's history. These electoral changes are nothing but a transparent attempt to save their own skins as the polls start to reflect what Australians are thinking. This is a tired, incompetent government that is well and truly past its use-by date.
These laws are utterly unnecessary. The Australian Electoral Commission has confirmed that the number of vote discrepancies in Australian elections is vanishingly small and that no-one was prosecuted for multiple voting at the 2019 federal election. People living in remote communities, those dealing with homelessness, seniors and Australians escaping domestic violence often don't have easy access to identification. These laws mirror the kinds of rules we've seen in Trump's America. This is outrageous.
We are fortunate in Australia to have an independent electoral commission and a system that prioritises and enfranchises voters. We should be incredibly wary when the government of the day introduces electoral laws to solve a supposed problem that the Australian Electoral Commission says does not exist. This is not Trump's America. This is Australia, and, in this country, every single person is afforded the opportunity to cast their vote. If this government wants to change that, they've got one hell of a fight on their hands.
Moore Electorate: War Memorials
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:49): On behalf of the Joondalup City RSL, I seek federal funding to relocate and refurbish two war memorials in my electorate. The 100th Anniversary Anzac Memorial arch at Ocean Reef, on the foreshore overlooking the marina, commemorates the Centenary of Anzac and the conflicts in which Australia has been involved. The memorial was constructed with funding from the Anzac centenary grants program.
The landmark redevelopment of Ocean Reef Marina will soon require the memorial to be relocated. Fortunately, the arch is constructed from steel and glass, and can be transported intact. The Joondalup City RSL Sub-branch plans to relocate the memorial arch to a new prominent site at the redeveloped marina, and to install suitable paving and landscaping to ensure that future generations of Australians can gather in a reflective space for memorial services and to pay their respects to our servicemen and servicewomen.
In addition, the traditional masonry memorial at Central Park in Joondalup, which is used for our city's major annual memorial services, is also in need of cleaning, maintenance and landscaping. I call upon the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to consider favourably these two very worthy requests for funding.
Morrison Government
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:50): I have to raise in this place the parliamentary dissonance that we've been hearing this week. We have a government in this place which in question time this week has told us that they won't mandate, they won't legislate and they won't regulate. In fact, lawmakers on the other side have an aversion to doing their job: creating laws for this country! That's what we heard at question time the other day.
But then I have people in my electorate ringing me to say: 'What is it about the government's new domestic violence funding? Are they going to try to control our spending with that?' It's a fair question, given the cashless debit card and this government's obsession with financial control of people who need support. So it's not surprising that the country is confused: 'We don't want to regulate, we don't want to legislate,' but then, today, they bring into the House a piece of legislation that will disenfranchise older Australians from actually voting! 'We don't want to legislate, we don't want to regulate—unless we think we don't need your vote.'
It's no wonder they want to stop elderly Australians from voting—no wonder at all! The cashless debit card is coming straight at them. If people didn't believe it before, believe it now! Elderly Australians are going to need to prove who they are before they can vote under this government. It's a disgrace!
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:52): I want to use this opportunity to add to a contribution I made last night in the adjournment, where I was indicating that the vaccine rollout had gathered pace: 70 per cent of eligible Australians over the age of 16 are fully vaccinated and South Australia has achieved 80 per cent vaccination for first dose.
I make this statement as a proud provaxxer, but vaccination should remain an individual's choice. Those who choose not to be vaccinated should not be ostracised. Outside the aged-care setting, we don't exclude those who haven't taken the flu vaccine for work or in other aspects of life. A society that shuns the unvaccinated is not one that I want to live in, nor want a post-COVID Australia to look like. My family came to Australia seeking opportunity—opportunity born of the possibilities and freedoms that Australians enjoy. COVID normal should not involve the need to flash our vaccination status around just to go about our daily lives. Outside an aged-care facility or quarantine setting you should not need a vaccination to get a job, sit in a cafe or watch your favourite sporting team.
Let me be clear: as I said, I'm a provaxxer. I encourage all Australians to roll up their sleeves and get vaccinated, if and when they can. But I also encourage Australians to think about the future of our society and what we want Australia to look like as we live with this virus.
Morrison Government
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:53): This government is big on claiming they support freedoms, but there's a stench of hypocrisy rising from the government benches. In their minds, all people deserve freedoms but some people deserve fewer freedoms than others. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, there should be freedom from legislation for any targets on zero emissions by 2050, and the Prime Minister has the freedom to keep the modelling of their so-called targets secret.
But they don't let others enjoy such freedoms. There are people who have no freedom to buy what they want when they want to because they're on a cashless debit card. We know the government has left the door open to put age and disability pensioners on that card. And there are people who will have the freedom to vote taken away from them, if the Prime Minister has his way, by forcing voter IDs onto every one of us on polling day in some Trumpian move to solve a problem that does not exist.
People on the NDIS feel they're losing promised freedoms to make decisions about their own lives, and domestic violence support workers have raised with me why this government has not given women the freedom to have control of the new DV assistance payment. They have asked, 'Why do women escaping abuse and control need a government or agency to make the decisions for them as they try to secure their own freedoms?' If you're vulnerable your freedoms matter less to this government.
Curtin Electorate: School Leavers
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (13:55): This year, over 2½ thousand young people are graduating from schools in my electorate—Churchlands, Perth Mod, Shenton, Iona, JTC, Newman, Bold Park Community School, Christ Church, Hale, International School of Western Australia, MLC, PLC, Scotch, St Hilda's and St Mary's. To the teaching and support staff at all these schools: thank you very much for what you've done for and given to our kids over the last 12-plus years. Your patience, passion, perseverance and professionalism is hugely appreciated by all.
To all the young people: you got this. COVID-19 has undoubtedly magnified the usual stresses that go along with leaving school. No doubt you've already been asked a zillion times, 'What are you going to do when you leave school?'—a question which is fine if you have a clear idea as to what you want to do, but it can be incredibly stressful if you don't. Just be reassured: it's very common for people to not have a clear idea as to what they want to do when they leave school, and it's perfectly normal to take some time to decide. You got this. Do your best. But remember: year 12 exams do not define you and don't dictate the rest of your life. Breathe deeply. Sleep well. Exercise. Laugh every day. Talk to friends. Ask for help.
I know every school would have had a different graduation song this year, and at the risk of embarrassing my school-leaver son I say to him: my graduation song for you is Katy Perry's 'Firework'. Listen to it often, and listen to it loudly.
Electoral Roll
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (13:56): As one of the only world leaders who refused to condemn the invasion of the US Capitol, it's only fitting that this Prime Minister is channelling a move straight out of the Trump playbook. He doesn't want donor ID for Christian Porter but he wants voter ID for vulnerable Australians. He talks about cracking down on voter fraud, something the AEC says barely exists and something that saw zero prosecutions from the last election—not one! This is a blatant attempt at Trump style voter suppression—an attempt to divide us by a great divider. This is about making voting harder.
We should be proud of our democracy that we call the Australian ballot. Queues will stretch around the block and many vulnerable Australians will lose their democratic voice. There are 140,000 people waiting to get their citizenship who will be excluded from voting. The fact is: the Prime Minister stalled on an Indigenous voice to parliament, and now he wants to take away their voice at the ballot box. This is a cynical move to minimise the number of Indigenous Australians who get to vote. Our electoral system is proudly Australian. This is ugly, divisive legislation. And I urge Australians to use the ballot box to tell this divisive man his time is up.
Member for Bowman
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:58): [by video link] Today I withdraw my 25 March parliamentary apology. It's now obvious the accusations against me were fabricated. My apology at the time was to anyone genuinely upset by my electorate communication, but none of those televised in March were genuine. My electorate work is always in the interests of the residents of Redland City, and that local record remains online, unaltered and defended 100 per cent. Serious accusations deserve to be the subject of a formal complaint, and, apart from one thrown out just minutes after I provided a written statement, no complaint has ever materialised despite my public and repeated requests. The caper is now pretty clear: run to the media but assiduously avoid laying any form of complaint, lest it be exposed as baseless.
Anyone feeling upset has formal channels available to them. Deliberately avoiding that process for trial by media is not and should never be rewarded. That's why the ALP suspending the House's operations on no fewer than 25 occasions was disappointing political opportunism, and the ABC refusing to apologise for months and stooping to trawling my electorate for mildly annoyed critics to join the pile-on in the form of a bizarre 7.30 report was disappointing. I don't believe there are any exceptional circumstances at play to justify the national broadcaster's conduct, nor at any time was this ever an honest mistake of the ABC—which they continue to maintain to this day.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Climate Change
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister: Why did it take the threat of being humiliated at an international climate conference for the Prime Minister to commit to net zero? Weren't the bushfires enough?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:00): Only this Leader of the Opposition would seek to politicise the bushfires. That reflects on him. The COP26 date was set very clearly, and methodically over the course of the year the government has worked to come together to enable us to confirm the policy which enables me this evening to head, firstly, to the G20 and then to the COP26 in Glasgow and be very clear that Australia's nationally determined contribution is that we have a target of net zero emissions by 2050.
In addition, we will be able to update our nationally determined contribution to indicate that our target of 26 per cent to 28 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 will indeed be exceeded and we will see a 35 per cent reduction in emissions. This is what Australia is achieving. Already we have seen a 20.8 per cent reduction in emissions, which exceeds the performance of the United States, of Canada, of New Zealand and of Japan. Australia is getting this job done. What our performance has demonstrated, be that the highest rate of rooftop solar uptake in the world or record levels of the installation of renewable energy—in one year there have been more installations of renewable energy in this country than in six years of the Labor government—is that, at the same time as achieving these targets, over that same period of time, we've seen a 45 per cent increase in the size of our economy.
Interestingly, when you look at the time that we have been in government, the CPI figures yesterday showed that electricity prices under our government went up by three per cent. Over the Labor Party's period of time, they went up by 101 per cent. So, under Labor, your electricity prices are higher, your taxes are higher and your emissions were higher as well. Under our government we have been getting emissions down, we have been keeping electricity prices down and we have been getting the number of jobs up. We now have a million people in manufacturing jobs. Under Labor, one in eight manufacturing jobs were gone, because of the economy-destroying policies of the Labor Party when they were last in government.
I know that our government can stand up for Australia, to protect our interests and to have an Australian plan that is done in Australia's interests to deal with Australia's economy. That's what we have been doing. We have the strength to pursue that plan and bring the country together and pursue that target that we've set. Those opposite don't have the strength to do that. (Time expired)
Morrison Government: Economy
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:03): Following on from those comments from the Prime Minister, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is delivering on its plans to secure Australia's economic future and keep Australia safe, including by reopening the nation through increased COVID-19 vaccine rates?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the member for Leichardt for his question. I am so pleased, as I know the people of Leichardt are so pleased, that the member for Leichardt is putting himself forward again at the next election. He's stood with us as a coalition for many, many years. He is one of the most experienced and dedicated members of this House and a champion of North Queensland.
At the last election, he and I stood together and we told the Australian people, together with the government members, that we were going to build our economy to secure Australia's future. At that time, none of us could have known the challenges that would come Australia's way at the time of the last election, in particular in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and the global recession that followed from that pandemic. But the national plans we have put in place over the course of this parliamentary term have served that purpose—to secure Australia's future. Despite the challenges and uncertainty we have faced as a country, Australians can still plan for their future with confidence. Our COVID response plan and the national plan to reopen Australia is effective, is working and is opening up the country—75 per cent double dose vaccination rates have now been achieved across the country. Three quarters of those aged over 16 have been vaccinated. We have one of the lowest rates of fatalities of COVID-19 in the world. We are one of the strongest economies to power through the COVID-19 pandemic and the recession that followed it. Now we are on our way to having the highest COVID-19 vaccine rates around the world, and today we have announced the booster program. There are enough vaccines in Australia not only for the boosters but for everyone who wants one to get one, and to assure, particularly in Western Australia and Queensland, that those rates can rise.
There is the economic recovery plan that the Treasurer has led, the budgets that he has brought down, lower taxes, infrastructure spending, skill spending, manufacturing and energy, defence industry, recycling, our rare earths and critical minerals strategy in the resources sector, our agricultural 2030 plan and the record investments going to science research, and, of course our national plan to ensure that we can achieve our target of net zero emissions by 2050—without taxes, without putting burdens on Australians or targeting sectors or telling Australians what they should be doing.
There is our national security plan, which was realised again last night, when Australia was the first country to achieve a comprehensive, strategic partnership with ASEAN. This is a significant achievement, and I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs. To be present at the East Asia Summit as ASEAN's first comprehensive strategic partner is a great achievement for Australia. But that is backed up by our leadership through the Quad nations, backed up through the partnerships formed through AUKUS and our record defence spending, as well as keeping kids safe online and keeping our borders safe. These national plans are delivering for Australia. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can he confirm the government ridiculed renewable energy targets, then flipped, tried to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, then flipped, railed against electric vehicles, then flipped, and attacked net zero before adopting it. Why should Australians trust a government with net zero credibility on Australia's clean energy future?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:07): The Leader of the Opposition is just incapable of telling the truth. That is not the position I have adopted. I have opposed the Labor Party's policies on their approaches to addressing many of those issues, but, as we know right now, the Labor Party is voting against hydrogen to be used in infrastructure for vehicles, and they are voting against it in the Senate. They're voting against carbon capture and storage. They're voting against renewable technologies that we want to finance through ARENA and the CFC. They're voting against it.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides! The member for Macarthur! You'd better watch out; you've done your chair duty for the day, so you are vulnerable! The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on direct relevance. The answer's not relevant. It's untrue. It's weird.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business, I was fairly tolerant with the language in the question, which really could have meant anything, when you use words like 'flipped', so I'm going to keep listening to the Prime Minister. I was reluctant to rule the question out of order, but the Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I was referring to is that we have a bill in the Senate right now that is seeking support. They are seeking to disallow the regulations—that's what the Labor Party is seeking to do—for our policies, which include $72 million to support electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicle charging infrastructure, $52 million for microgrids in regional Australia, $20 million to look at how we can make heavy trucks more fuel efficient, and $47 million to help heavy industry reduce their energy consumption. The Labor Party has voted against these policies seven times. I'm asked about the issue of trust, in the question. I saw this quote today:
If I was a coalminer, a power generation worker, a manufacturing worker and wanted to look at the bona fides of the ALP … about how they deal with just transition, if you looked at what happened to Victorian timber workers—
The SPEAKER: There's already been a point of order on relevance. That's what I took it as, anyway. I know the Prime Minister's picked out a word, and certainly the way the question was framed what he was saying up until then was perfectly fine, because the question made an accusation about the government's credibility. But, I know on this one, he can't now move to talk about the opposition.
Mr MORRISON: I'll have to save it for later, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I don't mind when. Just when you've asked the right questions.
Mr MORRISON: Labor is not on your side if you're out there working in those industries. That's what union leaders themselves are saying. But our plan is about achieving net zero by 2050 without taking people's jobs, without saying you have to go and mandate what they have to do, without putting taxes on them. The Labor Party have attacked our plan. They don't like our plan. They don't like it that it focuses only on technology to achieve this. I know this: if you're not going to achieve net zero by 2050 through technology, there are only two other ways you can do it—by taxes and heavier regulation, driving jobs out of industries. That's the Labor Party's plan.
Infrastructure: Regional Australia
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:11): My question as to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is providing vital infrastructure to support regional communities and economies, and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:11): I thank the honourable member for his question. I note so much work that he has done in making the Pacific Highway safer, and obviously, especially in its latest iteration, the work that he is doing consistently for the people of the City of Coffs Harbour with the Coffs Harbour bypass. This is a $1.8 billion project—$1.46 billion coming from the federal government. But it's not just on the big projects; it's also on the smaller projects such as the Hutch Road and the sealing of the Hatch Road, or the Macleay Valley family community centre.
In my conversations with the member for Cowper, we've also talked about projects into the future that we have to sit down and consider how we deal with, especially the road that goes between Kempsey and Wollomombi, or the Taylors Arm road, of approximately 60 km, which has had no work on it, or Spooners Avenue from Greenhill to Fredericton, where we've got to try and work out how we take that road ahead.
He also talks about alternative policies, and it's incredibly important that we clearly understand that the member for Cowper's electorate—in it is the beef industry, in it is the dairy industry. It is vitally important that people clearly understand how those industries are so imperative to the income that's earned in places like Kempsey, which is the home of Akubra hats, and these people, whether it's the Maineys and Kesbys and all those families up there, and how important they are to the beef industry.
One of the things that could completely and utterly rock the beef industry is a legislation that was brought forward that would put the impost and would put caveats on where that industry went. Now, we heard of what has been happening in Glasgow and the movements that have been made by the President of the United States and others towards a methane target by 2030 on 2020 levels—30 per cent reduction. And I'm so happy and confident that that's not a path that Australia will entertain to go by 2030, but I don't know exactly what the Labor Party's position is on this. Because this would decimate it. The member for McMahon—I'm going to quote your press conference. I was even more perturbed and less confident when I heard the member for McMahon talk about how it was a silly little debate and that of course agriculture should be included. I've got no problems with that, as long as it lifts them up and it doesn't drag them down. And his solution to methane abatement was Asparagopsis. Now, Asparagopsis—you can buy it in capsules, about 120 capsules will costs you about $50. The problem is we got close to 30 million head of cattle, and 30 million head of cattle and buying Asparagopsis—the numbers just don't work out. He said, the member for McMahon, 'Don't worry— (Time expired)
Climate Change
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has refused to release the modelling of his net zero policy, showing its full economic impact, before he goes to Glasgow tonight. Why?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:15): As I've said on a number of occasions, the government will be releasing the modelling in the next few weeks, and it will be there along with our plans, which go through, quite methodically, how we intend to achieve that target. I'm looking forward to being able to point to the commitment that we're making, the target that we've set, of net zero emissions by 2050 and, of course, the update to our 2030 target, which was 26 to 28 per cent, which is what we took to the last election. We've kept faith with that commitment. We said we'd meet that commitment and we'd beat it, and that is exactly what we're going to do. I'll be able to inform them that we now expect that we will be able to see a 35 per cent reduction by 2030. That is our expectation. That is what the work shows. I think that's an extraordinary achievement by the Australian people, by Australian industry and, I've got to say, particularly by the agricultural sector.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Yes, on relevance. It was a really specific question. There was no rhetoric. It was just about modelling and why it is isn't being produced now. Why?
The SPEAKER: I've been listening carefully to the Prime Minister. I think he is being relevant to the question. He certainly was in the first couple of sentences. It mightn't be the answer that those on my left wanted, but I'll keep hearing the Prime Minister.
Mr MORRISON: That's what we'll be doing when we go to Glasgow. We as a coalition have worked solidly together to understand fully the implications of these nationally determined contributions that we've made. We have worked through these issues. We've considered what is happening in the global economy and the impacts, particularly on rural and regional areas, and we have developed a plan which enables us to achieve this and at the same time see our economy continue to grow and the way of life of rural and regional communities continue to go forward. That is what our plan achieves. Our targets are clear: 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, which we'll meet and beat, and, by 2050, to achieve net zero emissions. We still don't know what the Labor Party's 2030 target is, and the clock has been ticking on them for a long time.
COVID-19: Indi Electorate
Dr HAINES (Indi) (14:18): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Right now Albury-Wodonga is experiencing the biggest outbreak of COVID-19 since the pandemic began. Likewise there are increasing numbers of cases in Wangaratta and neighbouring towns. At the same time, city visitation to the regions opens this weekend. The rural health workforces are under enormous strain. What is the federal government doing to guarantee health workforce capacity to regional towns like Wodonga and Wangaratta so health services can handle these COVID outbreaks and meet ongoing local health needs?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:18): I want to thank the member for Indi, as well as the member for Farrer, who has been making repeated steps forward and working with the government to support the border regions on both sides. I acknowledge both members for their work. We are very aware of a significant outbreak which has now seen over 450 cases across the border regions, on the Albury and the Wodonga sides. In particular, we are working with both state governments as well as both communities to address this challenge. Firstly, in relation to vaccination I'm pleased to be able to report that they have reached, in the Albury LGA, 98 per cent vaccination coverage and, in the Wodonga LGA, 97.7 per cent, so they are two of Australia's most-vaccinated local government areas. To see that in a regional area, I think, is very heartening. It provides important protection for both of those communities. There are over 30 Commonwealth vaccination sites across the two communities, 18 general practices, 11 pharmacies, one Indigenous medical service and, in addition, one Commonwealth vaccination clinic—so 31 Commonwealth sites which have been providing vaccinations.
A further thing which is extremely important is of course the testing, and this has been raised with me by both members, the member for Farrer and the member for Indi. At this stage, we have a pop-up clinic at Lavington Sports Ground, a drive-through clinic at Albury Showgrounds, a pathology clinic in Lavington, walk-in testing at Wodonga Respiratory Clinic and drive-through testing at the Wodonga campus of Albury-Wodonga Health. Importantly, we've been working with the Victorian government, and the Victorian deputy chief health officer, Ben Cowie, has stated publicly that they have responded and will be providing additional testing resources this weekend. I think that that's a very important message to the people on both sides of the border—that those representations have resulted in increased testing activity.
My office has also been working with private rapid-antigen-test providers. Rapid antigen tests will be available from 1 November, and they have confirmed that there will be strong and significant supply within the border regions. That will grow, through pharmacies and convenience providers, in the course of the first two weeks. But they will be available from the start of November.
Finally, in terms of PPE, we've now made three deliveries in recent weeks to support the health services. There were National Medical Stockpile deliveries on 14, 18 and 26 October of P2 masks, surgical masks, gloves, gowns, goggles, shields and sanitiser. So all of these things are coming together as part of the Commonwealth's response, and I thank both the member for Farrer and the member for Indi for their representations.
Taxation
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (14:21): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the Morrison government's ongoing commitment to delivering lower taxes will strengthen our economic rebound as COVID-19 restrictions ease? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for O'Connor for his question and acknowledge him as a third-generation wheat farmer—and with an electorate that's more than 866,000 square kilometres. It's more than three times larger than the state of Victoria, more than 11 times larger than the state of Tasmania, and it's a powerhouse for mining, for agriculture and for tourism. And the member for O'Connor, like others on this side of the House, understands that we stand for more jobs and lower taxes.
Now, the member for Rankin, the shadow Treasurer, said last year that the government 'should be judged on what happens to unemployment'. They were his words: the government should be judged on what happens to unemployment. The member for Rankin said the most important test of this government's management of recession is what happens to jobs. Well, I can inform the member for Rankin, as I can inform the rest of the House, that, when we came to government, the unemployment rate was 5.7 per cent and today it's 4.6 per cent. An additional 1.4 million people are in work than there were when we came to government, and we know that, of those 1.4 million jobs, 58 per cent went to women.
We're also focused on driving down taxes and we've legislated through the parliament more than $300 billion of income tax cuts. So, if you're a teacher or a tradie on $60,000 a year, you pay $6,480 less tax as a result of the tax cuts that we've legislated through the last three budgets alone. Our immediate expensing provisions have helped drive increased investment in machinery and in equipment, whether it's a farmer getting a new harvester or a tradie getting new tools. We've also put in place other tax incentives, like cutting the company tax rate down to 25 per cent for businesses with a turnover of $50 million or less. Our tax cuts, together with our infrastructure programs, our other measures to cut red tape, what we've done on insolvency, what we've been doing on digital platforms, what we've been doing on foreign investment with historic reforms—these are all designed to create more jobs across the economy.
But we know that those opposite only stand for higher taxes and more spending. We saw that at the last election, with $387 billion of higher taxes that they took to the Australian people. The member for McMahon said to the Australian people, 'If you don't like our tax policies don't vote for them.' They took him literally. And they know that we on this side of the House stand for more jobs and lower taxes, and that we have delivered exactly that.
Climate Change
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows my last question, about why it is that modelling for his net zero policy has not been released. Is he aware that a senior official has just told Senate estimates, 'We are finalising the writing up of that work'? How is it that this Prime Minister released his so-called plan—where, between him and the minister, he said 'plan' 94 times—but doesn't actually have one and doesn't have modelling that he can table? (Time expired)
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:25): The modelling will be released in the next couple of weeks. It will be there for everybody to see. The plan has been released; I've tabled it in the parliament—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: It will form part of our nationally determined contribution at COP26.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for McEwen then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: It sets out—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith will follow him!
The member for Kingsford Smith then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: It sets out that our 2030 commitment—our government has a 2030 commitment; the opposition still doesn't have a 2030 target at all. They don't have one! They can't speak to one, because it isn't there. We have one; we took it to the last election. It was supported by the Australian people. The Labor Party had one: it was 45 per cent and it was rejected by the Australian people and those opposite have been sitting there twiddling their thumbs about what it should be ever since. They don't know whether it should be high—
The SPEAKER: No, I just say to the Prime Minister that there wasn't an opportunity in this question to speak about the opposition policies.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The net zero by 2050 position that the government has arrived at has been arrived at based on the modelling that has been done by the government through the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources—a highly competent department, led by Secretary Fredericks, who I know is well regarded around the Public Service. And that document will be released in the next few weeks; it will be there and they'll be able to see it. They'll be able to see what it does, through the plan that we're putting in place, with technology not taxes and respecting people's choices—
Ms Coker interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite is now warned!
Mr MORRISON: not seeking to legislate what people should do in their lives, in their businesses, on their farms or in their minds. That's what the Labor Party wants to do. Not us!—
The SPEAKER: No! I just—
Mr MORRISON: We want to let the Australian economy achieve this target, and we know it can. We know that Australians can achieve this, because emissions have already fallen by more than 20 per cent.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Yes, Mr Speaker, on direct relevance. The question goes to the Prime Minister being asked about modelling and never once letting us know the document doesn't even exist!
The SPEAKER: No, the Manager of Opposition Business won't use the opportunity to try to give a statement or ask a different question. Has the Prime Minister concluded?
Mr MORRISON: No—
The SPEAKER: Just before you recommence: there isn't an opportunity to talk about opposition policies in your answer. The Prime Minister.
Mr MORRISON: That's because they don't have any, Mr Speaker! They don't have any targets and they don't have any plans for 2050—
The SPEAKER: No—
Mr MORRISON: So I can't help there, Mr Speaker!
The SPEAKER: No, but maybe you had better wind up your answer.
Mr MORRISON: I'm happy to conclude on that note.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on Australia's vaccine rollout and when booster vaccines will become available for all Australians?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:29): I want to thank the member for Lindsay, and also thank her community for coming forward to be vaccinated in record numbers—approximately 95 per cent of the Penrith community has come forward to be vaccinated. That's protecting them and it's protecting them in a world where, again, we have seen over 500,000 cases in the last 24 hours and over 8½ thousand lives lost worldwide. The pandemic continues, but in Australia we are seeing ever-increasing vaccination numbers. We are now at the point where we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, we have one of the most recently vaccinated populations and we are about to commence one of the world's first whole-of-population booster programs.
On vaccinations, we have now passed 35 million vaccinations in Australia—87.6 per cent of the population 16 years and over has had at least a first dose. We have passed three-quarters, 75½ per cent, of the population 16 years and over being fully vaccinated with a second dose. Then, looking across different demographics and communities, over 94.8 per cent of people aged 50 and above have been vaccinated and an extraordinary 98.8 per cent of Australians aged 70 and above have been vaccinated. This is surely one of the highest rates in the world for the elderly in the community to be vaccinated. That protection is absolutely fundamental in saving lives and protecting lives.
As we go forward, yesterday the TGA approved the Pfizer vaccine as a booster. Today we've had advice from ATAGI confirming and recommending that we begin the whole-of-population booster program. The first shots were administered shortly before question time by TLC at their Geelong residential aged-care facility. They are already commencing the booster program for older Australians. We're also making available as of 8 November the whole-of-population booster program, but those GPs, those states or those facilities that are in a position to begin beforehand have the capacity to do that immediately, as we have seen today with the booster program commencing.
All of these things have come together to protect Australians. We have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, we have one of the most recently vaccinated populations and now we are one of the first nations in the world, after Israel, to have a whole-of-country vaccination booster program.
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That this House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading the Parliament and the Australian people by not telling them that the modelling document for his net zero policy does not exist.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Dutton: Leave is not granted for such a stupid motion.
The SPEAKER: No, the Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—
That this House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading the Parliament and the Australian people by not telling them that the modelling document for his net zero policy does not exist.
If they had the courage of their convictions, they'd have a debate on climate change, and they could have it right now. Our policy—
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:33): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
The House divided. [14:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (14:38): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:38): Seconded. This modelling is not worth the paper it's not written on! It's so secret it's blank. This modelling doesn't exist.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:39): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for McMahon be no further heard.
The House divided. [14:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (14:41): The question now is that the motion be disagreed to.
The House divided. [14:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Climate Change
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Can the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan to reduce emissions is focused on technology and how this approach is already working? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:43): I thank the member for his question. He has seen throughout his career the power of technology to solve hard problems, and he knows that central to our plan to get to net zero by 2050 is a technology-led approach—technologies like hydrogen, ultralow-cost solar, carbon capture and storage, regenerating our soils, low-emissions steel and aluminium, and low-cost energy storage capacity. All of these are central to the plan, and our approach is already working, with emissions down 20.8 per cent at the same time as we've seen a 45 per cent increase in our economy and an increase of more than 200 per cent in our goods exports. We will meet and beat our 2030 target. We've reduced emissions faster than every other major commodity-exporting country in the world.
We've seen how solar can bring down emissions in recent years. Ninety per cent of the world's solar has been installed in the last ten years. That's because of 50 years of cost reductions averaging 12 per cent a year. We're on our way to ultra-low-cost solar. At that rate, by the 2030s, we will reach a point where solar will be at $15 a megawatt hour. And 90 per cent of those PV cells around the world have Australian intellectual property embedded in them. That is the approach we're taking in our plan.
There is an alternative. It is a carbon tax. But there's another part to that alternative, which is legislating a net zero target: a blank cheque. A number of other countries have done this, including the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, activists have launched illegal action against a 27 billion pound program to upgrade roads and fill potholes. Those taking action say that hitting carbon tax targets requires making driving less attractive too. They go on. The Transport Action Network, which is dragging the UK government through the courts, has a strategy for thousands of miles of speed cameras, not 50 major road schemes.
It's not just happening in the UK. Germany has legislated a net zero target, and in Germany the Constitutional Court is forcing the government to make deeper and harsher cuts. In France, the top administrative court, where they have a legislated net zero target, is threatening to fine the French government if they don't take all necessary actions. Those opposite want to hand the power of bringing down emissions to the courts. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:46): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister: Did the Prime Minister tell the Deputy Prime Minister the modelling was still being written up when the Deputy Prime Minister signed up to net zero?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:46): I thank the honourable member for his question. The Prime Minister's just handed me the actual quote, which I think is very important. The part they've left out is that the actual modelling had, of course, been finalised at that point. But with the write-up of it we just need to take a little extra time to ensure that it's written up clearly and is able to be presented well to the Australian public. So when you read it in its entirety it's entirely different to the proposition that the opposition are putting forward to this House. And it goes to show you how sneaky, at times, they can be—very, very sneaky. Because they are sneaky, they'll probably be very sneaky with the legislation that they intend to bring forward. The sneaky legislation they intend to bring forward will legislate, unless they can tell us otherwise, people out of a job. It would legislate the coalminers in Muswellbrook out of a job, legislate the coalminers in Singleton out of a job—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister is straying from the question.
Mr JOYCE: Mr Speaker, I've now been informed—and it seems completely logical—of the entirety of the quote, and the entirety of the quote completely dispenses with the premise of the question.
Defence Equipment
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House of the Morrison government's significant investment in defence capability, and how it's working with regional partners to keep Australia safe and secure? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:48): I thank the honourable member for her question. I want to thank her too for her commitment to the veterans on the Gold Coast, particularly around Anzac Day and days of national significance. It wouldn't come as any surprise that, at least in part, that passion comes from her own family history. We know that the honourable member has two great-uncles who were Rats of Tobruk, so that is an incredible family history and one to be very proud of.
The Morrison government is absolutely proud of the way in which we support our troops and the way in which we provide them with a very significant investment, to make over the course of the next 10 years, of some $270 billion. That is about investing in the equipment that we need to keep Australia safe and that we need to provide the troops with to keep our country safe. It is a record investment. It is now in excess of two per cent of GDP.
That stands in stark contrast to the Labor Party—and I am asked about alternative approaches. The defence budget, under the Labor Party, fell—wait for this—to 1.56 per cent of GDP. It was the lowest level since 1938. We live in a region now, in the Indo-Pacific, which is more uncertain than any time since that time, since the Second World War. We have uncertainty in our region, and we know that, if we were relying on the Labor Party now to provide support, security and safety to our country, they have a track record of taxing and taking money away from the Defence Force. That's the reality. Why would they do that? It is because, as the Australian public understands, when it comes to border protection and defending our nation, the Labor Party, at its heart, in its DNA, is weak. It's weak because, on these issues, it's dragged to the left by its buddies in the Greens. When Labor is in government, it makes decisions that are always against the interests of the Australian Defence Force. In making those decisions, the Labor Party takes money away from our troops and it takes money away that should be invested in keeping our country safe.
It is quite remarkable that our AUKUS construct has come together to keep Australians safe, but our compacts and our friends extend well beyond the United Kingdom and the United States. This is evidenced in ASEAN. At the Australian leaders summit last night—at which our country was represented by the Prime Minister—it was agreed to establish a comprehensive strategic partnership between ASEAN and Australia. This is a first time ASEAN has entered into such an arrangement. We'll continue to work with our close friends to keep our country safe. (Time expired)
Electoral Roll
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister seeking to suppress Australians' right to vote and importing Trump-style attacks on democracy into Australian politics on the eve of an election? Given the Australian Electoral Commission has confirmed that there were no prosecutions, not one, for multiple voting at the last election, isn't the only reason the Prime Minister is doing this is to deny many Australians a vote, particularly those from remote communities?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:52): I'll ask the Special Minister of State to address the bill that has been put forward, based on the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, not once but twice. The proposition that the government seeks to progress, based on that recommendation, is that people who go to vote should be able to say who they are and prove who they are in a democracy.
These are policies that are pursued by Canada—and the last time I saw him, I didn't notice Justin Trudeau looking very much like the former President of the United States. We respect them both. We respect all of our partners' leaders, because they're democratically elected, with a democratic process which has integrity. The vote-saving provisions under the declaration votes, as the Leader of the Opposition would well know, will ensure that, under our proposals, every vote will count and every vote will matter. You've got to really ask yourself why those opposite don't want people to have to prove who they are when they vote.
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Minister for the Public Service and Special Minister of State) (14:53): You really have to wonder why the Labor Party this morning took action against the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 before even reading it. What is it that scares them so much about having integrity in our electoral system? Not only did JSCEM recommend this in 2019; it also recommended it in 2016 after the election. I actually thought that the report after the 2013 election was very well written, and I'd refer members to it. The bill will ensure that the Australian electoral system comes into line with other liberal democracies, like Canada, France, Belgium, Sweden and all but 14 states in the US. The United Kingdom is introducing this legislation. But, before the Labor Party even see the detail on this bill, they are in here trashing it. Interestingly, in Queensland, in the last three elections, there has been one instance of requiring voter ID, and in that election there was a higher turnout than in the two subsequent elections without it.
The Labor Party are against this for all the wrong reasons, and one has to wonder why they are. You have to show ID to pick up a parcel at the post office, yet this lot won't allow more integrity in our electoral system to ensure that the right people are having their names marked off the roll. I have to question the motivation of those opposite. Taking action this morning against the bill, before you see the detail—it makes you wonder.
Education
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (14:55): [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. With many students in my electorate returning to school this week, why is it so important to have a national curriculum that lifts standards and ensures that kids are taught about the origins of our strong liberal democracy? What has been the response from parents and teachers to the Morrison government's calls for such a curriculum?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (14:56): I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. She, like me, is a very proud Melburnian and is so pleased to see kids returning to the classrooms in Melbourne this week and then further next week as well, meaning that kids right across our great country will be returning, in line with our national plan.
Mr Speaker, the member for Chisholm, as you know, is a great Australian, and she's like so many of the millions of migrants who came to this country over the past few decades because of the freedom, the opportunity and the democracy which this country offers. And she wants to ensure, like us on this side of the House, that the next generation also are educated about the origins of our liberal democracy and have high standards in our classroom, which is why we are working so hard to ensure that that national curriculum does those things.
This view is shared right across Australia by everyday mums and dads and by teachers. For example, in the member for Chisholm's own electorate, Mei Li says, 'Thank you for standing up for the future of our next generation.' We've got, in the member for Cowan's electorate, Marlene from Warwick, who says, 'I also agree that a truthful history of our nation must be taught. Thank you for your concern and for voicing it strongly.' In the member for Moreton's electorate, Philip and Sue from Acacia Ridge write in: 'Thank you for looking for an A-plus education curriculum for future generations.' Even in the member for Corangamite's electorate, Peter and Rosita from Winchelsea write: 'We firmly believe that we have a duty to teach the next generation about our true heritage.' Those types of views have been shared by mums and dads, by teachers and by grandparents right across our vast continent, because they, like us, want to ensure that standards are high and that the origins of our liberal democracy are taught fully in the classroom so that the next generation will defend our democracy in a similar manner to previous generations.
It seems that the only people who don't share this view of wanting to have a positive view of Australia, wanting kids to have high standards, wanting kids to understand the origins of our liberal democracy, are those opposite, who suggest that that concept is weird. We don't think this concept is weird. Mums and dads don't think it's weird to want high standards. Mums and dads don't think it's weird to want to learn the origins of our liberal democracy and have pride in this great country—because we live in one of the greatest countries in the world, and kids should go through schooling understanding the origins of it and being absolutely proud of this great nation.
Electoral Roll
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his attempt to suppress voting rights in Australia. Has the Prime Minister no understanding of the impact this move will have on remote communities across this country or does he know exactly how it will suppress the vote and this is precisely why he's doing it?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House?
Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that that question—in the way in which it was framed, at least—offends the standing orders. It has all sorts of imputations which are baseless and incorrect and, frankly, a slur that is beneath this member of the parliament. It should be ruled out of order.
The SPEAKER: I've listened carefully to the Leader of the House. Question time is robust, as I certainly know, but they are questions, and I have consistently adopted the approach of former Speaker Andrew, who certainly had a more liberal ruling than some earlier speakers, and that simply is that, if I rule questions like that out of order, it really just allows the matter to stand, and there is no capacity to respond to it as vigorously as you'd like. I've got the question here in front of me. The first part of it is an accusation, and then there are two questions. I will rule the question in order, and the Special Minister of State will answer.
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Minister for the Public Service and Special Minister of State) (15:01): I might refer you to my last answer, where I told the House that, in the 2015 state election in Queensland, the turnout was higher. That was an election where voter ID was in place. In 2017 and in 2020, when voter ID was not in place, turnout was lower. So you just can't accept the claims of those opposite. In fact, you have to wonder about their motivation, that they will actually make claims against this legislation that are incorrect.
It is true that the Minister for Indigenous Australians and I today announced an additional $9.4 million to continue our success with Indigenous communities, with targeted measures to lift their participation in our electoral system, including their enrolment. This is on top of the $5.6 million that was delivered in the 2021 MYEFO. Let me tell you about Indigenous enrolment. The Indigenous enrolment rate has lifted from 74.7 per cent in 2017 to 79.3 per cent in 2021. This is a government that is committed to ensuring greater involvement in our electoral system, including from Indigenous Australians, and I look forward to working with the Minister for Indigenous Australians to lift Indigenous participation in our electoral system.
But those opposite will use a range of arguments in order to defeat this bill. This morning, before even having an opportunity to read the detail of the bill, including the fact that this bill will allow Indigenous Australians to use documents from Indigenous land councils, they took action against this bill—not knowing the details. There is a sickness in their motivation against it. The more they continue to rally against voter ID being put in place—like it is in Sweden, Canada, France and all but 14 states in the US, and it is being introduced in the UK—Australians have the right to question that motivation.
Under this legislation, not one voter will be turned away from a polling booth, for any reason. There will be an opportunity for them to have their identity attested to by another enrolled voter, with identification, and there will be an opportunity for them to cast a declaration vote. The scare campaign from those opposite in relation to the electoral system—and, quite frankly, the passion they've put into a debate about the voting system in comparison to a variety of other issues—does make you wonder if those opposite have the right priorities for the Australian people.
Australian Natural Disasters
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia, representing the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, and I note the Black Summer bushfires which devastated large areas of my electorate of Gippsland. Will the minister please update the House on the progress that our federal government has made on the implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (15:04): I thank the member for Gippsland for his question. I acknowledge his extraordinary leadership not just during that bushfire but also in helping his community recover, and I acknowledge all the members of parliament, on both sides of the House, for their leadership of their communities in rebuilding them. As part of that, today 12 months ago I handed to this parliament the royal commission's report into the natural disasters. I'm proud to say that, of the 80 recommendations—15 were towards the federal government—we have completed, in full, nine of those. The five that are to be completed are on track to be completed, as outlined through that report.
We are working with the states in ensuring that the balance that is shared and that they own themselves—are working in collaboration to achieve that. Proudly, we've been able to make sure that those recommendations have been implemented around, particularly, the National Emergency Declaration Act that was put into this parliament nearly 12 months ago. We have also created the National Recovery and Resilience Agency, which will look after all natural disasters into the future, making sure that we have a national approach.
We've also stood up the Australian Climate Service, which will bring together the data of over 10 federal agencies to make sure that our emergency services personnel have real-time data in not only addressing these disasters but also preparing for the recovery immediately. We've also stood up Emergency Management Australia and enhanced their capabilities with over $23 million, to make sure that they have enhanced capabilities to support states. We've created a national warning system and a national fire danger rating system to make sure there is consistency right across this country so there's no confusion amongst our communities.
We've also worked with the states to streamline our Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, and, importantly, we've put $4 million out, as per the report, to acquire a national large aerial tanker. That takes our commitment to up to $30 million a year. That's not just in the standing costs of having these planes, this suite of aircraft, sitting on the tarmac; we also cover the cost of operation when required.
We also put $88 million into the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre to ensure that we have the best research in the world to support our emergency services personnel, and we've also ensured that over $37 million has gone into improving telecommunications during natural disasters, particularly focusing on those areas that were impacted by the bushfires this year. We've allocated $600 million to infrastructure at a household level and a community level to build better preparedness infrastructure to support our communities, and we're partnering with the states, with over $130 million in further programs. As part of the ERF, $50 million has gone out to flood mitigation.
We've achieved a lot. There's a lot more to do, but we've also learnt a lot, and we're ensuring that Australians will stay safer into the future.
Electoral Roll
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. When there were no prosecutions for multiple voting at the last election, why is the Prime Minister now trying to suppress the vote and make Australians spend even more of their weekend queuing in long lines around the block?
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Minister for the Public Service and Special Minister of State) (15:08): The most important issue in front of the people of Australia is this one, according to those opposite. Of course, in the introduction of these bills, the government is ensuring that the Australian Electoral Commission is resourced to ensure that it does not impact in relation to times at the voting booth.
You know what? What this is showing is that those opposite are going to use every excuse to fight against a provision that is used in a lot of liberal, like democracies around the world. They talk about voter suppression. I just want to again reiterate: of the three last elections in Queensland, one of them had voter ID; two of them didn't. The one with voter ID, with the highest level of integrity, had a higher turnout than the two without it. They will use any excuse, those opposite, to defeat this legislation. I tell you what: on every question they ask, I begin to wonder more and more about what their motivations might be in relation to these issues. As I said, under the way this has been designed, which those opposite even didn't wait to read before they took the action they took this morning—
Mr Dick interjecting—
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will pause. The members for Oxley and Mackellar will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Oxley and the member for Mackellar then left the chamber.
Mr MORTON: So concerned about our democracy are those opposite that they moved motions to prevent this bill being debated this morning before they read the detail of the bill. If they had read the detail of the bill, they would have learned that this has been designed in a way that will ensure that no voter is turned away from a voting booth—not one voter. A person with ID can attest to the identity of another. Failing that, a declaration vote can be issued.
What is it that those opposite are scared of? Why are they against it? And why are they committing so much time today to this issue? The more they do, the more I realise there must be something in it for them to take this position; there must be. I tell you what: it says something about those opposite.
The SPEAKER: You're not telling me anything; just tell the chamber.
Mr MORTON: I am being asked more questions about this than I was asked about the national response to child abuse yesterday.
The SPEAKER: No, the minister will resume his seat.
Science and Technology
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (15:11): I ask the Minister for Defence Industry and the Minister for Science and Technology if she will update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting our scientists and researchers in developing new technologies that will create more Australian jobs and support our vital businesses, and, in doing so, strengthen the Australian economy?
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Science and Technology) (15:11): I thank the member for Menzies and acknowledge his service as a former defence minister and also his passion and interest for all industries across his great electorate.
I'm blown away almost every day by the ambition and the cutting-edge technologies our Australian businesses and researchers are developing each and every day. Just this morning, I had the great pleasure of joining the University of New South Wales Canberra launch open day—I did it virtually, of course! It was an amazing event, to hear about those world-leading technologies that Australians are developing right here at home. We should be very proud.
There is Canberra's Penten, who are developing cybersecurity and tactical communications equipment for our ADF and international partners. Despite the impacts of COVID, Penten have done amazingly well during COVID because they have now almost doubled their workforce from 80 people to 140 people. They exported some $6 million worth of equipment to the UK last year. I am very pleased to say that our government has supported Penten with a $5.4 million contract to help advance those technologies. We also heard today from Skykraft, who design and manufacture specialised satellites which are on track to launch into space, with the help of SpaceX, during 2022.
Out at Lucas Heights in Sydney we have ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. It is a global leader, supporting nuclear research in many fields but most importantly in nuclear medicines that save Australian lives. It is estimated that, on average, each and every Australian stands to benefit from a nuclear medicine procedure at some point in their lifetime, with close to a quarter of a million procedures involving nuclear medicines such as x-rays, PET scans and radiology performed every year. Australians should be incredibly proud, because this is a sovereign capability we're talking about that is supporting some 1,000 jobs nationwide. Some, if not many, of us in this House will, sadly, know someone who has experienced some form of cancer.
It is for those reasons we recently announced a $30 million investment to design a new, world-leading manufacturing facility in Sydney to produce lifesaving nuclear medicines. This is the very first step we're taking to replace the current facility with a more modern, world-leading hub for manufacturing, research and development of nuclear medicines. This builds upon our government's investment of almost $12 billion in the science, research and innovation system.
Electoral Roll
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (15:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister actually cares about integrity in politics, why won't he refer the member for Pearce to the Privileges Committee, and why won't he establish a national anticorruption commission? Why is the government in favour of voter identification but not donor identification?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:15): Those matters were addressed by the Leader of the House when they were considered before this place. In relation to the referral issues that you've spoken to, the committee is already looking at these matters in the broad, and I think all members of the House will be very much aided by the investigation of those things so that all members of the House can be informed about how they impact on them. In relation to the other matter, we have been working steadfastly on our proposals in these areas. I remember one of the first roles I had in this place was as the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and the government has always been advocating responsible measures that support our democracy, such as ensuring that voters are properly identified and donations are properly disclosed.
National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (15:16): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the minister outline to the House how the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, released yesterday by the Morrison government, will ensure that Indigenous Australian children are protected from sexual abuse?
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (15:16): I thank the member for Reid for her question but, more importantly, for the wise counsel and advice that she gives on the work that I'm doing on youth suicide and mental health. I acknowledge that the level of child abuse in Indigenous communities is far too high. It is two to four times greater than in the broader population, and it is a tragedy when you meet those young people later in life and they break down in front of you and share their experience of how that has impacted on them. That's why yesterday's announcement by the Special Minister of State on the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse is welcomed, because we will focus on place based approaches to address the levels of child abuse.
I've asked two incredible Indigenous women—the Healing Foundation CEO, Fiona Cornforth, and the SNAICC CEO, Catherine Liddle—to co-chair the Indigenous expert group and guide the implementation of this initiative. What they will do is look for local solutions that empower people at the local level. Our women have been raising this issue, as the member for Barton knows, over our years of experience within our communities. It is the women who raise the issue and want the matter addressed. I know that members on both sides of this chamber have been committed to addressing the levels of child sexual abuse within Indigenous communities. As a teacher, I saw the profound impact it had on children in their behaviour within a classroom, let alone the indelible imprint that sits within their memory banks and lasts a lifetime. By doing it in conjunction with our women and with our communities, we will seek and obtain the solutions that we need for the future. That generation that has been affected and the victims of sexual abuse will also provide input into lived experience so that we're able to better address the issues.
When the Minister for Defence was the Minister for Home Affairs, I approached him on a matter to do with a number of communities, and we were working together to address that challenge in those communities, because there are people who are incarcerated and released back into communities and have unfettered access to young people. That's what we as a government, and all of us in this House, are focused on addressing so that we ensure that future generations are safe, they are protected and they have the levels of support that are absolutely critical.
Mr Morrison: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Day For Daniel
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:19): I invite the Minister for Home Affairs to make a brief statement on Day for Daniel, and we extend to the Morcombes, particularly on this day, our sincere thanks to them for their incredible strength and their leadership on this issue.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (15:20): Tomorrow is the 17th annual Day for Daniel, Australia's largest child safety education and awareness day. Many of us in this place will have had the opportunity to meet Bruce and Denise Morcombe over the years, and they would normally have been here today in the chamber. If we had had the opportunity to get them here—because of travel arrangements they have been unable to make it here today—I know they would have been in the gallery today, and they would also have taken the opportunity to speak to as many people here as they possibly could about the need for greater awareness of issues in relation to child safety and child sexual exploitation.
This year's theme for Day for Daniel is 'Wear Red, Educate and Donate'. I want everyone to take the opportunity to use this time, firstly, to remember Daniel Morcombe but also to have conversations with loved ones, with people we know, about their own personal safety and what they can do to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Bruce and Denise Morcombe's son Daniel went missing in 2003. It was later revealed that he'd been abducted and murdered by a notorious paedophile while waiting for a bus. Since 2004, Bruce and Denise have dedicated their lives to Daniel's legacy and have established the Daniel Morcombe Foundation in honour of Daniel and to make Australia a safer place for children. The Daniel Morcombe Foundation is committed to educating children on how to stay safe in both the physical and online environments and to supporting young victims of crime. In 2019, almost $2 million in the seized proceeds of crime was provided by the government to the foundation's Keeping Australia's Kids Safe Program. This program is a national campaign to increase awareness, confidence and the abilities of parents, carers and teachers to identify and respond to child sexual abuse.
Bruce and Denise were also strong advocates for the establishment of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, or the ACCCE, which was announced by the government in 2018. To this day, the Daniel Morcombe Foundation is still one of the leading non-government organisations working closely with the ACCCE to prevent child sexual exploitation. Statistics from the ACCCE are sobering and show we all have a role to play in stamping out this abhorrent crime. During the 12 months to 30 June this year, the ACCCE received more than 22,000 reports of child sexual exploitation. During that period, 235 offenders were charged with 2,722 child abuse related offences resulting in 232 children being removed from harm both domestically and internationally.
Raising awareness is key, but Australians need to be open to the discussion, even though they may find it uncomfortable. Day for Daniel is a significant national event that allows important conversations to be started. I encourage everyone to participate tomorrow in any way that they can by walking, by wearing a red ribbon or by donating to the foundation, because together we can ensure that our communities are safer places for children.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:23): I join with the government and the Minister for Home affairs in encouraging Australians to participate in the Day for Daniel activities tomorrow, the 17th time that they have occurred, and encourage them to donate to the Daniel Morcombe Foundation. I pay tribute to Bruce and Denise, who I've met here in the parliament on a number of occasions. They have taken what is a devastating personal tragedy and turned it into a lifelong commitment to help others, and they deserve our absolute praise and thanks.
Child safety is an issue that is well above politics. It's something where the idea that you would go through that experience on a personal level is one that's just extraordinary. I'm looking forward to travelling home and seeing my son; it's important. This is at a time, as well, when Australians are really worried about young Cleo—four years old and missing in Western Australia. We just hope that ends well; I think it's fair to say on behalf of every Australian and on behalf of all the parliament, that we hope that by the time we return we can actually have a discussion here which is a happy one.
The SPEAKER: Before members leave, I want to ask the member for Parramatta to come down to the dispatch box; she has indicated that she wants the call.
Member for Parramatta
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (15:25): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On indulgence: I am announcing today that I won't be re-contesting the seat of Parramatta at the next election.
An honourable member: Oh!
Ms OWENS: I didn't expect that! I am now in my 18th year as the member for Parramatta and I can honestly say that I've loved every single minute of it. Parramatta is home to the most fantastic people and I've been blessed to meet so many of them. It has been an honour to represent this diverse and endlessly fascinating community since 2004. But I'm approaching retirement age and the time has come for me to spend more time with my family, particularly my grandchildren—who don't necessarily think that being a politician is the best thing in the world, because they miss their grandma quite a lot!
To my community: I assure you that I will continue to work with you and represent you to the best of my ability right up to election day. My office will be there for you, just as it has been there for the past 18 years. It's not possible to thank all the amazing people and organisations that make Parramatta the best community in Australia in a short statement today, but I look forward to thanking you all properly before this parliament ends. We have much to talk about in coming weeks!
My goal in this job has always been to make my community stronger, because no one is better equipped to solve the problems that we face in the community and to build a better future for Parramatta than its community. Our local community and volunteer organisations need support to do this important work, so a small service my office has been providing over the past 18 years, which is a regular grant bulletin that tells people what grants are about to close, has turned out to be particularly effective. In fact, there probably isn't an electorate that anyone here represents which doesn't have a subscriber to my great bulletin now! There are literally thousands of subscribers and, strangely, no one unsubscribes—ever. I see its impact in the increase in the range of smaller organisations that are accessing funding, and it has been a joy to watch so many of those see themselves for the first time being recognised for their value and unique contributions, and growing.
This is a community asset that I'd like to see continued, so I will be holding one more grants forum, on 24 November at 7:30 pm, to outline how people can build their information systems in case, once the election is over, it doesn't continue. I will also be pulling together the figures on funding for various activities over a number of years as a baseline so that we can measure the impact of whatever we can set up after the election. I will pull together a group of people who can share the driving to build the information systems that can share the information on an ongoing basis. I happen to know how much it costs to do this and it's actually not very much. There are commercial solutions to provide this information to the community and I'm sure we can find one that will ensure this continues indefinitely.
But today I want to talk briefly about what comes next for Parramatta. I want to talk specifically to the branch members who have been with me in the community which we have served for every day for every one of the 17-plus years that I have spent in office. I want to talk to the people who gave me the opportunity to stand for Parramatta in the first place, before I met the people of Parramatta and we got to know each other and they gave me the honour of representing their voices here. I often say in my office that we see people on their best and worst days. They come in on a day when they're full of enthusiasm and want to do something—they have a great idea. Or they come in on their worst day, when they've been evicted. But if you really want to serve your community you need to understand their ordinary days, because it's the ordinary day that contributes to your health, to your financial security, to your relationships with your family, to your bonding with your children and to your knowledge of your community. It's the ordinary day, and how that unfolds for you, which actually determines whether you have the best days or the worst days.
I know there are exceptions, where we get hit by illness—and we've seen that in the last couple of years—but, generally, the ordinary day determines whether or not you have great ones.
That, for me, is where I have put my attention. I have spent literally hours, outside my office, doorknocking 76,000 houses. For the first eight or nine years, I did 10 mobile offices a month; I did the train stations eight times a week, at 6.30 or 5.30 in the morning; and with me for every one of those houses and every one of those mobile offices was a branch member—or more. There were a group of eight of us that did 35,000 houses in 2004. We did more houses between us than the entire Queensland caucus did in the last state election. We did it every day. The branch members that most of my community don't know have been there with me on this journey, and I would not know the ordinary day of the people in my community if it wasn't for them. I wouldn't. It's literally hundreds of hours that they have given me, and some of them, as you know—six life members—have been doing it for 40 or 50 years. They are remarkable people and I can't thank them enough for what they have done for me and for my community over this time.
Now, I also want to acknowledge that they gave me the opportunity to do this. At my preselection back in 2004, there were 165 of them that were voting, and I met 150 of them in their homes, and they gave me the opportunity to do this.
Last year the 'toilet paper brigade of 2020' was branch members literally delivering toilet paper; phoning everybody over the age of 70 in the electorate and delivering food—extraordinary people.
Traditionally, it's the branch members who choose who will stand for the election again, and they will decide who has the extraordinary opportunity to try to ask the community to give them the opportunity to represent them in this House, and it's a role they take very, very, very seriously. They've been out there for years, getting to know who in their ranks knows how to work, who's consistent, who's honest, who volunteers, who genuinely cares about the community, who has flaws that would negatively impact on their job. They staff the booths. They do it all. And they know the branch members. They know each other very, very well, and they are well placed to make a decision about who will represent Labor in the forthcoming election. And we do have remarkable people who represent the community so well, including a number of women, and I look forward to working with whoever the branch select and introducing them to the community.
You might have known who that person already was, but, when the assistant secretary came to my office earlier this year to open preselections, I was still making up my mind, so we delayed for quite some time. But now I have made up my mind; I've spoken to the leader, who knows my preference for rank and file; I've written to the general secretary; and it's my fervent hope that we hold the rank-and-file preselection very soon. I hope we're on our way. The date of the election is firmly in the bailiwick of the Prime Minister, so I don't know how long I've got in this position now, but I guarantee that I'll be working every day until the election day, and I thank all the people of Parramatta for giving me the privilege of serving you all these years.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:33): on indulgence—I'm sure there will be events in the great electorate of Parramatta where we will have an opportunity to pay tribute on a very broad basis to Julie Owens and her magnificent representation of the people of Parramatta that she has undertaken diligently, with commitment and passion, since 2004.
Parramatta is an extraordinary community. It has a CBD that's bigger than the CBDs of some of our capital cities. It is also a diverse and multicultural community. What that does is bring challenges. You've had significant development along the riverfront, significant urban consolidation, a significant change in the mix of people who live in Parramatta and significant employment changes—and that has brought with it a responsibility from their representative, in Julie Owens, to ensure that that development has occurred sustainably and that traditional residents in Parramatta haven't been left behind, and she has done that.
There is no member of the caucus who has knocked on my door more about the needs of her electorate than Julie Owens, for Parramatta. I've got to know Julie a lot, as a fellow Sydneysider, over that period since 2004. Indeed, before then Julie Owens ran, somewhat more optimistically, for the electorate of North Sydney on not just one but two occasions for the Australian Labor Party. That's a task which is always difficult, for those of us who get asked to run for seats where there is less chance of success.
In 2004, Julie Owens of course was one of the very few people who took a seat off the then government during that 2004 election, and that is a tribute to her. That is something that is a part of her legacy. She has many friends in this place, and those friendships will continue, and I regard myself as one of them. I know that she has friends across the parliament as well. To Julie and her relatively new husband—and they're very much a long-term relationship—I know that we have discussed over a period of time what you hope to do post retirement. It won't be retiring from activism in trying to make a difference to this country, I know that. In the next phase of her life, I wish Julie and all of her family all the very best on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, and I thank you for her service.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:38): on indulgence—Can I join the Leader of the Opposition and members of the House in congratulating the member for Parramatta for her dedicated service to this place and her dedicated service to her community. She is a hard campaigner—we know that on this side of the House. When she was going through the tireless work that she has done in her community and campaigning on the ground, we've noticed that, and that, I think, is a true expression of her passion for being here and the things that she passionately believes in.
We know that she is an accomplished musician and she studied at the conservatorium as a pianist, much like the musical accomplishment of the member for Moncrieff. We're privileged to have them both in our ranks, and many others, I'm sure. I just do the ukulele. I know the member for Watson has a go at the guitar, but I don't think he goes anywhere near the skills possessed by the member for Parramatta.
We listen to a lot of people in this place, and we get counsel from them as we seek to live our lives through this place. Those of us who came into the parliament in 2007—the member for Maribyrnong will remember; the member for Corio, many members here and the member for Fadden—I remember it was the member for Parramatta who was asked by the Speaker to come and speak to us as new members and give us a few tips about how you can live life here and try and make your contribution most effectively. And I'll never forget what the member for Parramatta said. She said: 'Stay close to the people you knew outside of this place. Invest in your relationships. Make sure you keep calling them and stay connected, because they're the people who will be there long after you go, they were there long before you came, and you must make a conscious effort to maintain that balance in your life.' I want to thank the member for Parramatta for that. It certainly had a big impression on me, and it's certainly been something I've sought to follow. It was wise counsel. She's been a formidable opponent, but, most importantly, she's been a diligent servant of the community and of this House, and I wish her all the very best for her future.
The SPEAKER: Can I join in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. I also thank the member for Parramatta for all the work she's done here in this House, particularly on issues that don't get a lot of attention. On behalf of our House committee, she was deployed by us to go and try and get the Senate to see some sense on some issues to do with the building. So that was a tough task, but ultimately one you succeeded in. We wish you all the best.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:39): 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.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:39): I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS
Personal Explanation
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (15:49): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Macquarie claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms TEMPLEMAN: I have been—most grievously.
The SPEAKER: You may proceed.
Ms TEMPLEMAN: On Tuesday, during the MPI on the Building Better Regions Fund, the member for O'Connor said that he had heard I had not written letters of support for applicants to that fund. Mr Speaker, he did not say who had made that claim, but the facts are: firstly, I actively promote the BBRF and all other government grants in direct emails to, for example, council general managers and mayors, in newsletters, through my grants list and on social media; secondly, in doing so, I encourage everyone to advise me if they decide to put forward a project for funding; thirdly, I offer to help in any way I can, including in writing letters of support; and, fourthly, I have written dozens and dozens of letters of support that have been requested over the last five years for grant programs, including the BBRF, and I encourage any group or organisation in Macquarie who applies for a government grant to be in touch with my office. Thank you, Speaker.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Climate Change
The SPEAKER (15:41): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's climate announcement not being the Australian way.
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—
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:41): This evening the Prime Minister will fly off to Glasgow, but his packing light. His luggage has not been a difficult undertaking, because he doesn't have to pack any new policies to deal with climate change, because he doesn't have any. He doesn't have to pack any new medium-term target for the government, because we know that he wanted to update his medium-term target but the National Party wouldn't let him. He certainly doesn't have to pack any economic modelling on the impact of his policies. We have been working through the reasons why he might not want to release the modelling of his policy, but, I must say, we hadn't thought that one of those options might be that it hasn't been done yet. So he is packing light for Glasgow.
In all the melodrama, all the crisis meetings on Sundays and all the chaos of the last week, all we've seen is one substantive announcement: a pay rise for the minister for resources—and that's it. The man who vetoed government support for 250 jobs in North Queensland, because they are associated with renewable energy, looked out for his own job and not theirs—because, with the National Party and the Liberal Party, it is always about them. They have introduced a positions trading scheme—trading positions for policy. I have seen some pretty cynical low-rent actions in my time in this House but this one takes the cake: trading a pay rise for a policy concession.
All we see are slideshows and slogans. A steaming pile of nothingness is all we have got from the government this week—a lot of spin. But, in all that spin, there are two things which have been particularly insulting to Australians, I think. There are two elements of this government's approach which have been a particularly insulting method of operation for Australians. The first is for this Prime Minister and this government to have the temerity to call their policy 'the Australian way'. How dare you invoke the name of our country to justify your delay. How dare you invoke the name of our great nation to justify your lack of action. The Australian way is innovation, not indolence. The Australian way is to lead, not to follow in the wake of other countries. The Australian way is to seize opportunities. Climate change is the world's biggest crisis but it is Australia's biggest economic opportunity, and the Australian way is to seize it. How dare you invoke the name of our country to justify your steaming pile of nothingness as a policy.
What the Prime Minister has done is confuse the Australian way with Morrison's way—and there's a difference. The Australian way is to innovate, not to be indolent. The Australian way is to embrace the future, not to scare people about it. The Australian way is to get on with the job, not talk about it. The Morrison way is to spend $13 million of taxpayer money to talk about a policy they don't have. The Morrison way is to spend $13 million of taxpayer money to boast about policies they opposed.
The Australian way is to come together to deal with crises and challenges, to unite as one people. That's the Australian way. When people in rural and regional Australia are going through drought, which is more and more the case thanks to climate change, people in metropolitan Australia come together to support them—unite. The Morrison way is to divide Australians, to talk about how climate change is apparently the obsession of people in inner-city wine bars. That's the Morrison way. The Australian people come together at times of crisis, like bushfires, and support each other, not get on a plane to Hawaii and not even bother to tell the Australian people they're going. That's the Morrison way. That's not the Australian way. The Australian way is to embrace technology, to embrace the future, to embrace science. That's not the Morrison way.
That's the other egregious part of the government's spin over the past week—to talk about technology; to have the gall, to have the hutzpah to come into this chamber and say they're on the side of technology, to say they're on the side of science. This nation, thanks to Australian scientists, has engineered the modern solar power. Professor Martin Green, at the University of New South Wales, and of whom the member for Kingsford Smith is so proud, has basically, with his colleagues, invented the modern efficient solar panel. The Morrison way is to undermine and undercut ARENA and CEFC, who've been so important to that innovation. The Morrison way is to undercut science. This is the Liberal and National way, and we see it time and time again. We can look at recent examples. We can look at examples across this government.
We know there have been plenty of mistakes at the Treasurer's hands with JobKeeper. He's made plenty of errors. He just hasn't understood it, but there have been some things he's done deliberately, like excluding universities from JobKeeper, like letting 7,000 university researchers lose their job in the last 18 months on his watch. That is no government that loves technology. And we know the Prime Minister's greatest hits: saying that electric vehicles would end the weekend, saying that a battery is about as affective as a big prawn or a big banana, saying that a 50 per cent renewable energy target is nuts. We also know this government's record on science funding and technology funding: undercutting not just ARENA and the CEFC but our greatest institutions like CSIRO and the universities.
Tonight, as the Prime Minister jets out, another man will be taking over: the Acting Prime Minister of Australia, the man who's in charge while the Prime Minister is away. Let us never forget his track record either. When a great Australian scientist pioneered a new vaccine for cervical cancer, the man who will take over the government of this country this afternoon warned that it might make young women more promiscuous. How dare they lecture us about technology and science! How dare they pretend to the Australian people that they are on the side of modernity and innovation! They are stuck in the past and scared of the future. Their track record on climate change is appalling and their track record on technology is even worse, and they dare to bring down a document for which their big step forward, their big leap for the future, is to assume that new technologies will come forward. Fifteen per cent of the advancement in action on climate change and emissions reductions they say will come from technologies for which they have no framework to encourage and no policies for investing and which they have undermined for eight long years. That is what has been particularly insulting to the Australian people this last week.
There's disappointment that after eight years of toxic policies, of division, of identity politics, of playing the climate wars that this government is doing it yet again. There's disappointment that after eight long years the best they can come up with is a slideshow and slogans and no real action. We tried to give the government a chance to say maybe, just maybe, they could come up with something we could give them bipartisan support for. They've failed miserably at every turn. This is a government that can't plan for the future because they don't understand the opportunities that science and technology and renewable energy provide for our country and provide for rural Australia in particular. They don't understand that the reasons that have powered Australia for so long are the reasons that will power us into the future.
Yes, it's because they've got the space for renewable energy. Yes, it's because they've got access to the electricity grid. Yes, it's because they've got the supports. But more than anything else it's because they have the skills to make energy. Their greatest attribute, their greatest resource, is their human skill that has created energy for so long. With the right government, with the right framework of investment, with a government that gets the opportunities, they can make energy and export energy well into the future. That's what this government will never understand, and this week has shown it more than ever. This government has seen some real lowlights on climate over the last eight years. There have been some really dark and sad moments for this country over the last eight years. But I think this last week has been about the darkest and the saddest.
The Australian people deserve so much more than this government, which has tried to abolish the renewable energy target at every opportunity. Even before they came to office, they indicated that they would abolish ARENA and CEFC. The then Leader of the Opposition wrote to the boards of ARENA and CEFC and warned them, 'If we come to office, we're going to abolish you, so don't spend any more money on science and technology.' Now we have his successor, the current Prime Minister, boasting about technology, daring to wave around this chamber a mobile phone, saying he's the friend of technology.
Australia does deserve better, and there's one way it can get it—a change of government. Throw out the climate change deniers, the party that embraces the likes of Senator Rennick, Senator Canavan and the member for Dawson. But also throw out the fellow travellers, the pretenders, the fake modern Liberals. Throw out the member for Goldstein. Throw out the member for Higgins, who allows this to happen. Throw out the member for Kooyong. Throw out the member for Reid. They do not represent their communities when it comes to action on climate change. Throw out these people who engage in the scare campaign with alacrity, just like their climate-change-denying comrades. They deserve to go, because Australia deserves so much better. Australia deserves better than the member for Goldstein and all his pretend, fake Liberal colleagues. They deserve a new government that gets the future. (Time expired)
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (15:51): Whoa, Nelly! That was one performance! I listened to the whole of the member for McMahon's speech as he opened the batting in the matter of public importance debate, talking about what he thought the Australian way was for cutting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Do you know what he didn't mention in the entire 10 minutes? I accept that, if it was 90 seconds, he would have struggled, but in the entire 10 minutes he didn't mention one critical thing that has been at the heart of the Labor Party's policy position all week, which apparently is now the cataclysmic difference between whether you take climate change seriously or not—and we do take it seriously on this side of the chamber. It was a legislated target. He didn't mention it once, in a 10-minute diatribe. Clearly Labor have already abandoned their push for a legislated target. Clearly they've got the research back, and it backs this side of the chamber and what Australians think about a legislated target, because they know, exactly as the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction said in question time, only moments ago, that, when you legislate a target, what you actually do is see the power drip out of the hands of the parliament and directly into the hands of the courts, as we've seen in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. What happens when you undermine this parliament isn't just that the members here don't get a chance to stand up and speak on behalf of the Australian community and the communities they represent; you disempower the very Australians who elect us and their capacity to decide the future of this great nation.
Australians know that, at the heart of the Labor Party plan for climate change, they have no respect for democracy, no respect for the will of the people. We saw that from the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard before the 2010 election. You shake your head, Member for McMahon. I know it's something you want to forget, like so many of the other failures in your policy space when you were a minister, including those people who drowned under your watch.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The assistant minister will direct his comments through the chair.
Mr TIM WILSON: The reality is, Deputy Speaker—as you know and I know—before the 2010 federal election, the former Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—
A government member: There was!
Mr TIM WILSON: That's right. The assistant minister is right. My apologies—the minister; congratulations on your elevation. But there was. The minister is 100 per cent right. What actually happened was, after they'd made a commitment to the Australian people, they got their vote and then they turned around and they tore the agreement up. They spent $55 million trying to sell their spin and trying to cover over their deception to the Australian people, because they said one thing before the election and something different thereafter. We all know that this is the history and the track record of the Labor Party, and now they're seeking to repeat it.
Compare that to this side of the chamber. We went to an election making it crystal clear what our policy throughout this term of government would be. Of course, we took the Australia people with us in prosecuting that critical argument, and they endorsed it every step of the way. One of the best things about what this government has been achieving in the climate change policy space isn't just that we set out a 26 to 28 per cent target by 2030; we got it endorsed by the Australia people, and we did. We then went on not just to meet and not just to beat but to smash our targets. We're already 21 per cent down on 2005 levels of emissions.
Here's a reality. It's a very difficult one for the opposition and our critics outside of this chamber to accept. The OECD average of emissions reduction is but seven per cent of 2005 levels, and we are hitting 20.8 per cent—21 per cent. That's three times the OECD average as the Prime Minister gets on a plane and goes off to Glasgow. Not only is he going to be able to report back that we're going to meet, beat and smash our targets in 2030, but he's going to be proudly able to put in a commitment from Australia, a statement very clearly from Australia, that was outlined in our substantial plan this week, to cut greenhouse gas emissions with an upwards revision of our projection where we will hit up to 35 per cent emissions reduction by 2030.
That's the fundamental difference between this side of the chamber and the Labor Party—and, frankly, increasingly, the independents who are working with them.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: Don't worry, member for McMahon, I haven't even got to them yet! They are working directly with the Labor Party to subvert our democracy. You saw this with the member for Warringah earlier last year. We saw it exactly where it was. The member for Warringah introduced a bill that would have included the power for commissioners that the crossbench appointed. These commissioners would be able to not allow the recommendation of the change of any emissions targets. What they wanted to do was to empower commissioners to veto this parliament. If there was any doubt about the intent or the objective of the member for Warringah, you just need to go and look at her speech.
Only yesterday, when she moved a motion to have a discussion about her failed bill—thrice rejected—she spoke openly about the fact that Australian climate policy needs to be taken out of the hands of democratically elected representatives. When you think about that, that is nothing short of disgraceful—for you to come into this parliament and then appoint commissioners who can veto the rights of the Australian people to be able to decide their own destiny. Now, Labor are trying to support it every step of the way. Despite the fact that the member for McMahon—already, only three days after they started their narrative around legislating a target—now seems to have abandoned it and walked away from a policy position so quickly, he says it's necessary to take the issue seriously.
That must be a wake-up call to the state governments of Queensland and Western Australia that have Labor governments but no legislated target. It must be a spectacular wake up call to the 185-odd countries in the world that have a target, but it is not legislated. Because those countries—and, frankly, even state Labor governments—understand the consequences of Labor's policy. They know and they understand that when you follow the Labor approach you are empowering bureaucrats and not citizens and communities.
That is not what we on this side of the chamber see. I know that's not just what we see in this chamber; it's what we see in communities as well. I see it at every election, when I go to the polling booth. At every election there is this bloke—I won't mention his name; let's just call him David R—who stands there with his Green how-to-vote cards, and he tells people to vote for the Greens and for all of their policy ambitions. Then, as soon as the election is over, he comes storming into my office and demands that the Liberal Party adopt the positions that have just been defeated at the election. He does it every time. Every time! But don't worry. He's independent now. He's not a Green; he's an independent now. His track record shows that they're all tricky. They say one thing and do the other.
The good thing is that, in the community, everybody knows who these people are. Everybody knows about these puppetmasters who want to make puppets of the Independent members of parliament, and we're not going to let them. I can tell you, Member for McMahon: we know exactly who you are, we know that you have no respect for democracy and we know that the member for Warringah has tried to appoint bureaucrats to have veto rights over the Australian parliament, and now the Labor Party wants to do the same with the courts. So make no mistake: we see the tricky agenda. They may not up here in Canberra, but the people in our community know exactly the tricky behaviour you've got up to.
Compare that to the side of the chamber, where we are straightforward. We take an election policy, deliver it after winning an election, and then go on and develop a substantial plan—the first comprehensive economywide plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. There are 130 pages going to the different roles of technologies and the contribution that they can make. This is a plan that focuses not just on what we as a government can do but on what the communities and different levels of government can do. It empowers industry to be part of the solution. The only approach the Labor Party has is a tax. They won't reveal it yet. The member for Warringah won't reveal her plan for one yet either. But what they're secretly hoping is to get into minority government on the back of the Greens and Independents so they can pull the strings of a failed Labor government. (Time expired)
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (16:01): The government claim they've come up with a plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, and they claim they're going to do it the Australian way—the Aussie way. Really? This is a plan that's not a plan and, as we learned today, it's a plan that's based on no modelling. There's no modelling, no legislation and no increase from Tony Abbott's medium-term targets.
The government think this so-called plan is what's best for people in rural and regional Australia, like the community I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales, but they're wrong. We deserve more than slideshows and slogans. We're lucky to live on one of the most beautiful stretches of coastline, the Central Coast, one of the best parts of the world, and we want to protect it now and into the future. That's the Australian way. That's what Australians do, but not according to this government.
After eight long years of sitting on its hands when it comes to climate policy, this government has finally come up with a so-called plan to meet net zero by 2050, except there's no new policy in this announcement. The government hasn't provided any modelling for their plan or legislation. It's just a plan to promote the Minister for Resources and Water back to cabinet. Just last week in parliament, they voted against legislating net-zero emissions by 2050. People in my community, people across Australia, need action from this government. That's the Australian way: action, not more empty promises.
The government claims it wants to reduce emissions the Australian way. At the same time, it's refusing to put a stop to risky projects like PEP 11. This is a project that would devastate our local environment, our marine life and our local economy. It would put thousands of local jobs at risk—jobs that rely on our pristine coastline. This isn't the Australian way. The Prime Minister says in the community—he said it in the Hunter—that he's opposed to PEP 11, but, at the same time, the resources minister, whom he has recently elevated to cabinet, is yet to make a decision. This is the same minister who said, 'Find me a solar panel that works in the dark.' The resources minister was supposed to make a final decision on PEP 11, back in February, yet he's still delaying. He says he's still considering it. He says he's taking advice. He's refusing to make a decision eight months after his original deadline. That's not the Aussie way. This is the same minister who says investment in renewable energy delivered little more than a warm and fuzzy feeling. If this government can't rule out dangerous projects like PEP 11, it can't be trusted with Australia's national climate plan and it can't be trusted to create and protect Australian jobs.
People in regional communities like the Central Coast want to see real action on climate. The Prime Minister says the Australian way is respecting people's choice. Well, Prime Minister, listen to the voice of the people in my community and hear what they have to say, like Matthew from Norah Head. He told me: 'I want a world for my children to grow up in. Increasingly, there are severe natural disasters, extinction, dying ecosystems. Our government needs to do something before it is truly too late.' Or there was Kay from Lisarow. Kay told me, 'The science tells us we must act now and act decisively to avoid catastrophic conditions for humans and our world's flora and fauna.' Or there was Michael from The Entrance. This is what Michael told me, 'The Morrison government are setting up the Australian people for profound disappointment and abysmal failure in meeting and beating their so-called carbon emission reduction targets by gambling on future unknown technology that has not been thought of, let alone developed.' Michael called it 'pie in the sky' and 'policy on the run'. Michael has hit the nail on the head. How can we rely on this government to show leadership on climate change when the basis of their policy doesn't even exist yet?
The Prime Minister says he will tackle climate change the Australian way. He says the Australian way involves respecting people's choices. Well, Prime Minister, respect the choices of the people of my community and of people all up and down the east coast of New South Wales, who have said, loudly and clearly, no to PEP 11. Clearly, this government doesn't respect the choices of those people and doesn't respect the choices of those thousands of people up and down the east coast in my community. They don't want PEP 11. This government is refusing to act; that's not the Australian way. The Prime Minister can't say he is opposed to PEP 11 in the Hunter and then in this parliament allow PEP 11 to go ahead. That's not the Australian way—that's not fair dinkum! That's not what Aussies in my community want. They don't want the Prime Minister of Australia to say one thing when he's in their community and not act when he's in the parliament. That's un-Australian—that's not the Australian way. The Aussies in my community deserve better than this Prime Minister.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:06): It's wonderful to participate in this matter of public importance today. What have we heard from those opposite? We've heard what we always hear from those opposite: lots of finger-wagging! Lots of sanctimony. Lots of finger-wagging and lots of sanctimony but no target, no policies and a lot of confusion.
Labor has been all over the place on the target. They had a 45 per cent target for 2030 which they took to the last election, which was rejected. This week, they voted for the member for Warringah's 60 per cent target, so what is Labor's target? They have announced no target. They always bang on about how we need to take action on climate change, but they have no target and no plan to get there.
By the middle of May next year, Australia will have made a choice between our government, which wants to take action on climate change but which wants to deliver net zero emissions by 2050 with a clear plan to get there—that's what our announcements have been about all of this week—and the Labor Party, which has no clarity on this issue and no plan to get there. What do we know about the Labor Party on this issue? We know they have the idea of the legislated target; it's another thought bubble like the paper vax target, which was Labor's idea to get people to vaccinate themselves, and now we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.
Labor has a history on this. As I said, they voted for the 60 per cent target and they've been all over the place. Remember that when they were in government they had the carbon tax, they had the mining tax, they had the CPRS and they had the citizens assembly. Kevin Rudd told us that this issue was the great moral challenge of our time. Well if Kevin Rudd's party were serious about that they would have a plan.
But we know they have a secret plan, based on everything that they've done in the past and based on the fact that they have my friend the member for McMahon as their shadow minister. The member for McMahon was the shadow Treasurer in the last parliament and he brought forward the policy of $387 billion in new taxes on the Australian people. He loves tax, and his way to achieve reductions in emissions will be a tax based policy. We are tech focused and Labor is tax focused, and they always have been.
They don't like technology. Both the member for McMahon and the member for Dobell came and gave us a lecture on the importance of technology. If they like technology, why did they vote seven times in recent days against technology led emissions reduction programs like carbon capture and storage or like hydrogen? If they're going to have the 60 per cent target that they voted for with the member for Warringah, when are they going to tell us how many jobs it will cost, which industries will close, what it will do to electricity prices and what it will do to the regions?
Labor loves to point the finger and loves to play the gesture politics, but Labor has no plan here and the fact that they have no plan will shine through to the Australian people at the next election. By contrast, what is our plan? Our plan, because we are serious about climate change because it is a real and serious issue for our planet and our country, is to have a target of net zero by 2050 and to achieve that through technology, not taxes.
You just need to look at our record. We've beaten our 2020 targets. We are beating our 2030 targets—in fact, we are on track to beat them and to have an emissions reduction of around 35 per cent. While emissions have fallen to 21 per cent, at the same time we've grown our economy by 45 per cent. This is what happens when you have a technology focused approach. We are reducing emissions in this country faster than Japan, faster than Canada, faster than the US and faster than New Zealand. We've done this three times more quickly than the OECD average. If you want results, look to the work of the Morrison government.
Our plan is about technology, not taxes. It's expanding choices, not mandates. It's driving down the cost of new technologies, like what's happened with solar. It's about keeping power prices down. And it's about being accountable for the targets we set. That's why there were announcements made this week in relation to the Productivity Commission's role and the transparency of the Productivity Commission not only looking at the effect on emissions but the effect on the economy more broadly, because this is a great economic opportunity. The $20 billion of investment in technology that will unlock up to $100 billion in private sector investment will help transform our country and our regions and reduce emissions through technologies like soil carbons, like energy storage, like carbon capture and storage, like hydrogen, like low-emission aluminium and like low-emission steel. Our plan is technology focused, our plan is for net zero by 2050, and our plan is credible.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:11): [by video link] This week we saw the Prime Minister announce his 'plan' for net zero emissions. As a teacher, I had a good look at it. It did look like very much like a high-school PowerPoint presentation, but I had to give it a D. There was no new work and some secret, perhaps fanciful modelling. It was, basically slack slide shows and slick slogans, which isn't easy to say.
What do we know about it so far? We know that the Prime Minister said the word 'plan' at least 80 times during his slide presentation, we know that it includes zero new policies and we know that it includes zero actual modelling, modelling that hasn't even been written yet. We know that this is a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister to cobble together an announcement before he jets off to Glasgow tonight. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Nationals, and the guy who'll be the Prime Minister tonight, the member for New England, does not support a net zero target by 2050. We know that the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Senator Bridget McKenzie, does not support net zero by 2050. And we know that the Minister for Resources and Water, the guy who got the new pay upgrade, the Nationals member for Hinkler, does not support a net zero target by 2050. As Nikki Savva said in her column today, the Prime Minister's PowerPoint show was 'a headline searching for a story', and around the world analysts have been scathing of the Prime Minister's announcement. Major international media outlets have labelled it 'hollow' and 'hard to believe'. CNN's headline read, 'Australia will be the rich world's weakest link at COP26 with hollow net zero emissions pledges.' CNN goes on to say:
… in reality, Morrison will go to COP26, reluctantly, with the weakest climate plan among the G20's developed nations.
The BBC tweeted that it was 'a big announcement with very little detail'. The New York Times headline was 'Australia pledges "net zero" emissions by 2050. It's plan makes that hard to believe,' and it went on to say:
The country's last-minute commitment before next week's climate summit is built on hope for new technology, and little else.
The Washington Post joined the international chorus of despair at the Morrison announcement. They quoted climate experts who said that the government was 'kicking the can down the road' and that the plan 'would do little to change the international perception of Australia as a climate laggard'.
How could this nation, our nation, the nation of Doc Evatt and the United Nations, of Bob Hawke and the Antarctic Treaty and of Keating and APEC be an international laggard? I can't remember Australia being criticised so harshly in the international press before. What's at stake here, apart from the very existence of our planet? The environmental threats to Australia will increase, and then there will be economic threats like green trade tariffs. Our international reputation is on the line. I am a proud Australian. Australia has a proud history on the international stage: Doc Evatt, the president of the UN General Assembly from 1948 to 1949—a guy who helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Bob Hawke and Paul Keating; even John Howard's gun control laws; Kevin Rudd's apology—all those wonderful achievements on the international stage. Now we are known internationally as a pariah when it comes to climate change.
The Prime Minister claims his commitment to net zero by 2050 is 'the Australian way'. But it is actually 'the Morrison government way'—to divide, to fearmonger, to take credit for the work of the states and to pretend it's somebody else's job if it's hard. So many slogans, so little substance. 'The Australian way' that I believe in is to punch above our weight, to have integrity and to be ambitious about what we can achieve, as Australian leaders of all parties did repeatedly before this Prime Minister came along and started occupying the Lodge.
Australians should refuse to be dragged down by the Liberal and National parties. Australia deserves a government that believes in a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. An Albanese government will have policies that will make such climate commitments a reality; we will not be crossing our fingers and praying. We will be a government that understands that the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. Right now we have a Prime Minister who said electric vehicles would 'end the weekend' and compared battery storage in South Australia to the Big Banana and the Big Prawn. We've got a Deputy Prime Minister who doesn't even want to commit to net zero emissions by 2050, and he will be in charge tonight.
Australia can be a superpower when it comes to renewable energy. Australia has the most solar coverage of any continent on the earth. We've got a long coastline and an abundance of wind to harness for energy generation. Australia needs an Albanese government, which will harness Australia's natural renewable energy resources to create jobs and cut power bills here in Australia.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (16:16): Australia needs an Albanese government like it needs another hole in the head. That's how bad that idea is! The fact of the matter remains that I can only conclude, having to listen to this detritus of a debate, that those opposite hate Australians and hate Australia. They love Canada. What's happened to Canada's emissions? That's right; they went up by one per cent. What happened to Australia's emissions? They've gone down by 20 per cent. They love New Zealand over there. Their emissions went down by, that's right, one per cent. In Australia they've gone down by 20 per cent.
Those opposite say they don't want to hear slogans; they want action. Well, we've done it. We've done something they could never ever do. When Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister he called this 'the great moral challenge of our time'—you may remember that, Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien. And what did he do after that? He said: 'It's too hard. I'll see you later.' That's the Labor way: the minute it gets hard, they disappear, because they never want to be held accountable. They want to be in government but they don't want any of the responsibility.
I listened carefully to the member for Robertson, who continues to complain about PEP-11. Let me tell you, member for Robertson: I didn't hear you complaining in 1999 when the Labor state government under Bob Carr gave them a licence—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member will direct his comments through the chair.
Mr Leeser interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: Oh, Dobell—the member for Berowra is onto it! When the member for Dobell complains about PEP-11, she fails to mention she didn't complain about it when Bob Carr gave them a licence in 1999. She didn't complain when the member for Watson, who still sits in his House—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: Yes, I know you don't want to hear this. We're well aware you don't want to hear any facts. You don't want to hear about voter fraud. You don't want to hear about how our emissions have gone down. You don't want to hear about how this government has done something you never could—that is, announce net zero by 2050. If you take a point of order on me—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member for Fremantle seeking the call?
Mr Josh Wilson: I think I'm entitled to take a point of order, notwithstanding what the member thinks. He should be directing his comments through the chair.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been listening. He made a comment, which I pulled him up on.
Mr Josh Wilson: He just said 'you' about 30 times in a row!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is in order at the moment, but I'm keeping an eye on it.
Mr FALINSKI: Someone needs to keep an eye on me! The member for Fremantle can't be left to the task; it's too big a task for one person! Thank you to you two for working together; we appreciate it. The fact is that we have done something they never could: we have signed up and committed to net zero. They run away every time the task gets hard. And when it comes to PEP 11, they renewed it and they signed the permit. We will stop it. That's what we will be committed to. That's what we are judged on—action. We've reduced emissions by 20 per cent. We've come up with a plan to get to net zero by 2050.
I note that the member for McMahon went on social media yesterday and said, 'Where were the modern Liberals supporting the member for Warringah's bill that included a 60 per cent reduction on emissions by 2030?' As I asked the member for Warringah: 'Sixty per cent? Why not 70 per cent? Why not 80 per cent? Hell, why not 150 per cent?' If we're just going to start throwing numbers out there, why not go to, you know, 2,000 gazillion per cent? The fact is that, whenever you ask the one question that matters, which is how, 'How do you get to 60 per cent reduction by 2030?', no-one over there wants to talk about it. Then we get to modelling. Thank you very much for mentioning modelling. When it comes to modelling, they all say, 'Oh, there's no model. What was released in estimates is that they are writing the model up.' There is a model. The reason we won't release the model to you is that you wouldn't understand it—because models are numbers; they are not words. And I know that the member for Fraser knows this.
The fact of the matter is that we have a situation where those opposite, who achieved nothing in government, can only throw mud, have no idea how they are going to achieve anything and are astroturfing their way. They think the Australian people won't notice the fraud committed at the electoral box and the fact that they want to allow it to go on unfettered and unchallenged, and the fraud they want to perpetrate on the Australian people through their lack of detail, their lack of commitment and their lack of heart on climate policy.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:21): [by video link] It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Mackellar on an MPI! It was interesting to watch the member for Mackellar, but I've got to say that he did get one thing right, and that was that his government made an announcement. So here we are yet again standing up to speak about another announcement with very little substance behind it. It's a bit like groundhog day in this place, when this government continues to make mealy-mouthed announcements with very little substance to show for it and very little progress to demonstrate.
They say they have a plan, but this plan has no new policies and no legislation. So let's be very clear what this announcement is. This announcement is so that the prime master of grin and spin, the Prime Minister, can save face in Glasgow by being able to waive a glossy brochure in one hand while he has his little stash of coal hidden in his jacket pocket so he can whisper to it, 'Don't worry, my precious; I'm ambitious for you. It's okay; I'll look after you.' That's what this announcement is all about. It's all about a deal with The Nationals to promote the minister and it is about the Prime Minister being able to go to Glasgow and save face. It is not about a real commitment. It is not about any new policies, any legislation or any real plans to get to net zero by 2050.
But this time they have done something a little bit different—something just a tiny bit different. They have added a slogan: 'The Australian way'. Well, I looked it up. I thought: 'What do they mean by the Australian way? Give them a fair go, and let's see if they are fair dinkum about this.' Apparently, the Australian way is through technology—that's the Australian way. Well, it's only taken them eight years to figure that out. It has only taken them eight years to figure out that the business community and the resources sector are already way ahead in terms of technology. They are already forging ahead on moving towards net zero by 2050—and the government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table.
I've been listening to those opposite speak. I had the 'pleasure' of listening to the member for Goldstein earlier. One thing that I've noticed is that they seem to have a string of speakers who consistently want to just point a finger at Labor and say,' Well, what are you doing?' Newsflash: you're in government. You've been in government for eight long years. I don't know what it means to those members to be sitting on that side of the chamber, but sitting on that side of the chamber comes with certain responsibilities. We'd like to be sitting on that side of the chamber, we'd like to take on those responsibilities, but they're there. They're there. And, while they're sitting there on that side of the chamber, pointing a finger at us and saying, 'Well, what are you doing?' here's what we're doing.
We're out there talking to the experts and we're out there talking to the constituents, to the Australian people, about what they want to see; that's the Australian way—people like Ross Clark from Morley, who has a letter in today's West Australian. The letter is headlined 'Long on rhetoric, short on detail'. Ross writes to the West Australian: 'The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has a plan. We know that because he told us 101 times in his climate change ramble.' I think since this letter was published you can add another 80 times to that. Ross goes on: 'Unfortunately, like all things Morrison, it's long on rhetoric and salesmanship and totally absent on detail. The one thing we do know is he was screwed by Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals. But we don't know what it will cost the taxpayer and the environment. We are, after all, just the mug voters.'
That's the sentiment of the Australian people out there today. That's what the people of Australia are saying. That's how they feel about this announcement and its sham plan. They feel like they're being treated like mugs by a government that won't release the modelling because, as the member for Mackellar said, 'Oh, people just won't understand it.' That's their version of the Australian way. Their version of the Australian way is to treat Australians like mugs. That's their version of the Australian Way. Well, Australians won't stand for it. They see right through it and they will show it to them at the next election. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:27): It's a little sad to see the opposition's desire to maintain the climate wars. We've had inaction bred by division for nearly a decade and a half. It has cost leaders on both sides their jobs and led to a more disruptive political climate. For the first time in a long time, we now have city MPs like me and the assistant minister agreeing with country MPs. Together we can get this done, but those opposite have sought to revisit a divisive past. It's time we came together so we can stop this constant and non-productive bickering and finally take some action.
Australia will achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We all should celebrate. Perhaps more importantly, we're going to get there by empowering people, if you will excuse the pun. Australia already has the highest rate of rooftop solar in the world. And, if you could see the weather in Bennelong today, you would see why so many people are putting solar panels on their roofs that energy companies are slashing the feed-in tariffs and working out ways to stop it flooding the system on hot days. This is a good problem! The Prime Minister talks about technology as our way through, and this could sound aspirational if it wasn't for our incredible track record in developing breakthrough technologies, especially in this area.
The CSIRO in my electorate, just across the border, also in West Lindfield, is home to some incredible advances in solar panel technology. These breakthroughs have led the world, and we look likely to continue setting the pace in solar technology. Hyundai in my electorate was home to Australia's first public hydrogen-filling station, and I believe there are plans to increase this capability rapidly. EVs and hydrogen vehicles are firmly rooted in the Australian market and are growing at an exponential rate.
We're also making wave breakthroughs in other fields—renewable energy. For the last few months, a large artificial blowhole has been sitting in the water off King Island, a prototype for a new type of wave power, and, unlike wave power in the past, the data in demonstrates it actually works. Wave Swell is an Australian startup and should soon be making these turbines for islands and coastal populations around the world. Many islands—King Island included—rely on diesel generators for electricity, so these turbines will turn island electricity green overnight. The waves roll day and night with incredible predictability, so it can operate as baseload power.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.
DOCUMENTS
Member for Clark
Presentation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:30): by leave—I table statements of voting intention for the member for Clark for the last sitting week and this sitting week.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Llew O'Brien): It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Climate Change
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:30): [by video link] Well, what a shambles we've seen from those opposite when it comes to climate policy! What a remarkable and quite disgusting attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of Australians! What a phenomenal scam they're perpetrating against this country with their announcement of a so-called plan for net zero by 2050! It uses that term very loosely, since it features no new policy, no new funding, nothing binding them to stick to it, and an excessive reliance on vague technological breakthroughs. They have a so-called plan relying on technology that doesn't even exist yet. The emissions reduction minister said it himself: 'The plan is based on our existing policies.' There is nothing new. It's a joke—net-zero modelling, net-zero legislation and net-zero increase from Tony Abbott's medium-term target set seven long years ago.
Australians have yet to learn what this backroom wheeling and dealing between the Liberals and the Nationals over their children's future is actually going to cost them. For weeks, we have watched them gamble with the future of our country, ending up with a deal that has so far netted just one regional Australian a new job: the Minister for Resources and Water, Keith Pitt, who gets to rejoin cabinet. Well, congratulations! Never mind the fact that he doesn't believe in climate change. He becomes the first beneficiary of this dodgy deal.
This particularly stings because, while they're promoting themselves, those opposite have been costing ordinary Australians their jobs. We know that under this government 2,700 clean energy jobs have disappeared, at least. We know that the quarterly average of new clean-energy capacity is down 70 per cent since 2018, when the current Prime Minister became the so-called leader. It's a legacy of failure and rhetorical bluster. Those opposite have been running scared from action on climate change for a decade. We've seen what wreckers of good policy they've been, and they've taken down leaders, including their own former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
How fortunate, then, that someone in this place has a real plan for a real future of real action on climate change. Labor has a policy to rewire the national electricity grid with renewables. Labor has a policy to introduce community batteries around the country for people who can't afford a household battery. Labor has a policy to cut taxes on electric vehicles to make them more affordable. Labor has a policy to reduce emissions and cut power bills. We have a policy to train up apprentices in the new renewable jobs of the future. Labor knows that tackling climate change is the world's biggest challenge and it's Australia's biggest opportunity.
We have an absolute abundance of natural resources. We have hydropower. We can harness significant wind resources. We get so much sunshine. Australia has the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent in the world. The Northern Territory gets more than 300 days of sunshine a year. We get far beyond our domestic demand and we can meet the increasing demands of the region. Harnessing solar is sustainable and would go a long way towards abating our national carbon emissions. So it's a win-win.
Up in the Northern Territory, Sun Cable's Australia-Asia Power Link is a massive strategic interest, and it's progressing well. Just this week it was announced Singapore will import up to four gigawatts of electricity by 2035. Singapore has a major demand for net zero electricity, and we can give it to them. This is a golden opportunity for Australia, for our nation. Those opposite would do well to develop an actual plan to make the most of our significant opportunities. It is in the national interest to do so.
Grey Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:35): When I'm Canberra I have a habit in the morning of turning on my mobile to tune into the livestreaming of 639 ABC, which is North and West South Australia. It talks about the issues that are going on back in my electorate. I was pleased to hear this morning state transport minister, Corey Wingard, waxing lyrical about the sealing of the Strzelecki Track. The first 50km have been completed. This was funded directly by the state government, with $10 million. Since that time we've had another $205 million invested in the sealing of the Strzelecki Track, with $164 million of that coming from the federal government, and I thank the minister for transport for that generous support of this very important arterial road in my electorate. It stretches from Lyndhurst, somewhere near Leigh Creek, and goes right through to Innamincka and through to the Queensland border. It is the life supply line for the Moomba gas fields, which will be there for many years to come, with the advent of modern drilling and fracking.
The Strzelecki Track will be one of the great tourist routes of inland Australia. To give you some idea about it now, the road has been taking something like 13 to16 hours for a semitrailer to get from Lyndhurst 370 kilometres up the track to Innamincka. So it's a very rough and ordinary road, but it is going to be a bituminised. It will provide a great livestock route, particularly for those growers and producers in South East Queensland that are in a brucellosis-free area and will be able to bring their livestock to brucellosis-free sale yards in South Australia. So there are going to be a lot of benefits coming out of this road.
But it is just a part of the amount of infrastructure spend that we have going on in the electorate of Grey. I don't mind talking long and hard about these achievements. I have never seen this kind of support coming in for the electorate of Grey, in my lifetime. Before that, I don't know, in real terms! There is $160 million from the federal government—and all of these figures are being topped up by another 20 per cent from the state government—for the Joy Baluch Bridge in Port Augusta, which is now well under construction. I think it is ahead of construction time schedules. That development looks fantastic as I go through the town now. There is $80 million for the Port Wakefield Overpass, and I think those works are scheduled to open up around Easter next year, but we hope to have some increased traffic flows going through Port Wakefield perhaps even by Christmas. There is $100 million for the upgrading of the Eyre Highway; $50 million for the Barrier Highway, from Adelaide to Broken Hill; and $44 million for the Horrocks Highway, which goes north of Roseworthy right through to Wilmington. There has already been significant work done on this road, with widening, in particular. There are great works going on around Gladstone, where we have a level crossing, but being on the Horrocks Highway is already a much better driving experience, and there are more works to be done. There is $5 million for the Adventure Way, which is the top end of the Strzelecki Track from Innamincka to the Queensland border. There is $113 million being spent on a new access road in the APY Lands. Parts of it are sealed and parts are it are not, but it's an all-weather road.
There is $130 million for upgrades on the Augusta Highway. I talked about the overpass at Port Wakefield, and already we've pegged the new roadway through to Nantawarra with what will be the dual highway that will eventually stretch all the way to Port Augusta, 200 kilometre away. This is a route that is picking up increasing traffic on the back of the resources boom and the continuing expansion of northern and western South Australia, the economic zone, and it's a boon to all of us.
There has been $114 million committed to a number of other highways recently around the electorate. There was $8.8 million dollars committed down at Dublin for a turn-off to the SA livestock-trading yards. I called in there the other day to have a bit of a look at how the works were going. It's all open now, and there are a number of semitrailers and road trains that go around there each week, through this very important trading route.
It's been a great time for the electorate of Grey. It's been a good time to be the member. Obviously, these are good announcements to make back in one's electorate, but I think it is so important to see this rebuilding of the roads. It's a generational rebuild, and it will give lifeblood back and support the economy of South Australia and Australia for the next 40 or 50 years.
Electoral Roll
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (16:40): We have a fake Prime Minister with a fake plan for climate change, and now he is seeking to legislate a fake democracy for Australia. The voter suppression laws that the government plans to vote for and push on to the Australian people before the next election are morally wrong. He wants to make it harder for people to vote so it's easier for him and his MPs to hang on to office. In their ninth year in government, this is their priority? In response to a COVID pandemic, this is the legislation that the government decides it must pass before an election?
We proudly had the Australian ballot. Now the member for Tangney is giving us the American ballot, an idea stolen from the dark heart of Donald Trump and inserted onto the floor of the parliament of Australia. People will be queuing for hours and hours to be able to vote. Marginalised voters will be turned away. The democracy sausage will become a suppression sanger. Talk about ending the weekend—the weekend will mean that you spend your entire time waiting to have your voice heard in an election.
Democracy is a fundamental Australian value. We make people commit to democratic values when they become citizens. We don't make them show ID when they rock up to their citizenship ceremony. You don't need ID to come onto the floor of the parliament. And even our treasured democratic institution, the Australian Electoral Commission, has said that voter ID would 'involve significant start-up and ongoing costs'. We do not know the cost of this proposal.
The Australian Electoral Commission has said that this will cause voter inconvenience. The Australian Electoral Commission has said that it will lead to possible disenfranchisement of a number of voters. The Australian Electoral Commission has said that this will result in possible delays in the delivery of an election result because of an increase in the level of declaration voting. So we'll have to wait even longer to hear the voice of the Australian people. That's what the independent umpire says.
This government's record on democracy is terrible. We still have, in their ninth year, no federal anticorruption and integrity commission. They refuse to change the donation disclosure laws. They let the member for Pearce take secret money out of a trust fund and then vote to clap him along in doing so. They happily do preference deals with One Nation.
The democratic attack extends to an attack on our states and territories, too. Last month we saw the Deputy Prime Minister compare Western Australia to North Korea. I'll give them this: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claim to be a democracy, but they don't like people voting either. We've got a government stealing ideas from North Korea, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson, who is claiming the credit. What could possibly go wrong?
The same government controlled committee that is recommending these voter suppression laws also recommended optional preferential voting and scrapping by-elections. They wanted to scrap by-elections. If that doesn't tell you that they don't believe in democracy and that they want to suppress the will of the Australian people, what does? What comes after this? Does the member for Tangney want to draw his own electoral boundaries? Are we going to start seeing Liberal mates appointed to the Electoral Commission in highly paid jobs? Are we going to move elections to a Tuesday, like they have in the United States?
There are serious democratic deficits in Australia. Indigenous enrolment in Western Australia is the equal worst of the states and territories. The Electoral Commission estimates that only 69.7 per cent of all Indigenous eligible voters are actually on the role. There are 20,954 Indigenous Australians assumed to be unenrolled in Western Australia. This should be the priority of this government: making sure that every Australian can have their say, that every Australian is enrolled to vote so that they can rock up and have their say at election time, rather than arrive and queue for hours only to be told: 'Sorry, you don't have the correct paperwork. Go home. You don't get to vote in this election. Come back in three years time.'
Labor believes in democracy. We believe in Australia. We believe the Australian people deserve to have their voices heard and, unlike this government, we trust the Australian people. We will fight these laws. We will oppose their voter suppression agenda. We will oppose them bringing the worst of Trump's America here to Australia.
Defence Equipment
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (16:45): I want to speak this afternoon about the decision taken last month as part of the AUKUS agreement for Australia to acquire nuclear powered submarines, which I think is an exceptionally important decision for our long-term strategic and defence interests. We're spending some $270 billion in upgrading our defence capabilities over the next decade, acquiring new platforms and new weapon systems, and a key part of that is the acquisition of a new class of submarines. Part of it as well has been the acquisition of 72 fifth generation fighter craft, the Joint Strike Fighter, at the cost of some $20 billion. But the submarine project, which, under the old system, when we were going to acquire the attack class submarines, was going to cost at least $100 billion. So the sums of money are quite eye-watering, and the submarine capability will be the most expensive part of this defence upgrade.
There has been a long discussion within Australia about what is the best submarine for our strategic circumstances, and to my mind I think it's important that we've now put nuclear powered submarines in the mix. The main reason that we've always struggled with conventionally powered submarines is our unique strategic circumstances. Generally speaking, we haven't been able to acquire conventionally powered submarines off the shelf because we've needed a longer range—our strategic circumstances demand it—which means we require bigger fuel tanks, and we have other limitations as a result. The requirements of our submarine force in defence planning and strategic documents are that it be regionally superior and, as part of our overall Defence Force, it be able to deter actions against Australia's interests and respond with credible military force when required. It's no secret that conventionally powered submarines have significant limitations when compared to nuclear submarines. They are slower to transit. They cannot sustain high speeds. They need to surface more often. Their range is more limited. And they are less able to loiter undetected. This is simply the result of physics—the differing properties and the characteristics of the two propulsion systems. This means that, as opposed to nuclear submarines, conventional submarines are less effective at antisubmarine warfare, less effective at antisurface warfare, less effective in intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance roles.
This comes especially to mind for a geography such as ours, in which submarines are likely to be called on to serve a long away from their home port. The defence strategic documents assess that by 2035 around half the world's submarines will be operating in the Indo-Pacific region, and Australia, as everyone here would know, has one of the largest maritime domains in the world, and we need the capacity to defend and further our interests from the Pacific to the Indian oceans and from the areas to our north all the way to the Southern Ocean. There are a number of countries who already build and operate nuclear submarines: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France. They're considered so superior, in fact, in terms of capability that the United States, the United Kingdom and France do not operate conventional powered submarines. India, Brazil and Korea are all considering or are in the process of acquiring nuclear submarines, and I think that's why Australia is right not to have ruled this out and, in fact, is right to have gone down this path. All other elements of our Defence Force, be it the Army, the Air Force or the Navy, we do not shy away from embracing the best technology. Indeed, we know that our qualitative military edge and our ability to sustain a regionally superior military, notwithstanding a relatively small standing Defence Force, depends on doing exactly this.
Some have argued and will argue that we lack the necessary expertise to sustain such a submarine, but I would point out that Australia does in fact have much nuclear scientific and engineering expertise in ANSTO and its predecessor the Australian Atomic Energy Commission dating back over 70 years. ANSTO currently has some 1,200 staff, including over 200 engineers with nuclear experience. During the life of ANSTO and the AAEC, we have designed, procured, built and operated a series of world-class nuclear facilities, including three small reactors. Our current research reactor, the OPAL reactor, has very many common elements with a modern small nuclear reactor such as that which would be used for naval propulsion.
It's clear to me that Australia's regional strategic environment is becoming more contested, that Australia will need to be increasingly self-reliant when it comes to defeating and deterring attacks on our sovereignty and that if our submarines are to play a significant role in deterrence and response, and they must, then we need to be open to the best technology available, and that is nuclear powered submarines.
Asylum Seekers
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:50): Today there are 46 people detained at the Park Hotel in Carlton—refugees and people who have sought asylum—46 more than there should be. Twenty-one of these vulnerable people have COVID—21 more than should have. This is awful, and it simply should not have happened, because places like the Park Hotel aren't safe for them to be, especially during this pandemic. This is hardly a secret. It's something that I raised with then Minister Tudge in March last year. Let's remember too that the human beings in the Park Hotel are there because they were unwell. At least 14 people in the Park Hotel are immunocompromised and at a heightened risk. Our duty of care to them was to keep them safe and to get them better. We have failed, profoundly. We have failed these men and failed a wider test too.
Australians are better than this. I don't just think this; I know it. Every day during the pandemic we have seen demonstrations of our concern and care for those around us, informed by a sense of decency, a responsibility, a recognition that COVID homes in on vulnerability, but not the Morrison-Joyce government. Where is the policy rationale for this cruelty? How is it that some have been released from APOD detention but not others, when we've known for so long the inherent dangers of these arrangements? And how can it be that vaccination rates amongst detainees are so low, given their vulnerabilities? Only 64 per cent of people in the immigration detention network have received their first dose of the vaccine, almost 30 per cent lower than the general Victorian population, which raises the question: what is being done to work with these men and their trusted advisers to encourage vaccination? Because keeping safe people who are in our care is, or should be, non-negotiable.
This can't continue. These men—these people—have been through so much, and now they must be so scared, for no reason save for a series of unacceptable failures by this government, who still, as I stand here now, with 21 people with COVID, won't accept their responsibility for what they've done and for what they've failed to do—provide decent care to human beings in need. As a refugee in the Park Hotel has said, 'We're not just speaking about a visa; we are speaking about our lives,' Their lives and our responsibility.
I want to speak about another matter which goes to our responsibility and our obligations to people asking us for help. It's my view that we owe the people of Afghanistan a moral obligation. I can't see how an argument can be made against this, given our shared recent history. I've been deeply affected by the voice of Afghan Australians. They need to be listened to and they need to be responded to. To bear witness to their concerns and to their fears is something I've felt deeply affecting, but how this affects me is beside the point. The point is to act where we can. There is so much we can do. Minister Hawke promised that no Afghan visa holder currently in Australia would be asked to return to Afghanistan while the security situation there remains dire. Yet this government's temporary protection visa scheme denies thousands of people with a recognised need for protection the opportunity for permanent protection and the chance to build their lives here. Since mid August we have received more than 26,000 applications for humanitarian visas from Afghan nationals, covering an estimated 100,000 people seeking our protection. But many weeks after Mr Morrison said that a proposed intake of 3,000 refugees was a floor and not a ceiling, we're no closer to appreciating where that ceiling might be. Again, this isn't good enough. We can and we must do better; we must offer people certainty.
My colleague Senator Keneally and I will be writing to Minister Hawke very shortly, but we shouldn't need to. The Morrison-Joyce government should simply be letting Australians know what they're doing in the face of this crisis, and they should be doing what needs to be done.
Ryan Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (16:55): [by video link] As we all know, this Sunday is Halloween. But even scarier for Queenslanders is the anniversary of the re-election of the state Labor government. Just like many Halloween activities, under Labor my community is in the dark—particularly when it comes to local road upgrades.
At the election in 2019 I committed to fixing the Kenmore roundabout, with a federal government contribution of $12.5 million. It took some arm-twisting but, finally, the state Labor government matched that funding at the state election. But what have we had since then? Have we had shovels in the ground or workman on site, or machinery? None of the above. We have seen nothing.
I know what Minister Bailey is going to go as for Halloween; he doesn't even need a costume! He's a ghost—he has completely ghosted the western suburbs of Brisbane. It has been more than 190 days since public consultation was conducted for the Kenmore roundabout upgrade project—190 days since it concluded—and the community has heard absolutely nothing since. It's an unacceptable delay; each and every day locals continue to sit in traffic on this dangerous bottleneck, with near-misses happening on site. And do the state Labor government care? Well, frankly, no, they don't.
Christian Rowan, the local member for Moggill, and myself meet with countless residents who are fed up with waiting for action. That's why the federal government promised the money in the first place. But we're sick of excuses from the state Labor government which simply don't add up. There are excuses about why they can't move faster when the reality is that they can. This project could have been underway right now, because at the same time that the federal government made the commitment to fix the Kenmore roundabout I committed to fix another pinch point along the notorious Moggill Road: the Indooroopilly roundabout. Funding was committed at exactly the same time, made available by the federal government. But with this project—the Indooroopilly one—there was a very big difference. We were partnering with the Brisbane City Council instead of the state Labor government.
When LNP governments work together at different levels we get things done, and we get them done on time and efficiently. Straight after the 2019 election we got together to work on this. Public consultation happened swiftly and the community was able to choose from two options. They chose an overpass as the preferred option, as it dealt better with the traffic on this busy corridor.
In July this year we saw fencing go up and the job was underway. We had machines on site and the existing structures on the Indooroopilly roundabout have now been demolished. The upgrade at one of the busiest intersections in Brisbane has now started because of LNP governments at the council and federal levels working together. Soon we'll not only be able to get residents home safely and sooner but we'll create 584 local jobs in the construction phase, which is going to be brilliant for the Brisbane economy as we come out of the COVID period.
We're not just upgrading the roundabout: where we have seen the option to improve the project and to take on more, we have. We have now expanded the project to include the whole Moggill Road corridor, all the way down from Coonan Street. The expanded project will now include measures like indented bus stops, bus priority measures, road widening, cycling safety improvements and turning restrictions. It's going to be a game changer for local residents. Just today, together with Mayor Schrinner, we announced that the contract has been awarded for the first stage of that project and that construction of a new overpass will begin next month.
I want to congratulate the successful tenderer, the Georgiou Group. They were responsible for the recent Indooroopilly Riverwalk project, another fantastic community-enhancing project. The community has already seen how great their work is, and we're excited to get them started on the Indooroopilly roundabout project. These are transformative projects that we're delivering right here in the western suburbs.
And it's not just in Indooroopilly that we're working with the LNP council but also for residents of The Gap. The Gresham Street Bridge was built in 1931. It has been maintained and worked on over the years but the time has come for a complete replacement. That work is underway, thanks in part to funding from the Schrinner LNP council and also the federal government. The connection is currently used by over 2,850 vehicles a day, so it's important that access was maintained. Residents were enjoying seeing the work go on with the temporary bridge and now the new bridge in place.
The difference could not be more stark when good LNP governments work together as opposed to the delay and mismanagement we've seen from the state Labor government on the Kenmore roundabout project. They need to get on with it for the residents of the western suburbs.
The SPEAKER: It being 5 pm, the House stands adjourned until 10 am on Monday 22 November 2021.
House adjourned at 17 : 00
Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) took the chair at 10:00.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Macnamara Electorate: Melbourne Businesses
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (10:00): When you come to Melbourne, you come to Macnamara; you come to our iconic businesses and destinations to experience the culture and the wonders of Melbourne. But this pandemic has been devastating. It has been devastating for our cultural institutions, it's been devastating for our local businesses and it's been devastating for our events sector, which has helped power our local economy, from St Kilda all the way up to Southbank. But that's about to change, and there is hope on the horizon. There is hope for our small businesses and there is hope for our institutions that are desperate to welcome people back through their doors. Unfortunately there have been businesses that haven't made it through the pandemic. If you walk across Acland Street in St Kilda, just near where my office is, you see the remnants of businesses that didn't make it through this pandemic. It has been really difficult for those businesses and those staff to experience the loss of something they worked so hard to maintain. The good news is that there is hope on the horizon and that Melbourne is roaring back it life.
Another sector I wanted to mention is our travel agents. These small businesses have had the worst two years that they'll ever, hopefully, have to experience. Our travel agents are primarily working women, for whom, because of the really flexible hours and the nature of the work, it's a really fantastic job, a fantastic business. Over the course of this pandemic our travel agents have had to keep working, but for no revenue. They have been working to give refunds to their customers and to keep their loyalty, to keep their customers on-side, without any reward for themselves. I really wish nothing but a bumper season for our local travel agents. I hope they are able to recover some of the damages they have felt over the past few years. And I really hope that people will travel not only from Melbourne to wherever they want to go, via our travel agents, but also to Melbourne, and to come and visit our wonderful institutions, from the Arts Centre all the way down to the Palais Theatre and all the wonderful local small and independent theatre companies in between. Live music will be roaring back to life this summer, and we couldn't be more excited.
So, here's to a bumper season. Here's to a summer of recovery. Here's to some certainty for our small businesses. And here's to Macnamara businesses and small businesses roaring back to life this summer.
Nicholls Electorate: Building and Construction
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (10:03): I'd like to congratulate the previous speaker, the member for Macnamara, on sticking up for travel agents. They've gone through a horrible time.
In my constituency statement I would like to explain how exciting it is to be in Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley at the moment. We are very excited about coming out of COVID and very excited to see some of the freedoms that have been given to those in Melbourne. Obviously many Melburnians are looking forward to venturing into the regions over this long weekend in Victoria. Those visitors who will come to Nicholls over the coming days and months will have the opportunity to experience a lot of 'first times', because, due to some of the significant contributions by the federal government, the Shepparton Art Museum will be officially opened. This was a $15 million contribution towards a $50 million art museum. It is going to become one of the best regional art galleries in Australia, and the region is very excited about having that building completed.
At the same time, about four kilometres away, the Museum of Vehicle Evolution is being completed. Again the federal government was a major stakeholder in building that museum. We've contributed $2½ million to this museum, and it will highlight an amazing array of trucks—historical trucks and brand-new trucks—and other vehicles like bicycles and motorbikes. An incredible women's fashion collection is also on display. It's a 10,000-square-metre facility and it will be unique in Australia.
At the same time work is just commencing on a $17 million overhaul of the Shepparton Maude Street Mall. About 40 years ago a decision was made to stop vehicles entering the mall so that pedestrians had right of way. Shepparton is one of the first cities in Australia that is going to reverse that and have slow-moving traffic allowed back in the Maude Street Mall. It's a $17 million investment all up, and the federal government has contributed over $8 million for that project. It will be a game-changer, and we are looking forward to seeing how that goes in the future. Also being completed right now is the Echuca-Moama Bridge. This is a bridge that's been talked about for 55 years. But over the last four or five years we've been building this $340 million bridge, and it is nearing completion. The two sides have finally met over the mighty Murray River, and it is fantastic that this project will be completed in the coming months. It certainly is an exciting time to be in the Goulburn Valley and Shepparton, and I want to thank the government for all the investment they've put into the Goulburn Valley and Shepparton.
Barton Electorate: Community Services
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (10:06): I rise today to congratulate the citizens of Barton for their combined community support during the past 19 months. Importantly, I would like to record that COVID vaccination rates in Barton continue to rise. As of last Monday, 87 per cent of all eligible Barton residents had had their first dose and 80.9 per cent of eligible residents had had their second dose, an increase of 3.1 per cent from last week. Well done to Barton. We are blessed in Barton with the many community organisations that have been working tirelessly since the start of COVID in March last year to assist their clients. At a recent Zoom meeting, we shared their lockdown experiences of keeping clients engaged, caring for mental health and generally keeping people supplied with daily necessities. Sunny Field Disability Services, 3Bridges Community and Bayside Anglican Church spoke about how they were delivering in-home care to many of their clients, as well as online programs focused on their clients' mental wellbeing. The local Scouts have collected masks and sent them out to Wilcannia, and the Kingsgrove RSL are in constant touch with their veterans and widows. The Kogarah Storehouse and Meals on Wheels advised that their food distribution programs were running well despite lockdown restrictions. Settlement Services International spoke about how they'd been working to inform clients in their own languages about the importance of being vaccinated. All organisations commented on how their workers and helpers had also been caring for each other. To each of these wonderful workers, who are mainly volunteers, I say thank you for a job well done and for continuing to support the people of Barton.
I'd like to give a shout-out to all Barton students, from kindergarten to university, for managing for most of this year with online lessons, along with other people across the country. I particularly want to recognise the year 12 students and the teachers. St George and Bexley chambers of commerce sadly reported that some small businesses had gone out of business, and we hope this situation will improve. I cannot finish without saying thank you to all the dedicated essential workers in Barton, especially those at St George hospital—doctors, nurses, everyone working in the health sector. We owe you so much for your continuing care in our community. Well done to Barton for your great community spirit during these difficult times, and a special thank-you to the community organisations.
Mr Entsch: An outstanding contribution; well said.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! We'll see whether yours is.
Patterson, Mr Grant (Scooter)
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:09): The word 'legend' is one that is often used and branded about, especially when referring to our sporting heroes. But what really makes a sporting legend—passion, dedication, success? If they're the criteria then Cairns Paralympic athlete Grant 'Scooter' Patterson has certainly earnt the title.
Scooter, as he's commonly known, recently competed in the pool in the Tokyo Olympics, where he literally had the whole city cheering him on. Scooter, who competed in five events, won a silver medal in the 50-metre breaststroke and a bronze in the 150-metre medley, his first Paralympic medals since taking up competitive swimming in 2009. His breathtaking swim in the 50-metre breaststroke final was truly inspirational. Scooter's performance in Tokyo has certainly and rightfully etched his name in Australian sporting folklore.
You would be hard-pressed to find a more down-to-earth person and sporting ambassador than Scooter Patterson. Scooter's zest for and love of life, combined with a good old-fashioned dose of Aussie larrikin humour, made him a toast of the games. Aussies and people from around the world couldn't get enough of a guy on a scooter from Cairns. Scooter, in his own unique way, lifted our spirits. He gave us that little something that I think we needed and has been missing now for the past 18 months. He certainly made us smile.
On Scooter's return to Australia, plans were well and truly underway to ensure that we as a community could give back to someone who's given us so much. Cairns Regional Council organised the ultimate honour last month, when Scooter was presented with the keys to the city. The event on a sun-soaked afternoon at the Tobruk Memorial Pool was attended by more than 500 people, including four-time Olympian Dawn Fraser. I thought it would be fitting to leave the final words to Scooter, who told the Cairns Post:
"With what I've done in Tokyo and in all my future adventures, I hope to inspire and motivate everyone here today and continue to inspire and motivate everyone in Cairns, Australia and the world."
From my perspective, and from everybody else who knows Scooter—and I'll say this directly to Scooter—I can safely say, mate, you've certainly done that and more in relation to inspiring, in more ways than you can imagine. Congratulations on a job absolutely well don, and I look forward to you competing in the future. You are up there on a pedestal. You are an inspiration to each and every one of us. Thank you, Scooter.
McMahon Electorate: COVID-19
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (10:12): It's been a tough year in Western Sydney, and Western Sydney has responded with toughness. The New South Wales Liberal government was addicted to creating two Sydneys. We had a curfew. We had helicopters flying over our houses five or six times a day. We had very harsh restrictions which impacted on our economy. But what I want to focus on is how our community responded. Our community responded with toughness and with compassion. I want to thank our frontline health workers. I want to thank the vaccination teams. I want to particularly thank Clare, Kristy and Raj at the Prairiewood vaccination hub. They went for weeks without seeing their families. One of our vaccination-blitz Sundays was Father's Day. Not for one moment did they think of not turning up at work, and they vaccinated thousands of people. I want to thank our testing teams. I've come to know them very well. I've come to know the testing team at Rosford oval very well, given I get tested every three days. We've now become old friends. Right across the McMahon community, the testing teams, at some points 24/7, are always testing with a smile. It's not the most pleasant thing to go through, particularly for those of us who have had to go through it every three or four days, but the friendly faces of the testing teams have made it a bit easier.
I want to thank, in particular, the volunteers. These are the unsung heroes of this crisis. We think of the Rural Fire Service in relation to fires, but the Rural Fire Services from all across Western Sydney made the vaccination hubs work: volunteering, managing the crowds, providing the water. St John Ambulance were, again, at the vaccination hubs and the testing clinics and, in my community, the Fairfield and Granville divisions were at the food hamper canteens every Sunday. Then there's our multicultural community. Turbans 4 Australia—Amar Singh, what an amazing effort. We've all been out there, packing hampers with them, with the trucks and the mini-vans taking food deliveries. When Amar rang me and asked, 'Does anybody need help?' I said: 'Yes, the Assyrian retirement village in Fairfield is doing it tough. The older villagers don't want to go to the shops in this environment.' On the next day, in comes the mini-van, with Turbans 4 Australia, a Sikh community, dropping off hampers to an Orthodox Christian retirement village. The Hindu Council's Hindu Benevolent Fund—every Sunday a canteen at Wentworthville.
I want to particularly mention OzHarvest. Julia Finn, the state member for Granville, Glenn Elmore and I spend every Thursday—when parliament is not sitting—at the OzHarvest hamper canteen in Granville. We normally give out around a thousand hampers a day, which just shows the need. Susannah, our manager, our boss at the Granville OzHarvest hamper hub keeps us on the straight and narrow. We have a very efficient operation, and we get the hampers out to those who need them. I acknowledge all the volunteers at Oz Harvest—there are too many to mention by name. We've become good friends. We have a great atmosphere as we prepare the hampers and get them out the door.
I again acknowledge Man Cave Support Group. Charities right across Western Sydney have responded magnificently. It has brought out the best in our community.
CP Ball Butchery Pty Ltd
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (10:15): I would like to recognise the 70th anniversary of a very well-known business in the Macleay Valley. On the October long weekend, CP Ball Butchery in South West Rocks celebrated 70 years in business on the mighty Macleay. In 1951, Charles Parnell Ball purchased the butchery at 13 Paragon Avenue, South West Rocks—and that's when a 14-year-old named Colin Ball left school to learn the art of butchering and slaughtering—to supply and sell their own meats from their grazing property, known as Longreach, Kinchela. This was the start of the original paddock to plate.
Over those 70 years, Ball's Butchery, as it is affectionately known by locals and tourists, opened another shop in Gladstone, New South Wales, with Colin in charge, supplying the local Macleay area, as well as South West Rocks, with quality meat products. By 1974, Colin moved from Gladstone to Belgrave Street, Kempsey, to service the whole of the Macleay. This was a masterstroke for the business, as was a brand-new abattoir built at Longreach which enabled the business to grow and to employ many more people and families. In 1991, two of Colin's sons, Grahame and Geoffrey, entered the business to learn the art of meat processing and running the business from their father, Colin. A lot has changed over the 70 years, as Colin can testify to: no more sawdust on the floors and now to modern-day equipment and processing.
In 2016, Ball's Butchery made the decision to enter the seafood trade and built a modern-day oyster processing room at South West Rocks, developing the business even further with ocean to plate. This was a first, with meat and seafood sold and processed under the one roof. CP Ball Butchery and Seafoods has received many awards over the 70 years, with sausage king and burger king awards from the Meat Industry Council, but the biggest achievement was when Colin was awarded, in 2014, 50 years membership of the AMIC and the oldest member.
This year, 2021, sees Ball's Butchery celebrate a major milestone. At 84 years old, Colin is still the managing director of the business and is still very active. On a sadder note, on 24 August this year, the Ball family's backbone and Colin's wife, Pamela, lost her battle with cancer aged 79. Pamela was a beautiful person and she will be deeply missed. Colin and Pam were married for 58 years. With the business in good hands with Grahame and Geoff at the helm, Ball's Butchery and Seafood at South West Rocks will continue to supply only the best meats and seafood to the Macleay region for many, many years to come. Well done, boys!
COVID-19
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:18): I rise to speak on the incompetence and mismanagement of both the Morrison government and the New South Wales Liberal-National government and in relation to tackling the pandemic and how this has severely impacted the people of the New South Wales North Coast. It has only really been in the last month that enough vaccines have actually arrived in our region so that people can get properly vaccinated. Prior to this, many people were waiting weeks or months, even, for an appointment. The fact is our community would have been fully vaccinated sooner, but we were not given enough vaccines. I've always strongly encouraged everyone to get vaccinated. It's the only way out of this pandemic—for your own health, for your family, for our community, to support our local businesses and support local jobs.
But this ongoing incompetence and mismanagement by both the federal and state governments has really shown the people in regional New South Wales that we are the forgotten people. That is how we are treated by both these governments. Firstly, to the Prime Minister: you failed to get enough vaccines initially. This was a race, and he didn't do it. And he failed to build quarantine facilities to protect us. The New South Wales government have repeatedly shown they have no concern about regional New South Wales, whether it's the rollout or the subsequent chaotic road map. It's all Sydney-centric to them.
In June, the New South Wales government failed to lock down Sydney straight away, when delta struck, which meant this catastrophe quickly spread throughout the state to the regions. Then they shamefully redirected our very limited supplies of Pfizer to Sydney. The New South Wales government then failed to give us a ring of steel on the North Coast to protect our community. This would have stopped people from lockdown areas coming into our region, and it would have meant easier access to Queensland, but they rejected that idea. On top of that, the New South Wales government's weak rules still allowed people from Sydney to easily come to our region while we were still denied access to enough vaccines. Throughout this time, we saw complete incompetence from North Coast Nationals MP Geoff Provest and his Sydney-centric government.
Next we had their chaotic and reckless roadmap—a roadmap based purely on statewide vaccination rates—and they continued to refuse to take into consideration the lack of supply of vaccines to the North Coast. This has resulted in complete chaos as so many people are unable to access services and businesses, so many staff are unable to work and so many businesses cannot open. Many of our outstanding local businesses have been devastated due to this gross mismanagement, because we didn't get enough vaccines supplied to us early on. Now we're looking at these very important booster shots—we know they're coming soon—and my message is very clear to the federal and state governments: do not leave the regions behind. The same applies for those important vaccines for the under 12s, when they are available.
The fact is the rolling incompetence, mismanagement and chaos of the Liberals and Nationals continue to place lives, jobs and businesses at risk on the New South Wales North Coast. Our community will not forget how the National Party betrayed us.
Climate Change
COVID-19
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (10:21): The pathway to net zero emissions by 2050 must be undertaken in a measured and prudent way in order to sustain the continued growth of the Australian economy, keep the cost of living under control for my constituents and ensure that our nation remains competitive in international markets.
Western Australia is a highly productive state, with agriculture, resources and energy contributing heavily to the national economy. Many of my constituents are employed in the mining and construction industries. Many are fly-in fly-out workers, tradespeople, contractors and small-business owners. It is incumbent on our government to ensure that their standard of living is not negatively affected by international treaties, which increase the cost of production. We must protect the jobs and livelihoods of Australian workers and farmers, particularly those living in rural and regional areas, by ensuring that our policies do not have an adverse effect on productivity or the cost of production. Access by industry and households to affordable and reliable baseload power is essential to avoid supply interruptions.
It is important to ensure that all nations meet their international emissions commitments, and this must be enforceable—particularly among the populous developing nations that are large emitters, such as India and China. Australia, acting on its own, will have a negligible effect on global emissions. Where a transition to renewable sources of energy is not economically viable or reliable in the short term, the use of transitional fuels, such as liquefied natural gas, must be considered in the interim as technologies evolve. Studies indicate that the viable use of fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen, will still not be viable for more than a decade. A commitment to ambitious emissions targets necessitates a national debate on the use of nuclear energy as an economical low-emissions alternative energy source to carbonised fossil fuels.
Only a coalition government will ensure that the transition to achieving low emissions is implemented in an economically responsible manner, using transitional fuels and new technology, and is done in a financially viable way to protect our national economy and the living standards of Australians. In my electorate, advanced research has been undertaken into renewable energy at the School of Engineering at Edith Cowan University. On a recent visit, I viewed studies into wind turbines and solar inverters, which will improve efficiency and reduce the cost of renewable energy to consumers and industry.
Macquarie Electorate: Hawkesbury Heights
COVID-19
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:24): Hawkesbury Heights, in the Blue Mountains, has no safe footpath to walk or ride the four kilometres to the local high school, the primary school, the shops or even to the local lookout and early learning centre. Kids, elderly people and mums with prams all have to use the rough bush terrain on the edge of a very busy arterial road. There has been huge community demand for something to be done about this stretch of road for at least a decade, for pedestrians and cyclists, and the increase in traffic volume over the years means it's becoming even more dangerous.
In 2016 I stood with local residents and Senator Doug Cameron to announce that a Labor government would fund a much-needed shared pedestrian and cycle path to connect Hawkesbury Heights and Winmalee, one of many upgrades needed for this road. In 2019 Labor again listened to the community and committed to funding, if elected to government. Well, we lost, and the people who face the consequences of that loss are the Hawkesbury Heights community. After nine years in Canberra and more than 10 years in New South Wales, the Liberals have done nothing. There are still mums pushing prams over rocks to get to the shops and kids walking beside a busy road. Will this be like so many other issues in my electorate—headspace in the Hawkesbury, mobile phone towers—and we'll just see the Liberals wait until an election is in the air to throw out a promise that you can't trust them to keep?
Mr Deputy Speaker, we can't say thank you enough to frontline workers who've seen us through, hopefully, the worst of the pandemic, whether it's the people at shop counters and restocking shelves or those who care for others—aged-care workers, vaccinators and testers, nurses and hospital staff, GP teams, childcare workers, disability workers, emergency services workers. While many of us have been limiting our contact with others, their roles demand that they be available and exposed. You might not know that the police have been checking on COVID-positive people in care at home, taking them food parcels from our local food relief agencies, where community workers and volunteers have continued to serve an increasingly hungry community. These are the people who've worried whether they're taking COVID home to their families. These are the people who've worried whether they're taking COVID to work, where their patients or clients are vulnerable. These are the people who should already have access to rapid antigen self-testing so that they can be more confident that the lengths they go to to protect themselves and others as they do their essential work are effective.
As the restrictions lift, it doesn't necessarily mean that the pressures on these people will lift. For teachers, the pressures have grown. So to all these people, on behalf of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury and, I think, from this entire parliament, I say: thank you.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II: Platinum Jubilee
National Emergency Medal
Sheean, Ordinary Seaman Edward (Teddy), VC
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (10:27): I rise to recognise Her Majesty the Queen and her 70 years of service, as she will reach that milestone next year. I wouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, describe myself as a staunch monarchist, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do want to acknowledge that a Platinum Jubilee Medal is being struck in the United Kingdom. It will feature a portrait of Her Majesty and the royal crest. That medal will be made available next year to Defence Force personnel and frontline emergency services workers.
The reason I raise this today is that I've received a letter from a Victorian constituent who wants the Australian government to consider, within the scope of the Australian honours and awards system, a Platinum Jubilee medal to recognise Her Majesty's service to Australia as well. Issuing a Platinum Jubilee medal is regarded, obviously, as a significant decision, and it's one that I've asked the minister responsible to consider, in also gauging Australia's interest as to whether it would be possible. My constituent suggests it should be made available to, for example, Australian Defence Force personnel, police, fire and ambulance members, and selected SES, Country Fire Authority and Rural Fire Service members, along with some frontline medical staff involved with the response to COVID. I think the idea has a lot of merit and is one that would signal a great deal of respect to Her Majesty in her 70th year of service.
In the same vein—on the topic of medals—I have previously written to the Prime Minister regarding the National Emergency Medal in relation to the Black Summer bushfires. That was a couple of years ago, obviously. I'm pleased to see that the government, in consultation with the Governor-General, has declared the 2019-20 bushfires a nationally significant emergency for the purposes of the National Emergency Medal and I urge people who served during that time to consider applying for a medal that is rightfully theirs. You can apply for the medal through your primary service organisation, or private citizens, who are also eligible, can go online and submit their application for the National Emergency Medal.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware, our medallic system—our system of recognition—is an important one, and medals have to be properly earned through great deeds in our society. As the former Minister for Veterans' Affair, I was incredibly proud of the work we did, as a government, in relation to Teddy Sheean VC. I haven't had many opportunities to speak on the record about the awarding of the VC posthumously to Teddy Sheean. It took a great deal of work by the Sheean family and by Guy Barnett, a former senator in this place and also a minister in Tasmania. It was due recognition for an unlikely hero. For Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean to receive his VC posthumously was very long-overdue recognition, and I greatly appreciate the work by the government and the Governor-General in recognising him.
Lilley Electorate: Community Events
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (10:30): This weekend, our Hindu community in Lilley will be celebrating Diwali, the festival of lights, in Banyo. Over 45,000 Queenslanders celebrate the festival of lights every year, coming together to create new beginnings and celebrate the triumph of light over darkness. To those celebrating Diwali this year, I hope the festival of light brings Lakshmi and that she finds her way into your homes and brings prosperity to your friends and family for the year to come. I am sad that I can't be with you to celebrate this year—I will be in home quarantine after flying home from parliament—but I look forward to joining you in the festivities next year. I would also like to thank the Queensland Hindu Society in Boondall for welcoming Senator Penny Wong and me recently and sharing with us how our Australian Hindu community has been impacted during COVID-19.
I would also like to share with the parliament the concerns of president Rob, the secretary Camille and the Pinkenba Community Association, who have been battling a rezoning proposal that has the potential to dramatically alter the quality of life in their community. A developer has proposed that a block of land directly across the road from a street filled with residential properties be rezoned from a heritage listed area to a light industrial area. The Pinkenba Community Association fully appreciates the importance of progress and development in an industrial area like Pinkenba, but they are understandably concerned about the site being rezoned from what it was to a light industrial area, literally right across the street from their homes. I want to throw my full support behind the Pinkenba community, and I call upon Councillor David McLachlan and the Brisbane City Council to do the right thing by this close-knit community. I've doorknocked Pinkenba a couple of times now, and I know that they are a tough community who are not to be messed with.
I would also like to congratulate Michael and the Common Good, and the Prince Charles Hospital community more broadly, on their wildly successful Giving Day fundraiser. The Common Good raised a staggering $266,000, smashing their target of $250,000. Thank you to every single northsider who donated to this fundraiser, which will fund a whopping 6,060 hours of additional medical research at the Prince Charles Hospital. May I take this time to thank all of the health workers based out of the Prince Charles Hospital and the Metro North health district for their 18-month very hard slog during COVID, looking after the patients on the COVID ward and all of those who've come through the hospital, the testing centres and the vaccine clinics that we have now in places like Boondall. I encourage all northsiders to get vaccinated this week. There are only three days left before you will not have full coverage by the time Queensland opens its borders to our family and friends and to tourists, but also to COVID, estimated to be on 17 December. I encourage everybody to get vaccinated as soon as possible.
Rural and Regional Services: Banking
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (10:33): The announcement of the Regional Banking Taskforce is very welcome news, and I now call on it to visit central-western New South Wales to hear and see firsthand the impact bank closures are having on our country communities. The creation of the task force is very positive. In fact, it's long overdue. I've been campaigning for months for an inquiry to be held into dwindling bank services in the bush. In our electorate this year, the Commonwealth Bank has pulled out of Molong and Blayney and halved its opening hours in Oberon, Wellington and Gulgong. Before that, the Commonwealth pulled out of Portland. And it's not just the Commonwealth. The NAB has closed its doors in Canowindra and Blayney, and the ANZ has pulled out of Cowra. And the list goes on and on; all of the banks are doing it.
Whenever there have been bank closures, our communities have come together to fight them and find a solution to keep country banking going. In Molong, Councillor Peter Batten, along with residents Mary Mulhall and Marj Bollinger, advocated for service retention, as did the Mayor of Cabonne, Kevin Beatty, and the Mayor of Blayney, Scott Ferguson. They all led campaigns to keep the branches open. But their combined voices weren't heard by the big banks.
Today, the Cabonne shire is home to nearly 14,000 people in 17 towns and villages, but it no longer has a single standalone bank branch. The ATM in Molong charges people $2.50 per use. It's regularly out of order, and, on many occasions, the town has literally run out of cash. The cold, hard truth is that the big banks like to advertise what great friends they are of country communities, but far too often their words are not matched by deeds.
Closing bank branches is very hard on senior Australians, who may not be able to travel to larger centres to do their banking and may not be able to access internet banking. I therefore call on the task force to come to our area to talk to those most affected by branch closures. Talk to the loyal bank customers, some of whom have banked with the big banks through the generations, since the days of pounds and shillings. Talk to local business owners, community groups and councils, who are all left to deal with the aftermath once the banks have closed their doors. We need to shine a light on what the big banks are doing in our country communities, and we need to make sure that our local stories are told and that our local voices are heard.
Dobell Electorate: Housing Affordability
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (10:36): Housing costs on the Central Coast are going through the roof, and the federal government is sitting on its hands. It's harder to buy than ever before, and it's harder to rent than ever before. The cost of rent on the Central Coast has jumped three times as much as it has in Sydney. In the year to September, the median rent in Sydney increased by 5.5 per cent. On the Central Coast, the median rent jumped by 15.9 per cent. This includes increases of 12.2 per cent in The Entrance North, 13 per cent in Bateau Bay and 15.3 per cent in Forresters Beach. As media have reported, national spokesperson for Everybody's Home, Kate Colvin, said that the federal government must step in. She said:
A ballooning number of Australians on low and middle incomes simply cannot compete for housing in the booming private sales and rental market …
She went on to say:
Unless the federal government steps up, homelessness services and other health and welfare services will be overwhelmed.
After almost a decade in government, housing affordability has only gotten worse under this government. This is impacting thousands of people in my community, people like Angela. Angela grew up on the Central Coast, and she'd like to buy a place on the coast with her partner for their three kids to grow up.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:37 to 11:09
Ms McBRIDE: Angela wrote to me: 'My partner and I are very hard workers and would love to own our own home. Unfortunately, with the rising prices and COVID, this has been taken out of our hands. We're not the only hardworking Australian couple in this situation and we need help. I understand that there is help, but it's not the help we need. We need affordable housing that middle-class workers can afford. We need to, especially in these times, be given the opportunity, with the government's help, to be in a family home. There's little in the rental market, as you know, and the rent prices are exorbitant. Our future is uncertain and unstable. With three children living at home, this is scary. I don't know all the answers but I'm sure there's some out there.'
As Angela knows, there is no easy fix, but it does require leadership from the federal government. That's why I've invited shadow minister for housing and homelessness Jason Clare to visit the Central Coast tomorrow. I know Jason is keen to hear from Angela and others. And she's right—we need more housing that working people can afford, and Angela should have the opportunity to be in a family home.
One of the most obvious things we need to do is to build more affordable housing. That's why a Labor government will establish the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will build 30,000 social and affordable homes across the country. Over the first five years, it will build 20,000 new social housing properties, including 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and older women on fixed low incomes who are at risk of homelessness, and 10,000 affordable homes for the heroes of the pandemic—the frontline workers like police, nurses and cleaners who kept us safe during COVID and can't live close to home.
I met with the Homelessness Interagency this month about the crisis. They told me more and more local people are struggling to get into the housing market, renters are struggling to find permanent housing and more and more people are seeking refuge in homelessness shelters. It's not good enough. Coasties deserve better. Australians deserve better.
Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 2021
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (11:10): Humorists have often had fun at the expense of economists, auditors and accountants. On rare occasions, they will also throw in an actuary as well. One of my favourite jokes is that an economist is someone who sees things working in real life but doesn't believe it until he can prove it in theory.
This year, the Nobel committee reversed that joke, awarding the prize to three economists who sought to see if theory worked in reality. David Card, Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens have undertaken some incredibly important work that has impacts from wage-setting to immigration, media bias and prison sentences. Their breakthrough was to develop tools that isolate causal relationships. These are now the core of modern social sciences. They borrowed frameworks from science—specifically, randomised control trials. If it was good enough for testing heart medicine, surely it could be good enough for economists. So now economists talk of natural experiments, difference in differences, regression discontinuity designs and, of course, my favourite, instrumental variable techniques in order to create credible identified causal relationships. That is right: economists now have credibility—or, in the language of the Romantics, identification revolutions.
That is why we now know that a large influx of low-skilled migrants does not lower wages but does expand economic activity, lowering inequality in both general and specific terms. We also know that if you want to reduce the impact of household income on education outcomes then you need independent charter schools, which makes the last 30 years of Australian education policy disappointing. We can now prove that universal basic incomes have little positive impact on labour supply and that the cost of housing is directly related to supply and not social housing and government interventions or subsidies.
It is my sincere hope that, over the next couple of decades, these natural experiments can reduce the impact of partisan rent-seeking in policy-making and that this parliament, for one, will be the great beneficiary of their work, such that we can focus, in the words of Galbraith, on what works. It was Churchill who once said: 'The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is.' These three economists have ensured that the truth, now more than ever, is just there.
COVID-19: Vaccinations
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:13): Yesterday I wrote to the head of the TGA, Professor John Skerritt, and, based upon the latest deaths data out of the UK, called for an immediate suspension of the COVID vaccinations on Australian teenage males. That data shows that, for the first 41 weeks of 2020 in England, there were 347 deaths in the 15- to 19-year-old age group; however, this year, in the first 41 weeks, there were 450 deaths. That's an increase of 103 extra deaths this year in males aged 15 to 19 in the UK. And what is greatly concerning about that data is that for the first 16 weeks there was no trend. The deaths in 2020 matched the deaths in 2021; they were on par. But since week 16 in the UK we have seen an over 50 per cent increase in deaths in young males in the 15- to 19-year-old age group. What is of great concern is that that coincides exactly with the timing of the rollout of the COVID vaccines in that age group in the UK. What is also of great concern is that we are not seeing the same increase in deaths in young females in that age group in the UK.
We know from the US data that the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis and heart inflammation from the vaccines is heavily and overwhelmingly weighted to young boys, to males. That is exactly what we are seeing from the data in the UK. There may very well be other explanations for this dramatic surge in deaths in 15- to 19-year-old males in the UK; there could be many explanations. But given the coincidences in the fact that the deaths are overwhelmingly weighted to males and not females and given the exact correlation between the increase in deaths of young males and the ramp-up of the vaccines in that age group, if we were to apply the precautionary principle we should suspend these injections for all teenage males until an alternative explanation can be found. There may very well be an alternative explanation. But our history and tradition tells us we must apply the precautionary principle, especially when it comes to teenagers—15- to 19-year-olds—who have six or seven decades of life ahead of them.
Gallacher, Senator Alexander McEachian (Alex)
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (11:16): I rise to offer my most humble and sincere condolences to Paola Gallacher, the wife, the life partner and the friend of the former Senator Alex Gallacher. This House affords us as members the opportunity to get to our feet and offer our condolences. Whilst we did acknowledge Senator Gallacher in the House of Representatives prior to question time as a group, I want to take this time to add my comments to those comments made in the other place by those who got to their feet to acknowledge Alex's contributions in this place. Paola, I rise to offer some comfort to you in these dark days. This time of mourning that you would be going through having lost someone so significant in your life must be a living hell. Thinking about what you're going through should turn our minds to thinking about our own mortality and what we should do with the time that we have left in this place.
Alex had a great affinity with the transport sector and rose to the dizzy heights of being the TWU president. He surrounded himself with good men, and each of those in the Senate who spoke on his condolence motion had a transport theme in their contributions, which is evidence of his contributions in this place. He was a pleasure to work with in committees and, when he wasn't in parliament, he was a keen golfer. I enjoyed spending time with him immensely. He made an amazing contribution to this place and he had a little catchphrase which was, 'There is much to do.' If each of us goes away knowing that we can made a contribution in this place, there is still much to do. Vale, Senator Alex Gallacher.
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Small Business
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (11:19): Last night I found out that a much-loved cafe in Cobargo will be closing its doors for good next week. The staff in the cafe helped the Cobargo community to come together after the fires. They offered that bit of normality for those people whose lives had been turned upside down by the fires, but multiple lockdowns and border closures were just too much. They couldn't keep going because, as they put it, COVID had taken its toll. My heart breaks as I see small businesses and sole traders in Eden-Monaro whose once profitable and successful businesses are now struggling every day trying to make a living. Many businesses in Eden-Monaro are like this cafe. They've been hanging on by a thread. There are businesses that for different reasons were unable to access government assistance, but even those that have received assistance are still just trying to get by. I worry that there will be more business owners who are tired and are giving up the fight.
The Australian snow industry is on the brink, which means that, whilst the rest of the country is getting back to normal, businesses and families in the Snowy Mountains are facing more uncertainty. The snow industry has missed two seasons of trade as a result of COVID lockdowns. And with the snow gone, businesses will need to wait at least another six months until they can start to recoup some of their losses. The snow industry usually contributes about $2 billion each year to Australia's economy. Australia's alpine regions are now threatened with some 20,000 job losses. The federal and New South Wales governments need to work together. They need to urgently establish a joint grant package targeted at the snow industry, because this industry needs support. But I'm not holding my breath that this will happen.
So, in the meantime, I'm calling on our residents, our locals and our visitors to do everything they can to support our local businesses. Go local first. Shop at local grocers and butchers. Support local retail by buying Christmas presents in our towns before shopping online. And, if you can, go out and enjoy time at our cafes and restaurants. Small businesses play a vital role in our economies. They keep communities thriving and create local jobs. I want to give a shout-out to everyone in Canberra who can travel at the moment. Come to our incredibly beautiful region. If you are travelling to the Bay, pop into Bungendore and check out the antique store or grab a cuppa in Braidwood. If you're heading to Merimbula or Tathra, duck into Cooma, Nimmitabel or Bemboka. If you're heading to Bredbo for the Christmas Barn, spend a day at the pub. Take a day trip to Yass and stop at a winery in Murrumbateman. Use one of the mountain-bike tracks in Jindabyne or Tumut, or go for a bushwalk in the Snowy valleys. Check out and stay in our local accommodation, buy at our shops, go out for dinner with your families and, when you return home, know that you have made a difference to our local communities.
Regional Banking Taskforce
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:22): Unfortunately we continue to see bank branch closures in regional communities. The number of bank branches in regional and remote Australia was reduced by almost a quarter over the four years to June 2021. That's a decline from around 2,500 branches to around 1,900 branches in just four years. We know that these bank branch closures are part of a broader trend across the country, but these closures hit regional communities hardest. Bank branch closures in the regions can affect the liveability of country communities, particularly for residents who are unable to use online services to do their banking. That is especially older residents and Indigenous residents—people who may not be connected online.
This is why the government has established a Regional Banking Taskforce, which will bring together key stakeholders, including banks, Australia Post, the Local Government Association and other key stakeholders—key peak bodies. The task force will assess the impact of bank branch closures in regional communities and how banks are providing services and important delivery models. Now, they use the word 'transitioning', but I don't like that word, because it almost indicates that they've just shut up shop, that they won't be coming back. I appreciate that in some communities they won't be, but we need to do everything we can to reinforce the message that we need these services.
Over coming months, the members of the task force will bring insights and knowledge to better understand the role of technological innovation in banking services and impacts of branch closures on individuals, businesses, community organisations and regional industries. Indeed, some small businesses rely on banks to have that cash flow. They don't want to have to keep cash on the premises, because of the risk of break-ins. These and other matters are so important with this particular issue. The task force will also seek solutions to maintain or improve banking services and accessibility where branches have been lost.
In my community—and all politics is local—we're losing the Cowra branch of the ANZ. It's closing before the end of the year. The Cootamundra branch of the ANZ closed in September. The Forbes branch of the ANZ closed in May. The ANZ also closed its Junee branch in 2016. The Commonwealth closed its Wagga Wagga Fitzmaurice Street branch this year. The Lockhart branch has been closed since July. There are reduced opening hours for 90 regional branches, including those in Cootamundra, Forbes, Temora and West Wyalong. The NAB closed its Ardlethan, Lockhart and Grenfell branches, all in 2018, and Westpac has closed its West Wyalong branch. They are just some of the many branch closures right throughout regional Australia.
We're doing something about it. We're investigating what is happening and what we can do to improve it, and we're making sure we keep banks on notice to provide those important services in country communities.
Banking and Financial Services
Health Care
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:25): In response to the Member for Riverina's comments about major banks closing their branches, Bendigo Bank, which is based in my electorate, is expanding in regional areas and opening more and more branches, so I encourage those customers to think about banking with the truly rural bank that we have, and that's the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank. They are not leaving our regions behind at all. They are expanding. Their community bank branch model is second to none. It's where money that's invested in your local branch stays local. It's of real benefit to our regions that, through Bendigo Bank, we have such a strong partner. We have bank closures as well in my part of the world, and what I say to locals is: 'Think about banking with our local bank, the bank that actually reinvests in our community.' Go Bendigo, Member for Riverina!
What I also want to raise today is a push on the federal government around hospital funding. This is the second year of the pandemic. It is hard for our regions. We are going through the process of opening up. I, like many, was shocked to discover that the health ministers in our state governments are so concerned about the support from the federal government that they wrote to the Minister for Health and Aged Care and pleaded with him to increase funding to hospitals, and to do so urgently. I cannot believe that the government are saying, 'No. We've done our job.' They aren't investing more in our hospitals and aren't listening to the calls from our state governments.
In my part of the world, Bendigo, we are opening up. We have high vaccination rates, yet we are seeing people being infected and, for the first time in quite a few months, we now have cases at the Bendigo hospital. They're ready. They're trained. They're ready to go. But it is expensive. If we want to make sure that we have a strong health sector with workers who aren't exhausted and who will see us through the pandemic, we need a federal government that will partner with our state governments to make sure our hospitals have the resources and the funding that they need.
I am alarmed that the federal government continues to say, 'We've done our job.' It is like they're pretending that the pandemic is over. It is not. The reality is that opening up is quite scary. People that you know and that I know will get sick. Children under the age of 12 still don't have access to a vaccine, and if they have underlying health issues there could be a risk there. Something that concerns me, as a mum of two under two, is: what could happen? Nobody wants their community or their family to be infected by COVID. That's why vaccines are a good defence against this virus. However, if people do get sick, we want to have a hospital bed for them. If they get really sick, we want to have ventilators for them. That is why we need the federal government to not pretend the job is done and to actually say, 'Yes, we increased your funding last year. We're still in a pandemic this year. We're going to increase funding again.'
Moncrieff Electorate: City Heart Taskforce
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (11:28): It gives me great pleasure in this penultimate sitting to talk about the local City Heart Taskforce that I put together on the Gold Coast as my response to the coronavirus pandemic. The City Heart Taskforce is made up of leaders—the lions of industry on the Gold Coast. There are 14 key pillars across the City Heart Taskforce, which I brought together to make sure that we have a cross-industry think tank on the Gold Coast to steward the way forward for jobs, skills and industry. I have updated the House previously on the 2020 Reimagine Gold Coast forum, which I held at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre in August last year, and the following Reimagine 2.0 forum that I held at The Island in Surfers Paradise just last month.
I want to take the opportunity to thank the City Heart Taskforce executive members for their input and dedication to our city over the last 19 or so months. I'll start with Regional Development Australia. Estella Rodighiero has done so much work in the area of manufacturing. Manufacturing is worth about $7 billion to the Gold Coast and 14½ thousand direct jobs, so it's a very important area. Estella has done great work with Industry 4.0 and the emerging technology-led industries on the Gold Coast. There are also the two local chambers of commerce that span Moncrieff. They have two fantastic presidents, Ian Kennedy and Martin Hall. I thank them for their input and feedback on the JobKeeper 1 and JobKeeper 2 wage subsidies that helped so many—32,000—businesses across Moncrieff, 10½ thousand of whom were on JobKeeper for some period.
Rob Borbidge and Alfred Slogrove: thank you for your dedication on behalf of Study Gold Coast. Thank you for your fantastic dedication to the international education sector and for letting us know how things are on the ground so that we can move it forward here in Canberra. The Property Council, Matthew Schneider: 20 per cent of jobs on the Gold Coast are in construction. Destination Gold Coast: thank you to Paul Donovan and Patricia O'Callaghan for your work in tourism, which is very important to the Gold Coast—one in six jobs, in fact.
Thank you to the events sector—Adrienne Readings, Jan McCormick, John Howe—and the arts and culture sector, with Emeritus Professor Ned Pankhurst representing HOTA, the Home of the Arts. Chris Mills from our airport—what a great job. It's been difficult for the airport. Geoff Smith from Sports Gold Coast: thank you for the work that you do for women in sport, for the project which is moving forward in leaps and bounds on the Gold Coast as the home of women in sport. Thank you to Bernie Hogan, who heads up Queensland Hotels Association.
Thank you to the City Heart Taskforce members for your dedication.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Dick ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Communications and the Arts Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (11:32): I want to start by thanking the committee members—and, of course, the member for Lyne, the former chair of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts—for the way that we work together and for the work that we've done on this report and its 22 recommendations, all of which are very important for sculpting the future of the arts and its place in our society. I can't outline all of them, so hopefully some of my colleagues here in the Federation Chamber will highlight some of ones that I don't touch on. I wish to thank those who took the time to make submissions to the committee for this inquiry, and I especially mention HOTA, the Home of the Arts, in my electorate for their contribution.
My City Heart Taskforce executive member for the arts is the chair of the Home of the Arts, Emeritus Professor Ned Pankhurst, and I thank him for his vision for arts and culture on the Gold Coast as the soul of our city. I also thank Criena Gehrke, the CEO at HOTA, for her submission to the inquiry, which coloured a number of the recommendations in the final report. Firstly, they mentioned in their submission that much of the non-economic benefits of the creative industries remains anecdotal and that there is a pressing need to better understand the reach and impact of creative industries on wellbeing. In recommendations 15 and 16 of the report tabled yesterday, the committee recommended:
… the Commonwealth Government provide additional funding to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to produce the Cultural and Creative Satellite Accounts annually, gather and publish data on levels and type of employment, trends, revenue, geographic trends across the creative and cultural industries—
and—
… the Australian Bureau of Statistics add questions to the Census which better account for the professions of those working in gig economies, and across the creative and cultural industries with recognition of paid and unpaid work.
This will go a long way to understanding the true value of the arts to society and give us a better understanding of the benefits flowing from creative industries so that we have the best information to develop a national cultural plan to assess the medium- and long-term needs of the sector, which, of course, is recommendation 1 in the report.
The Home of the Arts also stated that the industry probably doesn't need government help to innovate—no surprise there—but that what it does need is a more stable resource base from which to operate that platform of innovation. And there were so many other submissions that supported that. The committee's response to that was in recommendation 18, which recommends:
… the Office for the Arts investigate the delivery of an 'Art Starter' portal—
just that sort of platform—
containing information for artists, and those engaged in the creative economy, at all stages of their careers to enable Australia's arts industry to continue to grow and reach new audiences. The portal should include information on—
very importantly—
financial literacy, including information on taxation regimes and subsidies …
It's well known in this place, and beyond, that before coming here I was a professional musician for some 30 years—and I still play, mainly in my office—and also a published author and a songwriter. So it is a great privilege to stand in this chamber and speak to this report, and, indeed, to be a member of the government on this committee. My own experience as a young person with a craft was that it took a long time to develop the business acumen needed to commercialise my skills and my income as a creative artist. It is complex and it's everything from registering your business so that you can access an ABN to claiming expenses on your tax and collecting GST monthly, and paying it monthly or quarterly. In the case of COVID, having an ABN actually meant you were eligible to receive JobKeeper payments. Not only that, but it took a long time to develop in other areas, such as protecting your own original song or manuscript, or indeed paintings or Indigenous artworks. This is expanded on in this recommendation, and further outlined in recommendation No. 3.
The arts are one of the greatest levellers. What I mean by that is the arts level the playing field for all players. Not just those with the means to access private tuition or private schooling, but those who have a raw talent and who, through it, can make something of themselves. We see that in sport. This government already supports opportunities within sport, through the Local Sporting Champions grant program. One of the most satisfying things that I get to do as a local member is to write letters to young people and their parents to deliver the news that they've been a successful recipient of that program, which will allow them to attend state championships or a national championship. I'd love to be able to do exactly the same thing for young artists, as would my colleagues on both sides of the House. These are not large amounts of money, but they make all the difference to those families who have multiple children or a special child who has the gift of a talent and who wants to work hard. And that is essentially my own story.
I was extended an opportunity that was affordable for my family. I think it was $20 a term to hire an instrument from my high school in the 1980s. I worked hard and practised for 10,000 hours, and my work was rewarded with an international scholarship. That sent me abroad, and opened up the world to me as a young 17-year-old girl. It allowed me to study my craft at university, to join a band—many bands, actually; meet many brilliant role models, including the late Don Burrows; perform and travel the world; and, ultimately, it was the gift of music that led me to stand here in this place today.
I feel very strongly about these next recommendations, because they are what I believe in, and that is reward for effort and equality of opportunity—the greatest of all Liberal and National values. That's why I'm so excited about recommendation Nos 20 and 21. Recommendation 20 says:
… that the Office for the Arts, in collaboration with the Australia Council for the Arts, establish a new 'Local Artistic Champions Program' (akin to the existing Local Sporting Champions Program) to enable emerging Australian student artists, musicians, authors, playwrights, filmmakers, digital artists and game developers to apply for grants to support attendance at competitions, exhibitions, skills development courses relevant to their craft.
That's providing the opportunity to dedicated young people, and that's why I stand in this place—to make sure that continues. In recommendation 21, the committee says:
… the Office for the Arts establish a Music Access Assistance Program to increase active participation of school students, particularly in low socio-economic, rural and regional areas, in musical endeavours.
And:
… The Music Access Assistance Program should provide affordable access to music education opportunities including instruments, music books and other musical equipment.
Just like my high school back in the eighties; $20 a term to hire a saxophone. Absolutely affordable and achievable for anybody going to a public or a private school. It's very, very important.
Further in the area of education is recommendation 9:
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government consider working with tertiary education providers to develop a program of internships and cadetships which would see students and young people work in regional, small and/or community-focussed galleries, libraries, archives and museums.
The Commonwealth Government should request input from the Office for the Arts, Department of Education, Skills and Employment and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications as well as regional arts and cultural organisations, to develop a pilot program.
In the report there are also two very symbolic recommendations, recommendation 4 and recommendation 12, which elevate the arts in terms of the contribution that the arts make to our society. The first is that the word 'arts' be added to the department's title, omitted in the title as I just read it out. The second is that the 'a' from 'arts' be added to the STEM acronym as an additional cross-curriculum priority, making it STEAM. These are both very important recommendations that, if implemented, the sector would welcome.
To finish, I'd like to outline just some of the key support measures that our government and the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts have put in place for this sector, which is so very close to my heart. Our creative and cultural sectors have benefited through more than $10 billion in wages and cash-flow support from our government during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to analysis released by the Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research. The analysis estimates that employees and businesses in cultural and creative sectors received $10.7 billion from the government to support their operations, including $8 billion in JobKeeper payments between April and December 2020 and $2.7 billion in boosting-cash-flow-for-employers payments in early February 2021.
Support Act are also mentioned in the report. They received an additional $20 million in funding. Additionally, in the 2021-22 budget year we are investing an additional $1 billion, including assistance in my electorate for various events across Moncrieff. Sculpting a national cultural plan: igniting a post-COVID economy for the arts is a very important report. (Time expired)
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (11:42): I'd like to start by acknowledging the member for Moncrieff and the member for Higgins, who have been really important contributors to the work of this committee and were also important in shaping the report's title. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the outgoing chair, the member for Lyne, who made such an important contribution to this inquiry and made sure much of the work was concluded before ably handing over to the new chair, the member for Mallee.
This report recognises the role of the creative sector in Australian life and acknowledges the devastating impact that COVID-19 has had on the industry here in Australia—in communities across Australia, from big cities to regional towns and the bush. Over the past 18 months, many individuals and organisations have been forced to stop work or wind back—and some have closed for good—because of lockdown. Unfortunately, the support to the sector was, for some people, too late, and some were left out altogether.
We all know the important role that the arts play in all of our lives and in Australian society. I think many of us rediscovered the arts during lockdown; it was a bit of a silver lining to the experience. We escaped from the uncertainty all around us by listening to music or to a streaming service, watching the local news or reading a favourite book. Finding something creative to dive into was important for our mental health and wellbeing during this time. Unfortunately, so often, the artists who sit behind these works aren't properly recognised or remunerated in our society. Before the pandemic, many people in the arts sector were already struggling, particularly those in the performing arts.
The impacts of COVID-19 have been felt, as I said, all around Australia, including in regional communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Theatres have been forced to close, sold-out shows have had to push back opening nights, and live music was brought to a halt altogether. Many of the local artists I spoke to had found themselves without a way to make a living. Being forced to rely on government support programs like JobKeeper or JobSeeker—while welcome—wasn't what they had hoped 2020 and 2021 would bring for them. Musicians and actors who rely on touring were left behind, and some people were ineligible for support altogether—people like Ben.
Ben is a musician studying a Bachelor of Music at the University of Newcastle. Before COVID, he supplemented his youth allowance with live performances. He told me: 'These lockdowns have made it extremely difficult for us to secure work and to keep ourselves financially stable, with limited government support available in our industry. When these lockdowns first came into force, our whole industry was essentially destroyed overnight. Gigs that were planned for several months down the track were all of a sudden cancelled. The effect these lockdowns have had on our industry will mean a slow recovery for the live music scene and will be felt for many years to come.'
I also heard from Josh. Josh is one of the founding members of Jopuka, the leading youth-arts body on the Central Coast. He said to me, 'The Central Coast region has suffered a significant loss to the arts and culture sector, with over 50 projects and events cancelled in this year alone.' He estimates that Jopuka has lost $170,000 in ticket sales since the beginning of the pandemic. Despite this, community arts workers and performers remain resilient and look forward to getting back on stage soon, and I think many others share Josh's optimism.
Thankfully, New South Wales is now emerging from lockdown, but, as Ben said, the effects of the pandemic will be felt for many years to come, and for some artists more than others. The Hunter Creative Alliance, which is based just north of my electorate on the Central Coast, surveyed local artists in April this year, when the regions weren't in lockdown, and found that 11 per cent of respondents were without work at the time. As we know, that is twice the unemployment rate of elsewhere in the region. The report also found that 80 per cent of young artists, aged 18 to 35, expressed an increase in stress, anxiety or depression as a result of COVID-19, which we've seen across Australia but especially in industries which have been most impacted by COVID. These findings are alarming but I suppose not surprising, and I have no doubt that artists across the Central Coast—and across Australia—have experienced something very similar. People in the arts feel that they've been overlooked during the pandemic, even though their industries have been some of the hardest hit, and they need proper support to get back on their feet, as Ben and Josh have said. They're optimistic about getting back on their feet, but they need the proper support to be able to do that.
In conclusion, while this report has bipartisan support and was a very constructive and productive process, there are a few more things that we think need to be done to protect and elevate the arts, as the member for Moncrieff has said. We need a restored department of the arts to properly elevate it to the standing that it has in Australian society and to make the representations for future wage subsidies, job creation and protection for people within the industry. An insurance fund for live events would also provide certainty to performers in case of future cancellations and lockdowns. We need to fully fund the ABC, particularly in regional and remote Australia and the bush, to properly support people living in those communities to get the information and advice they need. These are all vital creative and communication services in our community, and they need our help. The government has overlooked too many people in the arts sector, particularly those living outside of big cities. In communities like mine on the Central Coast, we need to see proper support for the arts and for the creative industries across Australia.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (11:48): I rise today to highlight the importance of the Australian arts sector to our economy, our community and our national identity. I thank the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts for their report, entitled Sculpting a national cultural plan: igniting a post-COVID economy for the arts. I extend a special thanks to the member for Mallee, for her work this year in chairing this inquiry, and to the member for Lyne, for his work over the two years prior. I'd like to acknowledge the member for Moncrieff, for her extraordinary contribution because of her personal and professional experience in the arts, alongside the secretariat, who have enthusiastically supported us and overseen the development of informed and specific recommendations to help the arts sector and its success.
Support for the arts is not only a cultural imperative; it's an economic one. Australia's artistic output gives enormous value to our society, enriching our lives and creating an economic boost from domestic and international spending. The arts is a broad industry with a range of skills and talents, making up a rich landscape of creative artists and workers.
Engaging with Australia's creative and cultural industries and institutions has proven benefits for mental health and physical health, social cohesion and community building, creative thinking, problem-solving skills, and more. The benefits which flow from a healthy arts industry have never been needed more keenly than right now, as Australia emerges from living with the COVID public health emergency. Astonishingly, the creative and cultural sector contributed $112 billion—that's 6.4 per cent of GDP—to Australia's economy in the 2016-17 financial year. But the value of the arts cannot be reduced to a dollar figure. It is the quality and significance of the creative work that is of importance. The arts weave into our lives each and every day, almost without our knowing it, whether it's a moving film, a beautifully designed building or simply an elegant teacup. The arts stimulate our mind and our imagination. The arts provide everyday lives with moments of beauty.
These last two years have resulted in a great impost on the arts. The restrictions imposed by COVID have been incredibly painful, and all this at a time when we've needed the arts more than ever to help us through the crisis. In my electorate of Higgins, museums, festivals and libraries have all closed. Clubs and pubs—the thriving venues for bands, comedians and other performers—remain shut. Theatres are empty. This all leaves a big gap in the lives and hearts of our community and has a major impact on the bottom line of those businesses. Those local businesses have told me how grateful they have been for JobKeeper for the local employees but also for the significant investment by the Morrison government in the creative and cultural industries to help them through COVID.
Last year, I had the opportunity to meet with A New Approach—a new independent think tank advocating for the Australian arts and culture sector. Chair of A New Approach's reference group, Mr Rupert Myer AO, together with program director, Kate Fielding, highlighted the unique challenges facing the arts sector, particularly in light of the emerging COVID crisis. Following our meeting, as a member of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I advocated for the need for an inquiry into the impacts of COVID-19 on the arts and how we, as a government, may ensure that our cultural identity not only thrives but prospers. Announced in August last year, the standing committee commenced a parliamentary inquiry into Australia's creative and cultural industries and institutions—including, but not limited to, Indigenous, regional, rural and community-based organisations. The inquiry wanted to make sure that front and centre were the grassroots organisations that feed our creative and cultural industries.
The inquiry considered the direct and indirect economic benefits and employment opportunities of the creative industries as well as the non-economic benefits of enhanced community social wellbeing and national identity. Moreover, the inquiry encouraged innovation to increase access and opportunities within the sector and, particularly, cooperation between the layers of government. We heard how the state and territory governments, local councils and the federal government all provide funding but that sometimes it can be difficult for people in the sector to navigate who funds what, when and where.
I'd like to thank so many local arts organisations that provided feedback to me during the inquiry about how COVID had affected them and their vision for the future of the arts. In particular, I'd like to thank the CEO of the Melbourne Fringe Festival, Simon Abrahams; the director of the Duldig Studio and its founder, Eva Duldig; Todd Patrick from Patrick School of the Arts; Mike and Nathan Harrison-Lamond from Firehouse Theatre; and Alan Jin from Muso, which is a fantastic new company that has initiated the rise of the pub gig, aimed at revitalising the gig industry with over 100 venues that are going to put on more than 500 gigs in the post-COVID recovery. I'd like to thank all the other artists and cultural organisations who approached me and thank them for their support and the very important information they provided.
The committee made numerous recommendations towards ensuring that the post-COVID economy for the arts will be strong and vibrant. These 22 recommendations serve to ensure that the arts sector is held in the highest esteem and is front and centre for a strong economic recovery as a future key industry within Australia. I would like to highlight a number of these recommendations. The first one is recommendation 1, which is the development of a national cultural plan to assess the medium- and long-term requirements of the sector in light of the short- and long-term impacts of COVID-19. I believe that this is akin to what has happened for the sports sector, with Sport 2030 providing a national plan that brings together the different sectors and provides strategic intent. We know that participants in arts sector work very well together, but I would like to see better cooperation across the different levels of funding—federal, states and territories and local government—and I would like to see better coordination between regional sectors, grassroots community sectors and other city based major institutions.
Recommendation 2 supports this by suggesting liaison between all levels of government together to develop and administer strategies to grow cultural and creative industries, moreover encouraging the Commonwealth government to work with the Productivity Commission to remove red tape barring all levels of government from enacting artistic programs. Recommendation 3 is a very important recommendation because it seeks to create a national centre of Indigenous culture and arts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to ensure that Indigenous communities and bodies are represented in this way. I'd also like to mention the creation of an app that contains information regarding current artistic and cultural events in consultation with peak tourism and government bodies. We all know how helpful it can be for people to have an easy entry point to find this information. In fact, there's a plethora of these sort of app, which are flourishing. They're making it much easier for people to access information, and I really encourage pursuing this recommendation.
There are two more I particularly like and would like to note in our set of recommendations. The first one is a local artistic champions program that will see young and up-and-coming artists, musicians, authors, filmmakers and more have access to grants to support the development of their artistic abilities, whether by attending competitions or by undertaking further courses. Such a program would be akin to the existing and highly successful Local Sporting Champions program, which I know every member of parliament in this place knows, supports and cherishes. Another of the very useful and practical recommendations is the establishment of a musical access assistance program that will help students in low socio-economic, rural, and regional areas to get greater access to musical studies. I have certainly been supporting local grants in my electorate of Higgins to support musical studies.
Lastly, I'd like to note that the recommendations include that we think that 'the arts' should again be included in the title of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. That's where it belongs, and I think this sector would be happy to see it reinstated. I also note that we believe the government should provide a progress report, to be delivered by December 2022, on our recommendations. In closing I would like to say that the benefit from the creative thinking and physical activity we experience when we engage with the arts is more important now than ever.
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (11:58): The north side of Brisbane and the broader Brisbane community are lucky to be home to a huge array of talented young local musicians. We've produced some massive groups like Ball Park Music and Cub Sport, from Stafford. We are home to some great up-and-coming artists like Mackenzie Grace, Dublin Rose and Tabitha Lee. Last Saturday the north side's best local artists hit the Einbunpin Lagoon stage for the Sandgate Youth Festival. Congratulations to Duck Egg Blue, who took out the top prize, and to Councillor Jared Cassidy and his tireless team for another successful community event. The past two years have been particularly tough for Aussie artists and event organisers, with COVID forcing a lot of local gigs to be cancelled. Many people watched six months work disappear in six seconds. Unfortunately, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Morrison government over the last two years about how COVID has impacted the workforce, but there has been little to no regard of how COVID has impacted the jobs of our artists, our entertainers and the people that support them.
The patchwork policies artists were presented with were slow, ill-designed and ill-fit for purpose. Many artists were excluded entirely from JobKeeper because of the transient nature of their work. Over 150 days after Labor first called for a real package that would actually help local artists, small artists, the Morrison government finally announced a suite of grants and loans programs. I know that many artists felt like an afterthought, and, for many, it was too little too late. Our artists and entertainers are the people who chronicle the Australian story. They deserve our thanks, our respect and our support.
As we head towards 80 per cent vaccination rates in Queensland and our lives start to get back to normal, I have two simple asks for northsiders. Firstly, please get vaccinated so that you can go to live shows and safely support our local artists. Secondly, once you're vaccinated, get on the group chat and start making plans. We have Harvest Rain in Stafford putting on some fantastic upcoming musicals and Artrageous in Sandgate with beautiful displays and exhibits, and, only three kilometres from Lilley's southern boundary at Kedron Brook, we have the Valley, with live gigs every weekend. Hopefully, soon, we will have live shows again at the Boondall Entertainment Centre, rather than it being a max vaccination hub. If you're keen for a night in rather than all of that, get on Netflix and watch Romance on the Menu, which was proudly made in our very own Shorncliffe. Whatever your preferred choice of entertainment, now is the time to celebrate our COVID recovery success and get back to supporting our vital local artists as they re-establish themselves in such an important industry. I thank the House.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:01): I feel a bit exasperated rising to speak on this topic, and it's not because the committee hasn't done terrific work in pulling together this report. But it does echo the recommendations that this government has received over many years about things that could be done to make a big difference to the arts sector. I fear that this is yet another report that they will largely ignore, cherry-picking only one or two recommendations for political expediency. I say this as a past member of this committee. And I see many parallels in this report and the one that we wrote from our 2017 inquiry into the sustainability of the film and television sector and then the 2018 inquiry into the music industry.
It is well known that I am a very mediocre violinist, married to a former musician, with an actor daughter and a musician son, so I am very heavily invested in the arts sector, personally, as is my community. The hills and plains of the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury are alive with the sound of music and dance. There are filmmakers, writers, performers, painters, sculptors—creators of all types, plus the people who make the final product a reality— producers, set makers, lighting experts, framers, the whole ecosystem that gets a creative idea out of someone's head and inspires and moves somebody else. And every dad who drops his son or daughter to ballet, every child who says, 'Mum, come and see me on the stage' and she goes, every family who listens to saxophone practice, who reads Possum Magic to their grandchild, who watches Bluey, who goes to the Hawkesbury Flood Relief Concert or a gig in Katoomba, who tosses a coin to the busker or at the Richmond food market, who puts an Australian painting on their wall is doing a terrific thing. You're doing it for yourselves, but you're also supporting the arts.
This report outlines a number of recommendations. I'm going to touch on a few of them. One of them is, of course, that we would like to see the name 'arts' in the department's name. This is a government that claims to put some sort of value in the arts, but it's removed that name from the department. I think it's a very sensible recommendation, and something that I have called for previously, to reinsert the word 'arts' into the name of the department. I know that it will make it even lengthier, but it will give acknowledgement not just to the sector per se but to the individuals whose work contributes to the local economy. It is an economic contributor. It isn't a drain on our society. They actually generate income that flows through economies, whether it's at a national level or in, say, the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, at a local level. So I absolutely would support that recommendation.
What's also parallels the inquiries I've done and the reports that the committee I was part of wrote is the need for a greater emphasis on music in schools. Again, I have a personal connection. My mum was a high school music teacher. My son, the musician son, is about to start studying teaching—not that I think my mother would want him to inflict upon himself music teaching in high school; that's something she says is one of the hardest things you can do. However, those music teachers have inspired my son to want to go back and be part of the education system, where we should be seeing more music. Music isn't just something that makes you feel good—although, hey, that is pretty important. But we know it is also great from a brain development perspective. The research on it shows enormous benefits to health and wellbeing as well as to development. So seeing a greater emphasis on music in schools recommended in this report is very welcome.
There's also a recommendation that we mirror the program we have to encourage kids to be high achievers in sports and to make it possible for their families to fund those things, and that's the Local Sporting Champions program, which I know all of us would value very highly. I know it has certainly seen many of my amazing athletes and equestrians and rollerbladers go and achieve terrific things. Well, as this committee report recommends, it would be fantastic to see something that parallels that, for our creative kids—the kids for whom perhaps dancing on a stage is going to give a greater sense of achievement than running a marathon. So I also really encourage the government to take up that initiative.
I welcome the focus on Indigenous culture and art. We have the oldest living culture in the world, and the more we can do to really showcase the incredible depth of that work the better.
I also want to turn to some of the really practical things, like additional funding to digitise and preserve the National Archives. These are incredibly important things. It's important to preserve what we have. But we have a National Gallery where buckets have to go out to catch the drips from the ceiling when it rains, because the roof has leaks. Now, our institutions deserve to be funded so that they don't have to rely on buckets to capture rainwater.
There's also a recommendation that we get our kids to read more Australian books—a minimum threshold of Australian books—as they go through school. What a great idea. When I was young, it wasn't always easy to find great Australian books; in the sixties, we relied on lots of overseas things. Fortunately, the work that was done through the sixties and seventies and into the eighties, and then with Paul Keating's real revolution in how we do the arts, means now our kids have access to so many more Australian-born-and-bred novels.
There's a couple of other issues I really would like to touch on, and one of those is to do with streaming. There's been a real boom for one sector of the arts, and that's the streaming giants, during COVID. While everybody else has suffered unknown and uncountable deprivation in their sector, the streamers have done well. It is quoted in this report that subscription rates are up by more than 45 per cent. Now, I think it's very reasonable that those streamers be asked to contribute a certain percentage of Australian content. This was also recommended in the previous report by this committee, where 10 per cent was recommended. I note this report backs 20 per cent. I think it is well overdue for the government to bite the bullet and make a serious assessment of this, in terms of the impact that it will have on our Australian sector.
The other very important gaps that I can see in this report, though, are around things to help this sector get back on its feet after COVID. The committee heard evidence that the overall arts labour-market impact was enormous, just last year, with employment falling by 872,000—and that's not accounting for what happened this year. What they don't yet have is an insurance scheme that would allow people who are putting on performances to have a back-up should something happen. We hope we're through the worst, but there is no accounting for what can come, going forward. A sensible insurance scheme that would mean directors and producers can go with confidence, can employ the people they need, can make the commitments they need and can book the space they need and, if something goes wrong, there's an insurance scheme that can help cover those costs. This government's done it for the film sector. I just don't see why it won't do it for the broader performing arts sector.
Of course no discussion about the arts is complete without a reminder that we need to see proper funding for the ABC, which is one of the core Australian institutions that really helps Australian culture flourish—things that start there that go global; I'm thinking of Bluey. There is not a program on the ABC that doesn't have some value to Australian culture, and that's what we should be continuing to allow them to do. I extend that to SBS as well.
The final thing I'd like to say is that the gaming sector needs to be given much more credence by this government than it has been. We have had nearly nine years of wasted time in supporting a gaming sector. We are beaten by Finland and a whole lot of other countries, such as Canada, who have grasped this. It's a key part of the film and television ecosystem to be supporting gaming, and I'd really urge the government to stop sitting on its laurels, to stop thinking, 'She'll be right,' because it'll only be right if you act or if Labor gets into government.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:11): I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, titled Sculpting a national cultural plan: igniting a post-COVID economy for the arts. The arts explain who we were, who we are and who we want to be. They facilitate the exploration of human imagination, emotion and creativity. They give our life meaning. It's important to understand what the arts are. They are a very wide range of human practices, of creative expression, storytelling and cultural participation. They encompass diverse and plural modes of thinking across extremely broad ranges of media, from painting to sculpture to music to literature to theatre—so many. The arts can refer to a common, popular or everyday practice, as well as sophisticated and systematic ones.
Most people just don't realise that the arts are part of their day-to-day life in so many ways, from their kids' music lessons to the music they listen to, to the TV they watch, to the books they read. The arts are, let's be frank, what got us through lockdown. More directly, as this report notes, the arts give a benefit to our mental and our physical health. They are our social cohesion, our community-building, creative thinking and problem solving. Our society is richer and deeper because of the arts.
The arts community in Warringah is strong and vibrant, but they have been devastated by COVID-19. Before COVID-19, the arts contributed nearly $112 billion to our economy. That is 6.4 per cent of GDP. More than 193,600 Australians were employed in this sector. It's disappointing that we don't always hear members of the coalition rail and fight for those jobs the way they do for the jobs in the industries they like. To put it in perspective, employment in the arts is more than in the finance industry, more than in construction and four times as many as in the coalmining sector. But we don't hear about specific packages for these jobs or about stopping our economy or our progress. For every million dollars in turnover, the arts sector produces nine jobs. This is a job-rich sector.
The impact of the pandemic on this sector has been arguably harder than on any other. The arts were the first to shut down and the last out of restrictions. In Warringah, 6,400 people were employed in the arts sector at the height of its employment. In January of this year, that was down to 4,800 people. That's a 23.6 per cent drop in Warringah alone. In April last year only 47 to 65 per cent of businesses were operating. That's a huge drop. They've adapted, they've pivoted, they've embraced online platforms, they've discovered and embraced novel delivery mechanisms—and the report points to all of this—but the truth is that the sector and the people who work in it have been profoundly impacted by the pandemic, the lockdown restrictions and, I would say, the lack of love from the current government.
This report sets out how Australia can have a healthy, sustainable industry that will allow Australia's industries and institutions to emerge from COVID-19 better than ever and to soar to new heights. There are a number of recommendations in the report, and there won't be time to go through all of them. I encourage everyone to go through the list, to actually look at these recommendations. Recommendation 8 is a standout. I've often spoken in this place of the need to support our screen production sector, particularly children's TV production. I'm fortunate that in the Warringah electorate we have several producers: Cheeky Little, Kapow Pictures and Stick Pictures. They're putting out award-winning content like Bluey and Kangaroo Beach. But these producers are under threat from regulatory change in response to structural changes in the industry caused by streaming and digitisation. The government, unfortunately, is cutting quotas and other support, and what that means is that there's no backstop. These changes will lead to major employment losses in this industry and could jeopardise some of the iconic content that we and other nations have enjoyed, some of the stories our children have grown up with.
The report recommends that the government introduce legislation to require streaming and video-on-demand services to allocate 20 per cent of their local revenue to Australian content. I strongly support that recommendation, as it will allow our producers to continue to produce high-quality content.
Recommendation 10 is that the National Film and Sound Archive be funded to deal with their issues. They protect our memories; they inform who we are today. With the advent of digitisation, there is much work that needs to be done, and they really need more assistance.
We also need more opportunity. In Warringah we've suffered from a lack of creative arts during the pandemic. Pubs have been empty, theatres have been empty—everything has shut down—so we need programs to reinvigorate the sector. So I strongly support recommendation 20, which is for the elevation and celebration of the arts through a new 'local artistic champions program, akin to the existing Local Sporting Champions Program'. I think this would be very good.
In Warringah we have some fantastic projects developing. We've got the Brookvale Arts District. It has been delayed several times due to COVID, but I'm excited about the transformation that is planned for this industrial area of Brookvale in Warringah. What they have planned is really exciting. It will bring so many opportunities for our local artistic community.
We also have the proposal to convert the Manly council chambers to a music hall. Following the amalgamations that led to Northern Beaches Council, the historic Manly council chambers are underutilised and surplus to requirements. A proposal has been put forward for a project to convert this beautiful building, which is in an ideal location, into a live music venue. I strongly support the idea. It is in a central location, it is adaptable in size—it is an ideal venue and something we are really lacking in Manly. It will expand possibilities for local artists and existing festivals, such as the Manly jazz festival, which, sadly, in the last two years was cancelled due to lockdown measures.
The report is important. It outlines the extent to which the arts were devastated by COVID-19; importantly, it also outlines how the sector responded and pivoted and was kept on life support with online platforms and delivery method; and it also contains these 22 very important recommendations for bringing the sector back to life and ensuring it really does reach the heights it should. These recommendations—in particular, recommendations 8, 10, and 22—are so important. They strongly support the arts; in particular, for Warringah and some of the industries we already have established. The two new concepts for the electorate show great promise and they have my support. We have to recognise that the arts are the lifeblood of community and culture, and we would do well to remember that and provide our support in this place.
Finally, we do need to talk about making sure we have a strong national broadcaster. I do strongly support that there needs to be a recognition of the role that the ABC and SBS play in making sure that there is a platform where our stories are told, that we are not Americanised and that our content is not just from overseas. We need to make sure we tell the Australian stories. We hear a lot about our history curriculum from the government and that we should be celebrating Australian history, yet the government fails to implement policies that will ensure our artistic industries actually can create the content and can tell the stories that celebrate Australian history and culture. So I think there is a hypocritical double standard—as there is on a number of topics—that is advocated by the coalition. So I urge the government to implement the recommendations of this report and to fund the ABC and SBS to ensure we have a strong national broadcaster so that we can tell Australian stories.
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (12:20): This report outlines a vision for Australia's arts sector. It was prepared in partnership with the artists of Australia. More than 300 artists and arts organisations contributed to this report. I want to thank the arts leaders and artists who spoke to us during a pandemic that had put their sector on pause. Many of them were speaking to us when they themselves had lost their jobs or had lost the ability to do what they loved, and they took the time to share with us those experiences, so that we never again leave artists on the scrapheap when we have global economic shocks.
I want to see an arts sector that is properly valued by the government during crises, during the good and during the bad, and where we don't treat arts workers as some lesser kind of worker. We can't let artists think that somehow their contribution to our economy is any less than the contribution of any other worker. What we heard from artists—as we went, virtually, around the country listening to the stories of artists—was people telling us just how tough it had been. One artist told us, 'Almost everyone I know who works in the arts has lost part or all of their work.' Another told us that 'the government did not see fit to recognise my freelance status as worthy of JobKeeper'. Something we knew from the thousands of survey responses we received throughout this inquiry is that a real concern for artists is that the government deliberately structured a wage subsidy scheme to prevent people who worked in the creative and arts sector—where people are often on short-term contracts—being able to access that scheme.
The theme of this report is pulling together the many threads to have a new national cultural plan—something to grow our nation's soul post COVID. Everywhere you look throughout this report, it's clear that there is not enough coordination, when it comes to the arts organisations and the way they interact with government and interact with venues, to truly support our arts sector or to get the most out of the very creative people we have here in Australia. What we also saw and what you see stated very clearly in this report is that there is a strong link between the arts and our economic outcomes as a country. We recognised in the report that 'cultural and creative activity is increasingly recognised as an important component to economic growth'. That was not lost on any member of the committee in putting together this report—recognising that having a strong arts sector also gives people the urge to go out and work harder so they can get to those shows, so they can experience that art and so they can support other artists.
The other piece that is seen throughout this entire report is a recognition that COVID has done long-term damage to the arts sector. It's not something we're going to snap back from. We will not bounce back and it will all be better next year. It did smash screen production. It smashed live music. COVID destroyed live performance across this country. We still don't have the ability for people to put together those world-class shows and put them on the road around this country. We know that even writers have found COVID a particularly difficult time. We know that most writers in Australia—and we have brilliant writers—support their work as writers and as artists by doing other paid work. We heard a lot about that as well: the amount that people give out of their own pocket and of their own time so they can continue to create the art and stories that we love so much. So my one request of the government with respect to this report is to take it seriously. I do feel the government did not take the arts sector seriously in 2020, and I haven't seen much evidence of improvement in 2021. But there is a strong road map in this report of how to get the arts sector back on its feet and make it a big, strong driving piece of our economy into the future.
The report recommends a national cultural plan to make sure that we integrate across local, state and federal governments, and across federal government agencies, to ensure that there is a clear series of supports for arts organisations, big and small. It recommends the investigation of the establishment of a national centre of Indigenous culture and arts. This is an idea that has been bubbling for a long time, recognising that we do not have enough institutions that tell parts of a story that is some 60,000 years and ongoing—not just the culture of the past, but also the culture of the present, the very rich Indigenous culture and arts that we see to this very day.
There is a recommendation about making sure that big international streaming companies actually make Australian content. It's not good enough for them to just take Australians' money. They need to put something back. In this report we recommend that legislation be brought forward by the government to require Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and all the rest to allocate at least 20 per cent of their local revenue on a new Australian content, telling more Australian stories—Australian drama, documentaries and children's content—and co-productions or acquisitions of Australian content. This will build the Australian screen industry, and it will mean that we capture more of our rich Australian culture on screen. I have no problem making these international streaming companies, who are incredibly profitable, fund the next Bluey, the next Neighbours, the next Homeand Away or indeed the next Wonder Gang, which is a great Western Australian production.
The report also recommends placing arts at the heart of education by adding a fourth cross-curriculum priority of 'the Arts'. It recommends that there be a minimum threshold of Australian-authored literary texts in the Australian curriculum, making sure that we have Australian texts throughout schooling, from the early years to years 11 and 12. We recommend making sure we have a proper compensation system for Australian writers. The report recommends the review of programs 'to ensure that authors are being appropriately compensated for income lost through free multiple use of their books in public and educational lending libraries.' That's about making sure that, when those books are popular in libraries, the artists and writers are paid for that popularity. We want to connect international visitors with our local arts through a tourism resource for artistic events across Australia. Another recommendation that won't cost the government a cent—it might cost a little bit of their pride—is to simply put 'Arts' back into the title of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, recognising that the arts is an essential part of that department's work.
We've spoken a lot this week about the Productivity Commission and what the Deputy Prime Minister does with the Productivity Commission's reports. Nonetheless, we have recommended that the Commonwealth government direct the Productivity Commission to inquire into the legislative arrangements which govern the funding of artistic programs and activities. The other recommendation that I think is worth noting in this place is making sure that music is affordable for all Australian students—that the Office of the Arts establish a music access assistance program to make it easier for students from low-income backgrounds and regional backgrounds to pursue their musical talents.
In the minutes left to me I'll just say that Opposition members did note that we need to consult with the arts sector as part of any future wage subsidy design. We said that there needs to be an insurance scheme for the events sector. We noted that we need to properly and fully fund the ABC. We need to remove the efficiency dividend from the national collecting institutions, properly fund the Australia Council and support and help grow Australia's gaming sector.
I want to thank my fellow members of the committee, including the chairs, the member for Lyne and the member for Mallee; the deputy chairs, the member for Chifley and the member for Dobell; and my colleague the member for Macnamara, who is a strong supporter of the arts industry. I want to thank all of the arts organisations that gave evidence. We received 352 submissions. I particularly thank those who submitted from Western Australia: the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre, the Perth Festival, the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts, the City of Perth, Audio Technik, Barking Gecko Theatre, the Western Australian Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries, the Chamber of Arts and Culture Western Australia, and Writing WA. With that, I commend the report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Electoral Roll
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:31): Just months away from the federal election, the Liberals have decided they want to change the rules to make it harder to vote. By requiring that voters present identification at the ballot box, the government would disenfranchise thousands of Australians. Who will their bill hit? The poor, the homeless, Indigenous people, older people who've given up their driving licences, people who can't wait in the long lines that will result. They don't like what people have to say, so they're making it harder for them to say it. If you can't stuff the ballot box, tell disadvantaged voters to stuff off.
Yet Australian Electoral Commissioner, Tom Rogers, said this week that evidence of multiple voting to date is 'vanishingly small'. There were just 19 verified instances of double voting at the last election, out of 14 million votes. It's almost literally a one-in-a-million issue. Most of these were accidents, not fraud. No-one was prosecuted for multiple voting. Homelessness Australia Chair, Jenny Smith, said:
If you flee your home without your papers to escape violence, or have your documents stolen while sleeping on the street, you shouldn't lose your ability to vote.
There's a long history in this country of denying Indigenous Australians the right to vote. In 1961, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines estimated that 30,000 Aboriginal people had been denied the vote. The next year, the Commonwealth Electoral Act granted all Aboriginal people the option to enrol and vote in federal elections. But it wasn't until 1984 that enrolling to vote in federal elections was made compulsory for Indigenous Australians. Even today Indigenous voting rates may be as low as 50 per cent, yet the government's bill threatens to make this worse. As the Australian Human Rights Commission points out:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples often do not possess a birth certificate and face difficulties obtaining subsequent formal identification …
This is a racist measure.
Even if you think we need to change the rules, you don't do it just before kick-off. That's why the Manager of Opposition Business has moved that it be put off until 2023, well after the next election.
The Liberals' attacks on democracy aren't even original; they're straight out of the US Republican playbook. As former senator Jim DeMint once said, voter ID laws are:
… something we're working on all over the country, because in the states where they do have voter-ID laws you've seen, actually, elections begin to change towards more conservative candidates.
Since Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, Republicans have been trying to pass voter ID laws, as well as restricting early voting and mail-in voting. They falsely claim that voter fraud is a major problem. So, it's no surprise that our Trump-lite Prime Minister has picked up on this. Let's not forget, this is the same leader who spoke at a Trump rally and who is the only major world leader not to condemn the 6 January Capitol riots.
The Liberals have form on voter suppression. Former senator Nick Minchin wanted to scrap compulsory voting. I'm sure plenty of his colleagues today would do it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. Another insidious tactic is their go-slow on citizenship applications. At the time of the last election, there were more than 200,000 people denied the chance to vote because their citizenship applications hadn't been processed.
It's, sadly, unsurprising from a government that has presided over sports rorts, which pork-barrelled funding to projects judged unsuitable while denying it to higher-ranked projects. It's not surprising from a government that ran car park rorts, which gave money to 47 projects, mostly in coalition electorates, none of which were proposed by the infrastructure department. It's not surprising from a government that ran a regional grants program that gave 90 per cent of the money to coalition and marginal seats, or from a government that stacked the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with Liberal mates and gave $20 billion of JobKeeper to firms with rising revenue. It's not surprising from a government that's trying to get rid of charities involved in public activism, pushing through new deregistration powers that Tim Costello has compared to Vladimir Putin's Russia. And it's not surprising from a government that promised a national Integrity Commission over three years ago and has yet to deliver, because they know that a robust Integrity Commission would be after their dodgy ministers quicker than Eliud Kipchoge running for the finishing line.
The Liberals don't like public education; they don't like public health; they don't like public services. And now we've learned they just don't like the public.
Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:36): I rise today to update the chamber on how the $2.5 billion Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is helping the economy of my electorate of O'Connor recover from the pandemic. This transformative program directly funds local governments to deliver a wide range of projects advanced by their communities. The program is especially benefiting the people of O'Connor because, after the recent Western Australian redistribution, the division now houses more local governments than any other electorate nationwide. All up, there's now a remarkable 57 local governments in O'Connor, ranging from Wiluna in the WA Goldfields down to Nannup in the state's South West. Every one of those local governments will receive funding under phase 3 of the highly successful Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program announced in this year's budget. The aim of phase 3, worth $1 billion Australia wide, is to help support jobs and local economies to bounce back from COVID-19. Phase 3 recognises the critical role of local governments, as the closest tier to the people, in accelerating Australia's recovery from the pandemic.
My vast electorate spans five of Western Australia's nine regions. In the 30 Wheatbelt region shires of O'Connor, phase 3 is distributing $28.7 million to those local shires. The Wheatbelt, as its name implies, is home to 4,200 mostly family-run farming properties. Western Australia produces one-third of Australia's wheat and more than 40 per cent of its wheat exports. In 2018-19, the value of WA wheat production was $3.4 billion, and we're looking down the barrel of another magnificent season this year.
From those stats, it's easy to see why building economic resilience in the community is a national priority. One example where the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is doing more than just that is in the Shire of Bruce Rock. Bruce Rock lies in the heart of the Wheatbelt and is returning to my electorate following the WA redistribution. I visited Bruce Rock recently, and Shire President Stephen Strange told me that their town supermarket burnt to the ground during WA's first COVID-19 lockdown. With nobody able to travel, and the nearest grocery store more than 50 kilometres away, the Bruce Rock community banded together to create a pop-up supermarket in their town hall. Eighteen months on, the original supermarket team, Lisa and Chance, proudly showed me their town-hall-cum-community-store. The old supermarket has been demolished, and the shire plans to use its Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program funding to help fix this essential community service. This is a remarkable story of resilience during the COVID crisis and of how many communities are using the program to keep their economies going.
Turning from the Wheatbelt to WA's Great Southern region, another example of Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program money being spent and put to good use is in the construction of Albany's Youth Challenge Park. Phase 3 of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program will inject $10.9 million into the Great Southern economy, with $2.4 million of that going to Albany. The Albany Youth Challenge Park has benefited from a million-dollar whole-of-government funding package. The brand-new challenge park is one of the biggest skate and pump track parks in Australia. Its opening, on the Queen's birthday long weekend, was an astounding event for the youth of Albany. That chilly Friday night saw hundreds of kids of all ages—and there were some adults there as well—descend on the park, whose surrounds are fast emerging into a multifunction youth activity centre. The challenge park benefited from more than $700,000 from the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. That funding recognised the park's position as a key piece of community infrastructure that's already providing more leisure options for young locals and visitors alike. The program leveraged $300,000 previously committed under the Morrison government's Community Health and Hospitals Program. That funding in turn recognised the importance of safe places for young people and vigorous activity for physical and mental health. The youth of Albany are lucky to live so close to such world-class beaches and bush, and the challenge park provides a safe new adventure sports option right in the middle of town. The central location is important for Albany kids and the city's tourism economy.
The park's opening coincided with the Southern Peaks-Albany Mountain Bike Festival. The festival features Australia's only urban downhill mountain bike run, a breathtaking descent of the slopes of Mount Clarence and through Albany's historic city centre. A good number of pedal-pushing thrillseekers visiting Albany for the Southern Peaks were seen at the challenge park over the long weekend, adding to Albany's reputation as an adventure hotspot. Leaving the Great Southern for now, I turn to the Goldfields-Esperance region, every square kilometre of which falls within the electorate of O'Connor. I probably don't need to tell members here that Australia is the world's second-largest producer of gold and WA accounts for almost 70 per cent of the national production.
Macarthur Electorate: Infrastructure
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (12:41): Macarthur is a really wonderful place to live, work and learn. We're a diverse community and we're experiencing rapid growth and a lot of change. In recent years large parcels of our previously vast agricultural lands have been transformed into some of Sydney's newer suburbs with names like Oran Park, Gregory Hills and Willowdale. We have rapid change and rapid growth, which bring plenty of challenges—challenges that I've consistently spoken about in this chamber and pleaded with the state and federal coalition governments to address. In order to ensure these changes are sustainable, we must heavily invest in infrastructure and services that my community so desperately needs. It's not uncommon for a resident of Macarthur to commute over two hours each way every day to get to and from work. It's not uncommon for a resident of Macarthur to pay hundreds, even thousands, of dollars every year to drive on old and extortionate toll roads. It's not uncommon for young families to have limited time together because of such long commutes.
Macarthur is, unfortunately, experiencing some of the highest levels of mortgage stress and rental stress in the country. Increasingly, people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. I love my community. I've worked with the families in my community for almost 40 years, and I want to provide a voice for them. If our region's growth and change are to be sustainable, government policies must prioritise improving economic opportunity for residents across Macarthur. Local residents should not be made to spend hours of valuable family time commuting every day. We need local work and local jobs. I want our community to have access to secure and stable jobs within our community. I've spoken numerous times about how the new Western Sydney airport could serve as a catalyst for job creation in south-western Sydney if it's properly managed. But it's not being properly managed. We don't have a rail link to the new airport from my electorate. I've made no secret of the fact that there is already a corridor preserved for this rail link, but nothing has been done about it. We need a passenger line to the new airport. We need a transport line for goods to be exported through the new airport. We must have government funding to do this. We desperately need this rail line. It's not really fair that those from the north get their rail line, but we don't get ours. Parts of Macarthur are presently receiving very poor mobile phone coverage, very poor internet, very poor services from state and federal governments. Surely, it's a no-brainer, when you're rapidly expanding communities, that you provide the services for them.
Unfortunately, in areas like housing affordability, government policy could institute change, but it doesn't. We must improve housing affordability for our young families. I would also like to see some of our local schools upgraded. Recently, I ran a campaign for a special school in our community, Passfield Park School, that was literally falling down—leaking roofs covered in mould, no facilities for wheelchair-bound students to move within the school—and it was only after this that the state government actually bulldozed the school to build a new one. Many of our other schools are old. They lack infrastructure and they lack proper support. It's time for change. I'd like to see upgrades of many of our local schools.
Local projects supporting local jobs are also very important, and part of that includes education. I'd like to see vocational education centres in all of our high schools. It frustrates me no end to see the coalition government pork-barrelling in other electorates, with millions of dollars spent in suburbs on the North Shore for parks and pools but nothing for my electorate, one of the most disadvantaged electorates in the country. There's ample need in Macarthur, but it's not being serviced by state and federal coalition governments.
Macarthur is a region of endless opportunity. It has wonderful people. We're increasingly multicultural. We're a highly educated community. Our local industries are some of the most innovative in Australia. Recently, I took the opposition leader to see Deco Group, who produce coatings and membranes in a really scientifically advanced way. They are desperately calling out for infrastructure and support for their industry. A little understanding and some desperately needed investment in long-overdue infrastructure projects from government are very important. The present government is not doing enough for my rapidly expanding electorate. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (12:46): I rise today to talk about a topic which my electorate of Higgins cares deeply about: climate action. As a child growing up in the town of Albury, in regional Victoria, in the 1970s, climate change was not something we spoke about around the dinner table or at school or that we heard about in the news. Over the years, however, this has changed. My family are sixth-generation winemakers in Rutherglen. As viticulturalists, they know the seasons have changed. They know the seasons are altering due to climate change. The bushfire season of 2019-20, known as the Black Summer bushfires, has changed our minds forever. Now action on climate is at the forefront of the minds of many Australians, regardless of their age or where they live. Despite Melbourne being unfortunately recorded as the most locked down city in the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic, climate action has remained a pressing matter for those in my electorate of Higgins. As I said in my first speech in this place, action on climate is not just an environmental imperative; it's an economic imperative. More than that, we now know it's an economic inevitability, as the whole world pivots through a clean energy transition.
The Morrison government does not make commitments unless we can deliver them. Accordingly, Australia has met each of its international commitments, whether it's Kyoto 1 or 2. In fact, we beat our Kyoto-era targets by more than 459 million tonnes. The current updated forecasts show Australia is on track to meet and beat our 2030 Paris targets. Australia's emissions are at their lowest level since records began in 1990. Emissions in 2020 were more than 20 per cent lower than in 2005. Australia is leading the world in per capita uptake of rooftop solar panels. This is something worth celebrating. Not every country has our record of delivery. Since 2005, Australia has reduced our emissions faster than Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the USA. Although this is something we can all be proud about, there is more work that must be done.
Australia is now committed to net zero emissions by 2050. This is a momentous decision for our country. Make no mistake: this is a pivotal moment in the history of our energy. But it's not enough to have a target; we need a plan. For real action on climate change, there is no quick solution, no silver bullet. We on this side recognise this. We do not make planless promises. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, along with the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, released Australia's long-term emissions reduction plan to deliver net zero emissions by 2050. This plan sets out the way forward, aiming to establish Australia as a leader in low-emissions technology through the creation of new markets, including hydrogen and carbon farming, as well as carbon capture and storage technology. The Morrison government is committed to investing in the next generation of energy technologies, which will deliver lower emissions, lower costs and more jobs. The path to net zero is not a straight line. If you look at the recent COVID-19 pandemic, you can see that leaps in technology are the norm for R&D. Through technology, partnering with a free market and evaluating technology development so that Australia can lead the way with clean energy technology, we will provide and develop a market for the Asia-Pacific, particularly for Japan, with regard to hydrogen.
I believe Australia is pivoting to a new position, which is about leaning into a clean energy evolution. I'm proud that we are building jobs for our future, making sure we pivot off fossil fuels and onto a clean energy future, but this will take time, and we need to bring the Australian public with us. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw Australian businesses adapt in ways that had not previously been thought possible. In the same way, we'll see the entrepreneurial spirit of Australian businesses find new ways to succeed in the transition to a net-zero environment. These new or expanded markets will present new opportunities for Australia, both at home and with our important trading partners.
The Morrison government is clear: it's no longer about if and when we should do something; it's now about how we do it. The world has to focus on the how. Action on climate is too important, not only for now but for the future of our children and those who follow. We do not believe in avoiding the topic of how to get there. These are difficult questions and difficult solutions. The world is grappling with them, and Australia is going forward with an authentic and honest conversation with the Australian public.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (12:51): Today I want to talk about a subject that's very dear to my heart but, more importantly, critical to thousands of Australian families, and that is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As we all know, the NDIS has been life-changing for so many Australians who live with disabilities, and their families. The NDIS was developed by Labor and will be protected by Labor, in the face of secret and not-so-secret attempts to whittle it away by those opposite in government. First they complained it was underfunded at the start—not true. Then they complained there were cost blowouts—also not true. Then they made people submit to independent assessments to make the system 'fairer'—also not true. Now, thankfully, that idea has been axed by the minister, but not until after a sustained campaign by Labor and disability advocates to get rid of these so-called 'independent' assessments. The government has finally worked out that they are not able to attack the NDIS without people being up in arms.
But they're cutting people's plans; we know that for sure. They are cutting people's plans arbitrarily and saying, 'Well, if you don't like it, go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.' This is a process that is costly, time-consuming and, frankly, should not be necessary at all. We heard yesterday in Senate estimates just what is going on with the AAT. It is disgraceful. For the past few months, my office has been inundated with requests from vulnerable people needing assistance to navigate the NDIS. People are suffering and, quite frankly, they're desperate. It's not just participants with packages who are being affected; it's coordinators and support workers who are seeing that the NDIS is under attack. The NDIS is supposed to be about choice and control, enabling participants to live free and meaningful lives. Their lives are losing meaning as they try to navigate this terrible system.
One of the many people who has contacted me about the NDIS is Sam, a mother of four. Sam became aware of her son's disability when he was very young. At age three, after much persistence back and forth with local doctors, her son was provided with a diagnosis of autism. Like all concerned parents, Sam immediately started looking for measures that needed to be put in place to help her son. This included critical supports such as speech therapy, support with emotional regulation, and sensory processing. At age five, her son received his first NDIS package, and Sam was able to afford these vital supports. She was then able to start looking at other issues, such as food aversion and access to psychologists. However, Sam said that in no time at all the funding from the first package was exhausted. The second package she received was an increase, so that was good. She was able to access occupational therapy as well.
However, to Sam's distress, at her next review her package was cut by 60 per cent. There was just no rhyme or reason to it. This is despite her using up most of the funding from the previous year. Sam was told she would need to choose. The choice was between supporting her son with speech pathology and supporting her son with motor skills development. They were both important, but she could not have both. In Sam's own words, she was 'gobsmacked', she was 'heartbroken'. How could the NDIS possibly justify this? This is a very good question, Sam, and the government must provide you with an answer. I am hearing over and over again the human cost of ripping away support from people with a disability.
Another constituent told me that her daughter's funding for speech therapy had been halved. Another constituent has been told by their coordinator that weekly speech lessons are of no benefit to a child who is deaf and has an intellectual disability. 'Are they joking?' she asks. Two people have said their plans have been halved. Another person said that theirs had been cut by three-quarters. In her words, 'I've only managed to keep it together because I've got a wonderful medical professional who is trying everything they can to fix it.' Another person told me: 'Our plan last year was $25,000. This year, it's less than $5,000. We've only got $300 left.' This is just so distressing. It's outrageous. This is a campaign to cut the supports of people who need it the most. The government seems to be oblivious, or maybe they're not; maybe they just don't care about people on the NDIS.
Bennelong Electorate: Events
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:56): Over the last 10 years in representing Bennelong, I've started a number of initiatives designed to bring the community together. They've been huge successes in the past, but the last 18 months has caused disruption to them, as the last 18 months has caused disruption to many things. But I'm pleased to announce that there are a number of local initiatives starting back up as we all start to re-open and look to the future.
The Bennelong Table Tennis Cup is something I'm incredibly proud of. First devised in 2010 as a way of bridging multicultural divides in schools through sport, we provided free table tennis tables to all schools through the generosity of a local company, Hyundai, and, in 2019, we replaced any tables that had not survived the arduous needs of schools and their sporting infrastructure. Last year, the competition was sadly cancelled. This year, again, we have not been able to bring all the schools together in one place for the big event, so we're taking the lessons of 2021 and adapting the event so that students can still take part. This year, I'm encouraging schools to do an in-house event, and, when permitted, I'll be delighted to come to your school and present certificates to the winners and all those who participate.
The Bennelong Village Business campaign has similarly had a hiatus for the last two years, as promoting local businesses has been hard while they have all been shut. But now we are coming back with a vengeance. This shop local campaign started back in 2010 when I received a lot of feedback that the small shopping areas around Bennelong weren't bouncing back as well from the GFC as larger shopping centres were. It's fair to say that exactly the same can be said today, as many of the local shops are struggling with the bills after many months of lockdown. The rush of business as we re-open will be a huge benefit to many, but we still must encourage everyone to shop at our local businesses whenever possible. I'm in discussions with local chambers of commerce to see how we can supercharge this initiative, and I intend to visit as many local shopping districts as possible over the coming weeks to ensure that we get the message out about the benefits of shopping locally.
Also making a welcome return is the Stronger Communities Program. This is the seventh round of this excellent program that enables local groups to invest in the broader community. Last year alone, we had some wonderful and inspiring applications for new minibuses for our local mobility group, Stryder; new community gardens for Epping Rotary Club; and IT equipment to help the wonderful Eastwood Chinese Senior Citizens Club. Great projects get funded through these grants. I look forward to seeing what will be coming through this year. Grants are up to $20,000. Normally, they need to be matched with funding from another source. But recognising the difficult times that many community groups are having at the moment, this requirement has sensibly been waived. To apply, please contact my office and get an application form and make sure it gets back by 9 am on 3 December. It promises to be another great round.
One thing that can't be held back is the mighty Bennelong Christmas card challenge. Every year, I conduct a Christmas card design competition for local primary schools, and this year it's on again. The competition never fails to reveal new, wonderful, original designs. The winning designs will feature on my Christmas cards this year. That will be sent to many local community members and groups. Each grade per school from K to 6 is able to submit up to two works. The winner will be on the cover, while the four runner-up entries will be on the back page. Any school that wants to participate needs to submit artworks to my office by 19 November.
I'm so glad to be able to announce that these initiatives are coming back. They are all designed to help the community and bring us all closer together; enjoy our freedoms. I just can't think of a better time for that than right now.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:00