2018-09-18 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 18 September 2018

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill 2018 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 1 Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Consideration of Senate Message 1 12:02 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I move: That the amendment be agreed to. 12:02 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner It is a pleasure to be debating this bill. I note for the benefit of the House that the only reason we are now in the House debating this uncontroversial tax bill is that Labor voted to stop the filibuster in the Senate. Twice the government in the Senate voted to keep on filibustering this piece of legislation. There is one very simple reason for that, which is that the government has run out of legislation in the Senate. Sitting shortly beyond this bill in the Senate Notice Paper is the address-in-reply—the debate over the Governor-General's speech opening the parliament. That is how bereft this this government is of legislation. It is not as though there aren't big questions to be debated. Penalty rates, aged care, health or education could all be the subject of important debate. Labor has called on the government to act to give rights to independent mechanics to get the data they need to fix modern cars, and to give automotive dealers a fair deal. Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018. We moved an amendment in the other place for a review to commence as soon as practicable two years after royal assent. This is an important review because this bill contains a strict liability offence about which stakeholders have raised concerns. While the Australian Taxation Office has said that they can remit civil penalties in cases of genuine mistakes, stakeholders have said that the use of strict liability provisions for those who put in place alleged sales suppression software could be a step too far. I'm pleased that the other place has accepted Labor's review. I'm delighted that we were finally able to stop the filibuster in the other place and get the bill down here. This is a government which can't even manage to bring uncontroversial tax bills through the parliament, has given up governing and frankly needs a good spell in opposition in order to sort out what it really stands for. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 1 Membership 1 12:05 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip recommending a member to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. 12:05 Mr IRONS HYM Swan by leave—I move: That Mr O'Dowd be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 2

My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018

Second Reading 2 12:06 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra The government's implementation of the My Health Record system has been nothing shy of inadequate and nothing short of woeful. In August, the government announced rollout phase 2 of My Health Record, which meant that every Australian's private health information would be stored online unless they chose to opt out. This is not the way the system was originally designed. This was not the way the system was originally intended. Labor's opt-in model was a model based on informed consent. The Australian public had the ability to learn about My Health Record and then choose whether they wanted to be part of the system. This was intended to be a system based on trust, Mr Speaker. As of this morning, My Health Record has lost the trust of nearly 1 million Australians who have opted out. This is significant given that there are still two months left in the opt-out period—although not surprising, given 20,000 opted out on day one. My Health Record has the potential to be a safe, helpful and trusted tool, but this government has significantly and severely damaged this potential with its woeful implementation and rollout of this system. The rollout of this system has been inadequate. As the shadow assistant minister for cyber security and defence, my concerns about My Health Record immediately turn to the cybersecurity of the data which the system will be holding. My concerns stem from the complete and utter disregard for cybersecurity that the Turnbull-Abbott-Morrison government has shown. This is the government that brought us cyberfails such as the 2016 census, repeated crashes of the Australian Taxation Office website—more than 12 over 12 months—and, who can forget, robo-debt. Australian government agencies are expected to comply with mandated Australian Signals Directorate top 4 mitigated cybersecurity standards. These are: application whitelisting, patch applications, configuring of Microsoft Office macro settings and user application hardening. In 2014, an audit of seven government agencies found that not one met this criteria. Not one met mandated cybersecurity standards that are mandated by the Australian Signals Directorate for government agencies. Seven government agencies were audited and not one was found to be considered cyber-resilient. How did the coalition government respond? With a very stern letter from the then Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security asking agency and department heads to take cybersecurity very seriously. It was a letter that was sent to these department heads and these agency heads. They were mandated government agency and ASD endorsed standards on cybersecurity, yet the government's response when these agencies weren't complying was to send them a very stern letter asking them to take cybersecurity very seriously. Despite assurances to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that they would be compliant by 2016, the latest Australian National Audit Office report revealed that two out of the three agencies audited again still had insufficient protections against cyberattacks from external sources. In the latest report, a total of 14 government entities were reviewed and just four were found to comply with those mandated top four cybersecurity standards by the Australian Signals Directorate. They were the Department of Human Services, Treasury, AUSTRAC and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The government entities that have not complied with these mandated standards include the Australian Federal Police, the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Financial Security Authority and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. At a time when significant data breaches and cyberattacks are an almost daily occurrence, the revelation that our own government entities continue to fail to meet mandatory cybersecurity standards should be a cause for great and immediate concern. But the response from the government was to send a letter saying,' Please take this very seriously.' These are the government entities that collect and store the information of Australians. They protect our borders. They run our national security operations. Continuing to overlook this lack of compliance is continuing to put this data at risk with potentially significant consequences for Australians, and this includes our digital health data. The Department of Health was responsible for the 2017 Medicare data breach, which allowed a darknet vendor to sell Medicare card details using the Australian Department of Human Services logo. At the time, Nigel Phair, former AFP investigator into high-tech crime, described the coalition government's response to this breach as 'disappointing, confusing and often contemptible'. It is alleged the Department of Health and the Digital Health Agency have been independently audited, but this is yet to be confirmed by the government and the results of this audit have not been released. Although I am heartened to know that the Digital Health Agency has a cybersecurity centre, I still have a number of concerns, particularly about their cybersecurity compliance. In August, I raised my concerns in parliament. I asked the then Turnbull government: 'Is the Department of Health cyber resilient? Is the Australian Digital Health Agency cyber resilient? Does the Department of Health comply with ASD's mandated top four mitigation strategies? Does the Australian Digital Health Agency comply with those mandated mitigation strategies? Do they comply with the essential eight mitigation strategies, which are mandated? What about access to data? What about the computers in every health professional surgery, clinic and centre across Australia? Are they cyber-secure? Do we know? What audits have been undertaken? What standards have been used?' There are so many questions on this front, and it appears that no-one on the other side of the chamber is taking this seriously. This is serious. This is highly sensitive data and this is serious. The history of government agency noncompliance with mandated Australian Signals Directorate cybersecurity standards—the fact that we have a track record of that—does not fill this side of the chamber with great confidence that the Digital Health Agency and the Department of Health are cyber-secure, are implementing these mandated standards and are applying some cybersecurity standard to the health professionals to which they engage. I am yet to receive answers from those opposite on my many questions. A report from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in July revealed that Australia's health sector is the worst industry affected by data breaches, which is why I am so concerned, and why this side of the chamber is so concerned. It is not only the fact that government agencies aren't complying with mandated standards and not only the fact that this government has an appalling track record with its agencies in terms of cyber breaches—as I said, census fail, 12 ATO breaches over the past 12 months and the robodebt issue, as well as the Medicare issue. Not only am I concerned about past performance but I'm also concerned about the fact that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found that across Australia the health sector is the worst industry in terms of data breaches. Why haven't we seen the results of the independent audit? The Australian Digital Health Agency maintains that it has been independently audited. Well, if so, let us see the results. Release the results. And who also conducted the independent audit? Was it multiple agencies? Was it external agencies? Who actually conducted the independent audit? When was it conducted? And what standards were used as the measure in that independent audit? If the Australian Digital Health Agency is compliant with the ASD's top four mandated mitigation standards, then show us the information; show us the confirmation in order to provide assurance to the Australian public about the safety of their data. I think that's the least we can do, given the fact that the agency has said that it has been independently audited. Well, show us the results. Show us that you are compliant with those standards. Show us that you are cybersecure. Show us that you are cyber-resilient. Show us that you actually have the systems in place for a cyber-recovery. The reason I'm concerned about that, the reason this side of the chamber is so concerned, is that we are talking about the personal data of every Australian, unless they choose to opt out. And we're not just talking about a cough or a broken bone; this information is highly sensitive. We're talking about pregnancy terminations, we're talking about injuries from assault, we're talking about miscarriages and we're talking about workers compensation injuries. It is highly sensitive data that needs to be protected from falling into the wrong hands, and the Australian people need to be reassured that the cybersecurity arrangements are in place to provide us with some sense of comfort that this agency and the Department of Health and this highly sensitive personal health information is actually cybersecure and cyber-resilient. Online criminals are not the only ones we should be worried about here. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner report also revealed that human error accounted for almost 60 per cent of data breaches within the health sector, which is absolutely significant. The insider threat is significant on so many fronts, not just in the health sector but in other sectors as well. Is the government planning on educating the health sector about basic cyberhygiene? If not, why not? This government's past track record in educating the broader community on cybersecurity makes you wonder whether it's actually going to happen in relation to those health professionals. Yesterday in question time the government were talking about their fabulous track record in educating senior Australians on cybersecurity, and the minister went into some rant about border protection. But where is the education program to prove that you've actually done this? Where is the education program to prove that you've done this education and that you've raised awareness about basic cyberhygiene practices amongst health professionals? Where's the universal education program right across Australia that is targeting seniors to improve their cyberhygiene practices? This government's all talk when it comes to cybersecurity—all talk. It's got this dazzling, huge strategy but no deadlines, no key performance indicators and no targets—just a whole list of activities, and everyone's running around doing those activities and we don't know any outcomes from that strategy, a strategy that has significant funding. One of the key components missing from that strategy is an education program for the broader Australian community, for these people in the health sector, for senior Australians, for small business. Health data is an increasing target for cybercriminals. Last year in the UK, the healthcare sector suffered more than half of all cyberattacks, and in 2016 a Californian hospital paid US$17,000 in bitcoin as ransom to a hacker who had seized control of its computer systems. A cyberattack on a Singapore health database earlier this year stole details of 1.5 million people, including the Prime Minister, and last year's WannaCry attack proved that the networks that aren't cybersecure, down the supply chain, are the biggest vulnerability of our systems. Australia is not immune here. If we do not get this right, we will become part of these statistics. Again, I've been calling on the government to actually get some rigour on the cybersecurity front and get some ballast in the critical infrastructure space. There was an act that was passed a few months ago, and it addressed only a few sectors in critical infrastructure, and it failed to even mention the word 'cybersecurity', which is breathtaking in 2018. In closing, I just want to share some of the feedback I've had from Canberrans about My Health Record. A local medical practitioner wrote to me not long after the opt-out period began. He said, 'It's now been 50 minutes, and I still can't get through to a resolution of my request to opt out—trying to opt out online only to finally get the message, "Unable to process your request." How can the My Health Record system be trusted if they can't manage to deal with a simple online process?' Labor are not the only ones questioning the government's implementation of My Health Record. We've got Canberrans and health professionals doing it too. We must reassure Australians that the Digital Health Agency is cyber-resilient. We must reassure Australians that the networks that access this data comply with minimum cybersecurity standards. The government must reassure Australians that their personal data stored on My Health Record is secure and prove that the Department of Health and the agency are cyber-resilient. Only then can millions of Australians be assured their personal information will be safe. 12:21 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Data governance and security is now one of the most talked about issues in our society. Most Australians are now used to receiving emails from companies or organisations informing them that their private information has been exposed in a data breach. Have I Been Pwned, a website maintained by Australian Troy Hunt, a Microsoft security expert, has logged nearly 5½ billion pwned user accounts across hundreds of confirmed data breaches. In fact, a US organisation that tracks data breaches found that, in 2018 alone, almost 800 data breaches have been confirmed, exposing over 27 million records. Since 2005, they've found almost 10,000 breaches, exposing one billion records. It's hardly surprising, then, that the public are increasingly anxious about protecting their personal data when stored online. This was the context for the rollout of Australia's My Health Record, an online summary of Australia's key health information intended to give doctors access to patients' critical health information, like prescriptions, allergy tests and scan results. My Health Record has been a long time coming. It is a project with obvious potential benefits for individuals and our broader healthcare system. It has the potential to save lives, to improve a person's experience and to save money throughout the healthcare system. Given these potential benefits, it's unsurprising that this policy has been pursued across multiple governments on both sides of politics. But a project of this nature also has major risks. Given the legitimate sensitivities associated with maintaining the confidentiality of private medical information, maintaining public confidence in this system was always going to be a major challenge and a major priority for the rollout of the My Health Record. But, when the current government decided to change the rollout of My Health Record—from something where Australians had to choose to opt in and provide informed consent to participate, to a system that people had to make a decision to opt out of and could become a part of without their informed consent or even their knowledge—the government dramatically underestimated the increased sensitivity that this would create and the public's anxiety with data security issues associated with it. It required a first-principles re-evaluation of the data governance for the project and an extensive public consultation and communications program to bring the public along with these changes. This has manifestly not occurred. The result has been a barrage of anger and confusion that has completely undermined the public's trust in the security and confidentiality of My Health Record. This bill, the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018, which Labor supports, is a reaction to the public's anger to this bungled rollout. Before this bill, law enforcement bodies could access My Health Record information for certain purposes, such as the investigation of a criminal offence. Now this bill makes clear that such release of information to police or other law enforcement authorities can only be done with consent or a court order. This bill also responds to the public's anxieties over the storage of the information in My Health Record after they opt out. The My Health Record originally required the information to be retained 30 years after a person's death. This bill requires that an individual's My Health Record be deleted permanently if that person decides to cancel their record. But this bill doesn't go far enough. These are good measures, but we need to go further. Unlike the government, Labor intend to move carefully here. As a result, we've referred this bill to a Senate inquiry with a view to the introduction of further amendments that could improve public confidence in the My Health Record. Labor are particularly concerned with two aspects of this bill. Firstly, we are worried that My Health Records could facilitate family violence. That's because the act may allow a non-custodial parent to create a My Health Record on their child's behalf without the knowledge of their former partner. That record may contain information about the location of recent doctor or pharmacy visits and may then be used by an abusive ex-partner to track a mother and child. Although the issue has been repeatedly raised by advocates against family violence, the government has refused to act. The second problem, this time raised by the trade union movement, is that employers could again access to the My Health Records and use those records to discriminate against workers on the basis of their content. The act is ambiguous at best about whether information from workers' compensation health checks can be passed on to employers. This bill needs to do more to protect women fleeing domestic violence and workers' information in the workplace. Beyond our concerns with this bill, the Labor Party have received support from the Senate for a separate, broader inquiry that will review all laws, regulations and rules that underpin the My Health Record. We strongly believe that this inquiry is needed to exert greater scrutiny on the data governance structure prevailing in this shift to an opt-out system. The Minister for Health in response to the rising public anger about concerns to do with the security and confidentiality of this information repeatedly insisted in public that the My Health Record had 'military grade security' and was impenetrable. This frankly does nothing to answer the question as to whether this system has the ability to protect sensitive personal information. In fact, from my perspective, it merely undermines any confidence in his competence or that the government even understands the basic principles of data governance and security. In response to the growing community uproar about the My Health Record, the minister issued a press release stating that the My Health Record is protected by: … defence level encryption, secure gateways and firewalls, authentication mechanisms, and malicious content filtering. He said that it would be monitored by the Australian Digital Health Agency's Cyber Security Centre for unusual activity. But what he failed to communicate and, more worryingly, to understand is that effective security online isn't about technology; it is about having a risk management system. The best military-grade technology—whatever that means—is worthless without an accompanying system built to manage a suite of other non-technology risks associated with the storage of sensitive data of this kind. My Health Record has the potential to be the largest data honey pot ever created in Australia. The idea that hostile or criminal actors would seek access to this information is not a hypothetical concern. Hackers stole personal data about 1.5 million people from the Singapore government healthcare database in what the Singapore government described as a 'deliberate, targeted and well-planned attack'. Their system was breached because one computer belonging to SingHealth, one of the two major government healthcare groups in Singapore, was infected with malware through which hackers gained access to the non-medical personal data of 1.5 million healthcare patients, including the Singapore Prime Minister. Similarly in the United States hackers managed to steal records of around 21.5 million people from the US Office of Personnel Management. Large-scale data breaches like those in Singapore and the United States and breaches of a similar scale in Germany and the United Kingdom are equally possible in Australia, too. We shouldn't kid ourselves: we are a target as well. To be confident in a risk management system for protecting data like this, all forms of information risks must be identified and appropriate risk management policies put in place. My Health Record has many forms of risks. In fact, you could consider it having hundreds of thousands of risks. That's in the form of every employee working in every clinic and every hospital in Australia who has access to these records, the so-called insider risk. It us naive ignorance at best and wilful neglect at worst for the minister to believe that technology alone would prevent incursions into government data systems. In fact, during the three months between March to June 2018 alone, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner received 242 notifications of data breaches under the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme. Twenty per cent of these breaches came from healthcare providers, the largest single source of data breaches. This figure understates the data security risk in the health sector because public hospitals and community health centres are exempt from reporting data breaches under the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme. There are almost 700 public hospitals in Australia that provide two-thirds of all hospital beds in the country and employ over 300,000 staff. Each and every one of those employees is a potential risk that a data governance system would need to manage. They are a risk because human error accounted for 60 per cent of data breaches by health providers. It was not malicious attacks from hackers, from state based actors or from cybercriminals; it was just human errors. The risk was not in the hardware or in the software but in the wetware. No military-grade technology can prevent information being given out by mistake because a clinic hasn't trained its staff. Instead of only talking about the technology, the government needs to ensure that health providers around the country have good security practices. As the member for Canberra pointed out so presciently in her previous speech, we need basic cyber hygiene training for everyone touching this system. Health providers need to know who they can appropriately allow to access My Health Records and the level of access different that different types of staff should have to ensure that the systems to monitor use and access are in place. They need to have systems that detect unauthorised use and access. Health providers need to know what to do if there is a data breach, including who they should notify and whether they need to notify authorities. When it comes to notifying authorities, understanding who you should notify and when is a near impossible maze to navigate. Private providers must follow the Commonwealth Privacy Act and report to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Public hospitals and community health centres are regulated by the states. State parliaments haven't enacted similar breach notification schemes. My Health Record adds a new layer of confusion for two reasons. Firstly, it has its own breach notification provisions that use a different legal test to the Privacy Act. This means the circumstances under which health providers must notify patients and authorities of a breach are different to that set out in the Privacy Act. Secondly, My Health Record can be accessed by patients as well as by the public and private hospitals; healthcare providers, including GPs and specialists; pathology and diagnostic imaging services; and pharmacies. That means that if a patient's information is lost or accessed unlawfully, whether a notification to the person affected is mandatory depends on which of these legal regimes applies. What law applies depends on where that person's medical records sit at the time of the breach. If this sounds confusing, Dr Megan Prictor, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne and an expert on health technologies and data regulation, illustrates the extent of this confusion with an example. She cites an example of Ms Smith. Ms Smith invites visits a private specialist, Dr Jones, for advice on a health problem that requires surgery. Dr Jones puts notes on Ms Smith's condition into the private clinic's record. Ms Smith is then admitted to a state public hospital for surgery, as a private patient, under the care of Dr Jones. Whilst she is there, information about her surgery and her recovery are entered into the public hospital record by nurses and junior doctors. Both Dr Jones and the hospital also upload some information about Ms Smith's treatment to the national My Health Record. In this scenario, if information about Ms Smith's surgery is accessed by hackers, then whether Ms Smith must be told about the breach depends on where the information was taken from. Under current legislation, consumers will be informed about data loss from a private healthcare provider or My Health Record but not from a major public hospital. If it was held in Dr Jones's private rooms, under the Commonwealth Notifiable Data Breaches scheme, Dr Jones must tell Ms Smith about the breach as well as inform the information commissioner. If the same information is taken from My Health Record, Ms Smith must still be informed but the specific notification criteria and the procedures are different. Finally, if the information is taken from the public hospital records, there is no legal obligation to tell her at all. As Dr Prictor so ably illustrates, the complexity of rules is confusing to both healthcare workers and patients alike. It's clear that, on the issue of data security, My Health Record actually adds a new layer of confusion and, in turn, a whole new set of risks to protecting sensitive and private health information. To reiterate, data related risks are not limited to 'cybersecurity'. That's just one of a bucket of risks. We need to consider fraud risk, like we saw in a recent incident with the selling of Medicare numbers on the dark web. There's third-party risk, where healthcare providers subcontract services to a third-party provider and are given access to My Health Record, adding another layer of risk. Blustering about military-grade security technology really makes you wonder whether the minister understands these different forms of risk. We need to get better at this. Data governance and managing public anxieties about data collection and use are not limited to the health sector. Governments around the world are moving towards delivering more services online to improve quality of services, to reduce costs and to collect more information that can be used to inform the development of better policies. These are legitimate reasons for collecting and storing private information, but they will also only increase the public's anxiety. There's a need to do some big-picture thinking about these issues as a whole-of-government effort, not just limited to one department or sector. Crucially, we also need to bring the public and the medical profession along with our thinking, something that this government has manifestly failed to do. To date, only around 13,000 provider groups have signed up to the My Health Record. That might sound impressive, but that's out of around 900,000 health professionals who could have signed on. To have a useful system, we need most of these groups to sign on. Although most hospitals have access to My Health Record, most have never looked up the system because a patient may not have a record if it's empty. Although there are significant public anxieties about the system, at this point there's not enough information for it to be useful in a practical sense for either patient or doctor. And so we come to the current situation: an angry and confused public that distrusts the My Health Record, a database used by only a small proportion of health practitioners and a government that has completely misunderstood what it takes to protect patients' privacy and data security. 12:37 Mr STEPHEN JONES ( A9B Whitlam ) ( ): The My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 is a government bill and I'm going to speak in favour of it, unlike many of the members of the government who contributed to this debate earlier. I want to set out why I think legislation such as this and the underlying scheme are necessary. But before I do that I want to congratulate the member for Gellibrand. There was very little that he just went through that I could disagree with. It was a very learned contribution to a complex debate. I've got to say that it takes a lot of talent, a very peculiar sort of talent, to turn public opinion against a proposition which saves money and saves lives, but here we are. A proposition which saves money and saves lives has been so monumentally mishandled that we have a wall of public opinion against it, and for that reason I want to set out in my contribution why I believe a personally controlled electronic health record, the My Health Record, is an important scheme that we need to get right. Why's it necessary? Well, the practice of medicine and the way we interact with our general practitioners has changed a hell of a lot since I was a kid. The idea that you would have a GP for life, a doctor who would operate out of a suburban shopping centre or a suburban practice and who would operate on his or her own with maybe one other doctor operating out of the same rooms, supported ably by a medical receptionist, is the model of medical practice that I grew up with and that my parents grew up with. But it's not the model of medical practice for the vast majority of interactions with general practice today. No longer is it the practice that, if you have an ailment after hours, you call that family doctor, who you've known all your life, and he or she turns up with their brown bag and sits by the bed and consults with you. What is more likely to happen today is that you have a practice that you visit regularly, with many, many doctors who work in that practice. It is more likely that each time you attend that practice you see a different doctor. In fact, the way that medical practices are run is very different these days as well. They're staffed sometimes by partners of a practice and sometimes by employees. Sometimes they are part-time employees and sometimes full-time employees. Sometimes the doctors have trained overseas, and sometimes they're locally trained. Sometimes, they're a locum. In fact, the further you get from a capital city, the more likely it is that you're going to have a doctor working in a practice who wasn't there the year before. And, if you go to regional Queensland, the overwhelming majority of doctors who are staffing practices are overseas-trained doctors on short-term contracts. So the way we practise medicine is very, very different. Gone are the days when one-third of the floor space of a medical practice was taken up by manila folders stacked in filing cabinets. More likely is the case that, when you visit a practice, your doctor keeps an electronic record and is not pulling a manila folder out of the compactus. It is also more likely that you'll visit many, many different practices, certainly over the course of your lifetime but often over the course of a couple of years. If you're living in rental accommodation and moving from one suburb to another, it is more likely that you are going to visit the practice which is closest to where you live at that point in time or perhaps closest to where you work. All of this builds up to a picture that shows that your medical records are going to be scattered, if not across a town then perhaps across a state and even, in many instances, across a country. This is not a good way for us to be managing somebody's health care, particularly if they have a chronic health condition or if they are a parent who is attempting to ensure that their child has continuity of care, that their vaccinations up to date, and that all of their records and the child's health care are in order. It's also worth noting that a model with a transferrable electronic health record that is able to be accessed by a medical practitioner that you are seeing wherever you are at a particular point in time is going to save money. Putting this into perspective, the Medicare budget is tipping over $20 billion per annum. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme budget is tipping over $11 billion per annum. We know that, if we're able to have a transferrable electronic file that can be accessed by a medical practitioner who is treating a patient at a point in time wherever they are, not only are you likely to be saving lives by ensuring that you have access to their historical medical record but also we're going to be saving money because the same pharmaceuticals that might have been prescribed by another doctor are being represcribed, and, in relation to medical imaging, which is an enormously expensive part of the health budget, it will be more likely that we are not reordering the same medical imaging, such as X-rays, CT scans and ultrasounds, that may have been ordered and could have been accessed by another medical practitioner. Pathology—again, a ballooning cost in the health budget—will be able to be accessed if it is a part of your electronic health record. This builds up to a picture that shows that a well-constructed, well-controlled, portable, personally controlled electronic health record can save lives and can save money. That is not to lightly dismiss many of the concerns that were raised by the member for Canberra earlier this morning or the member for Gellibrand in the speech preceding mine. There are valid concerns. I've been contacted by single mums who are victims of domestic violence and who, quite rightly, make the point that they don't want to endanger their lives or their children's lives by their medical record being a back door to finding out where they may now be residing. These issues do need to be dealt with, and that's why Labor welcomes the amendments in this bill which would put more rigour into the requirements about who can lawfully access your personal eHealth record. We welcome the requirements in this bill that would mean that a law enforcement agency or any other government agency would need to get a court order to access an electronic health record. We also welcome the fact that under this bill—something that wasn't thought out properly before the government changed its policy settings on this—a person who opts out has their My Health Record permanently deleted, not able to be accessed. These are sensible changes to the legislation—sensible new arrangements. But I'm keen to ensure that as we debate these amendments—and we rightly criticise the health minister and the government for mucking them up; we should criticise the health minister and the government for mucking this up—we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should be having a debate about how we implement such a scheme. As the member for Gellibrand pointed out, a lot of the issues that we are grappling with, about access to personal data, are not unique to the health space. There are issues that we are confronting across all areas of our life. We should be having a debate about who can legally access our records. We should be having a precursor debate about who owns the record and what rights the owner of that record has, who they can exclude and who they can include in having access to that data. We should be having debates about how we can adequately protect the legitimate privacy concerns of citizens who have their data stored in a government owned and operated database. But we should be having some perspective in that debate. I will give a few examples of areas where I call for some perspective. I'm wearing an Apple Watch. About half a million of them were sold in the past 12 months. They are consistently and persistently collecting health data—when I'm sleeping, when I'm awake, how much I'm moving, where I'm moving, heart rate data and all the rest of it. It is constantly being uploaded through the app to which this watch is connected. I'm reliably informed—in fact, there are papers available about the use to which that data is being put—that this is a private database, not a government owned database and not a government controlled database. In fact, there are real questions about the capacity of domestic law to be regulating the way a bunch of that data is being used in other jurisdictions. These are issues that we should be grappling with. But as the wearing and the use of smart watches and smart devices is increasingly collecting more and more data, including personal health data, from us, we need to put some of this stuff in perspective. Over 85 per cent of Medicare consultations in the past 12 months were bulk-billed consultations. Closer to 95 per cent of those consultations involved some form of government payment. All that information was collected and stored on a Medicare database. The difference is that the individual who owns that data does not have access to it. Let me put it another way: the individual to whom that data is referring does not have access to it. These are real issues, worthy of debate, but we need to put them in perspective. We are, rightly, critical of the government for stuffing this up. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. We need proper, rigorous controls and security regimes in place to protect the integrity of the data that is stored, just as we need these controls and protections in place for all the existing data that is stored through Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme databases, Medicare databases, hospital databases, existing general practice databases and existing pharmacy databases. All this information is being stored currently, often without the knowledge of the individuals to whom it applies. It's important that we are collecting this data. It's also, I would argue, important that we have better access to it for predictive and medical research purposes. The next big leap forward in life-saving medical technology is not going to be the invention of a new molecule, as important as our pharmaceutical industries are. The next big leap forward is going to be around data and how we use the data for predictive and research purposes to ensure that we can live longer and better lives and that known risks to our health and longevity can be predicted, brought to the attention of an individual and treated appropriately. This is the next leap forward, so I am deeply concerned that, as we have this debate, we do not get off on the wrong foot. The underlying idea is a very good one—that individuals have a portable health record that they can take with them throughout the course of their lives, from one treating physician to another, and that that information can be appropriately stored and appropriately used. These are important debates, not germane to the health space—that's the one that's currently before the parliament at the moment. Many of us on the Labor side have been saying for quite some time—I see the member for Chifley here, and the member for Gellibrand has been mentioned in dispatches—that we need to have a broader debate about how we are storing and using data in this country across all of the touchpoints of government and private sector data collection—who owns it, who gets access to it, how it's stored, how it's protected and how it's used for the betterment of the individual to whom it applies and of the society as a whole. My concern, I say in concluding, is that we do not let an acknowledged stuff-up by the government distract us from the course that is necessary, that we have these debates and that we land at a point where we can ensure that individuals, government and society as a whole can benefit from the next big revolution, which is unleashing data for our mutual benefit. 12:52 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I'll start my speech on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 by reflecting on protection of data, and I'll get my phone back from the member from Whitlam. I want to take up from where the member for Whitlam left off, and that was where we are at this point in time. This year, I've remarked on other occasions, is a threshold year when it comes to the issue of tech and, in particular, the notion of data. I think that the public have become a lot more enlivened and a lot more aware about the huge amount of data that is being generated through the multitude of devices that they have, and people are now starting to think a lot more deeply: 'Okay, this data is being generated. How is it being used? Will it be used in a way that does not benefit me?' People hear a lot about the benefits of this data and how it will be applied, but they're now starting to recognise that there is another side to this coin and that this needs to be explored further. This debate that we're having right now comes at a time when the broader environment is seeing the gloss of tech start to wear. I speak as someone who recognises the value of the application of technology to do a lot better in terms of economic growth and generation of new jobs and to help people live better lives. But, with everything, we should have a clear-eyed assessment. As much as there's benefit, we should also be mindful of the things that we don't necessarily think are working in favour of the public. I think this is the year when, more and more, people will expect greater respect for data by both business and government. People will think about the data that's being generated in anyone's home at any one time. You'll probably have close to 20 different items connected through your wi-fi network at your home that are all pumping out data. The data is all going somewhere. Someone's got access to it. How is it being used? The someone is both business and government. It requires recognition by government of a higher level of sensitivity about how data is being used and how it's being protected. I open my contribution today with that because context in this debate is important. It's why the public reaction to where we're at with the My Health Record initiative overtook this government and well and truly put it on the back foot. It has not appreciated the growing concern that exists in the minds of the public about how the data is being used by both business and government, and it failed to bring the public along. I might, at this point, make a reflection on the sweat-laden contribution of the member for Goldstein last night. He had spoken out against the government's management of My Health Record. Then, in the bizarre contribution that he made last night, he started by saying: 'I'm not going to be popular with the comments that I'm making tonight. I don't think My Health Record should exist, but it's all the Labor Party's fault'. He tried, in one manoeuvre—I wouldn't say deft; it was daft—to sheet home the problems that existed with this system. It typifies the operating approach of the government, particularly with respect to My Health Record. The government made a number of fundamental errors in the implementation of My Health Record. They ignored it for ages. They thought that they could buy off a number of stakeholders to go out and promote on their behalf. They didn't do the grunt work of putting the framework in place to ensure the smooth implementation of this. Fatally, they roped the whole public in. They required people to opt out. It would be assumed they would be in rather than out. They thought that would work a treat. Well, how phenomenally wrong could you be? The problem with this government, particularly in terms of digital projects, is that they're there for the announcement but they're never there for the delivery and they're certainly never there to explain when things go wrong. A number of people have highlighted instances where the government has stuffed up the delivery of digital projects, including this one that has brought us to the chamber to discuss right now. When it comes to digital projects, it's worth noting that we have had over a dozen different derailments through the course of this term of parliament. In one term of parliament we've had close to 15 different projects that have gone off the rails. We had, for example, as has been cited, the failure to smoothly implement the 2016 online census. We've had repeated crashes of the ATO website. We've had the delayed revamp of the Child Support Agency website and then other problems associated with the maintenance of that platform. They halted the start of the online NAPLAN testing. They guillotined the gov.au redesign proposal—wasted nearly a million dollars on that project. They shut down their Digital Transformation Office and then reopened it under another name. They waved goodbye to two CEOs, one for the DTO and one for the DTA. They scored the business thumbs down for the overhyped Digital Marketplace. They saw the arrest of IT contractors in the Department of Human Services for suspected fraud. They've notched up a record $10 billion spend on government IT—to give you context, that's almost as much as we spend on Newstart in this country. You can't forget robo-debt—there's another one. They dumped the apprentice IT platform. They suspended the ACIC biometric project. And then we come to My Health Record, where they tried to sneak everyone in the public onto this platform and make them opt out, rather than do the hard work of building confidence in the My Health Record system and getting people to opt in to the system. There are serious concerns about the management of this, and, given the litany of failures of this government on digital projects, you can understand that the public has been conditioned to expect less, not more, from government digital transformation, given the way that it has been managed by this government. The government needs to invest more time in building confidence in this system and answering simple questions. For example, as was pointed out through the contribution of the member for Gellibrand, a number of people can access this system at different points in the system. How do you know how that access has manifested itself? For example, the My Health Records portal is a web based portal, from what I'm led to believe; if someone accesses the system and screenshoots or print-screen dumps data that's on that screen, how do you know that has even occurred? I'd be interested in whether the minister will be letting the public know whether they have mechanisms within their platform to detect that kind of activity. These kinds of threshold questions are important to answer to build confidence. I said this a few moments ago: you need to be able to build confidence that the My Health Record system will respect the data that is used. The government say, 'In this bill we will ensure that, if someone opts out of the My Health Record system, their data will be permanently deleted.' How? And how do you test whether or not that has actually occurred? You could do it in word, but would it happen in deed? The government need to build more confidence in the system so they are able to prove that these things have occurred. Now the government may say, 'This is an onerous test to place on the system,' but, sorry, that's where we've got to. The government need to recognise that, in the minds of the public, the expectation has been raised about how data is being used. This will be a lot more important in the years to come, and they've got to be able to say, 'We've given you an assurance that this has been done. This will happen.' The government make a big deal about the fact that they are being transparent and open, when experience suggests otherwise. They have been unable to deliver digital services that the public rates highly. For instance, even if you look at updating their own performance dashboards for various government services, you will find that they all lag in terms of being updated or that the user satisfaction with the actual sites themselves is low. The Australian Taxation Office's community website has got a user satisfaction rate of under a half. Community digital take-up for the Taxation Office is only 16 per cent, which is down 18 per cent. User satisfaction for the Human Services website has only just managed a pass mark. So people will also have concerns with the way that the systems are being used by the public and the way that the data is being collected, retained and protected. These are the types of things that the government have to be a lot more mindful about. There were a number of points that the shadow minister for health, the member for Ballarat, raised in her contribution to this debate that are worthy of repeating and that we need to reinforce. The requirement for informed consent, which I've already touched upon, to build a strong relationship of trust is absolutely critical. We need to be able to see that occur. We need to be able to have much better communication with the public. As I said, there has been no letter on the national shift to the opt-out system and the importance of My Health Record. The government needs to invest time and effort to make sure that happens. The level of assurance needed to ensure that people's concerns about, for instance, how data will be used needs to be increased as well. As the shadow minister pointed out, concern exists that My Health Record data accessed through pre-employment medical checks or workers compensation assessments could be passed to employers and used to discriminate against workers with pre-existing medical conditions. This is a genuine concern. The member for Whitlam mentioned the fact that in the case of data that is generated through wearables that are connected through to the internet—the concern already exists in the United States about things like the Apple Watch, Fitbit or whatever—health insurers may try to demand access to that data as a condition of getting a better health insurance policy. We need to have those types of assurances that data that's generated through the My Health Record system isn't being used in a way that works against individual citizens. That type of thing needs to be stressed a lot more. As the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association has told the Senate inquiry into this legislation, even changes to more thoroughly lockout insurers may not be enough. They've argued that consumer protections should be put in place to prevent third parties from discriminating against individuals who don't agree to the release of their My Health Record data. They've raised the prospect of businesses refusing to sell a product or service, or charging more, unless the individual provides access to their data. Exactly the type of debate that has been held in the United States over the interrelationship of wearables, generation of data and its application in different forms is being visited here on our soil, particularly in the context of this debate, and that does need to be addressed. Again, these are not small things. They do require effort. They require a lot more time than what the government has said. I think the government needs to do a bigger job in terms of building public confidence in the system, particularly around the protection of data, recognising that people are much more alive to cybersecurity risks than ever before and, when the data is in the system, how it's being used by those who are supposedly allowed to access the data and how it might be used down the track in ways that people hadn't contemplated initially. It certainly needs way more time than the one month opt-out extension that we've seen by the government to date. This should be extended way further than what we are currently seeing. If the government fails to do that, then it comes to the very point I raised at the start of this, that they are not investing the time or care to ensure public confidence in this system. 13:07 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Following on from my colleague and friend the member for Chifley, who stole my thunder about the top 15—I was only going to do the top three IT bungles, so he's really filled the breach on exactly where this government sits—I will be really blunt about this issue. I think it is important that we put these concerns on the record, because 25 million Australians are relying on this parliament, and in particular this government, to get a pretty serious matter correct. While the wheels might be falling off this government more and more each day, really and truly we've got another policy patchwork quilt that is, in my opinion, falling to pieces. You only need to look at the speakers list today to see the concerns that Labor are raising on behalf of our constituents and the broader community. It is pretty damning when the government won't even get up and defend their position. They have zero speakers, which is pretty normal. Whilst we support e-health and the concept of the My Health Record, I believe the government has overseen another appalling rollout, which has now seen almost one million Australians decide to opt out and, let's face it, we've barely even begun. This is a long list of stuff-ups that the government is trying to be proud of, but we know that e-health could deliver tangible healthcare improvements and save healthcare costs through fewer diagnosis, treatment and prescription errors if it weren't for this error-riddled government. On this side of the House, we began delivering an electronic health record system when we were last in office. Our system was opt-in, and we thought that was the right approach, so that anyone who participated had to give informed consent. But the government, as we know, time and time again thought that they knew better. They thought they knew better than health professionals, the AMA and now the almost one million Australians who have decided they don't want to risk their personal data when they know that this government simply cannot be trusted with it. It was only under Labor questioning in a Senate committee last night that the Australian Digital Health Agency finally admitted that 900,000 people have now opted out. That is the first update provided since 20,000 people opted out on day one. With two months to go in the opt-out period, that number is likely to rise to well over one million people. But the truth is we are already likely over the one million mark of people who have withdrawn, with the head of the ADHA saying that the estimate was 'not comprehensive' and reflected only opt-outs via the website or call centre, as paper forms have not been reconciled. The mass exodus is because Australians simply do not trust this government. They know their track record when it comes to things, as we heard from the member for Chifley, like the census and robo-debt calls and do not want to be caught up in the drama or, as I call it, the hunger games of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The government has completely botched the rollout of the opt-out period, undermining public trust in this important reform. Examples of this include that, under the original plan by the government, even if a patient asked for their health record to be deleted, some basic information would have been kept for up to 130 years—just extraordinary. Included in Australians who have opted out of the new system is the government's own member for Goldstein, who said that: … instinctive position should always be as a Liberal that systems should be opt-in and people should be able to freely choose to opt into a system … Not even the government's own members have faith in their system. What a complete and utter shambles. How can any Australian trust this government will keep their personal data safe and secure when their own MPs won't even sign up for it? It is because of members of the government, who, like millions of Australians, are choosing not to place their personal data in the care of this government, that Labor, quite rightly, referred the My Health Record to a legislative inquiry in the Senate. The inquiry is hearing evidence from stakeholders across the board and will test whether this bill adequately responds to privacy and security concerns and develop possible amendments. This includes hearing from the Digital Transformation Office CEO Paul Shetler, who said: … current access controls for the service are 'shocking', making sensitive medical data vulnerable. He said: In its current form I believe that the program will fail. Government should first pause and acknowledge what they are hearing from the public. …   …   … Even with the settings they've set up so far, people still can have wide-ranging access to data without having to hack it. It's just not set up in a secure way. The way the phrases are constructed, it's fairly broad who actually has access to this data … It is the most intimate data about a person as possible. There is a problem there, and it has to be taken seriously. It's shocking how bad the access control is on it. It's a very real concern. These are the experts in the field talking about exactly what the government is planning to do. The bill responds to public anger over the scheme by making some changes that Labor welcome, including requiring law enforcement and other government agencies to get a court order to access records and permanently deleting the health information of people who opt out of the My Health Record. But we don't believe that these changes go far enough and so will do little to allay community fears about privacy and security. Workers have raised concerns that doctors who perform pre-employment or workers' compensation assessments may pass health information on to employers and that employers could use this information to discriminate against employees—for example, on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Also, this bill does absolutely nothing to address the concerns the My Health Record may risk the safety of women fleeing abusive partners or children needing privacy from non-custodial parents. As reported in the media earlier this year, this includes a loophole in the system allowing a parent who does not have primary custody to create a My Health Record on their child's behalf without the consent or knowledge of their former partner. An abusive ex-partner can thereby gain access to details including the location of medical practitioners and pharmacies attended by the child with their primary caregiver, potentially narrowing down the locations of victims in hiding. An abusive ex-partner can thereby gain access to details where they may not have previously known that information. Any Australian in such a position may contact the Australian Digital Health Agency and request that their child's personal identification number, which is linked to their Medicare account, be suspended immediately. The agency will then assess any requests by the respective parents to register as a person authorised to act on behalf of the child. If approved, this will give either parent the power to create, access and monitor the child's My Health Record with or without the parents' consent. I want to read into the record comments by Angela Lynch, the chief executive officer of Women's Legal Service Queensland. I want to commend Women's Legal Service Queensland for the outstanding advocacy that they provide. I've had a little bit to do with them, particularly in their strong campaign against the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government and their savage attacks on community legal centres. Ms Lynch warned that: … any refusal of access by the Digital Health Agency could be contested in the Family Court, including by an abusive former partner. In reviewing the submission to the Senate inquiry by Women's Legal Service Queensland, they stated that the failure by the government to consult with women's agencies was particularly concerning—not surprisingly, when you see the record of how this government treats women in its own ranks—and that this has caused confusion, anxiety and angst in the community as domestic violence victims are concerned what the rollout will mean for them and their children's safety. However, even more disturbingly, I read that the service holds concerns that the current approach may create situations where a woman may be fleeing a domestic violence situation and they may be forced to decide between either taking their child to a health professional and potentially identifying their location to the perpetrator or not necessarily seeking treatment. Put simply, they state that the My Health Record system, as it stands, places women and children who are fleeing violence at risk of serious injury and death. This is not something where the government can simply say, 'Well, this is scaremongering'—or their normal method of operation, which is to somehow blame Labor in their warped, twisted alternative universe. These are real concerns by health professionals and also legal practitioners who are worried about the implementation and implications regarding the government's rollout. That's why today I join with my Labor colleagues and again call on the government to suspend the opt-out phase of the My Health Record rollout until privacy and security concerns such as the ones I have addressed today in the parliament are dealt with. When community organisations such as Women's Legal Service are repeatedly saying that lives are at risk, we cannot continually, blindly, as the health minister seems to be doing, simply say 'business as usual'. We must stop and reflect to investigate whether there is a better way. Despite these revelations and despite this updated piece of legislation, it is under the control of a health minister who said, as recently as last month, that he maintained, 'There were no real problems with the first incarnation of My Health Record' but said that he was happy to provide additional reassurances on privacy to doctors and patients. Well, I'm not too sure who the health minister is speaking to—well, we know he's not speaking to his colleagues, because they don't support him either, when he runs for the leadership position. Maybe he's a little bit too busy trying to destroy the government that he is a part of, instead of listening to the one million Australians who beg to differ with the health minister. That's one million Australians who are very concerned that, when it comes to this government and their personal data, it cannot be trusted. As you can see, these are very serious issues in the hands of a government with a woeful track record on IT security and privacy. As I indicated and as Labor speakers have said, the government's record on the rollout of IT is nothing short of scandalous. Time and time again, we've seen bungle after bungle. I had a situation in my own electorate last week, where 130 childcare educators, working through a wonderful organisation, simply were in danger of not getting paid for up to five weeks because the government has botched its new childcare IT system. Now, it might not mean a lot to members opposite when a couple of people miss a pay cycle or two. For those on the other side, let me tell you: it means a lot to front-line workers. It is because of this government's bungling of IT systems and this system in particular. We've seen a failed rollout of the NBN and the NDIS. They gave us the census fail and the robo-debt debacle. Quite frankly, they have now stuffed up My Health Record. We must get this system right. Rather than pushing through legislation and patching it up as they go, quite frankly the government should suspend the opt-out period until these and other issues can be addressed. If the minister, his office or his advisers are listening to this, and if you don't take my word for it, listen to the one million Australians who are concerned and are voting with their feet. Talk to your constituents who are raising concerns. I have no doubt members of the government are getting the same sorts of phone calls, emails and stress out there in community from health professionals and from people in the legal profession. It is time that the government stopped fighting amongst themselves; stopped trying to grief, bully and undermine each other; and actually started doing their job in this parliament, which is to listen to the community and start delivering what the community needs and, more importantly, what the community needs to keep them safe and protected. Australia's sensitive health data is of the utmost of importance. I call on members of the government to support the amendments that we have moved in this place to get it right. 13:22 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I'm speaking in support of the amendments that have been moved by the shadow minister, the member for Ballarat, on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. This shouldn't be a controversial issue. The principle behind My Health Record is a sound one, and it is something that should benefit most Australians. If I'm involved in a serious car accident and I'm wheeled into a hospital unconscious, then I want those doctors and nurses who are treating me to be able to access as much information as possible about myself so that they can provide appropriate treatment and care. That is something that could be provided through a system such as My Health Record and having that data available electronically for easy access to ensure the most appropriate and best care for a patient. But, like many things that have been rolled out by this government in the IT space, it appears that they have bungled this rollout. You only have to look to the National Broadband Network, the NDIS, the census fail and the robo-debt debacle. It now appears they may have stuffed up the My Health Record rollout. It is estimated that $1.2 billion has already been spent on this program and it appears that there are some serious issues. Australians do deserve better and to know that the system is working in their favour, rather than having millions of people looking at opting out of the system to ensure that they feel that they get the privacy that they deserve. The stakes are high when it comes to issues such as medical health records, and they can be the target of cybercriminals. In the United States, Verizon's Data breach investigations report states: Healthcare is the only industry where the threat from inside is greater than that from outside. Human error is a major contributor to those stats. But we should be able to produce a system that provides clinicians, medical practitioners and patients with access to the electronic information that is vitally important to ensure appropriate care, to ensure that the best interests of the patients are being catered for and, importantly, to ensure that the system works effectively, efficiently and, ultimately, gets value for money for taxpayers. We should also be able to ensure that people's privacy is protected, that all Australians have confidence that the data relating to their health in the system will not be used or accessed by other organisations for purposes ulterior to those for which the information was intended. I'm speaking of insurance companies, law enforcement agencies and other agencies trying to access this data when most Australians want to ensure that their doctors and other health professionals can access that information—that's it—and that a person can't be discriminated against in an insurance policy or the outcome of an employment application because some other body has been able to access the health records of Australians through a system such as My Health Record. That's not what we want from a system such as this, and we should be able to deliver an outcome that provides access to medical staff but protects the Australian people from other access. A Senate inquiry into this bill has been established that will no doubt look at these issues of privacy and access and for which purposes the information can be used by organisations external to the process. This bill seeks to deal with some of the issues and challenges raised in the rollout of My Health Record. Labor supports those elements but believes it should go further. Firstly the bill amends the act to require a court order or a consumer's express consent in order to disclose health information from their My Health Record to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies. The government argues that this is already the policy of the Australian Digital Health Agency and that no material has ever been released by law enforcement agencies, but this amendment will enshrine that into law, and that's something we and all Australians support. I argue that it should go further and apply to other external organisations like insurance companies seeking to access this information in respect of a particular member who may have a policy with them. Secondly the bill amends the act to require the permanent deletion of health information for all consumers who opt out of My Health Record. The act currently requires the information held in the record to be locked down but retained until 30 years after the consumer's death. Labor believes this is another positive amendment and will support it. I've had a number of calls and emails to my office from constituents who are concerned about the notion that their records would be maintained after they've opted out of the system. Most people would expect that once you've opted out, that's it; you've opted out and those electronic records can no longer being accessed. If we're saying that's the intent of the scheme then that is what should apply. This amendment will hopefully do that. Two further issues have been recognised and need to be looked at. Workers' representatives have raised concerns that doctors who perform pre-employment or workers' compensation assessments on behalf of employees could have access to employees' My Health Records and that information disclosed to employers could be used to discriminate against employees, for example, on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. This is the issue I spoke of earlier with insurance companies. Advocates are also concerned that inappropriate access to My Health Record could facilitate family violence. For example, ex-partners or non-custodial parents could conceivably use the record to track the location and treatment of vulnerable people. So these are two further issues that we believe need to be looked at, and it doesn't go far enough. Once again the government has bungled this. It shouldn't be an issue that is controversial. We should be able to provide privacy for Australian citizens and still have their health records online. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Marine Sanctuaries 14 13:30 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise today to speak about marine parks, an issue that hundreds if not thousands of constituents have contacted me about. I'm incredibly proud that Labor has committed to reverse the largest removal of area from conservation in history. When Labor were in government, we announced the permanent protection of Australia's precious marine environments with the proclamation of the world's biggest network of marine reserves. That is more than 2.3 million square kilometres of ocean environment. Conversely, the coalition government has ignored decades of science, the advice of its own independent review and the wishes of local communities. They have ignored the voices of hundreds of thousands of Australians who've been consulted over the years while Australia's marine parks network was in development. Under a Liberal government, the largest area in the world limited to recreational fishing is now being reaccessed by commercial operators. Perhaps most disturbing of all, the government has now established a massive trawling area immediately adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. As Tim Winton said in a speech in 2012: During my own lifetime the world’s oceans have suffered a terrible decline. I’ve read about it. And I've seen it up close and ugly. …   …   … The people asking for marine parks understand this for what it is: good housekeeping, prudent management, a future for their kids. I thank my wonderfully engaged constituents for writing to me about this. I'm proud to be a member of the Labor Party, which is committed to restoring the 2012 marine park network in full. West Coast Eagles 15 13:31 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want the West Coast Eagles to beat Melbourne on the weekend. Have no doubt. The Eagles have defied all the odds to win 16 matches and finish second this year, a remarkable achievement with veterans Matthew Priddis, Sam Butler, Sam Mitchell and Drew Petrie all retiring last year. The Eagles were brilliant against Collingwood in slippery conditions a fortnight ago. Every side has injuries, and the Eagles are no exception, with Nic Naitanui, Andrew Gaff and Brad Sheppard all missing this weekend's game. But West Coast have won all their preliminary finals in WA, beating Collingwood, Adelaide and North Melbourne over the year. Coach Adam Simpson will be hoping it will be third time lucky against Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin, who's won both encounters when they've gone head to head in the coaches box. But it shouldn't go unnoticed that the club is in its 23rd finals campaign in just its 32nd year. Some of you in the Victorian space need to have a bit of a look at that. It's an amazing feat for the guys that have to travel so much, and we only have to look at a couple of the other sides that don't travel much and are in the finals to know how good the Eagles actually are. So I want to wish coach Adam Simpson, captain Shannon Hurn and all the team all the very best. It's time to not just beat Melbourne but also end a 12-year drought. Go the mighty Eagles! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I have much to say, but I'll leave it. Meningococcal Disease 15 13:33 Mr HART 263070 Bass Recently I attended a fundraiser for an amazing young man, Arthur Long. Arthur contracted meningococcal W before his second birthday last year. Whilst Arthur survived, he lost both his feet and most of the fingers on his right hand. Foundation 33 is to be commended for raising $12,000 to assist with Arthur's replacement leggies, as he calls them. Foundation 33 is a Tasmanian not-for-profit that works closely with local businesses and individuals to support a range of causes that might not otherwise receive financial support. Prior to contracting the disease, Arthur received the meningococcal C vaccine. Unfortunately, the other strains, A, B, W and Y, were not on the schedule at the time. Labor welcomes the addition of A, W and Y to the schedule. Labor has been working actively to improve access for the public to the meningococcal B vaccine since November 2016. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the government to seek to have them work with the manufacturer and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to negotiate a way forward to see the vaccine accessible to protect young Australians. In November last year, it was revealed that the health minister had misled Australian parents about the progress towards approval of the vaccine. His Chief Medical Officer admitted that there was no plan to fast-track the meningococcal B vaccine after the minister created an impression that the matter was being addressed. In the last week, more Tasmanians have been diagnosed with meningococcal. There have been nine in two months. Groom Electorate: Highfields 15 13:34 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I rise to alert the House to significant and exciting developments at a region known as Highfields, just north of my city of Toowoomba—some 12 kilometres out of Toowoomba. It's a region that has a population of around 12,000 people at the moment, but that's projected to double within the next decade or two, and it is therefore one of the highest growth regions in our country. Highfields is an area where I was blessed to be raised. As a secondary school student, I lived there with my parents and my siblings, and in later years my wife and I raised our own family in Highfields while our children went through their schooling years, both primary and secondary. I talk about Highfields because many are under the misunderstanding that Highfields is a dormitory suburb of Toowoomba. It's not. It's a distinct standalone community with leadership from the Highfields and District Business Connections group, focused particularly on the development of a community heart—a civic centre, if you like. It's important to work with the Toowoomba Regional Council, and that's what this group is doing. It's important for the federal government to step up. We've been doing that through the nearby Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. And, of course, the state government has been developing the Highfields State Secondary College, which is a new school in the region. When three levels of government work together with the community, the outcomes can be tremendous. Roleystone Volunteer Fire Brigade Inc. 15 13:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt After six months of training and fitness testing, the new recruits of the Roleystone volunteer bushfire brigade were signed off and graduated at the beginning of this month. I was one of the proud family members in attendance, with my younger brother, John, being one of the brigade's newest additions. It is volunteers like this from all over the country, who put their lives on the line in the name of helping others, who should be recognised more in this place, and that's why I stand here today. My family and our family home have been saved more than once by the hard work of the firefighters of the Armadale, Bedfordale and Roleystone volunteer bushfire brigades. I note that this year's fire predictions across the Darling Scarp—across the seats of Canning, Hasluck, Pearce and Burt, which are partly covered by the Roleystone brigade—have an above-average risk of bushfire this season. These volunteers will have their work cut out for them even more so in coming years, given the Bureau of Meteorology will be closing their operations in WA, robbing our emergency services of the local knowledge so vital to the work that they do. Congratulations to all the new recruits of the Roleystone volunteer bushfire brigade. It was a great ceremony, especially your song and dance routine. And good luck ahead for what is sure to be another sizzling summer. Mobile Black Spot Program 16 13:37 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I welcome the fourth round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. This is a landmark initiative of the Liberal-National government that identifies, funds and fixes mobile phone black spots across regional and rural Australia. This government understands the importance of a reliable mobile phone connection, from doing business to potentially saving a life, and, with 572 base stations already activated, more Australians than ever can enjoy a reliable mobile signal. In Canning we've had four base stations funded under the Mobile Black Spot Program—in Waroona, Dwellingup, Lake Clifton and Serpentine/Keysbrook. But there's more work to be done. I frequently receive correspondence from constituents in Bedfordale, Roleystone, Falcon, Byford and Boddington. Many of them can't get reception in their homes, some of them can't get reception in their street, and a few of them have to drive to town just to check their voicemail. These people, the residents of Canning, are the reason we're committing $25 million to the fourth round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. Rather than wait for their provider to find money for another tower, residents can nominate their mobile black spots directly to the federal government, and that's exactly what's happening in my electorate. I've created a poll on my website of the worst mobile black spots in Canning, and I invite everyone in my electorate to head to my website www.andrewhastie.com.au/canningblackspots and vote for the black spot they want funded or nominate one of their own. I'm grateful for the responses I've already received, and I look forward to working with my constituents to fix mobile black spots in Canning. Wills Electorate: Brunswick Bowling Club 16 13:39 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I'm wearing the commemorative medal for the Brunswick Bowling Club centenary—100 years for the Brunswick Bowling Club. I was there on the weekend, rolled the first bowl of the year and declared the green open for competition. It was very exciting. Like many bowls clubs in Melbourne, the Brunswick Bowling Club grew to its height in the seventies, when it was very popular. It had over 500 members, but over the last couple of decades it began to dwindle. In 2007 they got right down to 11 members, and they avoided being dissolved by a single vote. But, since then, the club has flourished again, with 180 new members and counting. And, even though they only had division 1 championship success back in 1959, I reckon they're going to do it again pretty soon because they've got a strong membership base full of colourful characters who have won a couple of sectional pennants in the past few years. The club itself has become a focal point for the Brunswick community. It's a great place to socialise. Barefoot bowls with a beer has become very popular and is something that people have a lot of fun with. It's really a great place to meet the locals. Two years ago, I had my election night party at the Brunswick Bowling Club. I hope to do that again at the next election. I'd like to thank the club president, Cam Foley, the secretary, Malcolm Moore, and the entire club committee for welcoming me on the weekend, and I wish them every success for the 2018-19 season. Well done for reaching 100 years! Beale, Mr Steven 16 13:40 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Today I rise to say goodbye to an old friend of mine and a great mate, Steve Beale, late of Calliope and Yarwun, who passed away unexpectedly on 23 August. He was 54 years old. Steve was husband to Sue, father to Cherie and Tim, Chris and Em, and Geoff and Lee, and a loving pop to nine grandchildren. Honesty, reliability and respect were non-negotiables with Steve. He had the ability to see the positives in every situation. Steve was an extremely loyal person. He had physical presence and a booming voice. He had a generous nature and unwavering support for his family, friends and the community. Despite having a rough and tough exterior, he was really a big softie. Steve gained great satisfaction seeing people around him get ahead, especially those who worked hard. In 2004, he started MIPEC, a company which is now very big and employs close to 2,000 people, providing opportunities for locals to better themselves, including apprentices and trainees. Steve had a long, strong belief in and a great vision for Gladstone. Steve's Gladstone was a place that we all need to be proud of, a place where anything is possible in the development of the port. RIP, Steve. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis 17 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne A little while ago, I met Krista Callinan, a constituent of Melbourne who came to one of my events. She told me that she had myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, and that she's one of millions suffering from this disease. She opened my eyes to it. According to the global campaign Millions Missing, the effects of ME are devastating enough to leave 25 per cent of sufferers housebound or bedbound and an estimated 75 per cent unable to work. ME affects millions around the world, yet it remains largely invisible. In Australia, it's estimated that around 200,000 people have ME, but we don't even know to the nearest 100,000 how many people have got it, which shames us. But we do know that 75 per cent of them are women, and we do know that, over the last 16 years, ME has received an average of 53c per patient of funding a year. There are no government programs supporting ME awareness in Australia, there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments and, sadly, there is no cure. There's not even a nationally agreed set of diagnostic criteria in Australia, so many patients face a challenge just being diagnosed. And, when they are diagnosed, many of them are advised to seek counselling or physical therapy. Imagine if we told someone who had cancer just to go and see a counsellor or to exercise a bit more. That is what is happening to these people. I was pleased to attend a forum last month run by the support and advocacy group Emerge. They launched Unrest, a film documenting Jennifer Brea's struggle with ME. I want to congratulate them and their co-hosts on the event and their ongoing advocacy. It's critically important. It's time to take this seriously and increase funding and research for this disease for the hundreds of thousands here and the missing millions around the world. Trade Unions 17 13:43 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, recently called on trade unions to mobilise like never before against our Liberal-National government. This has precious little to do with the rights of workers and everything to do with frustrating the efforts of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. Big unions have turned workplace relations into big business. With surging profits that defy a collapsing membership, the financial interests of big unions often directly compromise the interests of the very workers they purport to represent. They control vast investment portfolios, some larger than blue-chip companies, yet, perversely, they pay no tax. Most unions operate in a market that is free of credible competition, and, as absolute power corrupts absolutely, a litany of offences, often criminal, are the result. These unions are closed shops where workers seeking advocacy are denied a fair choice. When will the Labor Party finally stand up for hardworking Australians and say no to big unions and yes to protecting everyday Australians? Australian Bushfires, Climate Change 17 13:45 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I know all members will join me in expressing concern about the coming bushfire season. Recent months, predicted temperatures and the big dry suggest that we are in for a shocker. We ask people to give early thought to preparation, including simple things like cleaning house gutter systems and removing any unnecessary fuel sources in and around their properties. I thank in advance our firefighters and other emergency services personnel, who will undoubtedly give their time and risk their lives no matter when the emergency occurs, typically including Christmas Day. Let's do all we can to lighten their considerable load and to express our appreciation. Finally, let's end the arguments about climate change. It's a fact that the climate is changing. It's changing in challenging ways, and we should be doing all we can both to mitigate the causes and to adapt to harsher conditions. Let's think about our children and our grandchildren, and let's remember: the best thing we can do for our farmers facing challenging drought conditions is to mitigate and adapt and to help them build resilience. Aged Care 17 13:46 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I welcome the government's announcement to establish a royal commission into aged care. As parliamentarians, we do have a responsibility to resource the aged-care sector. As I said in my maiden speech, we will be judged by the quality of the care that we fund. We need to ensure that appropriate resources, policies and regulations are in place to ensure the proper care of the people who nursed us, taught us and built the country that we have today, which is the lucky country. I've met with many aged-care service providers and workers from Wide Bay and have been impressed by their professionalism and dedication and their commitment to the people who they care for and are responsible for. They deliver care that is world class, and I thank them for their efforts. While there have been some very alarming and very distressing reports of abuse, which we all find absolutely abhorrent, it's important that we don't let these isolated cases affect our respect and regard for people employed in the aged-care sector. The royal commission will expose those who have done the wrong thing. It will help the sector and give everyone the confidence that the most vulnerable people in our community are receiving the care that they need and the care that they deserve. Payday Loans 18 13:47 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Last Friday, I attended a payday lending community round table in Ringwood, Victoria. I was very pleased to join Shireen Morris, the Labor candidate for Deakin, and my colleagues the members for Lalor and Oxley. Whilst I was pleased to be there, I was horrified to hear the case studies from financial counsellors who deal with the terrible outcomes of payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes every day. The Australian people need to know what the government has done on this. There has been a little bit done but not nearly enough. In August 2015, the then Assistant Treasurer, the member for Kooyong, now the Treasurer, commissioned a review. In 2016, we got some recommendations. It has been over 658 days since this report was given to the parliament. The member for Higgins, another Assistant Treasurer, said the government would support the recommendations in this great review. Draft legislation was released by the member for Riverina, who said they would introduce that in early 2017. The government missed its own deadline. Labor, in 2018, had to introduce the government's own legislation as a private member's bill. The bill was brought forward for debate and not one government speaker turned up to speak on getting rid of the payday lending loan sharks. The current member for Deakin, Michael Sukkar, then the third Assistant Treasurer, promised to bring in the legislation again. But have we seen it? No, we have not. Now, as of 3 September, we have the fifth Assistant Treasurer, Stuart Robert, doing nothing to stop payday lending sharks in this country. (Time expired) Kalangadoo Netball Club 18 13:49 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker In communities across the country it's local winter sporting finals time. For many regional communities, local sporting grounds—in particular, footy ovals—are the place to be on Saturday. Finals in particular bring communities together to celebrate or commiserate. Either way, local sport and the passion that comes with it are part of the glue that helps hold our regional communities together. A great club that a community's collectively proud of makes this bond even stronger. Today I want to talk about a great sporting team in Barker that doesn't quite get as much public glory or indeed attention as traditionally seen on the footy field, but they certainly deserve it. I want to pay tribute to the Kalangadoo Netball Club as they celebrate yet another grand final win. The 2018 A-grade premiers in the Mid South East competition, the Magpies have a spectacular history of success. Since 1994, the Magpies have lost only three premierships. The club has competed in the grand final for the last 25 years consecutively, and this year's premiership marks their seventh in a row. Congratulations to the Kalangadoo Magpies on their remarkable record. The whole community is proud of you. They are, quite frankly, the most successful sporting team in Barker over the last quarter of a century. Payday Loans 18 13:51 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor On Friday, this girl from the west travelled over to Ringwood East with the member for Oxley and with the shadow minister, the member for Brand, to attend a roundtable about payday lending and the impacts that loan sharks are having on community members in the east of Melbourne, getting caught up in a debt spiral. We've heard from the member for Brand today about how appalling this government's track record is in this space. They started well. They started well in government; they were going to take action. But, no, they haven't taken any action. We ventured to the current member for Deakin's seat to talk to his local people and hear from the financial counsellors over on that side of town about the dreadful impacts it's having in his community as well as ours. The current member for Deakin failed to act to protect vulnerable citizens across Australia. The member for Fadden now has the portfolio, and I call on him to take action, bring the legislation into this parliament and let us deal with these sharks here and now. I want to give a shout-out to the Labor candidate, Shireen Morris, who joined us on Friday and who's featured today in TheSydney Morning Herald and The Age with an op-ed on exactly this issue. There's someone out in Deakin who cares about the vulnerable people in that community. Her name's Shireen Morris. Remember it. I think you'll hear a bit from her. (Time expired) Bundaberg Brewed Drinks: 50th Anniversary 18 13:52 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler This week it is all about anniversaries, and I'll indulge and give a shout-out to my wife, who's put up with me for 19 years today, who's at work. But it's not the only anniversary. This week it is also the anniversary of an icon in my electorate, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks, and it is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Having commenced in 1968 with Neville and Gladys Fleming, it is a family owned and family run company. They purchased Electra Breweries in Bundaberg in 1968, a bottling and fermenting business. The production of ginger beer expanded in the eighties, when the company secured distribution into New Zealand and further distribution into the Australian market. In 1985 they began exporting around the rest of the globe. That has grown to over 44 countries, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore and beyond. In fact, I've seen many of their products on my travels all over the world. They needed a constant supply of ginger, and in 2004 started their own crop in Bundaberg for that supply. They built the Bundaberg Barrel in 2005, a fantastic tourist facility, which attracts more visitors to our regions and drives our local economy. Congratulations to John, Cliff and all of the family members and their over 200 staff employed in regional areas, building our local economy, delivering local jobs and a wonderful product—Bundaberg ginger beer—right around the world. I highly recommend it. Payday Loans 19 13:54 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Another week rolls on with this government sitting by and doing nothing while 650,000 Australian families are ripped off by payday lenders. This is in stark contrast to my colleagues on this side of the House, who are determined to see the loan sharks reined in with sensible legislation which, I might add, this government has endorsed but has since crab-walked away from. It was a pleasure to join the member for Brand, the member for Lalor and Labor's candidate for Deakin, Shireen Morris, last week at a payday lending community roundtable at EACH in Ringwood, where we heard firsthand the damage being inflicted by the loan sharks on unsuspecting families. But this is not new information. Those opposite know full well the exploitation and rip-offs that are occurring every day by the loan sharks, yet they refuse to do anything about it. I note the member for Fadden is now the fourth minister responsible for this important issue, and I can't say that I'm expecting anything positive from someone who has argued for a tax break on luxury yachts over acting in the best interests of everyday Australians. As Labor's candidate for Deakin, Shireen Morris, says in today's Agenewspaper: There has been a revolving door of assistant ministers in charge of the work. None has acted. Sadly, this includes the member for Deakin … who was assistant minister to the treasurer before he resigned to the backbench after backing Peter Dutton in the leadership spill. Plenty of plotting, zero action to protect ordinary Australians. It's time the government stopped focusing on themselves and started focusing on Australians. Sport 19 13:55 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan As ambassador for Tennis Queensland—indeed, the only ambassador who hasn't won a grand slam, yet—I rise to congratulate two Queensland tennis superstars, Ash Barty and John Millman, on their respective successes at the recent US Open. Most people know me to be a tennis tragic, and I am even prouder of success when it is homegrown. At 29 years of age, John Millman produced one of the greatest US Open upsets in history by beating Roger Federer in four sets. John Millman, a genuinely all-round nice guy as described by his fans, credits much of his success and achievement to his family, including his mum and dad, Shona and Ron, and his sister, all back home in Queensland. I was honoured to meet them earlier this year. Unfortunately, John's progression was short lived, going down to the eventual grand slam winner, Novak Djokovic. I'd also like to again congratulate another great Queensland tennis star, Ash Barty. Ash landed her maiden grand slam title in the US Open women's doubles final, with Ash and CoCo saving three match points to edge out the second seeded Australian Open champions in the first ever women's doubles grand slam final decided in a third-set tie break. Congratulations to them both and, of course, congratulations to Dylan Alcott, who won yet another title and added another trophy to his already overflowing cabinet. McEwen Electorate: Infrastructure 19 13:57 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Recently I was joined by the shadow minister for sport, Senator Don Farrell, and Mary-Anne Thomas, the member for Macedon, out in Gisborne to hear from the hardworking committee of Macedon Ranges Regional Sports Precinct. They're proposing an indoor sports venue as well as vastly improved outdoor facilities in the Macedon Ranges to address the growing need with the unprecedented growth not only in Gisborne but across the Macedon Ranges. We know that access to venues allows our kids to lead active lives and participate in sports. It brings families across McEwen together. But, in a style that's all too typical of this government, McEwen has once again missed out on funding. The government rejected Macedon Ranges Shire Council's application for funding under the federal Building Better Regions Fund, despite giving false hope to this community that it would happen. Since the Liberal-National government came to power, they've had four different ministers for infrastructure and transport. They have no commitment to consistency in funding in Infrastructure Australia, as has become crystal clear with all these reshuffles. The current Minister for Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Development, the Deputy Prime Minister himself, said the sports hub stacks up but he won't fund it. Mind you, this is the same minister who, when asked about what road projects in McEwen had been funded under this government, said 'the East West Link'. You and I both know that's a long way away from McEwen. What we've seen is that this government is just in total chaos and madness itself. A fair share for Victoria is not a remarkable ask. Welfare Reform 20 13:58 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Last week I was mightily relieved and very pleased that the Senate passed the legislation taking the cashless debit card trial to Bundaberg. Of course, the first community in Australia to embark down this path was Ceduna in my electorate, latterly joined by the East Kimberley and then the Goldfields around Kalgoorlie. It is very important. A pilot cannot continue forever, and Ceduna should not be hung out there on some endless experiment. So to bring this into a larger mainstream community now is very important as we accumulate the details and information we need with the view of rolling it out at other communities around Australia. I would particularly like to thank the retiring mayor of Ceduna, Alan Suter. Alan has been the mayor for about 11 years and has been resolute. Since the 2011 report of the South Australian coroner, which went into the deaths of six individuals in the Ceduna area caused by sleeping rough or sleeping on the road in the middle of transport corridors, he has worked tirelessly to bring about change in the community. In an earlier time, he actually brought the Far West Football League back into existence after it had fallen into suspension over violence-on-field issues. He has been an exemplary member of his community and a great mayor. I wish him all the best in retirement. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statement has concluded. CONDOLENCES 20 CONDOLENCES McKiernan, Mr James Philip 'Jim' 20 14:00 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death on Friday, 10 August 2018 of James Philip McKiernan, a former senator. Jim McKiernan represented the state of Western Australia from 1985 until 2002. As a mark of respect to the memory of Jim McKiernan, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 20 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Special Minister of State will be absent from question time this week as he is on paternity leave. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 20 14:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a leaked email from the Treasurer's office which contains, and I quote, 'Further questions from the Treasurer'? It goes on to ask whether it's correct that the now Prime Minister cut billions from aged care. Therefore, has the Prime Minister briefed the Treasurer on his 2016 budget, which confirms that the now Prime Minister cut $1.2 billion from aged care? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Once again, the reason that I am seeking to establish, and will be establishing, a royal commission into the aged-care sector is so that we can have a serious discussion about what is needed in the aged-care sector based on facts. Based on actual facts, not based on the lies of the Labor Party and not based on the agendas of others. All of these things can be put aside and we can focus on the needs of senior Australians in their most urgent time of vulnerability and need. Once again, the Labor Party has raised the issue of decisions taken in the 2016 budget. In the 2012 budget, exactly the same decision was taken by the Labor Party in relation to the Aged Care Funding Instrument to ensure that the proper assessments were being made and that overestimations of demand were not being built into future budgets. There was a variation of $1.6 billion by the Labor Party in the 2012 budget. Mr Speaker, I am not making any claims about that. I understand how the ACFI model works. I've put budgets together—three very good budgets, in fact, which are reducing the deficit, bringing the budget back into balance and funding essential services, particularly for aged care, which is increasing by a billion dollars and more every single year under our government. Now, the Labor Party might want to engage in these tactics here in this chamber, but all they are telling senior Australians is that they are more interested in politics than in looking after aged care. Aged Care 21 14:04 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is responsibly planning to ensure we can meet the needs of our senior Australians now and into the future? 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Dunkley for his question, and I thank him for his passionate advocacy for senior Australians in his electorate of Dunkley. Australians are living longer; this is good news. Australians are living longer now by about 10 years. Our population is ageing, albeit not as quickly as some European countries and some North Asian countries. Our population ageing is a material fact that the government has been preparing for and has been preparing for throughout our time in office. The 85-plus age group will be the fastest growing part of our population over the next 40 years. In 1975, there were 125 centenarians. Today, at the most recent census, there were 3,569. By 2055 there will be 40,000 centenarians in Australia. Our government is acting to prepare our country to ensure that we can meet the needs of senior Australians. We understand, in our government, that aspiration has no age limit. It doesn't matter what age you are: as an Australian, you will always have your aspirations that are supported by our government. To be financially secure, to be independent, to be safe, to be healthy, to be active, to be respected, to have new opportunities and to seek out new experiences, that is what our policies are designed to do for senior Australians and that's what we are funding them to be achieving. One of the ways you are able to deliver $19.7 billion in this financial year for aged care services is if you have a strong economy and if you have an economy where there are Australians of working age in work. Under our government, we have seen, over the last five years, the welfare dependency of working-age Australians fall to the lowest level in 25 years. When you have Australians of working age getting off welfare and getting into work that means you can pay for the services that older Australians and senior Australians rely on. Our workforce participation has increased over the term of our government and that includes 640,000 more women in the workforce from when we first came into government. The gender pay gap has fallen from 17.2 per cent to 14.5 per cent under the policies of our government. Australians are working longer. Indeed, there are half a million Australians over the age of 65 who are out there working and paying taxes. With the record jobs growth—the strongest jobs growth in our nation's history on recorded economic facts—one-third of those jobs went to Australians aged over 55. We know how to run a strong economy and that's why senior Australians can count on the promises we make and the actions we are taking to ensure their aspirations are realised. (Time expired) Aged Care 21 14:07 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the previous answer and to the media report that states that the Treasurer: … was not across the detail of that policy … Has the Prime Minister asked his department to arrange a briefing so that the Treasurer can fully understand the extent of the government's cuts to aged care? When even the Treasurer admits that he is not across the detail of the policy, is this why the Prime Minister describes his own government as a muppet show? 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook That's a bit rich from a shadow Treasurer who doesn't even know what the tax-free threshold is. It's bit a rich when he doesn't know the difference between the yuan and the yen. Opposition members interjecting— Ms Rowland interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Greenway is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L It's a bit rich from a shadow Treasurer who once proclaimed—about the budget surpluses that had been delivered by the previous Labor government, as he went out to his entire electorate—about the great fiscal responsibility of the previous government that left Australia's fiscal situation in a greatly parlous state. We're not going to take lectures from a failed shadow Treasurer. We are not going to take lectures from a failed immigration minister, who allowed 25,000 people to turn up illegally in this country on his watch. The shadow Treasurer was one of the greatest ministerial failures of the previous government. I cannot tell you one member of that frontbench who actually did a good job in the last government, and that's a pretty good reason why they shouldn't be returned to government. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the member for Boothby, the Treasurer will cease interjecting. I will just remind member who are interjecting that they will be ejected from the chamber if they continue, particularly the member for Lalor, who has been interjecting since we began question time. Economy 22 14:09 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is laying the foundations for a strong economy and planning for an ageing population, including in my electorate of Boothby? Is the Treasurer aware of any other approaches? 14:10 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Boothby for her question, because she deeply cares about the 27,000 seniors across her electorate and the nearly four million seniors across our country. She also knows that our government is preparing for an ageing population. According to the last Intergenerational report, the numbers of Australians who are over the age of 85 will increase fourfold between now and 2055 and the number of Australians who are over the age of 100 will increase ninefold between now and 2055. This affects the way we plan for our education, for our employment, for our health services and for our aged-care policy. That is why we are increasing the funding for aged care by $1 billion a year. That is why in this year's budget we announced new initiatives to help seniors if they choose to stay in the workforce longer, with the pension work bonus. That is why we announced in this year's budget a $17 million skills checkpoint plan in order to help older Australians get the training and the skills that they need. These plans of our government are working. Since the coalition came to government five years ago, over 400,000 older Australians have got a job as a result of our policies. Now, I'm asked about the other side—the alternatives that are being proposed by those opposite. We know that they will send the energy bills of older Australians up. We know that they'll send the debt of the country up. We know that they'll put up taxes. And one of the most punishing taxes of all is the retirees tax, which will affect 900,000 Australians; 84 per cent of those Australians affected have a taxable income of under $37,000, and 96 per cent of those older Australians affected have a taxable income of under $80,000. So, only our government— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL and the coalition can be trusted to create a stronger economy. Only our government and the coalition can be trusted to plan for our future, and only our government and the coalition will support senior Australians and the choices that they make. Aged Care 22 14:13 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. In his first budget as Treasurer, the now Prime Minister cut $1.2 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument, which determines the level of funding paid to aged-care providers. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Franklin will begin her question again. Ms COLLINS HWM My question's to the Prime Minister. In his first budget as Treasurer, the now Prime Minister cut $1.2 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument, which determines the level of funding paid to aged-care providers. The latest leak reported in today's media reveals that the government is considering further cuts to the Aged Care Funding Instrument of up to $5.4 billion. Can the Prime Minister rule out having had any discussions or received any documentation canvassing further changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook They can say these things as often as they want, but they still remain untrue. The Australian people are very used to Labor telling untruths about government policy. They've swindled them before, and they are seeking to swindle them again. The changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument were actually measures that were supported by the opposition. They were passed through the parliament, and, when in the Senate, the Greens actually sought to change them, they voted with the government to support them. And the reason they did that, as the member for Lilley will remember, is that in their own budget in 2012-13, in Budget Paper No. 2—that was the surplus as announced in that budget—page 184 makes it very clear that the Labor Party engaged in making changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument, to the tune of about $1.6 billion. I'll tell you what this government is doing. This government is investing a billion dollars extra every year in aged care in this country. This government has added an additional 20,000 places in the last 12 month alone for in-home care, which means that older Australians can exercise their choice to remain in their home for longer. I met two of those Australians this morning in Canberra. What they had to tell me was that this was a game changer for them to be able to stay in their own home. In high-level care packages, we are taking level 3 and 4 packages from just under 40,000 or thereabouts to around 74,000 over the next four years. That is an 86 per cent increase or thereabouts in the level of in-home care places that are being provided by this government. The Labor Party can lie all they like about these things, but we won't cop their lies; we won't cop their untruths. We will tell the truth about what is needed in aged-care funding. We will tell the truth about what is needed with a royal commission into aged care. We are establishing that royal commission to ensure that we can get to the facts. We're not afraid of the facts. We're not afraid to confront those facts and deal with them when they come back, and we will continue to act on the urgent needs of senior Australians each and every day. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Renewable Energy 23 14:17 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for Energy. Investment in renewables in 2018 and 2019 is at record highs, and even the Reserve Bank has said this investment pipeline will bring down prices. As the PM has acknowledged, it's the Renewable Energy Target driving this investment in new generation, while also cutting pollution. But the RET runs out in 2020 and there's currently no policy to take its place, which threatens investment decisions being made right now. To stop renewables falling into a valley of death while parliament works out a new energy policy, will you agree to the Greens proposal of a stopgap extension of the RET out to 2022, or is your goal to be the grim reaper for renewable energy by letting renewables fall into the valley of death? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:18 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for his question. The truth of the matter is that the Renewable Energy Target is going to wind down from 2020. The target reaches a peak in 2020, and we will not be replacing that with anything. We know that we will reach the 26 per cent emissions reduction target without additional intervention. We are very confident. There is no need to have subsidies in place, because we are going to reach the 26 per cent emissions reduction target without further intervention. Let me tell you this: we have seen the experiment of 50 per cent renewable energy targets in this country in South Australia. We saw it there, and the results were shocking. Ms Keay interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. I've cautioned the member for Braddon numerous times. She will leave under 94(a). The member for Braddon then left the chamber . Mr TAYLOR 231027 We have seen the results, where in South Australia we now have prices at around 50c per kilowatt hour. They are amongst the highest in the country. We have also seen that, despite the fact that with 50c a kilowatt hour, you would expect to have high service levels and reliability, you are not getting that. South Australia is a great state, but it is held back by one key factor, which is the high prices of energy, which is driven by an absolutely unacceptable target. Those opposite want to have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target and a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target. They want to take Jay Weatherill's experiment and take it national. The result will be that we will all pay more for our electricity. We are absolutely confident that in the absence of those subsidies we will get the investment we need in the network, and we're doing that through our plan, which has three parts. The first of those parts is that we're going to back investment in new generation. We're going to back investment in fair dinkum, reliable generation, because that's what this country needs. It doesn't need to be stuck with intermittent generation that drives up prices and drives down reliability. On top of that, we will be setting a retail price safety net for all customers—it is those most in need who need this most, the sort of people who you would typically care for but you don't care for anymore. We are stopping the rip-offs from the big energy companies. We will drive prices down. That is our policy. Those opposite will drive them up. Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland is warned. Economy 24 14:20 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how good economic management allows the government to look after older Australians in rural and regional Australia, including in the electorate of Calare? What are the risks to older Australians retiring with confidence in regional areas? 14:21 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Calare for his question. Regional Australia is ageing faster than the capital cities, according to the Regional Australia Institute. That is the truth. Getting the books in better shape means that we can, as the government, share the benefits in regional Australia and build the future our regions want, expect and, most of all, deserve. That's what we want to do for the 8.8 million Australians who live in regional Australia, who make their homes there and who want to retire there. We want to build a better future for them. It means that we can invest in making country communities more liveable, such as in the electorate of Calare. It includes the $1.9 billion investment in the Blayney CentrePoint Sport & Leisure Centre upgrade through the Building Better Regions Fund. I've seen that particular facility. I know it needs upgrading. I visited it with the member for Calare in April. I saw firsthand what an asset an upgraded facility would be for the local community, particularly for seniors and particularly for people with a disability. A strong economy means that we can invest in aged-care beds in the regions, including the 73 beds in Lithgow and in Calare that we as Liberals and Nationals have delivered. That's what we've done; we've delivered it. It means fewer people in Lithgow will have to travel away from home; they can get the care they deserve locally. The member for Calare knows that. It's not just the here and now; it's for future generations. The member for Calare had a lot to do with the Murray-Darling rural medical schools network, and what a good initiative it is. Dr David Bell is an orthopaedic and spinal surgeon from the central west of New South Wales. He has practices in Orange, Bathurst, Parkes and Forbes. He said—the member for Hunter, you should listen to this—'We need more people who not only want to train in the country but want to return to the country to live and practice. The Murray-Darling rural medical school network will help change the perception that you have to train in the big hospitals in the city to be a good doctor. I would hope that by educating and training more medical students out in the country where they can work with their peers and form friendship networks they will want to settle and practice in the country once they've completed their training.' You might knock Dr David Bell, but he's telling the truth. It is a shame that a few more of you didn't listen to the likes of Dr David Bell. It is all about making choices to protect those senior Australians who built the country and not raid their savings, because that's what that lot opposite want to do if ever they get into government. They want to bring a wrecking ball into the savings of those people who've worked hard, who've helped build our country and who've help protect our country in its darkest time of need. That's what those opposite want to do. They want to whack retirees. They want to whack veterans' savings. That's all they stand for. I don't know why you don't get on board with the likes of Dr David Bell. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 24 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:24 The SPEAKER 00APG It has been drawn to my attention we have present in the southern gallery this afternoon the former Premier of New South Wales Mr Mike Baird. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 24 14:24 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. In the last two financial years the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency reported a near tripling of concerns that accreditation standards for aged-care facilities were not being met. Given the minister is responsible for overseeing the agency, and has been the minister responsible for over 30 months, what warnings did he receive about the type of poor care and treatment that was revealed on Four Corners and when did he receive them? 14:25 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Franklin for her question. Since becoming involved in the portfolio I have frequently been in and out of aged-care facilities right across this nation, so I've become aware of incidents as they occur. When you talk to people locally and meet with families who have been affected, as I have done—I've met with Noleen Hausler, for example; I listened to the issues that she raised with me.I meet regularly with the quality agency and, in meeting with the quality agency, we talk about the reports that are absolutely critical for those matters that I have referred to the quality agency. In that time within the portfolio and particularly following Oakden, what I did is I set about ensuring that we would make changes to the commission, that we would bring together the aged-care and quality components under one commission that would seek to be more expedient and efficient in dealing with critical issues. I have kept myself across the issues. In South Australia the member for Hindmarsh, who has worked very closely with his community, has raised issues with me. Leon Byner has interviewed me, and each time that matters have been raised I've given a commitment that our government will address them and will follow through and make sure that people are taken care of in times of crisis. I met with the families from Oakden. Senator Xenophon brought them to Parliament House. I met with them. I listened to their issues, and what I was very keen to do was to make sure that our government would focus on ensuring quality was in place for all Australians, hence the legislation that has passed through this chamber, both— Ms Collins interjecting— Mr WYATT M3A It doesn't matter. Each time, Member for Franklin, when issues have been raised with me, we have acted on them. Let me say that, when we had the Carnell-Paterson review, the review was announced on 1 May 2017, and the report came to me on 2 October 2017. The report was released on 25 October. I immediately announced that unannounced reaccreditation audits would apply to every aged-care facility so that none of them would prepare in advance. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is being established. Improving regulation of aged-care quality, strengthening aged-care compliance, a single quality framework, the Tune legislated review—we're acting on them. All of them are focusing on better care and better opportunities for Australians. Let me say that we will continue to tackle those issues and incidents as they arise. Oakden was the most significant one because it was the most public in the reporting in two reports, one undertaken by the Chief Psychiatrist, the other undertaken by a barrister from ICAC. We have continued to make sure that the reforms that we are putting in place continue to have the level of impact that is needed. (Time expired) Aged Care 25 14:28 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is also to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on measures the government is taking to support older Australians to live at home longer by providing the crucial access to in-home services on which many older Australians rely? 14:29 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Wide Bay for his ongoing interest in this issue. I've enjoyed visiting your seat and talking to people who receive home care packages. What has been great is today the Prime Minister and I had the pleasure of meeting with Ray and Wendy White and with Louise in her home in Canberra, and what both of them talked about was the importance of choice in having access to home-care packages. Ray talked about the level of services he receives that allows him to stay home with his wife, otherwise he would be in aged care and they would be separated. We want to keep couples together and this enables that. Louise talked about her husband, who experienced cancer for seven years. She talked about the fact that she was his carer because the home care package enabled that. The grandchildren would come over through the back fence, sit on the bed with Poppy and talk to him about his history and his stories and they would share quality time. We are committed to making sure Australians have choices around their pathways. Home care packages are now seeing more and more Australians make the decision to stay at home longer. Carers are being supported as well. Our latest data reveals that 77,918 older Australians were supported by home care packages as at 31 December 2017, a 12-month increase of 9,261, or 13.5 per cent. Under our government, funding for aged care is up, home care package funding is up and residential places are up. It is important that we provide a range of opportunities to allow families to remain and enjoy the company of their community. Both Ray and Louise this morning made the comment, along with Wendy, that what they love about home care packages is that they are living near their friends, they are part of a neighbourhood and they are part of their community. We will continue to provide the level of service that gives them dignity within their community and the level of support that enables them to live their life fully. Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr WYATT M3A Those who choose the residential aged care pathway, Member for Sydney, will have that option, so we are giving people options on both sides. We have been examining the waiting lists and what we found on that, as I indicated in this chamber before, is that most people—up to 71 per cent—are in receipt of packages. A number who are on that list have not made a decision about what package they want to have—84 days—so there is choice even in that. Some have refused the level that they have been provided, because they intend to focus on wanting the high-level package before they receive the lesser. (Time expired) Aged Care 26 14:32 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is again to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. When did the minister first become aware of the abuses which were screened on Four Corners last night? 14:32 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck On the Four Corners program, let me say I was aware that the ABC, following Oakden South Australia, had started to interview and speak to senior Australians who had raised issues with them about the quality of care in aged-care facilities. In fact, if I remember and recall back to Oakden, 7.30 did a series of stories out of the Northern Territory initially, then out of a couple of other locations, around the quality of care that was not being provided to senior Australians. I was not aware of the specific stories on Four Corners last night. I did not have the specificity of detail on that. I was interviewed by Four Corners. They asked me a range of questions to do with the way in which aged care is provided to senior Australians, they talked about a range of issues to do with quality of food, they asked about incidents, they asked about the quality agency and they explored numerous other matters with me. They also mentioned that they had received 4,000 responses from Australians across the nation. I noticed last night that Four Corners started by acknowledging that the Prime Minister had called for a royal commission, which they welcomed. That was important because they recognised, equally from their stories and from the information they had, that there is something wrong in the system. When I looked at those incidents last night and all three families, I saw things that would not have been picked up by the quality agency, had they gone in there. There are elements around that. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr WYATT M3A Leader of the Opposition, I'm not fearmongering, nor are we trying to do the royal commission to fearmonger. I think the bipartisan approach is absolutely critical in what we do, Leader of the Opposition. I did make comments at the time, and I acknowledged yesterday that I did make comments, but they were based on a point in time and a set of circumstances to which I responded. But, on this, it is absolutely important that we continue to focus on the safety and quality of life of Australians within aged care. I was quite disturbed by those stories last night, because I did not expect to see Australians in aged care, who'd been entrusted into the care of providers, to be given the experiences that we saw. Let me say that all of us have to think about making sure— Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Five years in government! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned. Mr WYATT M3A Five years is not the issue, member for McEwen; the issue is to do with all of us making sure that the quality of care to anybody in a facility in this nation, including home care, is provided at the highest level. Where we know there are incidents— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:35 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd like to inform the House that we have joining us on the floor of the chamber this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Malaysia led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, His Excellency Dato' Ariff, and accompanied by the Deputy Speaker the Hon. Dato' Rashid. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you and your delegation. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mature Age Workers 26 14:36 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan for a stronger economy is helping older Australians who want to remain part of the workforce? Is the minister aware of any threats to the livelihoods of older Australians posed by different approaches? 14:36 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is indeed in this place a very powerful advocate for older Australians. She, like the government, recognises the great skills and experiences that mature-age workers bring to the workforce. She knows that their skills and experiences are refined over a period of time over a long career and, of course, are ready to be harnessed by employers who want people with those skills and experiences. The government also understands that, quite aside from the obvious financial benefits that go with getting a job, continuing to have mature-age workers in the workforce getting a job can improve health outcomes, contribute to self-esteem and have social and emotional benefits for those workers. It is for this reason that the government has invested in a range of programs that help older Australians who want to find a job or who want to upskill. The government is working with industry via a collaborative partnership on mature-age employment to promote the benefits of recruiting and retaining older Australians and to help employers have a more age-diverse workforce. We're also investing $17.7 million to encourage entrepreneurship and self-employment amongst mature-age Australians by expanding entrepreneurship facilitators in a program that extends them out to more than 20 different locations across the country. We are rolling out the Career Transition Assistance program a year earlier so that mature-age workers can seek the benefits sooner from guidance and training so that they can be competitive in their local job market. More than 360,000 jobs have been created for mature-age workers since this government came to office. Of course, we have a very proud record when it comes to jobs. We have created more than 1.1 million jobs since we came to government. We are actively out there working to make sure that older Australians who want a job have the opportunity to get a job so that they can have money in their pockets, and we're delivering those results. But what about those opposite? They are actively looking to take money out of the pockets of older Australians; not helping them to get into a job to put money into their pockets. The way that they are doing this is through their mega retiree tax, which will hit around 900,000 Australians, picking the pockets and the handbags of grandmothers and grandfathers right across our nation. It is not something that is right, and it is certainly not something on this side of the chamber that we would stand for. Aged Care 27 14:39 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Does the minister accept that the sorts of abuses that were screened last night on Four Corners were occurring when he was rejecting the calls for a royal commission? Minister, what has changed? 14:40 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Franklin for her question. When I was interviewed on Four Corners, I did indicate that I had not supported a royal commission at that point. I also indicated that we were undertaking significant reforms with the legislation we were passing through the chamber in respect to the quality commission. I also then received information from my own agency. The information from the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency provided detail on the number of complaints, which has risen significantly, but they also raised an issue that was absolutely important. That issue was the serious risks found. In the first year, there were only two. In the second year, there were 22. In the third year, there were 61. When you get information like that, you drill down on and you seek the information on what those important matters are. In looking at that, I then spoke with the Prime Minister. On that basis, as we all do when we have the right evidence and the right information, we have an obligation to change our mind. I changed my mind on the basis that I care about senior Australians and I want them cared for in aged care. Whilst we can politic, the bottom line is senior Australians. If they are at risk and if they are in crisis because they're not being cared for, then we have a problem. I'm talking about individuals. The other point that I want to make very clear is that up to 40 per cent of senior Australians in aged care do not have a single visitor 365 days of the year. Who looks after them? What I want is to make sure that with our government we get to the bottom of the issues that are not right. This royal commission will do that, so we should not pre-empt the work of the royal commission. We will continue to make the reforms that we are working on closely with the sector. We are working closely in co-designing and developing the responses. We're bringing the sector with us. Yesterday, I engaged with the Aged Care Sector Committee for some period of time to talk to them about the raft of issues. This morning, the Prime Minister and I met with the Aged Care Sector Committee and David Tune. We sought from them their views and advice on a range of issues. They have acknowledged and welcomed the royal commission. I will continue to consult, along with Minister Hunt, with key providers whose advice we will seek, because we intend to make sure that the quality and safety of senior Australians is cared for. Ms Collins HWM Could the minister would table the document that he referred to from the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, please? The SPEAKER 00APG Was the minister quoting from a confidential document? Mr Wyatt M3A It's confidential. Aged Care, Infrastructure 28 14:43 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population. Will the minister update the House— Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for La Trobe will pause for a second. The Leader of the House is continually interjecting, and he's sitting between me and the member for La Trobe. It makes it very difficult to hear the question. I'm presuming he wants it asked. The member for La Trobe will begin his question again. Mr WOOD E0F My question is again to the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population. Will the minister update the House on how the government is planning for population growth and supporting older Australians now and into the future? Is the minister aware of any alternative views? 14:44 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. As the member for La Trobe knows, Australia has been one of the fastest-growing countries amongst the OECD, growing on average by 1.7 per cent per annum over the past decade. One of the challenges of our population growth is that it has not been evenly distributed across the country. We've got big urban areas, such as Melbourne, Sydney and South-East Queensland, which have been growing very fast, and meanwhile we've got other, smaller cities and regional areas that would like to grow faster than they are presently. To give an example of this, Adelaide last year grew by 10,000 people; Melbourne grew by 10,000 people every 25 days. That puts a lot of pressure on those big centres like Melbourne, and the member for La Trobe understands this deeply, being in one of the fastest-growing areas of Melbourne. But it also means that we've got cities such as Adelaide and some regional areas that would actually like to grow faster. A further challenge is that we've got different growth rates amongst different age cohorts. One of the fastest growth rates is amongst seniors. Indeed, over the next 40 years the cohort of seniors above the age of 65 will grow from 15 per cent of the population to 22 per cent of the population. And, as the Prime Minister indicated earlier today, the 85-plus segment will see a fourfold increase in numbers over the next four decades. That is great news, because people are living longer, as the Prime Minister said. But it also means that we need to be planning accordingly, in order to give those seniors the quality of life that they need and deserve, given their role in building Australia over the past few decades. How are we addressing some of these population challenges? First of all, we are investing in congestion-busting infrastructure right across the country—$75 billion worth. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. Mr TUDGE M2Y Second, we're supporting stronger growth in Adelaide and some of those smaller cities and regional areas and taking the pressure off those big capital cities. Third, we've got stronger population planning, taking into account the geographical shift in population as well as some of these demographic factors that I've been referring to, to ensure that we've got the right services in place, not just for seniors but for all Australians. We have got the plans and the policies in place to cater for those population changes, to deal with seniors going forward. And I can assure you—and when I'm asked about the alternatives—what is not in our plans for seniors going forward is a retiree tax. What is not in our plans for seniors going forward is increasing electricity prices. And what is not in our plans are policies that will wreck the economy— (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Conduct 28 14:47 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answers about bullying in his government. The Minister for Women has said that government members were subject to threats, intimidation and bullying. More than a quarter of Liberal women MPs and senators agree. Today the Prime Minister said he was 100 per cent confident that bullying is not an issue in his government. Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer? Is he telling the Minister for Women and the members for Chisholm, Gilmore and Curtin and others that the bullying just didn't happen? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As I remarked earlier today, when I have engaged with the members of my team about this issue, the issues that they have raised went to matters within the party organisation, and I have requested that the party organisation put in place a process that can deal confidentially and a rigorous process to deal with complaints in the party organisation. Within the federal parliamentary party, the way welfare issues are dealt with is through the party whips. The member for Forrest has been doing the job for 11 years, and she does an outstanding job, with her other whips, in caring for the welfare of the Liberal members of this House. That is exactly the same process as the member for Sydney has acknowledged occurs when it comes to the Labor Party in this place as well. It only begs the question: they're entitled to come and put these matters, of course, but they need to have a look at what's happening in their own case. The ALP candidate for Hasluck, Lauren Palmer, quit as the candidate in July of this year amid an outbreak of fresh factional warfare within the party. And despite the former ALP candidate citing health reasons for her withdrawal: One source said Ms Palmer had been "bullied" into resigning and had been treated badly by Labor figures, some of whom believed she was running a poor campaign. Another Labor source stated the candidacy was never embraced by many senior Labor figures in WA. I suspect it was the blokes, especially those within the powerful left-wing United Voice union. Then we have the case of the member for Lindsay, and I welcome her back to the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition couldn't even bring himself to acknowledge that there were issues going on with the member for Lindsay. He had the 'I know nothing' defence, while the member for Grayndler knew all about it. I'm sure the member for Watson knew all about it. The member for McMahon knew all about it. I suspect the member for Sydney knew all about it. But what was it from the Leader of the Opposition? As usual, his ears were painted on when it came to listening to the concerns of his own members and, indeed, the concerns of the Australian people. Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Brand will cease interjecting. Elder Abuse 29 14:50 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on steps the government is taking to address elder abuse and how the government is committed to protecting senior Australians? 14:50 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for Forrest for her question, knowing that she makes a great effort in her electorate to try to prevent the types of things that we're about to speak about here in this parliament. It was as part of the last budget's More Choices for a Longer Life Package that the government provided $22 million to tackle elder abuse. That is allocated towards trials of specialist elder abuse units in legal services, more support for family counselling and mediation services and a greater number of specialist staff to provide practical and professional help to older people experiencing abuse, particularly in regional areas like the one the member for Forrest represents. Why is this so important? We have all heard anecdotes around the types of abuse that occurs for elder Australians, particularly in financial settings, but the essential basis of the problem is that the number of older Australians is growing and the number of older Australians who are experiencing abuse, particularly financial abuse, is growing. In 2016, 15 per cent of the population were aged over 65 years. That was 3.7 million Australians. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that, by the middle of this century, that number will have doubled to 8.7 million people—that is, 22 per cent of Australians will be over 65. In trying to put together policy to tackle elder abuse, I've described this group, elder Australians, as our largest vulnerable minority. The $22 million that I've just spoken of builds on a $15 million package in the 2016 budget which went to looking at a national prevalence study to inform a national plan on elder abuse. Australia is one of those countries that has not got any professional data or study that tells us about the extent of the problem of elder abuse. That work has been done in the UK, Ireland and Canada. Taking some of the estimates that have arisen in studies overseas, if only five per cent of people aged over 65 experience a form of elder abuse in any given year, that would suggest that 185,000 older Australians could experience elder abuse this year. That might be in the types of settings that the royal commission will look at or it might be totally outside residential or care settings and be in the context of financial abuse. Something that I think is incredibly important to acknowledge is that, whilst the data is limited, the Seniors Rights Service acknowledge that they consider that women are 250 per cent more likely to suffer financial abuse and that, very, very sadly, two-thirds of the perpetrators of financial abuse are close relatives of the older Australian. One thing that we've been working very hard on, even before the national prevalence study and plan is developed, is a single national register of enduring powers of attorney so that coal-face financial service providers can actually check whether documents are authentic or whether or not they are in their best form or defective. That will be critical moving forward. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Conduct 30 14:54 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answers about bullying in his government. Is the Prime Minister aware of a media interview about the member for Chisholm's claims of bullying within his government where the vice-president of the Liberal Party said: 'Put up or shut up. I've said this before: women always want the spoils of victory without the fight.' Does the Prime Minister stand by his previous answers that addressing bullying within the government is the responsibility of others? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I think it is drawing a very long bow to expect that the Prime Minister is responsible for the comments of members of the party organisation, whether it's Liberal or Labor or Greens or Centre Alliance. Certainly he's responsible for his own comments and for his parliamentary team, but he's not responsible for the comments of members of the organisation and, therefore, I don't think he should be able to be asked about them. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Leader of the House. The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order? Mr Burke DYW Yes. To the point of order: the question to the Prime Minister opens by referring to his earlier answers. In his previous answer, the Prime Minister went directly to party organisation. It was in fact the entire way or the majority of the way that he dealt with that question. This then penetrates that exact same line of argument at the next stage and asks him again whether he stands by his previous answers. It is a direct response to how the Prime Minister answered the last question, and he answered it in order. The SPEAKER 00APG When the first question was asked on this subject, I made it clear I thought it was really lineball whether it was in order. I'm going to make a couple of points to the Manager of Opposition Business, certainly with respect to referring to the previous answer. That does open it up somewhat. I don't think it then means that a statement from a party official can then mean that that question is in order—I really don't. We launched the 7th edition of Practice this morning, and one of the examples you'll find in there is that it's very clear that ministers, including the Prime Minister, can only be asked questions on matters for which they are responsible. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the vice-president of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party. So I don't believe it's in order. I'm prepared to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business again. Mr Burke DYW The question is whether the Prime Minister stands by his previous answers that addressing bullying within the government is the responsibility of others. That is the question. The question is not whether or not he agrees with the party official. The party official quote is given there for context, which, given the previous answers, is a direct follow-on from the previous question. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes. With respect, I'm prepared to allow the question. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:57 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm very happy to address the matter. I do stand by my comments about matters that fall within the ambit of the federal parliamentary party of the Liberal Party, which is what I'm responsible for as the leader of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party. By contrast, the federal leader of the Labor Party said he knew nothing about an investigation happening within his own party in western Sydney, when one of his own members was being dragged under the bus on a daily basis. I'll tell you what I'm also very proud to be part of: I'm proud to be part of our government, which has invested $300 million in women's safety since 2015. I'm proud to be part of a government that has invested $100 million in a women's safety package announced in September of 2015. The package focused on practical, immediate action to keep women and children safe; improving training for frontline workers; enhancing service delivery in critical areas; and providing educational resources to change attitudes. There was $100 million for the third action plan— Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Brand can't be repeatedly warned. She'll leave under standing order 94(a) for continually interrupting. The member for Brand then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L There was $100 million for the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children from 2010-22; $83 million in the 2017-18 budget, which I brought down, for legal assistance services and reform to family law and family violence services; and $54 million in the 2018-19 budget, which I brought down, for women affected by violence and for online safety initiatives. Our government stands by our record of standing up for women who have been affected by family violence and all sorts of violence. People can look and see what we've done, or they can look at Labor and see what they say. People will believe a government that is getting on with the job and protecting women and investing in programs to defend women and to support women who are in situations of family violence. That's our record of our government. From the day we were elected in 2013 until now, the women of Australia can be guaranteed on our part that we will deliver for their safety every single day we have the opportunity to do so. Health Care 31 14:59 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how a stronger economy enables the government to support the quality of life of senior Australians by providing affordable access to vital medicines and crucial medical research? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to supporting the health of older Australians? 15:00 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Bonner, not just for his question but for his passionate support of medical research, of new medicines and of older Australians. As somebody who was successful in small business, he knows that we can't provide the medicines, the medical research and the support for older Australians unless we have a strong economy that can actually deliver these essential services. We've heard today from the Prime Minister about the 2012 budget—the famous 'four surpluses I announce but will never deliver tonight' budget. But we should also never forget the 2011 budget, because in that budget Labor deferred the listing of seven vital medicines due to fiscal circumstances. One of those medicines was for lung disease. I am pleased, however, to say that because of the strong economy, because of the million jobs and because of the benefit to the budget, we have a commitment to list all of the medicines which the medical experts recommend. Just this year, in helping senior Australians we have been able to assist them with lung disease. Two critical medicines for non-small-cell lung cancer—primarily an issue facing many older Australians—have been listed. One of those is Tecentriq. That is for lung cancer, a medicine which would otherwise have cost $100,000 a year for patients—beyond the reach of virtually every patient—which will help, potentially, over 2,000 patients a year. It was listed earlier this year, on 1 April—a real breakthrough. In addition to that, we've also had Alectinib listed. Again, that will primarily help older Australians. Where it would otherwise have cost $188,000, because of a strong economy we're able to do that. These new medicines are vital as life-saving and life-preserving medicines, and they are part of what we have been able to do to assist older Australians and all Australians who might suffer from these conditions. They're also part of the broader research funding which we've been able to assist. In particular, one of the conditions that can affect older Australians is the impact of antimicrobial resistance. This is especially so in hospitals and in nursing homes. Recently, we've been able to invest over $7 million to research and develop new approaches to deal with antimicrobial resistance. For older Australians in nursing homes this is fundamentally important. For older Australians in hospitals this is fundamentally important. It's part of our global tasks and our global responsibilities but, above all else, it's part of our human task and our human responsibility to care for older Australians, to give them the best hope of a future and to give them the very treatment that they deserve and have earned over the course of their lives. (Time expired) Liberal Party Leadership 31 15:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Malcolm Turnbull enthusiastically supported the signature policies of the now Prime Minister and Treasurer. The now Prime Minister was the architect of Malcolm Turnbull's $80 billion big business tax cut and the now Treasurer was the architect of Malcolm Turnbull's National Energy Guarantee. So, Prime Minister, why isn't Malcolm Turnbull still the Prime Minister of Australia? 15:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the member to my earlier answers on this matter. Our government was elected in 2013. It has been in government for the last five years, and that is a period of time in which more than a million Australians have got a job. During that time the unemployment rate has gone down. During that time participation in the workforce has gone up. During that time the number of Australians of working age who have been dependent on welfare has gone down. During that time the amount we've invested in health and education and hospitals and schools has all gone up. During that time what we've invested in science and technology has increased. During that time the deficit has come down. During that time the economy has grown stronger. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Shorten 00ATG It is on direct relevance. The Prime Minister is explaining why Malcolm Turnbull should still be the Prime Minister. But I asked why he isn't. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr MORRISON E3L That was a zinger; that was a big zinger, that one! What the Leader of the Opposition— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! Mr MORRISON E3L Let's play that game again. How many of you were union officials before you came into the parliament? Tell me. There's one. How many are there on this side of the House? Economic growth has gone back to 3.4 per cent. How many on this side of the House like that the unemployment rate is coming down? How many of those on this side of the House like that 95,500 young people have got a job under this government? How many on this side of the House like that small business taxes have come down and hundreds of thousands of small businesses have been started under this government? This government is creating jobs. It's growing the economy. It's ensuring that we can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. Importantly, as we've been demonstrating in question time today, we understand aspiration. It may be a mystery to the Labor Party, but we understand that aspiration has no age limit. We understand that senior Australians have great aspirations for their futures and they have great aspirations for our country. The policies and plans of this government, from September 2013 to now and beyond, will be about ensuring we keep our economy strong to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. We will keep Australians safe and we will keep Australians together. Aged Care 32 15:07 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid My question is to my good mate, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How is the government planning for an ageing population and helping Australians in aged care, including in our vast and diverse multicultural communities? 15:07 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I thank the member for Reid for his question and note his very deep involvement in Australia's multicultural communities and his passionate advocacy for Australians from all backgrounds and walks of life. People have come from all corners the globe to make Australia their home, at no time more so than in the second half of the 20th century. After the Second World War, we saw a huge wave of migration to Australia—immigrants from Greece, Italy, the former Yugoslavia and so many other places around the world. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! The member for Grayndler and the Minister for Home Affairs, if you want to continue your conversation, I can arrange for it to happen outside. Mr COLEMAN 241067 People came from all around the world in the 20th century to make Australia their home—to work hard, play by the rules and create a better life for their kids. This government knows that many of those people are now ageing; they're getting older. In 2011, the median age of people in Australia who were born in Italy was 68. For people who were born in Greece, the median age was 67 in 2011. This government is very committed to supporting our multicultural communities in aged care. Of course, there was an $18.6 billion record investment in aged care in 2017-18. That will grow to $23.6 billion over the next four years, and that includes funding for aged-care facilities for people with specific needs from multicultural communities. A good example is Fronditha Care down in Victoria. It was established more than 40 years ago by the Greek community and provides care for around 2,000 people of Greek background in New South Wales and Victoria. We've got federal government support for culturally appropriate aged care in the Chinese community in Sydney, in the Arabic-speaking community and across the board. It is so important that aged-care services are provided that are culturally appropriate for people from all backgrounds in Australia, and that's why, in addition, this government is providing important grants for multicultural communities. In fact, just today, the Fostering Integration Grants Scheme—a $5 million program for grants towards cultural inclusiveness and social cohesion—becomes available and can be used, including in the aged-care context. So we have record investment in aged care and investment in aged care for people from all walks of life and all backgrounds in Australia. We will stand with Australians of all backgrounds. They have helped to build the backbone of this nation. In their retirement, in aged care, we will stand with them every step of the way. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 32 DOCUMENTS Presentation 32 15:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 33 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory: Remonstrance 33 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG I advise the House that I have received a letter from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory, enclosing a copy of a remonstrance addressed to the President of the Senate and senators in relation to democratic rights of citizens of the ACT. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly requests that as this is a matter affecting both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament I make the House aware of the remonstrance. I present a copy of the letter and the remonstrance. 15:11 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner on indulgence—For the first time in its 29-year history, the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly has brought to this parliament a message of remonstrance, and it does this asking that the ACT assembly have removed the bar to it having the deeply difficult conversation about voluntary assisted dying. It was 21 years ago that this parliament took that power away from the ACT assembly. Since then, the Victorian parliament has passed laws on euthanasia, and the ACT assembly is remonstrating with this parliament for that right to be restored. I call on the government to bring forward for debate the private member's bill, Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2018, moved by myself and the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, so that we can have this debate in this place now. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Aged Care 33 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Franklin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's five years of failure on aged care. 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— 15:12 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin What we've seen in the five years of this government is its failure to deal with the reform that has been necessary in aged care. In fact, when this government called the royal commission, what it was actually admitting was that, after five years, it had failed and now needs a royal commission to solve this issue. The government has been sitting on a number of reports and recommendations. They've had three ministers for aged care. They've ripped out billions of dollars, and just a few weeks ago they said a royal commission was not necessary. In fact, when Labor said the aged-care system was in a crisis, they had a go at us for saying that. Clearly, things have changed. But what has changed, apart from the Prime Minister, is what the Australian public would like to know. This Prime Minister, who was then the Treasurer, ripped billions of dollars out of the aged-care budget for the Aged Care Funding Instrument. He can come in here and pretend it didn't happen, but it's in black and white in his own budget papers. We know that those cuts occurred, the sector knows those cuts occurred, and we know that the funding per resident has been cut because of those changes. You cannot rip out billions of dollars and treat the aged-care budget like an ATM over three budgets in five years under three ministers and not expect the situation to get worse. Surely somebody on that side at some point thought: 'This cannot continue. We cannot keep doing this.' But the minister, just a few weeks ago, said that a royal commission was not necessary, and then it was called on the weekend, the day before the ABC Four Cornersprogram. And you wonder why the Australian public sits back and says: 'Well, what's change? Why do we need to know this?' Then we had the revelation from the minister today that it has all happened because of one quality agency report that we are not allowed to see. You called a royal commission due to a report that you won't table or share with the Australian public. That is what you are saying. After sitting on all these reports, after all these cuts, after three ministers you call a royal commission into the system that you have been in charge of for five years in government, and you cannot properly explain to the Australian public why. Just a few weeks ago you said it was not necessary; the Australian public need to know what exactly has changed. This royal commission is important and we absolutely support it. We want older Australians to have the dignity and support they need. We want them to be able to make choices about how they live their lives. We want the workers in the system to be appropriately paid and valued. We know the workforce has to increase threefold. We know we need a million workers in the system. How are we going to attract them when we see stories like on Four Corners where well-meaning, terribly overworked aged-care workers are so stressed by their jobs that they go to the ABC and talk about how bad the system is? The minister says he has been to all of these aged-care facilities, has spoken to all these families and is aware of all these incidents. I am too. We all are. We have been talking about these issues for a long time. You have recommendations galore from reports, reviews and inquiries saying what is broken and what needs to be fixed. We need to get on with fixing it. The Australian public and older Australians cannot wait until the end of the royal commission to deal with some of these issues. I know the minister has legislation in the parliament today for the new agency, and we do support that, but it has taken a very long time. From the day the government got the Carnell-Paterson report it has been almost a year to when that legislation has been brought into this parliament. If every recommendation takes almost a year to implement, this is going to take a very long time. We need a proper royal commission and a discussion with the Australian public. I understand that the terms of reference are not yet finalised. We want the terms of reference to look at the impact of the cuts to aged care, to ACFI, to look at the care requirements of the residents and to look at what the workforce are paid, their qualifications and the workforce regulations, but we also need a system where aged-care workers, their families and their friends feel confident to make complaints without fear of repercussion and know that they get fixed. One of the most remarkable things that distressed me about last night's Four Corners show—and it was very distressing for anybody who watched it—was to hear that these complaints had been made to providers and that nothing was remedied or changed. If the minister knew about what happened on Four Cornersand heard about other incidents and situations, why did it take so long to admit that the system is in crisis, why did it take so long to call a royal commission and why, after five years, do we now have a royal commission? Why has it taken five years of recommendations, reports and inquiries—and three ministers' cuts—for the government to finally call a royal commission? I don't think the Australian public believe a minister who says, 'It was all in this one report that I've had only for the last couple of weeks since I said no royal commission was necessary.' I mean, seriously? The Prime Minister denies that there were cuts, black and white, almost $2 billion. The sector is saying it's actually $3 billion, but we're not going to argue about whether it's $2 billion or $3 billion; the point is that billions of dollars have come out of the direct care of older Australians. That is clearly having an impact. What is the government going to do about that? Are they going to sit and wait for two years for recommendations from the royal commission before they do anything? Is that what's going to happen? We've got a home care wait list. The government sat on the data for months and did not release it with the Braddon by-election. We know there are 108,000 Australians sitting on that wait list, waiting for care today. We had the Prime Minister and the minister continue to talk about choice and about supporting people at home. We all support that. That's what the Living Longer Living Better reforms were all about. They had bipartisan support. But how do you have choice when you're placed on a waiting list for two years? You don't have a choice. If anything happens, you end up in residential care or in a hospital. That's what actually happens. You don't get a choice at all. How are we going to deal with 108,000 people currently on the waiting list? In fact, the June quarter data is overdue. We don't have it. When is the government going to release it? We need transparency. If you want a royal commission that actually looks at all the facts, how about some transparency? How about you actually tell us how many people today are on that waiting list? How about you actually tell us what people are being funded for per resident in residential care today? Did that ACFI cut have an impact? Of course it did. It's a cut of around 11 per cent per resident, $6,500 on average per resident, in money available for care. That is the reality. When 70 to 80 per cent of the funding in aged care goes towards staffing, that is a direct cut to staff available to care for people. That's what it is. The government knows it. The Prime Minister can try to pretend all he likes that this did not happen when he was Treasurer, but it's in his own budget papers. It's in black and white. I don't know how many times we have to read it out. I don't know how many times the sector has to say it was real for people to understand and for the government to accept that this has had an impact on the aged care that Australians are receiving today. You cannot continue to pretend that it did not have an impact. You cannot. If you are really serious about a royal commission and fixing things for older Australians, their loved ones and their families, you really need to fess up about what's going on. To just say, 'There's a report we've called a royal commission on, but we're not going to share it or table it,' is quite outrageous. The Australian public deserve better. We've got legislation coming into the parliament this afternoon that I will be talking on. It is actually joining up the quality agency and the complaints commission. I thank the minister for the briefing that I received on that, but I've asked the department and the minister: can the commissioner actually arbitrate on complaints when people make them? Are people actually protected when they make a complaint? Can we actually improve the system? Are there any penalties payable for providers who do the wrong thing, apart from accreditation failures? So much more needs to be done. We cannot wait two years for the end of a royal commission for it to be fixed. The system is in crisis. Labor have been saying it's in crisis, and the government criticised us for it. Now there's a royal commission. We want action today. (Time expired) 15:22 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck Member for Franklin, you talk about reduction in funding. When we came to government, Labor had invested $13.1 billion in aged care. Over the forward estimates, that increased to $18.6 billion, and in the forward years, the next four years, that will become $23.6 billion. We are increasing it, and we have been increasing it, by $1 billion a year. It is a significant increase. Home care packages were not known under the Labor government, because the packages were provided to the aged-care providers, who had lists of people, and those lists were not known definitively. When I first came into my seat, I asked aged-care providers how many people were on their lists. The numbers were significant, and people were dying on those lists. On 27 February last year, we moved to having a national listing so that we had an understanding of the number of people who required packages who were receiving them. Whilst the numbers have increased, we also have increased our commitment, raising the number from 87,000 to 151,000 over the forward estimates. We also provided additional funding through MYEFO to create immediately 6,000 level 4 packages, and we increased it in the subsequent budget by another 14,000. I want to say that we are committed to providing older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity and recognises the contribution that they have made to our society. Australians are living longer and improvements to health mean they are more likely to remain active for longer. The 2015 Intergenerational report identified that people aged over 85, the group most likely to need aged care, will be the fastest growing group in Australia over the next 40 years. There will also be an increasing number of people with dementia who need specialised care and support and increasingly people who use their aged-care services will want to be cared for in their own homes. The member made a comment that I changed my mind. Yes, I did. I did based on evidence, and that evidence wasn't just a set of figures. It was also photographic evidence that I'm not prepared to table, because it goes to individuals whose level of care within aged-care facilities begs the question of what it was that resulted in what I saw in those images. In talking through and considering other elements of what I have at my disposal as a minister—in my visits to aged care and in meeting with Noleen Hausler, sitting with her and watching five video clips—I have for some time been considering the way in which we tighten the quality standards that are absolutely critical to ensuring that people are cared for. Whilst five years seems a long time, when you look back at the Productivity Commission report, when that was tabled, the period of turning the action into legislation was important in the way it was designed. It is no different to the Carnell-Patterson report, from which we put into place a number of measures that are absolutely critical. But in creating the commission, there was a need to ensure that those very issues of sanctions and responsibility for the end-decision point, around the way in which you would make a decision about a provider and their failure, came into play. Since the Oakden inquiry, 14 aged-care providers have been sanctioned. Four no longer exist because they did not meet the standards that were required under the existing act. What's important is that we've not fallen asleep in dealing with the issues in aged care. I know that each time I've been into an aged care facility and each time I have talked to all of the relevant elements that make up the responsibility in government for aged care, there have been reactions. Together, the Prime Minister and I have been looking closely at aged care for almost a year. A year ago, I had a discussion about the need to consider that we as a society are living from zero to 100. Today the Prime Minister indicated the number of Australians who will live to over 100. That has policy implications on many fronts, not just in aged care. Whilst I'm focused on aged care, there are other matters in terms of enabling Australians to have better choices and to live longer lives. This has been carefully considered; I have been closely monitoring reports and reviews and have been acutely aware of the numbers. There is mounting evidence that despite wide-ranging reforms and annual funding increases, there continues to be significant incidents of completely unacceptable, substandard care which must be addressed. In the past two years, complaints have risen 47 per cent from 3,211 to 4,315. In the past year, with the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, unannounced review audits are up 323 per cent. Serious risks were found to be up 177 per cent. Revoked accreditations have tripled. Almost one home a month have had their accreditation revoked since the Oakden report on May 2017. In the past year, referrals to the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency from the Department of Health are up 188 per cent. Notices of quality non-compliance are up 185 per cent. Sanctions imposed are up 136 per cent. Our rigorous reform program will continue as the royal commission goes about its work. Immediately after Oakden, we commissioned the Review of national aged care quality regulatory processes. We have actioned the 10 recommendations, including unannounced quality audits and the creation of the new tough cop on the beat, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. We have worked through the 2017 legislative review of aged care and responded in the 2018 budget with the More Choices for A Longer Life Package, supporting active ageing and providing an extra $1.6 billion for home care. We have legislated new aged-care quality standards, the first upgrade in 20 years. Just last week, we released Australia's first aged-care workforce strategy to rapidly grow the professional-care workforce. I want to acknowledge the contribution that workers in aged care make. We stand with all Australians in supporting the overwhelming majority of the nation's more than 2,700 aged-care homes who provide quality care. We applaud the more than 360,000 dedicated staff who provide care of such high quality, many of whom have dedicated their entire careers to supporting our elderly and most vulnerable. We also applaud the world-class care and culture of continuous improvement implemented by aged-care providers across the nation. But, like all Australians, we cannot, and will not, accept instances of poor quality or unsafe care. The aged-care system must be prepared for a major increase in demand, with the number of senior Australians requiring aged-care services projected to reach 3.5 million by 2050. The number of people living with dementia is expected to increase to more than one million by mid-century. Despite the $5 billion aged-care boost announced in the recent federal budget, there are concerns that funding and regulatory arrangements for the sector will not be sustainable and require expansion. Our focus on the needs of senior Australians has not diminished. We will continue to ensure that the work that we do and we've continued in conjunction with the aged-care sector—the providers, the department, all key stakeholders, the carers and the Older Persons Advocacy Network—will be done in tandem together to make sure that what is provided is of quality and that where there is risk it will be called out. I would encourage staff to use the 1800550552 number to lodge their concerns. It is confidential and we've had staff ring that number. The agencies shown in Four Corners last night will receive a visit from the relevant agencies to follow up on the issues raised in the Four Corners program. That will occur this week. I will continue to work with our government to make sure that the matters shown in Four Corners are addressed. I rang Four Corners after the program last night and acknowledged that their stories provided insight into those matters that a quality agency would not have seen—particularly the night-time events—and that the staff, if they ring, will enable the quality agency to become involved. (Time expired) 15:33 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Make no mistake, Labor supports the call—a somewhat belated call, I might add—for a royal commission into aged care by the government after five long years of falling asleep at the wheel. There has been ample opportunity for the government to respond to more than a dozen reports and reviews that sit on the minister's desk. Time and time again members on this side of the House have raised absolutely critical aged-care issues in this parliament. I know this because I've travelled with my colleague Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, to many parts of our country. I can see here the member for Dobell from the Central Coast, who, like the member for Macquarie next her, has raised consistent issues around access to aged care and services in her region. We've held round tables in Katoomba and the seat of Dobell alike. Indeed, the member for Herbert, sitting behind me, Cathy O'Toole, and I have been to Townsville. Each and every time, what Australian men and women have to say to us is the same: that their capacity to navigate their way around this government's My Aged Care website is extremely limited. If they are without family or friends to support them, they haven't got a hope in hell of figuring out how to access half these services. What else did they raise with us in these round tables? Well, they said that despite applying and being found eligible for in-home care packages, the packages are not there to access. Indeed, I raised in this parliament the case of a constituent in my own electorate of Newcastle whose mother had made application, had been found eligible for an in-home package and received a letter to say, 'Congratulations: you're successful in your level 3 package'—eight months after she was deceased. That was 12 months after she first applied. We heard similar stories from the people of Townsville. These are not one-off stories. These are stories that you will hear if you bother to ask the questions of Australian men and women. You just have to ask and be prepared to listen. As distressing, as sickening as those stories on Four Corners last night were, they were not surprising. None of us on this side of the House thought they were surprising. We were disgusted, yes. They were sickening, yes. And we were feeling every moment of the way for those families, for the staff working there. But it was not surprising. You would have to be deaf and blind to not hear the Australian people crying out for support in aged care, for the crisis that is in aged care in Australia. The Minister got it terribly wrong when he accused Labor of scaremongering on this a few weeks ago. He got it very, very wrong. It was a gross overreach on the government's part. It's good that they have belatedly come to the realisation that nothing short of a royal commission is deserved in order to get to the bottom of the gross inequities that exist in aged care, the appalling rates of pay for the women—and it is predominantly women working in these caring roles in these facilities—and the fact that 108,000 older Australians, and it's growing, are on a waitlist to access in-home care packages but haven't got a hope in hell in accessing those. The minister was right earlier in his speech when he said that Australians are dying waiting for this in-home package. We've all got examples that we can bring to the table of that. Australians are dying. Well, do you know what, Minister, and this government? You don't have to wait for a royal commission to do something about this. Release those in-home packages now. Stop stumping up your tax breaks to the big end of town and put that money where it's needed and where it deserves to be spent. Older Australians do not have to wait for you to have a royal commission so you can act. You need to drive down those waitlists and you need to do it now. 15:38 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I thank those opposite for raising this matter of public importance today on aged care, because it is quite clear that the past five years have been anything but a failure. In fact, the past five years have been a progressive march towards a better future for our elderly, whether at home or in care. We have a royal commission, but we will continue to work to help these people. The other side doesn't like to admit this, but the Prime Minister's announcement to launch a royal commission into the aged-care sector is something they wished they'd come up with first. Now they have proved that they will make anything up in order to discredit what is a sensible and pragmatic approach to an industry that operates to care for our most vulnerable. We are abundantly aware of the fact that the vast majority of aged-care centres and the vast majority of those who work in the sector do a sterling job. Their work is tireless, and we quite honestly salute them for it. There is a problem in the industry, though, and for the sake of those who do a great job we must act against those who do not. The playbook from the union-bred, union-fed and union-led opposition is now totally predictable. When faced with a national problem, they don't find out the cause, because they arrogantly think they already know the cause. Instead, they perform a campaign based on their preconceived ideas of how this problem can fit the union agenda. Step 1 of this campaign is to pretend all problems are because the government cut funding. Don't worry about whether we actually did or not. We have this week, of course, seen those opposite implement trusty step number 1, with members opposite lining up to take pot shots at alleged defunding of the aged-care sector. Their claims, as predictable as they were, have all been found out to be fake news. Just this morning, a fact check by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Eryk Bagshaw highlighted: The Coalition has increased funding to aged care in dollar terms, as a proportion of all government expenses and as a fraction of the economy … This leaves very little wriggle room for the bleats from those opposite about funding cuts. The truth is the coalition continues to grow aged-care funding, just as we do for our schools and our hospitals, something only possible while the economy is also growing. Funding is only a small aspect of what is going on for a policy area, and I am confident that we are addressing in a methodical manner the issues that have our elderly at risk in our places of care. Immediately after the Oakden disaster was uncovered, we commissioned the Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes. We took the review seriously and have actioned all 10 recommendations, especially the delivery of a new tough cop on the beat: the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. For the first time in 20 years we have legislated for new aged-care quality standards. We are doing these things and so much more, while those opposite can only jeer and propose tax increases for our elderly. By attacking imputation credits, the opposition place themselves squarely in the pockets of many of our fellow Australians who simply don't have extra money to give. This is a policy that has been proven to affect those on a low income far more than those on a high income. I for one stand with our self-funded retirees in defending their hard-earned money. I, like many, have been rather intrigued to see those opposite this week throwing the usual lies and misinformation around following the Prime Minister's announcement. One expects, in the hurly-burly of politics, one side to disagree with the other, but I think the Australian people hold a higher standard than to be lied to. The truth is we take the health and welfare of our older Australians absolutely seriously. Just recently, I was proud to be able to deliver $1.2 million to Mercy Health and Aged Care in Rockhampton to help them expand their Bethany aged-care facility to encompass a new community centre. This project is all about making it easier for elderly residents in Bethany to interact with younger generations in a shared space housing extra services. This makes a lot of sense to anyone whose loved ones have ended up in a home and felt cut off from the outside world.. Re-establishing this connection will promise to make life more enjoyable and help keep older minds sharp. This is a great measure, and so are the myriad of other measures Minister Wyatt and the government are implementing, despite protests from across the aisle. Once again we see an issue we as the federal government wish to properly address, and the naysayer attitude of those opposite comes to the fore. Labor's spinning every false yarn under the sun to justify claims we are not doing our job. It's not going to work, because the Australian people are sick and tired of that. (Time expired) 15:43 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Forgive me, but can I just say what a completely Pavlovian display I have heard from those opposite. They are spouting things they don't understand and know nothing about, as was seen with their 'hands up' display in question time today and now with their responses to the MPI. Australia is witnessing an aged-care crisis brought on by this government's five years of failures in aged care. This isn't a crisis that occurred overnight or an issue that has only recently come to light with some investigative journalism. We on this side of the chamber have been identifying issues in the system for years. It has been apparent to all of us on this side that the sector is in crisis and has been in dire need of attention from the government for years and years. Time and time again, though, our concerns have fallen on deaf ears. It now appear that the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and his coalition government will only begin to pay the sector some attention because not to do so would be politically unpopular and denying the undeniable. For years now, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison coalition circus has been putting aged care in the too-hard basket. Forgive me if I don't applaud the government on their recent epiphany. It's come far too late. It is somewhat ironic that I was recently rereading the book of Awakenings by the great British neurologist Oliver Sacks about giving L-DOPA to those suffering from encephalitis lethargica after the influenza epidemic at the turn of the 20th century. If anything, the government's sudden awakening proves that it is those opposite who have been playing politics with aged care. They've denied all responsibility for this for five years and are now trying to appear proactive at a time politically convenient in their electoral cycle. I am certainly not the most political person in the building. I've had my career and I'm not blinded by ambition. I am simply here to stick up for the families of Macarthur—indeed, for families around the country—and to try to secure better outcomes for our community. I'm not here to take cheap shots, but this coalition government is a completely shambles, particularly when it comes to aged care. They've had some five years to do good work in the aged-care field and they've failed at every opportunity. The bloke they've appointed their lord and saviour in this government's dying days is the one who is responsible for this predicament. The present Prime Minister, as I've already stated, was the architect of some truly horrendous cuts to aged care when he was the Treasurer. Older Australians deserve much better than a Prime Minister who does not understand aged care and then lies to them about it. I have heard truly harrowing stories from constituents in my electorate and from electorates around the country—including the electorates of Dobell, Macquarie and Herbert. The waiting list for high-level aged-care packages continues to increase and all the government can do is try to hide the data. Again, we've been saying this for some time. Hardworking local members, senators and local candidates have been receiving this feedback on the ground right across the country. We've tried time and time again to get information from the government on this state of affairs and each time to no avail. It is time the Liberals and the Nationals started doing better in this critical area of policy. Far too many older Australians living across the country are waiting for a package and the care they need, and some will die without getting it. All the while, the government continue to prove they are inept. I must stress that after five years in government every one of those opposite must accept some responsibility for what is happening today in the aged-care system. I've heard so much evidence, from every part of the aged-care system and from every part of the country that I've visited, about the need for improvements in staffing levels, pain management, dementia care, wound care, nutrition, staff training, medication control, employment of registered nurses and access, in particular, to general practitioners. I want to stress that I believe our aged-care nurses and workers provide excellent care, but they are underresourced and underpaid. My only concern is that the royal commission may delay urgently needed reforms. Many people in aged care are extremely vulnerable. They often have very short life expectancies and deserve to be kept as comfortable as they possibly can be. We have heard horrific stories of what has happened in a poorly resourced aged-care system. In particular, we've seen people dying at home without getting the care they so desperately need. We should not delay urgently needed reforms and we must act now to protect our most vulnerable. (Time expired) 15:48 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I am proud of the action of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and our government to launch the royal commission into aged care, particularly when I hear some of the things I've heard from a number of my constituents and when I see some of the things like we saw on the Four Corners report the other night. I know from my own family's experience with my nanna some of the many issues across both the retirement village sector and the aged-care sector. I wish she had the experience of some of the great places in my electorate, like the Village Baxter in Frankston, which under a very strong model and management has shown an ability to show true care to residents. There are many other positive examples in the aged-care sector. I thank the minister as well for coming down to run an aged-care forum in my electorate to listen to concerns in my electorate and for also twice now visiting the Village Baxter to see the wonderful model they have. Having helped my own mother-in-law at nursing home visits in Sydney over a number of years when she visited many elderly residents who often did not have immediate family to visit them on a regular basis or at all, I know some of the issues and some of the loneliness experienced by many people in the aged-care sector. I remember a particular lady, Elizabeth, who, from my recollection, was about 99 years old at the time and had no family at all—no kids, no grandkids, no great-grandkids. I remember my mother-in-law and I going to visit her. My mother-in-law would take her out to go shopping and everywhere else to get her out and about. She really appreciated that connection that was made, which she wouldn't have had, given that she didn't have family. I also remember her making little scarfs, one of which I was able to give to my little daughter when she was born. Unfortunately, Elizabeth has passed on now, but she's one example of the many people in our aged-care sector who experience not only loneliness but also, in the wider sector, the bad experiences people have had. I've listened to those opposite, and I wish that they would take a bipartisan approach to this issue instead of running matters of public importance like this, referring to 'The government's five years of failure on aged care'. I remember hearing, when Labor was in government over a six-year period, these very same issues that we are hearing now, and they didn't launch a royal commission as we have done. But I know that, across all governments, we want the best for our parents, our grandparents and our great-grandparents. So let's not play politics over this important issue of aged care. Let's work together to continue not only to resolve the issues as we've been doing—and as, I'm sure, Labor were concentrating on doing when they were in government—but to look even further into the things we need to do in this sector, as we will do through this royal commission. As the royal commission goes about its work, our rigorous reform program continues. We commissioned, for example, the Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes because we know about these issues, as, I'm sure, Labor did when they were in government during the six years between 2007 and 2013. And we have been taking action while, at the same time, calling for a royal commission to dig even deeper into the issues facing the sector. For example, we've actioned the 10 recommendations, including quality audits and creating the new tough cop on the beat—the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. We have worked through the 2017 Legislated Review of Aged Care and responded in the 2018 budget with the More Choices for a Longer Life package, supporting active ageing and providing an extra $1.6 billion for home care. We have legislated for new aged-care quality standards—the first upgrade in 20 years. Just last week, we released Australia's first Aged Care Workforce Strategy to rapidly grow the professional care workforce, and we've greatly increased our home care packages. We stand with all Australians in supporting the overwhelming majority of the nation's more than 2,700 aged-care homes that provide quality care. There are many dedicated staff—over 360,000—who do a great job, but we need to tackle the issues facing the sector as we are doing through the royal commission, and I call for a bipartisan approach to the aged-care sector. 15:53 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh Here we go again talking about an issue that should have been fixed months and months ago. We have had five years of this government with lots and lots of reports trying to implement a whole range of things through the Living Longer Living Better reforms of the past five years. And what do we see? Absolutely zero. What we've seen is a government scrambling for a royal commission—and I have to say that we do support the royal commission—to see what they can do, when the reality is that they should have done something by now. They've had five years in government. This is an issue that affects all of us in our electorates and in our constituencies. Constituents come to visit us to talk about being on aged-care packages and being on waiting lists or wanting to get into a facility to be looked after. We get these queries regularly, weekly, continually. I'm sure members on the government side get the same inquiries. The reality is that you can't just cut $2 billion out of the aged-care sector and not expect that to have an impact on our elderly Australians, and that's exactly what's happening and what it's doing. They can deny it and they can dress it up in any way they like, but the reality is there in the budget papers of 2016, which say a $1.2 billion reduction. On top of that, there have been other cuts. As we heard the member for Franklin say earlier, that equates to each resident receiving about 11.5 per cent per less care than they were a few years ago. That cut has had an impact on the care of our elderly Australians. It has had an impact on the way that we look after them. It has had an impact on their health. It has had an impact on their families. It has had an impact on their carers. And what do the government do? They throw up their hands and say: 'We're tackling it. We're looking at it.' I heard the minister earlier in question time when he was asked about this particular issue. He mentioned that I've been working with him on a whole range of queries that we've been sending to his office. Yes, we have, and he has responded, but, unfortunately, the responses are all form letters written by some bureaucrat that absolutely doesn't understand the issue that's sitting in a corner in the department. We have people on waiting lists. Over 100,000 Australians are waiting for care packages—people that should be having the care that they require—and another 54,000-odd have no care package at all. Some of them get care packages, but not the high-level ones that are required. Have a guess what? Those people deteriorate, their carers deteriorate and they end up in hospitals, costing the government much, must have more than it would have if we provided the proper care. How can you say that you're treating older Australians with dignity when more than 100,000 of them are waiting for care—and that list is growing, from memory, at approximately 26,000 per quarter. While you're plugging a hole here, a great big gush is opening up on the other end, and we're still not dealing with it. We're still not looking after these people. As I've said so many times here, our older Australians built this nation; built the foundations on which we enjoy this wonderful country today. We've had three different aged-care ministers across the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, who have had carriage of the Living Longer Living Better reforms for five whole years but have absolutely failed to make little, if any, real reform whatsoever across the Ageing portfolio. We've had more than a dozen reviews, we've had reports and we've had inquiries—some of them are still sitting in the minister's desk collecting dust without being actioned—yet we were told two weeks ago that we don't require a royal commission, that it wouldn't do anything and that we should not look in that direction. Then, two weeks later, they've changed their mind and they're telling us that we now require a royal commission. Tell us what's in the report that has made you want a royal commission. Tell us what's in there. Be honest with the Australian public. Be honest with our older Australians, who have done so much for this nation and deserve dignity in their twilight years. Unfortunately, like many other things in this place with this current government, the focus is on the rich end of town, where we're giving billions of dollars of tax cuts and billions and billions to multinationals. But what we're doing in our aged-care sector is taking money away. Earlier, someone on the other side said that they've increased the funding, but that is not correct. (Time expired) 15:58 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Aged care is fast becoming one of the most important policy areas faced by the nation. Australians have enjoyed unprecedented extensions of their lifespans over the past few decades. This has created challenges, as more and more people require care in their old age. We are fortunate to have the Honourable Ken Wyatt as our Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, a man of great integrity. The minister is absolutely dedicated to the cause of improving aged care. It is also an area of great interest for me. Last year on my Bennelong 100-kay walk for the Leukaemia Foundation I not only visited every school and most local shops in the electorate but also visited many local aged-care facilitates. In fact, Minister Wyatt joined me for a day on my walk for the charity—it's probably what did his knee in—and accompanied me on visits to local aged-care providers. BaptistCare Shalom Aged Care Centre, St Catherine's Aged Care Services, Southern Cross Care Marsfield Residential Aged Care and Willandra Village were visited. Ken engaged with the residents and listened to them intently, as he does on all of his visits to providers that he has completed over the past few years. After these visits he then fronted an aged-care forum in Ryde that I'd organised for the local community. He provided representatives from DHS and the Department of Health for this forum as well. It was a robust forum, with full feedback provided to Ken by those present. He engaged with my local community on this important issue and did not try to avoid any difficult question. Ken and I are committed to listening to the aged-care community and improving their lot as much as we can. Ken is not interested in playing politics with aged-care residents. He doesn't want to score political points with the challenges of improving aged care; he is simply committed to improvement of aged care. Through his many interactions, he has developed and delivered excellent policies that have improved the lives of many senior Australians. He's also received feedback on some terrible situations regarding the provision of care in aged-care facilities. Ken Wyatt is not afraid of the truth. He wants the entire unvarnished truth. That is why the government has commissioned a royal commission into aged care. This is not about covering up anything. This is about exposing everything so that he, so that we, hopefully in a bipartisan way, can improve the system for all Australians, because improvement is critical. The numbers involved are staggering. The 2015 Intergenerational report identified that people aged over 85, the group most likely to need aged care, will be the fastest-growing group in Australia over the next 40 years, with the number of senior Australians who require aged-care services projected to reach 3.5 million by 2050. The number of people living with dementia is expected to increase to more than one million by mid-century. And it has been estimated that the aged-care workforce will need to grow from around 366,000 today to 980,000 by 2050. There are huge issues and challenges involved in addressing the aged-care sector. The government is committed to seeing the sector improve, led by the most committed aged-care minister I have witnessed in the eight years that I've been here in this place. This royal commission is an opportunity for all sides of politics to gain the facts from which better policies can be developed to improve the lives of older Australians. This vulnerable community of elderly and frail Australians deserves better than to seemingly be used as a political football by the mover of this MPI motion. I look forward to working further on aged care with this committed minister. I look forward to reading the recommendations of the royal commission and then working with all sides of politics to make the system better. 16:02 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The crisis in aged care is shameful. Aged care is a particular concern in my community, where one in five people is aged over 65. Labor supports a royal commission, but after five years the government must accept responsibility for what is happening right now in aged care across Australia. Older Australians can't wait until the royal commission reports before government acts. I'm speaking here today as a pharmacist, as a former mental health worker and as a daughter. I want peoples' experience in the future to be better than that of my father, who lived with younger-onset dementia. The government and this new Prime Minister must take responsibility for the cuts—almost $2 billion in cuts. You can't rip almost $2 billion out of an aged-care system over five years without it having an impact on the quality of care. Central to the quality of care in aged care are the aged-care workforce—dedicated, hardworking, capable people working in very difficult circumstances, underresourced and underpaid. The government's cuts are leading to cuts in this workforce. Because of the government's aged-care funding freeze, workers in aged-care facilities in my electorate are having their hours cut. I've been told that around 800 hours per fortnight have been cut from rosters at the Reynolds Court aged-care facility in Bateau Bay, the equivalent of around 10 full-time staff. I've also been told of redundancies and cuts to rosters at the Japara aged-care facility in Wyong—around 375 hours cut in AIN nursing hours per week as a direct result of the government's cuts. We are seeing cuts in the aged-care workforce right now in regional Australia. One worker who has been at the centre for more than a decade and working in the sector for more than 25 years told me her shifts were cut by around 10 hours per fortnight. She is a full-time carer. What effect will this have on her and her family? These cuts to shifts and services are as predictable as they are devastating. We must do better. How can we attract and maintain quality staff in the sector under these conditions? Jobs in aged care matter, and the wages and conditions of workers in aged care matter. I'll now turn to home care packages. There are now more than 108,000 people on the home care package waiting list, including 88,000 people with high needs, many living, as my dad did, with dementia. In my community there are around 770 people waiting right now for home care packages. Three-quarters of them have high needs and are waiting for level 4 packages. I went and visited Tom. Tom had a stroke about four months ago, and his family were told there was a small window where intensive therapy could have a major impact on his wellbeing. He was sent home from hospital with half an hour of physio and half an hour of OT per week. I met the physio. She was doing a great job, but there was barely enough in-home care to help with showering and some respite for his wife, Coral, to do the shopping. Coral has her own health issues, including a shoulder injury, and is struggling to care for Tom. Tom has been approved for a level 4 package, but, like so many others, he's now waiting to access his care, and he's only considered a medium priority. Tom is eligible, and his medical specialists know that, the more care he gets right now, the better he will be for the rest of his life. He shouldn't have to wait. He can't wait. His family can't wait. It always strikes me as well that one of the aspects of problems in the aged-care sector is how disproportionately these problems affect women. Women outnumber men in every aged-care program. Around two in three people accessing aged-care services are women. Around 67 per cent of older Australians receiving home care packages are women. The aged-care workforce is predominantly female: 87 per cent of aged-care workers are women. The task of caring for older Australians and family members, often while they wait longer than they need to and longer than they should for aged care, falls predominantly to women. I can't help wondering if the government's failure to properly fund quality aged care and to ensure aged care workers are paid decent wages and properly resourced to support a family member caring for aged relatives is in part because these problems are predominantly women's problems. This government seems to have a problem with women. It must change. There is a crisis in aged care. People like Tom and Coral can't wait. People post strokes can't wait for the intervention that they need, which will give them the quality of life that they deserve. Our aged-care system is in crisis. It is shameful: $2 billion of cuts from this Prime Minister, and then belatedly calling a royal commission. This is urgent. The government must act now on the information that they have about the crisis in aged care. 16:07 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Can I say to those opposite: is there anything that they won't politicise? I note the contribution of the previous speaker, and they are the facts: there are more women in aged care. But that is because, quite simply, they live longer than men on average. That is just a statement of fact. So there will be more people in aged care who are female, because they live longer than men on average. That is just pretty straightforward. On all of these claims, once again, if we talk to the opposition, up is down, left is right, everything is incorrect and it's all a cut, cut, cut. I'll go to a quote on 17 September from that great supporter of the coalition at crikey.com, Bernard Keane, who I'm sure you've heard of, Mr Deputy Speaker. I quote from Mr Keane's article: The claim that the Coalition cut funding from aged care is a bald-faced lie … This is not someone who is in this chamber. It's not someone who writes the budget. It is quite simply someone in the media who put out a statement. I've got to say Mr Keane has probably not been that strong in his support for government positions before, but that is the quote: The claim that the Coalition cut funding from aged care is a bald-faced lie … So, once again, we have those on the opposite side out there making things up. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, all politics is local. In my electorate of Hinkler, between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, including the good burghers of Childers, Woodgate and everywhere in between, we have one of the largest percentages of elderly people in the country. As at March 2018, 27,738 people were on the age pension in Hinkler and 47,506 have a pensioner concession card out of roughly 104,000 voters. That is a substantial amount of the population. Why are they there? They are there for a few reasons. The first one is it is a fantastic place to retire. It really is. Housing is affordable and the weather is wonderful, with an average temperature of 25 degrees. You can live at the beach. There are all sorts of facilities, particularly medical and aged care. One of the issues that's been raised with me a number of times over the years—it was very bad about three years ago and it is very bad again now—is the wait time for ACAT assessments. The federal government funds ACAT assessments through the state and the state coordinates the resources that deliver ACAT assessments. The wait times for ACAT assessments are once again unacceptable. It seems to me that if you live in the city you get looked after by the Queensland Labor government, but if you live in the regions you wait months for your ACAT assessment. I find that unacceptable. I've called for it before and I'll call for it again. They need to provide sufficient resources into the regions— Dr Leigh interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Fraser is warned. Mr PITT 148150 The Department of Health and the Office of the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner held two aged-care forums in Bundaberg last month. We had around 100 people attend each session. There was one for consumers and one for aged-care providers. The reason for that was very straightforward. There were some concerns locally and we want to be able to deliver the facts. I'd say that this is one of the reasons that there is a royal commission, because it will be about the facts. It won't be about a union campaign; it will be about the reality of aged care in this country, what its needs are going forward and what is being delivered right now. I had a meeting with a constituent some time ago and I gave them an undertaking that I would maintain their confidence, which I will and continue to do so. He was very concerned about his father, who was in an aged-care facility. As a result of that meeting, I met with Minister Wyatt and we arranged one of the first unannounced visits to an aged-care facility in Australia. As a result of that, there were issues to be addressed, and those issues are being addressed. I want to give a shout-out to those people who are working in the sector. These are good, honest and hardworking people. They are good, honest and hardworking people who continue to do a fantastic job. Not all aged-care facilities have issues which have been identified in the media in recent days. In fact, there are some which are fantastic. In terms of reductions, this is what we've been doing: in 2014, an additional 126 residential care places and 57 home care packages in my electorate; in 2016, 278 residential care places; in 2017, 174 additional residential care places. Last time I checked, that's an increase. It's not what's being put forward by those opposite. That is an increase and these facilities are first class, particularly the two new facilities in Hervey Bay, one of which looks just like you're stepping onto a cruise ship. There are good facilities available and there are great people who are staffing them, and I congratulate them on the work they do. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 42 Report 42 16:13 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 182: Oil stocks contracts Netherlands. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BROADBENT MT4 by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report No. 182. The report details the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning oil stocks contracts. This treaty action will assist Australia to return to compliance with this obligation as a member of the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agency was established in 1974 and Australia has been a member since 1979. As a member of the International Energy Agency, Australia is a party to the agreement on an international energy program. Under the International Energy Treaty, Australia has an obligation to sustain national consumption for at least 90 days with no net oil imports—the 90-day obligation. Australia has been noncompliant with the 90-day obligation since 2012. This treaty action is concerned with addressing Australia's noncompliance with its requirements under the IEP treaty and is aimed at meeting Australia's international obligations. The committee, therefore, notes that consideration of Australia's physical oil stocks is outside the scope of this inquiry into this treaty action. However, we acknowledge that the two issues are interrelated. We support the current review that the Australian government is undertaking into Australia's liquid fuel security. We urge the government to fully explore the links between the two issues as it assesses the adequacy, reliability and affordability of Australia's physical oil stocks. The committee supports the agreement and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. Before I close, I'd like to thank my predecessor as chair of the Treaties Committee, the Hon. Stuart Robert, and thank him for his work on the committee. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House and I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day on the next day of sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 43 16:15 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Human Rights Committee 43 Report 43 16:15 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human rights scrutiny report:report 10 of 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—Of the new bills examined in chapter 1 of this report, five have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit or do not engage human rights. For example, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 seeks to introduce an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. These measures promote the right of women not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender and the right to just and favourable conditions at work. The measures in this bill relating to the disclosure of private information have been assessed, in context, as being permissible limitations on the right to privacy. Overall, the measures in this bill, therefore, are welcome from a human rights perspective. To complete its technical assessment of compatibility with Australia's international human rights law obligations, the committee has also requested further information in relation to two pieces of legislation. For example, the committee is seeking further information about the right to freedom of expression and a measure in the Australian Federal Police Regulations. Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of two bills. Of these, I would like to highlight the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and also an issue related to the right to freedom of expression. As set out in the report, the bill would have introduced an offence that would make any person not employed by the Office of National Intelligence who discloses ONI information that they have received liable to five years imprisonment, in specific circumstances. In its initial report the committee raised questions as to whether the measure was compatible with the right to freedom of expression and sought further advice from the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General's response to the committee's inquiries discussed in this report usefully clarified that the ONI Bill would be amended to remove the section containing this offence, noting the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's recommendations in relation to similar proposed offences in the espionage and foreign interference bill. As such, this addresses the concerns as to the compatibility of the particular measure with the right to freedom of expression. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's latest scrutiny report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation. With these comments, I commend the committee's report 10 of 2018 to the chamber. BILLS 44 BILLS My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 44

My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018

Second Reading 44 16:19 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Labor has been very supportive of e-health and the concept of the My Health Record. But, my goodness me, here is another stuff-up from the government. There really is nothing they can't stuff up. Quite frankly, we remain deeply concerned about the government's bungled rollout of the My Health Record. In the opt-out period, of course, people went online to try to opt out and the system crashed. Of course it did. That is yet another failing of this government, like all of its other failings. It could not organise anything properly. Implemented by a competent government, the e-health record could deliver tangible health outcomes to improve people's wellbeing and save the health system and the taxpayers of Australia millions of dollars—indeed, billions of dollars if done properly. But, of course, that is not what we have seen from this government. We've had reports this week that over a million Australians are so concerned about the way this government has implemented the My Health Record that they have opted out. Over a million Australians have already opted out. The government admitted that there were some issues in this, and they did extend the opt-out period for people who wanted to opt out. But Labor has called on the government to actually halt the whole process because it has been so bungled. Their failure to communicate has fuelled many of the privacy and security concerns around the e-health record and the My Health Record. We've had a lot of issues raised with us. You can imagine some of the concerns that I have had raised with me, as the shadow minister for ageing and mental health, particularly from people suffering mental ill health who want to be able to control their health record and who know how important it is that the physicians, doctors and nurses taking care of their health actually have access to this important information. They don't want to have to explain their stories and their illnesses every single time they need to access services. But they quite rightly point out that they want to be able to control their records, which is what the My Health Record was designed to do. But they are concerned about the security of these records because of the way the government has mishandled them. They are rightly concerned. We had a Senate inquiry not that long ago about insurance companies and some of the issues that have been going on. We've now, of course, had the royal commission into banking and financial services that has been looking at insurance issues, and we've had a lot of people with mental ill health raise issues around disclosure of their conditions and what happens. This is why they are concerned about the government's control of their records and about how they are able to opt out and hide the information that they don't want to be there but able to have access so the people who are supporting them to receive the services they need to be well can actually have the information that is relevant. We know that the e-health record could be really important when it comes to older Australians and things like polypharmacy and more diagnostics. If they have a fall and they go to a hospital, they then have to have a whole range of tests, some of which they may have already had but the hospital doesn't have access to. So we can see how important this health record could be if done properly. But, shamefully, that doesn't appear to have happened. We are very concerned that the government has undermined confidence in what should have been something really powerful and really useful for those people who need it most. Instead, what we've seen is that those people who need it most are the most likely not to use it, because they have serious concerns about the government—about the government being able to look after their privacy and about the government being able to ensure the security of these records. It is very concerning for people who are contacting me in my office. A whole range of people—the experts in this area and, indeed, the AMA—have actually come out and talked about their concerns about the My Health Record. Indeed, the AMA have said that they want to ensure that the government gets this right. They've said that they have at all times wanted to support the concept of the My Health Record, because they know how valuable it is, but they have had concerns. I do admit that some of them have now been addressed by the government, but there are still concerns, and this government has still bungled it. Clearly, when over a million Australians have opted out, there are still some concerns out there in the community. As I said, this opt-out period ends in November. So, here we are in September. People's opt-out period hasn't been going for that long really, and, as I said, the government did extend it by a month. How many more Australians are going to opt out of this system? How valuable will it be if we get millions of Australians opting out? It would be a shame if the government didn't halt this, fix it properly and run a community campaign so that people could properly understand the benefits of the My Health Record: that it would save them telling their story every time they get a referral and every time they go somewhere and that it would stop tests having to be repeated—the diagnostics, blood tests and scans that your clinicians and specialists and the people looking after your care should already have access to. In emergency departments and hospitals, there are increased wait times because this information is not available when the people looking after you need it most. The government has completely undermined confidence in this system, and it should be ashamed. I'm obviously supporting the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat. I've spoken to the member for Ballarat about my concerns for people with mental ill health and their concerns and the concerns that are being raised with me every day. She has been extraordinarily responsive, because she understands this issue, I think, better than the government. Quite frankly, the Minister for Health doesn't seem to understand quite how concerned the community is, but when over one million Australians have already opted out—and we don't know how many more will between now and November—clearly something has to change. Clearly there's a problem here, and the government needs to do something about it. 16:26 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa We in the Labor Party support e-health and the concept of the My Health Record. If these policies were implemented by a competent government, they would be hugely beneficial to Australians. Alas, this government has taken the project of the e-health delivery that Labor began when we were last in government, and it has bungled it every step of the way. The last Labor government's e-health system was opt in. We thought this was the right approach. But this government doesn't seem to care about informed consent. It is a mystery why they've chosen an opt-out system. There's no proper explanation why, no attempt to educate the public and no regard for the privacy of Australians. The previous Turnbull government and now this government continue to botch the rollout of the opt-out period, undermining public trust in these reforms. Australians have every right to be concerned about the security of their personal information with the My Health Record. This amendment is patching up legislation that, like other health policies of this government, is broken to the core. The My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 rightly responds to the public anger over My Health Record. Labor welcomes the changes in the bill. We welcome requiring law enforcement and other government agencies to get a court order to access records. We welcome permanently deleting the health information of people who opt out of My Health Record. However, we do not think these changes go far enough. They will do little to allay the community fears about privacy and security. This bill does nothing to protect some of the most vulnerable Australians in our communities. Take, for example, women fleeing violent partners or children who need privacy from non-custodial parents. The Law Council of Australia highlighted these concerns this week. Parents who are subjected to apprehended domestic violence orders may still access their children's health records even if they're only allowed supervised contact with those children. This, of course, opens the door to accessing much more information, perhaps such as the residential address of the child and the other parent. This is a serious issue and places vulnerable children and their parents at greater risk from perpetrators of violence, and this can't be allowed to happen. Despite these concerns, the government is still proceeding with the opt-out system. This really isn't good enough. This is a government that does not care about the most vulnerable people in our community. The government must suspend the opt-out period until these issues are addressed to protect the privacy of vulnerable Australians. The government must also ensure they are not enabling family violence through careless loopholes in these patch-up amendments. This is a government that doesn't care about the healthcare needs of Australians. The residents of my electorate of Werriwa have suffered enough thanks to the government's ideological war on Medicare and public health care. They've cut Medicare and hospitals year on year since the horror budget of 2014. The government has continued through the last four years with this assault, with $2.8 billion to be cut from hospitals between the next election and 2025. I'm appalled on behalf of residents in my electorate of Werriwa. Not only are my constituents worse off under this government's healthcare cuts but now they cannot count on their personal healthcare information being kept secure. This government hasn't been capable of delivering quality IT reforms and does not care about delivering quality public health reforms. When we combine the two together, My Health Record could be a complete disaster waiting to happen. A Labor government will deliver e-health reforms but put the privacy and security of Australians first. We will support this bill in the House because something is better than nothing when it comes to privacy, but we want to refer this bill to a legislative inquiry in the Senate. This inquiry will rightly test whether the bill adequately responds to privacy and security concerns. The Senate has rightly agreed to our proposal for an inquiry into the My Health Record. This inquiry will go beyond the bill. It will look at the government's decision to shift to an opt-out system, the way it communicates this fundamental change and the default settings within the record. This government's failings on My Health Record should come as little surprise to all of us in the House. This is a government with an appalling track record in delivering efficient, secure IT services. They've botched the rollout of the NBN, they've botched the rollout of the NDIS, we had the census issues, and now we seem to have botched the My Health Record all the way through. It is very important that we get this right to deliver the important reforms that My Health Record could deliver. 16:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I speak in support of the amendment moved by Labor to the motion for the second reading of the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. Since coming to office, the coalition government has resorted to every crafty trick to cut health spending across the country. It's done so firstly by freezing the Medicare Benefits Schedule payments to doctors—with out-of-pocket costs now rising, I understand, to something like on average $38 if you want to see a GP or $88 if you want to see a specialist—and then by negotiating dud deals with pathology centres with respect to their rent payments; three different attempts at co-payments by patients; cutting hospital funding to the tune of $715 million between 2017 and 2020, and more after that; cutting public dental services; cutting Indigenous health programs; and refusing to increase payments to GPs when they visit people in aged care. Bear in mind that the aged-care access incentive payment, I understand, ends in April of next year, and that in effect means that we will see fewer GPs visiting our aged-care centres. We just had a matter of public importance discussion with respect to the care of people in aged-care facilities across Australia, and one of the real concerns that arise from this government's cut to health expenditure is that the AMA has predicted that, over the next two years, one in three doctors who visit a patient in an aged-care centre will either scale down their visits or cut them out altogether. Again, this is all because of cost cutting by this government. I accept that, in a budget that stands at something like $78 billion of health expenditure, the government would be responsible in looking to make efficiencies in that expenditure. Every government should be constantly trying to go through its outlays and seeing where money can be saved if it can be, and I have no criticism of governments trying to do that. But I have criticism of governments doing it when the savings result in a diminution of patient care for people across this country. If a saving can be made without diminishing service and without diminishing patient care, by all means we should look at it. That's exactly what the My Health Record was expected to do when it was proposed by Labor in 2012. If properly administered, the My Health Record system was going to have the dual objective of providing better patient care and lower health costs, and I will explain why. Patients benefited because the treating health professionals would have had access to all patient records, not just some, regardless of where the patient went to see a doctor. That meant the doctor could make a decision based on the best interests of the patient and do so quickly, so there is the benefit to the patient right there and then. It also meant that, from the public purse point of view, where the government is constantly saying we need to make savings and find efficiencies, there would be no reason to duplicate the many unnecessary tests that doctors call for when they don't have access to all the records that they need of a patient. That's because those records are being held somewhere else. It's not necessarily that the tests have not been carried out; it is more the case that the information from those tests might have been held somewhere else and therefore are not available to the treating doctor. That's particularly the case when a patient presents to the outpatient's department of a hospital, where it is usually an emergency situation where immediate care is required,. The outpatient's staff and medical professionals need whatever information is important to them to make the right decision for that patient, and quite often that means sending the patient immediately in for X-rays or diagnostic imaging and the like. Again, a lot of that could have been avoided and time could have been saved in the treatment of that patient if we had a good My Health Record system in place. That's exactly why it would have benefited both the patients and the public purse. Unfortunately, because of this government's incompetence, the public has understandably lost confidence in the government's My Health Record system, and they are opting out in large numbers. We see in the latest figures, only in the last 24 hours, that some 900,000 Australians—since the opt-out period was brought in, which was only a couple of months ago—have already opted out of the My Health Record system. By the time the opt-out period ends on 15 November, it is likely that over one million Australians would have opted out. They do so for a good reason: because they have lost confidence in the government's management of their records. The damage being done is not only being done to both the public's benefit and the government public purse right here and now; the damage is being done because when people lose confidence in the government's management of a system it will take a long time for them to have that confidence restored. We've already had, to date, the AMA, the RACGP, the Law Council of Australia, a member of the government's backbench and others all criticise the government's administration of this program. But then one shouldn't be surprised about that. When one looks at the this government's management of a number of government programs, including the robo-debt debacle; the census of 2016, with the confusion and lack of confidence that caused with people not having the confidence to provide accurate information; and the Medicare and PBS data leaks that occurred under this government, we can understand why people would say, 'I don't mind the government setting up a My Health Record if I can have confidence in it being confidential. But if it is going to be either abused or accessed by those who have no right to access it, then of course I don't have confidence in it and I will not have my record placed within it.' The minister comes into the chamber every day in question time and talks about how this government is committed to an excellent health system for this country and relies on the work of the PBS to do that. That is work that, quite frankly, has little to do with the government's administration and has been ongoing for decades. Both sides of parliament have supported the work of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in terms of the medications that they recommend. Then we also have the government coming into the parliament every day and saying things like, 'Under our government, health expenditure has increased every year,' forgetting to mention that, quite logically, health expenditure would increase because the population is increasing, if nothing else, and that we have an ageing population, which again, as the records would show, always incurs additional costs to our health system. The reality is that this government has mismanaged the health record system of the country. The government has bungled it. Whilst this bill seeks to address some of the mistakes within the act, regrettably it doesn't go far enough. Yes, it extends the opt-out period to 15 November. That is in some respects a good thing, because it gives people more time to opt out. I'm not sure what happens after that if people are determined to opt out, but nevertheless it gives people more time to opt out. Yes, it has brought in a provision which ensures law enforcement agencies will require a court order if they want to access health records of a person of this country. However, it doesn't address the issues raised by others on this side of the parliament and by many of the people out there in the community about matters such as access to records of children in this country, particularly those aged between 14 and 18, who, in many cases, don't want their records accessed by anyone, including their own parents, for various reasons. They believe that they are old enough that only themselves and their health professionals should have access, and nobody else. With respect to children who come from families that have separated, one parent may well not want their address disclosed to the former husband or wife. Through access to the health records of the children, one party to the failed marriage can get access to the living address of the other person. Those concerns are not addressed by these changes, and they need to be. We then have concerns about workers in this country who may have to do a work medical of some sort. The work medical is usually done by a health professional that works for their employer. That means their employer's doctor gets access to their health records through this system, but they don't know—and neither does anyone else—just what of that information is then relayed back to the employer by that doctor. It is a concern. We now hear that big pharma—that is, big pharmaceutical companies—might also have access to some of the health record information if they apply to use the information for research purposes and the like. It creates another element of uncertainty about who might have access to this information and how they will use it once they get it. Because of the uncertainty, the benefits that the My Health Record system was likely to accrue will be lost for a long time. It is more so than ever the case today that people are moving away from their normal residential address. It could be simply for travel. People travel a lot more than they ever used to. Work opportunities have people moving from one location to another. People then change their living address through early retirement, or for other reasons in addition to that. Perhaps they just want to move. The reality is that the population moves more so than ever before. When they move, it's very likely that they then change their doctor and go to a different doctor's practice. That means that, if they can't take their health records with them—and they can't always do that—their whole health record system has to start again. Again that comes at an incredible additional public cost. As I said earlier, the X-rays, blood tests, diagnostic imaging and the like that are needed in an emergency situation may also be needed when you change doctor. Some of the people that are going to be worst affected by all of this are people that live in country Australia, because people that live in country Australia, for a whole raft of other reasons, are also very likely to need to see a health professional away from their normal place of residence. Again, it would seem to me that the bungling of this service by this government is going to make it more difficult for those people as well. If they are away from home and they have to see a doctor or go to the emergency department of a hospital outside of their normal address, then all of their medical information that would have been absolutely vital to the best treatment that they require would not be with them, because the system itself doesn't provide it. That's why we supported a My Health Record system in this place five or six years ago, because it was in the public interest to do so. What I see now through this government's bungling is a system that was well intended, and still is, that is likely to be undermined not just for a temporary period whilst we sort out the problems but for a long time to come. With that, the benefits that were hoped for as a result of it will be lost. 16:45 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to speak on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. This bill responds to the public's concerns over aspects of My Health Record and does make a number of changes which Labor welcome. But we don't think it has gone far enough. Labor will support this bill in the House but note that it has been referred to the Senate Community Affairs Committee to consider whether this bill adequately deals with the public's privacy and security concerns or whether further amendments are needed. The inquiry is due to report on 8 October. Labor supports e-health and the concept of the My Health Record, which is why Labor began delivering an electronic health record system when we were last in office. I will focus my remarks today on the benefits of a properly delivered digital personal health record system from the perspective of a pharmacist. My Health Record, as James Grant, a pharmacist working in informatics and electronic medicines management, points out in his editorial for GRIT, the journal of hospital pharmacists of Australia, is basically a high-tech manila chart medical record, which means health professionals are able to read and contribute to a single longitudinal medical and medication history of the patient. Comparable systems have been effectively and safely rolled out elsewhere. I first saw an integrated digital system in action in Sweden in 2006, and over a decade later we're yet to realise the benefits in Australia. Pharmacists and their representative bodies have been strong and consistent advocates for integrated digital health records for many years. This is because we know the risks associated with gaps in information, particularly in emergencies. As Professor Michael Dooley, President of The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, of which I am a member, said recently: The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA), alongside many other health organisations, has advocated for the integrated use of electronic health records for many years. As pharmacists working in hospitals we are well aware of the risks faced by patients which can occur when there are gaps in the timely provision of information between medical, allied health and pharmacy services. This is particularly true during emergency admission to hospital and often when patients return from hospital to care in the community. These gaps can contribute to reduced health outcomes for Australians. Pharmacists were some of the first health practitioners in Australia to become computerised in their practice settings. I know from my experience, with 20 years as a registered pharmacist, the benefits that a properly delivered digital personal health record system would provide to patients, carers, health practitioners, the wider community and government. The potential for better health outcomes and cost savings is significant. A 2013 report found that medication misadventure led to 230,000 hospital admissions, costing the Australian health system more than $1.2 billion annually. That's separate to the impact on the person or their family. This stacks up with earlier 2012 modelling which estimates the net benefits from digital health records could save $11.5 billion over 15 years, with close to 90 per cent of the expected savings coming from reduced avoidable hospital admissions and more effective medication management—a fundamental role for pharmacists. I would like to outline a vital part of medication management performed by thousands of pharmacists across Australia multiple times a day in different practice settings: medication reconciliation. Medication reconciliation is defined as the formal process of obtaining and verifying a complete and accurate list of each patient's current medicines and matching the medicines that the patient should be prescribed to those that they are actually prescribed. Any discrepancies are discussed with the prescriber, and reasons for changes to therapy are documented. Medication reconciliation is a four-step process. The first step is to obtain and document the best possible medication history, the second is to confirm the accuracy of the medication history, the third is to reconcile the history with prescribed medicines and follow-up discrepancies, and the final stage is to supply accurate medicines information when care is transferred. This strategy of medication management has been shown to improve medication safety and significantly decrease errors, which have an impact on the person and on the health system. This strategy is vital, particularly in emergencies or in situations of crisis, such as an unconscious patient being admitted to emergency; a child with a complex medical history in the absence of a parent or carer; or a person with a major mental health problem in crisis. I worked as a mental health pharmacist for most of my working life, and one of the main roles that I performed was making sure that patients' medications on admission were accurately documented, that we had the most up-to-date information, and that this was then confirmed with other sources, whether it was their general practitioner, the facility that they might have been transferred from, or the patient's own medication in a dosette box or a Webster-pak. In reconciling the history with prescribed medicines and then following up any discrepancies, when you're doing this on a daily basis with patients in crisis inside a mental health facility, the benefits that an e-health record would provide cannot be overestimated. Having accurate, up-to-date, relevant information at your fingertips would make this process more efficient, more effective and safer. It will save lives. As Leonie Abbott from the SHPA Electronic Medication Management Leadership Committee points out: Sifting through growing volumes of medicines information while caring for some of the most unwell patients is a daily challenge in hospital pharmacy, especially in emergency settings and during crucial transitions of care from hospital to the community when medication errors are most likely to occur. As the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the peak body representing almost 30,000 pharmacists working in all sectors, outlined in its submission to the inquiry, a My Health Record would mean that a pharmacist in emergency could readily identify medication and medication-disease interactions, could identify necessary dose adjustments with respect to a person's kidney or liver function, and could identify potential and actual adverse medication effects by having a more complete picture of a person's medication history and regime. When I was working in Wyong Hospital in my electorate, one of the key roles of every pharmacist in the team was to do these medication histories on admission. The SHPA has a standard that these should be done within 24 hours of a patient being admitted, but with the high throughput in public hospitals, particularly in regional centres, that's not possible. E-medication or digital integrated records would mean that health practitioners, particularly under strain in regional or rural settings, would be able to have accurate, reliable, comprehensive information at their fingertips. This must be done properly. As a pharmacist, I am proud of Labor's initiative in commencing the rollout of the electronic health record system when we were in last in government. As Professor Michael Dooley, the President of SHPA, said: The widespread introduction of My Health Record is a good step towards timely access to the important information needed when making decisions regarding medicines. The progression of comprehensive electronic health record management will bring the provision and exchange of health information into this century. We are pleased to see the federal government has today committed to swiftly addressing stakeholder and community concerns about privacy through legislative and regulatory means. This will provide greater support to healthcare practitioners in providing the best possible care, and hopefully will reassure all Australians that electronic healthcare records are an essential part of receiving high quality health care in all settings. Notwithstanding the hope of the SHPA and other pharmacy and health peak bodies, the very real risk, in my view, is that this government's mishandling of the My Health Record has undermined community confidence and participation in what should be a transformative health initiative. In particular, the government has failed to properly explain to the public the change to an opt-out system from an opt-in system and to enhance the privacy and data security features of the scheme to a degree consistent with the wider reach of an opt-out model. The benefit to both individuals and population health research are best achieved when a threshold participation is reached. This is an advantage of an opt-out as a default setting. However, if the public confidence in the system is compromised, as it has been, to the point where a significant number choose to opt out, these benefits will not be realised. Contributing to this risk is that, over the last five years, and the last few weeks, this government has consistently undermined the public's trust in government. The public simply do not believe that this government is on their side or that this government will protect their interests ahead of big business or big financial institutions. That is why workers have concerns that their health records could be made available to potential employers, and consumers are concerned that their health records could be made available to health and life insurance companies. However, my interest in this issue is not to criticise the government. Rather, as a health professional and a member of the party which initiated the My Health Record, I want to see this system be given every chance to reach its full potential for individuals, for health practitioners, for the wider community, for government. In this regard, the news today that 900,000 Australians have already opted out is particularly concerning. Labor's position is that the government should suspend the opt-out period until all of the remaining privacy issues and security concerns are properly addressed and public confidence in this important health initiative is restored. As I mentioned earlier, for the benefits of population health, there needs to be a threshold of participation in this, which is why the opt-out model is one that would work well if health practitioners had the information to properly inform patients and if people had the right information to make an informed decision about whether they opt out. What I'm particularly concerned about is that the mishandling of My Health Record could set back even further in Australia what could be a transformative initiative. As I mentioned earlier, comparable systems of integrated digital health records have been introduced in other parts of the world safely, where the security of data is robust, where privacy measures are strong, and where people have the confidence that they can provide their own health information and know that it's going to be appropriately handled and accessed, as is needed, by the appropriate person. Recently I had the opportunity to have a demonstration of the My Health Record in a community pharmacy, Blooms pharmacy in Wyong. I was really pleased that the PSA has made a concerted effort to inform as many of their members or as many pharmacists as possible, as has the SHPA and other pharmacy peak bodies, to make sure that pharmacists are as well informed as they can be in order to be able to have these informed conversations with consumers about their health needs. It's important that public confidence in this important public health initiative it restored. The PSA, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, makes a number of suggestions for ensuring the privacy and security of the My Health Record system. These suggestions make sense, and they include strict controls on third-party access to My Health Record; allowing researchers authorised by governments to access the system for data analysis and reporting, but not to access individual records, so that the system can be evaluated and future policy informed; no access to the My Health Record system by the Australian Taxation Office or by commercial interests; and excluding health and life insurance companies from access to the My Health Record system. Further, the PSA suggests that patients should not be compelled to provide information from their My Health Record to insurers. Those are all very well-thought-out and sensible recommendations that I hope are taken on board to ensure that privacy and security concerns are properly addressed in order to give the My Health Record the best chance of success for individuals and their health and wellbeing and for the wider health system. The PSA provides these suggestions for measures which pharmacists believe may help to address some of the community privacy concerns in the My Health Record. Public advertising should highlight and clearly explain that patients can set access controls to their own My Health Record and show them where to find the instructions to do this. Public advertising should include clear information on access to a My Health Record for young people aged 14 to 17. The PSA suggests that consumer and health professional advertising should include clear information around the protections in the My Health Record system, including that it's a criminal offence for anyone other than a registered clinical professional to access a patient's record. It's a criminal offence for a registered clinical professional to open a record unless this is done in the context of care provision. And, if a person deliberately accesses an individual My Health Record without authorisation, criminal penalties may apply. I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to Labor's proposal for an inquiry into My Health Record as a whole. This will deal with broader issues beyond the scope of this bill, such as the government's decision to shift to an opt-out system from an opt-in system, its communication of this fundamental change, and default settings within the record. I hope that the outcomes of this inquiry will assist in improving public understanding of and participation in My Health Record. This will give My Health Record the best chance of the success it was designed to achieve for individuals, health practitioners, carers, the healthcare system and the government. 17:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I also rise today to contribute to the debate on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 and am very happy to support amendments moved by the member for Ballarat in doing so. I am a huge supporter of electronic health records in principle. Done properly they have the potential to revolutionise health care, as we've heard throughout this debate. Labor established electronic health records when in government. We know the benefits they can deliver. They can dramatically reduce errors, improve diagnoses and save the health system billions. If, heaven forbid, you find yourself in an accident and arrive in an emergency department in whatever part of Australia, who would disagree with the notion that your receiving ED could log on and have ready access to all the important information regarding your health? There are many situations where this could be incredibly advantageous, but like many Australians I am concerned about data security and the conditions under which third parties, especially commercial operators, can access private medical data and information. This government has given me absolutely zero reason to have any confidence in their capacity to do this properly. They have completely bungled the rollout to date and have utterly failed to explain the process or principles of My Health Record to the Australian people. For many the first they heard about it was when they learned that they'd signed up without their knowledge and that their most personal medical information was now stored on a central repository. Add this to the government's appalling track record on data and IT security and you have real cause for concern. From the robo-debt debacle to the botched census and the failed NBN, this government has an embarrassing legacy of failed projects and dodgy patch-up jobs. For these and many other reasons I made the decision last month to opt out of the program until the government gets it right, and I'm not the only one; people across the country also have a lack of confidence in this government's capacity to deliver this program and are voting with their feet. It was revealed this week that nearly a million Australians have now actively removed themselves from the system, and we still have two months to go in the opt-out period. This should have been a great program that streamlined the health system and made it more reliable, but in the hands of this government a great project with a lot of potential has been utterly bungled. The public backlash has been swift. The bill before us today is a mad scramble to fix some of the problems that the government should have foreseen and fixed months ago. It goes some way towards responding to the community anger by creating the need for a court order for government agencies to access medical information and by deleting records once someone opts out of the system. While Labor welcomes these changes, we do not think they go far enough. They are necessary but not sufficient. There are a number of protections that Labor believes are still necessary to deliver adequate protections and restore community confidence. For example, nothing in the bill today will address concerns about the safety of women and children fleeing violent partners. There is a very real concern that instead of helping people the information within the health record could be used to facilitate domestic violence by giving former partners, or non-custodial parents, access to treatment information, which could be then used to identify where their ex-partner and children are living. This is utterly unacceptable and it must be fixed as a matter of urgency. Similarly, workers have told us that they're worried that if they have had pre-employment checks or a workers' compensation assessment by a doctor then this information may be passed on to their employer. Nothing in the bill before us today would stop employers using this information to discriminate against employees on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. But we won't hold this bill up. We understand that if the My Health Record system is to be successful it must secure widespread buy-in, and this bill is a reasonable starting point for building trust, limited as it is. The first change proposed in the bill would mean that any law enforcement agencies or other government bodies would not be able to secure access to content within a My Health Record unless they either got a court order or were given express consent of the record owner. The bill also sets out strict conditions that must be met in order to secure a court order. This is an important change that addresses broad concerns about how the data might be shared between agencies, as they do with so much other information. While the government argues that this protection is already contained in the policies of the Australian Digital Health Agency, it is difficult to determine whether this will be adequate in practice. Given the dire state of public opinion about this rollout, it's very sensible to install this extra safeguard with the legislation itself, as explicit protections on how the data can be accessed will help to ease many people's minds. The second major change made in the bill is to ensure that once somebody opts out of the My Health Record system their record is permanently deleted. Currently, the information is locked down but retained for 30 years after the person's death. Again, this is an important change that will serve to ease a lot of disquiet in the community about those records living on in contravention of the direct and stated wish of the individual. As I mentioned earlier, Labor thinks there are some more dire problems that remain with the program, but we can see that these initial steps are indeed necessary to help close some security gap concerns people have raised and go some way towards helping to start to rebuild trust in the system. In August, the Senate referred the bill to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. But, unfortunately, this inquiry will be limited to the provisions within the bill and not the bigger issues surrounding the program, of which there are many. This is why Labor has established a second inquiry to examine the issues that fall outside of the direct scope of the bill before us today. This will be a root and branch inquiry of the entire system: its rules, its regulations and its risks. It will be looking at the much broader issues, such as the government's decision to establish an opt-out system rather than the opt-in system that the former Labor government had set-up. As we have seen, this has been nothing short of disastrous so far. There was virtually no attempt to explain it or educate people on how the system would work. People, understandably, became very suspicious when they learnt they had already signed up for something that they knew nothing about, especially when they started to learn about the potential privacy loopholes. The inquiry will also consider the privacy and security settings to determine whether they are in fact adequate. In this regard, it will look closely at who will be able to access personal health data, with particular attention being paid to the conditions under which private companies can see this sensitive information. It will examine how women fleeing domestic violence can be protected and how employees can be guaranteed that having a My Health Record will not be able to lead to discriminatory treatment in the workplace. The government has said there are no problems here, but the risk that that isn't the case is simply too high. As I mentioned earlier, Labor are a big supporter of electronic health record programs, in principle. Labor want to see My Health Record succeed. Open and honest inquiries are the best means of identifying and fixing issues before they become a serious problem. So it was very disappointing that the government referred to it as a 'stunt', given the importance of the subject matter and how much we stand to lose if we get it wrong. This inquiry's no stunt. It's a very real attempt to make a half-baked bill the best it can be. The committee will thoroughly interrogate these risks through the inquiry process and determine what is needed to be done to ensure the safety and privacy of every My Health Record user. Labor will look closely at the findings of the inquiry, which is due to report on 8 October. We will then decide on our final position and identify any further amendments that are needed to strengthen privacy protections and boost our confidence in the system. In summary, in the hands of a competent government, e-health records have the potential to be a game changer for our health systems. They can reduce the stakes, improve outcomes and, indeed, save billions. Labor, I repeat, want the My Health Record to work—but this government has done such an utter botched job of it so far. It took an opt-in system which had been functioning effectively for years and turned it into a public outrage almost overnight. It tried to impose an opt-out model which presumed consent without giving thought to what this might mean for privacy or data security and then it was surprised when there was a public backlash. It's astonishing that the government should be surprised by the backlash. The government failed to consult, it failed to communicate and it failed to correct when it became abundantly clear what a debacle the rollout was turning into. But, most importantly, it failed to adequately consider the privacy and security of millions of Australian men, women and children when it made decisions around the treatment of their most personal medical data. This legislation fixes some very specific issues with the My Health Record rollout, but it doesn't go near fixing the damage the government has done to public confidence. 17:14 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh When Labor last considered the My Health Record in 2015, the shadow minister, the member for Ballarat, moved a second reading amendment to the government's bill. It called on the House to note the inadequacy of that bill in making real improvements through a national electronic health record system. The government voted that amendment down, and here we are again today. Labor raised concerns about the implementation, but we were prepared to give the government and the new Digital Health Agency a go, to get this right. But, from what we are reading in the media and hearing in this place, it is clear that the government has screwed this up. Instead of getting this right, right from the start, as we said—having a secure and efficient health record system—we have critics saying that there are real security concerns. And that's a real concern. This includes some honourable members on the government's own side and ranks, and now we find the government coming back to the chamber with legislation that's basically a clean-up exercise. I want to be clear. We support a national digital health record. Labor established the personally controlled electronic health record under the leadership of the member for Sydney. If the government can eventually get this right, we believe that My Health Record could save money and, most importantly, save lives. Here's the problem: the government has already tarnished the My Health Record system. You only need to listen to programs such as Leon Byner in South Australia on FIVEaa or the ABC in the mornings in Adelaide to know that people are worried about the integrity of their information. Let's remember that this is the government that gave us the census fail and the robo-debt disaster—two IT projects that were completely messed up. Therefore, you can understand why people would not have the confidence that another massive project such as this will be tight and ensure that people's personal records don't leak out to different sectors of the community. I was very proud of the work I did as the member for Hindmarsh to expose the harassment techniques used by the minister's agencies through the robo-debt debacle. On top of that, Medicare and PBS data leaked, and the government spent millions outsourcing the National Cancer Screening Register to Telstra. Why are we here again today with this legislation? Because in mid-July, when the opt-out period for My Health Record began, it became very clear that the government had bungled this vital program in two fundamental ways. The government seemed to have refused to communicate with the public about, first, the risks and benefits of the My Health Record and, second, what the actual opt-out system means in practice. The opt-out model is a big change from Labor's opt-in system. Every Australian will now get a My Health Record unless they tell the government they don't want one. The minister was woefully slow not just in explaining the benefits but also in reassuring that the public's records are safe on this. The system was called into doubt, eroding confidence in this particular system. So, what we needed was television ads and a public campaign, but of course the government refused to run any ads on TV. Some critics might argue that it's a waste of money to educate the public about such a fundamental change to health. But it's important that the public are aware and that they know what their rights are and what the benefits are of the Digital Health Agency and a system that will keep their health records. Wouldn't it be a surprise to learn that the Digital Health Agency spent $81 million on consultants last year alone, when some of this money could have gone towards educating the public, informing the public and notifying the public of what their rights are, of what they can and can't do and of the great benefits of a system like this. The minister wouldn't explain the benefits, public opposition from cyber commentators and privacy advocates grew, and the trust started to evaporate. On this side of the House, we're trying to help the government. We're trying to assist, because we know how important this is, and we're trying to get this back on track. The legislation before us today tries to make two changes to the My Health Records Act 2012. First, the bill first amends the act to require a court order or a consumer's express consent to disclose health information from their My Health Record to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies. I today here join with the member for Ballarat by congratulating the AMA, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and others that have advocated for that exact policy to be enshrined in this legislation. Firstly, the bill also sets out a range of conditions under which a judicial officer may make a court order to disclose health information, including that the disclosure is reasonably necessary and that the requested information is not available from any other source. It also exempts the Auditor-General, the ombudsman and the Information Commissioner from the requirement for a court order. The government argues that this is necessary because these agencies have unique responsibilities, and they have unique responsibilities to ensure the privacy and security of the My Health Record system. Secondly, this bill amends the act to require the permanent deletion of health information for all consumers who opt out of the My Health Record. I can tell you that I've had more than a few inquiries from constituents about this, as I'm sure everyone in this House has had. The former president of the AMA, Dr Kerryn Phelps, has described the government's changes as 'woefully inadequate' and 'minor concessions'. I suppose defending on how things go in Wentworth, perhaps Dr Phelps might be able to come to this House and express her views on this very floor. Something I've been worried about, and many of my colleagues have been concerned about, is that we need to make sure that the private health insurers are never given access to people's health records. The last thing we need, in this nation, in this country, is a class of Australians that is either uninsurable or facing rising premiums due to a perceived increased risk. We are not saying that this is going to happen with the way the legislation is currently written, but who knows what a future government could be capable of doing? This is a government that's hell-bent on outsourcing, just like we have seen with Centrelink call-centre staff, Home Affairs and a whole range of other things that have been outsourced. The public needs to understand that there's a huge price to pay when it comes to outsourcing; we pay for it with reduced integrity data. Our information can go overseas and into the hands of private companies with vested interests and perhaps nations overseas that have different types of democracies than we do. We should be supporting, of course, Australian workers and a strong public service here. All that aside, there are massive advantages with having an integrated system, which the minister failed to promote when the backlash began. And this is where the government has failed. They needed to educate the public. They needed to inform the public about the importance of this system. Let's say you are interstate and fall ill or have an accident. You will be able to go to a hospital, GP, doctor or health provider and not explain your previous treatment. You may not know what your previous treatment was or you may not be conscious at the time, but all of your records will be there for every health professional to see so that they will be able to give you the treatment that you require. This, most importantly, as I said at the beginning of this speech, will save lives. It will save lives and it will assist people. You will be able to go anywhere in the country to see a doctor and not have to go through the same rigmarole of trying to explain what treatment you've had, what medication you're on and what doctors' consulting notes are saying. This will all be there. It will be a great assistance for the medical professional to be able to give the treatment that's required. I have to say that only this government could take such a great policy and great idea, which would benefit our health system and would benefit Australians, and turn it into a fiasco. While doubts remain from experts in the health and IT sectors, we still firmly believe—and I certainly firmly believe—that the opt-out rollout should be suspended until all of these concerns are fully addressed and a new comprehensive, public information campaign is launched. And when I say 'a public campaign', we need TV ads, radio ads and advertisements in the newspapers. We need people to come out and talk about it. We need the minister himself to promote it and do all that he can to get that information out to the public so that people understand it. Most people, I think, would be fairly comfortable knowing that their data—their private information on health—is safe and cannot be leaked out to private entities, multinational companies or insurers. They would be comfortable knowing that, at a time of emergency when they're perhaps away from their local GP or not at their local hospital, when something goes wrong and they fall ill or have an accident, their health information, which is absolutely critical to their treatment, would be accessible to any health professional who can look at it, analyse it and know exactly what treatment that patient is getting or what new treatment he or she may be able to offer. While doubts remain, as I said, for experts in the health and IT sectors, it's really important that a public information campaign is launched. It's the least that this government can do to make sure that we get this system right. It is so important, as I said, that this system be perfect. We need it to be perfect. And we know there was a public outcry at the start of the opt-out period for the My Health Record in mid-July. The government agreed to make those two changes and provide the privacy protections, and that's what we need. We need to ensure that the Australian public has absolute confidence that there is protection for that data, that none of that data will be leaked and, certainly, that none of that data will ever be outsourced to a private company that could perhaps then onsell it to someone else for a profit. You can just imagine the danger to Australian patients in terms of insurance, occupational health, compensation claims et cetera or in terms of employment, when people are applying for work. You can imagine, if an employer got hold of their entire health record, how that could adversely affect people. So we need the public to be absolutely guaranteed that this government is doing all that it can to protect that private information and that that private information will only be able to be accessed by medical professionals and only for the purpose of giving treatment to people. It's a great thing. It's a fantastic thing to be able to go anywhere in the nation—and we are a nation, after all. We're not a section of six different countries with a couple of territories. People should be able to access their records at any health centre, at any GP or at any hospital anywhere in the country. And this, as I said earlier, will save lives, so we need to ensure that the government informs the public, lets them know how this will work, informs them of the importance of it, and absolutely guarantees that it is tight and that nothing will be leaked. 17:28 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I too rise to speak on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. It's always good to follow the member for Hindmarsh, who I know has a very strong commitment to providing health services, particularly for our elderly. As speakers from this side have made very clear, Labor supports eHealth and we support the concept of a My Health Record, but we don't support this government's constant bungling of this very important issue. And, to date, its handling of this matter has been a debacle. The fact is that government is essentially all about priorities and choices. We, on this side of the House, often point out how wrong their choices are. And, in relation to eHealth, not only are their actions and their choices wrong, but they also reflect the very chaotic approach of this government to just about everything. This government is consumed with its internal fighting and has just caused such chaos. And it is really obvious when we look at this absolute eHealth debacle. The constant bungling and shambles reflect the current state of the government. It's a sign of their overall dysfunction and the ongoing muppet show that we keep hearing about. It's important to note from the outset that this government does, in fact, have quite a woeful record when it comes to IT security and privacy and, indeed, a woeful record when it comes to rolling out many programs. They've botched the rollout of the NBN with their inferior networks and their patchwork of rollouts that's unworkable in many locations, especially in regional areas like mine. They're botching the rollout of the NDIS, a very important program. I get many complaints— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Order! You've got to keep it relevant. Mrs ELLIOT DZW Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just highlighting some of the rollouts that have been botched by this government. A lot of it has not been implemented properly, so there certainly is a history of it, and My Health Record is another one of those botched rollouts. When it comes to IT failures we also remember the massive failure when it came to the census, and the robodebt debacle. We've now also seen the latest IT disaster in My Health Record. So, it's important to look at it in the context of this government's record. Of course, it comes on top of this government's harsh cuts to health and hospitals. We've seen $700 million in cuts to hospitals across the nation—their cuts to Medicare. Those cuts particularly hurt regional areas. Whilst it's been stated that we do agree to this bill, we have many strong concerns about the government's implementation of the My Health Record System. The fact is that nearly one million Australians have opted out of My Health Record following the government's botched rollout, proving that public trust in this important reform has been severely damaged. Indeed, under Labor questioning at a Senate committee, the Australian Digital Health Agency finally admitted that over 900,000 people have now opted out—900,000. And with two months to go in the opt-out period, that number is likely to rise to well over one million people. So, it's really clear how badly this rollout has undermined public support for a system that could deliver enormous benefits. Instead, we have massive problems, symptomatic of the government's massive problems. It's because of these problems and concerns that Labor referred My Health Record to the Senate for an inquiry. We still firmly believe that the opt-out rollout should be suspended until all these concerns are fully addressed and a new, comprehensive public information campaign is launched. That's the proper way to approach this. The government promised such a campaign six weeks ago, but so far we've seen absolutely no trace of it. The government's responses have not been sufficient. The one-month extension of the opt-out period that the government has introduced is simply not good enough. This reform should not go any further until public trust has been restored, and the only way to do that is for the Senate to do its job and make sure that we actually get this legislation right. The government must do everything in its power to listen to the community concerns and to minimise the risk and security concerns—listen to the health experts, listen to the many people who've raised these issues. As we've said, Labor supports a national digital health record, and we support e-health. We established a personally controlled electronic health record, because we knew that such personally controlled e-health records could really improve coordination between GPs, specialists, hospitals and pharmacies and could cut down on duplication errors in diagnosis, prescriptions and treatments. So, it is a really important and vital healthcare reform. It's especially beneficial for older people, who often have very complex health conditions and need to consult a variety of doctors and specialists. So, there is a great capacity and a great potential in e-health. From my perspective in my electorate, I've had so many queries from locals who are concerned about the botched implementation. People are actually very distressed about the potential access to their health record. Again, particularly our seniors are very worried about their sensitive personal medical data. And what's the security? What are the provisions around it? These people are highly distressed, and I've been approached by many of them. They're really concerned about where their personal, private medical information will end up and why this government has not put sufficient safeguards in place. So, the government's response is very disappointing. Indeed, this bungling also has a major impact for people in rural and regional Australia as well. And where is the National Party in speaking about this? Nowhere, when it comes to this. The reason it's going to have a big impact upon rural and regional areas is that they're more likely to need portability of their medical records when they travel to major cities for treatments that are unavailable where they live, so they really need them in the regions. Again, that's been raised in my area. People in my area often have to travel to the Gold Coast or Brisbane or Sydney. But those in rural and very rural areas can have very lengthy travel to get medical treatment, so they really need an effective and proper e-health system that they can rely on. An e-health record implemented properly by a competent and functioning government can in fact deliver real and important healthcare reforms. It's for these reasons that Labor began delivering the e-health record system when we were last in government. It's important to note that when we were in government our system was opt-in, and we thought that was the right approach. Anyone who participated in e-health had to give informed consent and was fully informed as to what the e-health record was and what it involved. This government decided to change this to an opt-out system. But, in doing so, they never properly explained why they were doing it and never attempted to educate the public about this approach. They should have done that across a whole range of different media, but they didn't. The government has essentially refused to communicate with Australians about the risks and benefits of the My Health Record and what exactly the opt-out system means in practice. The opt-out model is a very big change from Labor's opt-in system. It moves the system away from one of informed consent. In 2015, the government took the decision to move to the presumed consent model and provide a period in which people could choose to opt out of the system altogether. It's a very significant change in the healthcare relationship. To do that effectively really requires proper and consistent explanation and advertising to the Australian public of just how the system works, and none of that has happened. It is this failure to communicate this change properly and thoroughly that has fuelled a lot of the privacy and security concerns that Australians quite rightly have. This government's bungling now of the rollout of the opt-out period undermines public trust in this very important reform and the potential benefits it could bring. This bill responds to some of the public anger about the scheme by making some of the changes that Labor welcomes, including requiring law enforcement and other government agencies to got a court order to enable access to the records. Firstly, this bill amends the act to require a court order or a patient's express consent in order to disclose health information from their My Health Record to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies. It is very important that this particular change to policy be enshrined in this legislation. The bill sets out a range of conditions under which a judicial officer may make such an order, including that the disclosure is reasonably necessary and that the requested information is not available from any other source. The bill exempts the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner from the requirement for a court order. Secondly, this bill amends the act to require the permanent deletion of health information for all consumers who opt out of My Health Record. The act currently requires the information that was held in the record to be locked down but retained until 30 years after the patient's death. A major issue that had been raised was: what exactly was happening after deleting the health information of people who opted out of the health record? So this bill does implement some good changes, but it was only following the massive public outcry at the start of the opt-out period for My Health Record in mid-July that the government actually agreed to make these two particular changes to improve privacy protections. But we on this side of the House don't believe these changes go far enough, and they actually will not do enough to ease the community concerns about privacy and security. For example, a really important point is that this bill does nothing to address concerns that the My Health Record may indeed risk the safety of women who are fleeing from domestic violence situations or fleeing from abusive partners, and, indeed, it doesn't do anything to help children needing privacy from non-custodial parents. Many advocates have raised the particular concern that inappropriate access to My Health Records could actually facilitate family violence. For example, ex-partners or non-custodial parents could conceivably use the record to track the location and treatment of people. That's because the default settings give access to a child's My Health Record to both parents. In fact, they may even allow a non-custodial parent to create a record for a child that is no longer in their care. This is a major privacy and security issue. For example, if a woman and her children are fleeing an ex-partner, that partner could potentially track their location by viewing the doctors and pharmacies that they visit and, therefore, could quite easily narrow down the location of that ex-partner and children fleeing from domestic violence. This is a major concern that the government absolutely has to look at to ensure the security and privacy of the people involved. We're also very concerned when it comes to workers' privacy. I know many people on this side have raised this concern. Indeed, I commend the unions who've rightly also raised issues. They are concerned that doctors who perform pre-employment or workers compensation assessments may potentially pass health information to employers, and those employers could then use this information to discriminate against employees—for example, on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. This is obviously very unfair, and, quite rightly, many people have been encouraged to opt out because of the concerns that they have about that information being passed on. It really is an absolute breach of a person's security and of their sensitive medical data. We need to see action on those particular points. As we've said, Labor remains of the view that the government should suspend the opt-out period until these and other issues can be effectively addressed. I have raised concerns about the impact of the government's bungling of the e-health record, particularly the impact on people in regional and rural Australia. I again say that we need to get this right for those people. When you're living in the regions and travelling long distances it can be vital to have access to a healthcare system like this. It is disappointing that, as always, the National Party are silent when it comes to the issues that are damaging people in rural and regional Australia. The impacts on the regions are very important, particularly considering this government's cuts to health and hospitals over the years. This government has failed rural and regional Australia on many fronts, particularly when it comes to health and hospitals. As I've said many times, National Party choices hurt, especially when it comes to the lack of advocacy for an effective e-health record system for the regions. When we look at the health circumstances of regional, rural and remote Australia, we see that there are always considerably higher levels of chronic disease and a shortage of health professionals, on top of the government's cuts. It is even more important to have effective health systems in place so that people from the country can get access to services. That's why it's important to get e-health right for them. Whilst the National Party may not be advocating to improve e-health records, Labor does so consistently on this side of the House. We are the party of the country and will always advocate for better health systems for them, because we know how they need that in place. The changes brought forward in this bill are necessary and important, but they are not enough. We need to see this Senate inquiry process as an opportunity for many Australians, particularly medical professionals, to have their say so we can work effectively towards fixing the existing problems in e-health. We need further protections for privacy and security in both the legislation and the policy, and we need a government committed to communicating with all Australians about the benefits and risks of My Health Record so that people can make an informed choice as to how they participate in the e-health system. That particular method of communication can be through a whole range of media over a long period of time. People are very keen to understand and learn more about the benefits of e-health and what it means for them and their families. I think particularly older Australians—who, as I've said, often have very complex conditions that require seeing a number of medical professionals—were very keen to have this system in place, but now there is so much scepticism and hesitation because of the bungling by this government particularly around security and privacy that it has a lot to do in order to restore faith and trust so that people will again look at e-health and perhaps see the benefits that could be brought with it. To do that we need a competent and functioning government—not the muppet show we have at the moment—that can put a proper e-health system in place so people have the trust that, when they access a number of health professionals, they won't be terrified as to where their health records will end up, but given the bungling of this government, a lot of work has to be done because of the shambles it is in. We have to find a way through this because e-health provides a great way to move into the future of healthcare systems. It will take a long time and a lot of commitment as to communication and the way this government speaks to people about the benefits of the e-health system, which can be done only if we see all the privacy and security provisions improved so we can have an effective and functioning e-health and My Health Record system for people to access. 17:43 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce By any measure the implementation of My Health Record is a debacle. It's a big call to say at the outset, but it is worse than the usual IT stuff-ups we've seen under this government. The ATO outage inconvenienced business and cost the economy millions. The census fail not only inconvenienced the whole of Australia and risked the integrity of the enormously important and expensive endeavour of the five-yearly census but also, relevant to this point, further undermined public trust in data, privacy and the government's IT ability. The NDIA IT stuff-up and robo-debt picking on older Australians were bad enough, but this is a critically important project to get right. It will save lives. Labor strongly supports e-health and the concept of My Health Record. When it's done properly we hope to see not only tangible healthcare improvements in coordination between practitioners, access to records and saving lives in emergency settings but also money saved in the health system that we can use more productively in other areas to meet growing demand: fewer tests, better and quicker diagnoses, multidisciplinary practice enabled in a much lower-cost environment and fewer prescription errors. It is good if it's done right, but part of doing it right means public confidence. You cannot have a universal system like this without the public being confident in the security of the data, in terms of who can access it, their right to withdraw and all the other safeguards around it. On any reasonable measure the government has failed and continues to fail, because they are not hearing the community concern, and this bill covers only a few of the issues that need to be fixed to restore public confidence. It is a surprise, member for Batman, that the health minister has not been promoted for this incompetence, because the current Prime Minister was promoted for his incompetence with the company tax cuts and the current Treasurer was promoted for his incompetence with the energy policy—they don't have an energy policy. It is a surprise that the health minister didn't run away from the health portfolio and become the deputy leader and the foreign minister, as Australia knows he wanted to, and nick off overseas. Alas, poor Yorick! Labor began to deliver a health system when we were in government and that system was opt in. The government changed it to opt out. I understand there are sensible arguments that've been put by the profession for opting out. Fair enough; that's fine. They arrogantly and naively failed when making that decision to make the case to the people, and explain to the public and build confidence about why they were doing that. All of a sudden people woke up, because they hadn't made the case, and said: 'What, all my private medical data is going to be stored in a database? I didn't consent to that. Who can access it?' The minister had no ability to answer the questions. He hadn't thought it through. The legislative and the regulatory foundation on which this opt-out system rests was the previous design done by Labor for a completely different system. It should not be a surprise to the government, even the minister—arrogant and out of touch that he is, no topic that he couldn't politicise, as we learn in question time every day—given the degradation of public trust in government, in institutions, in data and in privacy that people have opted out. They've botched the rollout. I say to the House that I opted out in the first few days for three key reasons. The first reason is that I take this stuff seriously. The minister was completely unable to explain the safeguards and the access. To be unkind, he blatantly misled the public. If I were kinder I would say that he had no idea about the detail and just got it wrong—one or the other. He misled the public by pretending that some of the privacy safeguards were in legislation when they were not. They are in regulation that can be changed. The second reason was the issue of availability of information. The controls on the system to insurers were entirely unclear. If I change my mind at some point, like any other Australian, they wouldn't delete my data. The third reason is that I have a presumption, which I'll touch on in a moment, that the data will leak. I believe the data will leak. It will be hacked. That is inevitable in the current era, and there is no clarity on what rights people will have then. In Singapore the Prime Minister's data was hacked, only a couple of months ago, in a hack to their system. It was a pointed and targeted attack, as he admitted. Singapore is known as having the best-performing public service in the entire world, and that's no exaggeration. The Singaporean public service—their data, their integrity, their systems and their policy development—is absolutely topnotch. People go from all over the world to study how they run their government there. I don't agree with all their policies. Our political systems may have some differences but they are a great partner overall. They are renowned for their public administration and even their system was hacked. I took a conservative approach, as we've now learnt a million other Australians have, and that figure is climbing. We did offer to work with the government; bipartisanship is entirely desirable. But the minister didn't take that offer up—he knows best. It was public outcry, media pressure and stakeholders that forced this change. But his heart is not in the fix. I had a look at his second reading speech. He still doesn't get it. When introducing this bill, the minister was still claiming that there's nothing wrong. He said: 'There is actually no problem. The system is fine, but I'm going to introduce this bill that we don't even need.' He is doing it because apparently a million Australians were wrong, the doctors were wrong, the nurses were wrong, the lawyers were wrong, the consumer health forum was wrong and the media was wrong—even the member for Goldstein was wrong. Everyone was wrong except the minister. The minister has decided to legislate to stop a nonproblem that will never happen, according to him. Despite this bill wasting our time, he remains true to his word and loyal to the old scheme. I think it's fair to say that this year the only thing he has been more loyal to than this scheme is Malcolm. I wonder, given that he actually doesn't believe the bill is needed as he told us, whether he'll even vote for his bill. We will find out. Labor does believe that this bill is necessary, but it's premature. We've said clearly we have to build public confidence in this system. The benefits are enormous—for individuals' health care, to save lives and to save money—but it can only happen if we get it right. We have said we need a pause. We want to work with the government in a bipartisan way. We started this. The government is in charge now. We should do this together and get it right. But to do that, we have to pause it, suspend the rollout and work together. This bill has come before us before the Senate inquiry has even concluded. We haven't even heard what the stakeholders have said. It is not enough and it does not allay community concerns regarding privacy. Let me quote Kerryn Phelps. If the polls are right, we are going to be hearing a lot more from Professor Kerryn Phelps in this place. She said the government's changes are 'woefully inadequate'. She is the former head of the Australian Medical Association. She said they are just 'minor concessions'. The shadow minister raised a number of concerns, which have been touched on by other speakers. These are concerns that the bill does not address the real, legitimate issues around family violence. Unless the custodial parent decides to change it and convinces the Digital Health Agency—who apparently are now going to be experts in family violence disputes; good luck with that—to remove access for the non-custodial parent, the non-custodial parent can access the My Health Record. Otherwise, in family violence cases, where usually a woman—sometimes a man, but usually a woman—has fled a violent situation with the kids, the non-custodial parent can access the My Health Record to track down where they are. The government says, 'Oh, that's okay. She can remember to ring up the health agency,' because, of course, you're going to have that on your mind. You will get through on the number, fill out the right forms and press the right buttons when you're fleeing domestic violence. You can ring up and get the access removed, but it might be reinstated—but it might not. We've heard about the issues of parental access to teenage records. They are sensitive issues. They need to be thought about carefully. The bill completely fails to address these issues. The previous speaker also spoke eloquently on the issue of concerns for workers. People going to a job want a basic health check to check if their back is okay, but all of a sudden the doctor might get other stuff from the medical record and tell the prospective employer. Where are the safeguards around that? This is bill does not address that. This is bad legislative process. Again, I make the point that if the government is serious about fixing this, we extended the olive branch. I know we did, because I spoke to the shadow minister. I was really concerned about this, because I had constituent emails. I rang her. I said, 'This is a debacle. I'm going to opt out. What are we doing about this?' The shadow minister said, 'We've reached out to the minister. We want to work on this, but he is not up for it.' It is because he is too arrogant. Let's hear more from Kerryn Phelps. We are going to hear more from Kerryn Phelps, no doubt. She said that we also need to guard against the future monetisation and privatisation of this system. The government, when you say the word 'privatisation', say, 'You're all making it up. It's terrible! We weren't going to privatise Medicare.' We know you were, because we saw the documents. We scared you off for now with the Australian people at the last election. But we are seeing the wholesale privatisation of Australia's visa system. That was all over the front page of the paper today. This is an ideological agenda. Whenever you can get their hands on a public service or something that is clearly in the public interest, to be done in the public sector by the Commonwealth, you try to privatise it. You push it out and think, 'Who can monetise this and make a profit out of it?' That's what you do; it's in your DNA. It's as clear as day that that's what will happen with this system at some point, under one of you in the future, if we don't put in these safeguards now. I agree with Professor Phelps on that point. We also need to think about what access the private health insurers might have. That's not dealt with clearly in this bill. I will finish on the point I touched on earlier: it is my belief that the data will leak or be hacked. The minister's assures are naive at best. They are suggesting to people that there is no risk, this system is ironclad, it's completely foolproof and no-one is ever going to get into it. I don't think anyone in the community would believe that in the modern era. What happens then? It's not just an issue about politicians; it's an issue for ordinary Australians, not the celebrity sports star embarrassed in the paper routine. When stuff is leaked or hacked, in relation to ordinary Australians, can newspapers report on it? Can people's private medical records, if they're put on the internet, be circulated? Apparently, yes. There has been no consideration of what actually happens in the inevitable situation where this stuff occurs. I understand the nothing-is-private world view. You do get that, particularly from younger people, who say, 'There's nothing interesting about me. I share everything on social media.' Fair enough; that's a world view. But in the real world there are many people in our community, in the Australian community, for whom real harm and real stigma are caused through the revelation of their private medical records. Mental health issues can stigmatise people and deny them employment, cause extreme embarrassment and further compound their mental health problems. Abortions, terminations, are deeply private matters. Before I opted in to this, I would want to be assured that these things had been thought about and that there were safeguards in place and that people in Australia knew that these things couldn't be reported for individuals in the media if they were leaked. The government has just denied this as a problem. There are diseases and chronic conditions that still carry stigma. They may have nothing to do with your ability to function in the workplace, in the community or in your family, but they carry enormous stigma. I used to watch Embarrassing Bodies on Foxtel, so I know that people do all sorts of things to their bodies that they'd rather remain private. Then there is plastic surgery and botox addiction. They grow or shrink certain bits of themselves. Have a look around the parliament—you never know! What about weekly sexual health checks, as one wag volunteering in the office said: Is that too often? Is that embarrassing? And then there's the case of the man in the Blue Mountains this week and certain surgery. These things are deeply private. When they get hacked, when they're leaked, they do not belong in a newspaper. They should not be able to be circulated. These safeguards should be put in place. The government should take seriously that we're not just standing here being politicians; we're speaking up for genuine views in the community while they're carrying on with their muppet show over there. Sitting here listening to them, there's a quote from The Muppet Show that seems rather apt: Why do we always come here I guess we'll never know It's like a kind of torture To have to watch the show You're not taking this seriously. I believe that these things have to be looked at now, before this legislation passes the House or the parliament and before the rollout continues. It's critical if we're going to have real public confidence in this system, which we should all be seeking and which is so important. If we can get it right, we can build trust with the Australian people in the rollout of this system. 17:57 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise in support of the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. The My Health Record is not a new initiative. The digital database already houses the medical records of over six million Australians. It's been around for years now, and it carries the handprints of those on both sides of this chamber. Presumably then there are sensible policy reasons behind the introduction of the My Health Record scheme, and I don't doubt that is true. Shortly I will discuss some of the benefits. But we also can't ignore the widely held and very real fear that this information—our most personal information—could be lost, stolen or used in a way that we didn't foresee and certainly didn't consent to. Over 900,000 people have opted out of the scheme since the formal opt-out period began in July. If the government is going to continue to push this policy forward, they need to convince the public that their data is safe, that the system is secure and that they, the individual, will always be the ones in control of their personal data. Setting those concerns aside for a moment, I do want to touch on the three potential benefits to the community. First, the My Health Record initiative will give people the ability to access their medical records anywhere in Australia. It won't matter whether you're moving interstate for work or whether you're retired and following the sun north. Wherever you are, you should be able to access and update your records. Second, healthcare professionals will have instant access to your medical records. None of us want to contemplate serious or sudden illness or injury, but it does happen. If you live alone and you are immobile or unconscious, perhaps in an emergency room, the ability to access information about your medical history—everything from current medications to noted allergic reactions—could make all the difference. Too often we've seen X-rays and MRI scans and file notes disappear somewhere between the GP, the specialist consulting rooms and the hospital wards, so why wouldn't we take steps to streamline the process and reduce the risk of critical information going missing? That is assuming, of course, that the information being fed into the database is accurate in the first place, but that is another matter altogether. Finally, the scheme would be one unifying point in a maze of patient and consumer information currently floating in and out of government organisations and agencies, such as Medicare, the PBS and the donor registry. The point I make is this: the information is already out there. It is already being collected in one way or another. This scheme just serves to tie all those loose ends together and create a central database. All of the benefits listed above are predicated on the central database—a one-stop shop for all of your personal and private information. It is precisely that aspect of the scheme that does make many of us, including me, quite uneasy. Some of the concerns have been addressed by the amendments proposed in the bill—namely, the restriction on law enforcement agencies accessing our information without consent or a court order, and the system operator no longer being able to store our data for 30 years. Instead, the system operator must delete all records immediately after a person elects to opt out of the scheme. These are sensible amendments to the scheme that are in line with community expectations, and they have my support. Let me be clear. Just because I support the bill in this House today does not mean that I do not share the concerns of my constituents. I have very real doubts about the government's ability to keep our data secure, and I have no doubt that there are groups out there who see the database as a veritable goldmine of valuable information. I appreciate that the Minister for Health has said that this scheme is protected by some of the most stringent privacy legislation in the world, and that may be true, but will laws really deter those who are determined to crack into the database? The government may scoff at these fears, but they are widely held in the community and not without good reason. Let's take a look at a few recent examples across the globe. Earlier this year in Singapore, over 1.5 million records were accessed, and the names, addresses, gender and date of birth were all copied without the knowledge or consent of the patients. It was described by the Singaporean government as a deliberate, targeted and well-planned attack. In 2015, Anthem, a major health insurance provider in the US, was targeted, and the records of approximately 79 million Americans were exposed. The UK also had its own difficulties with a centralised electronic health record. Worryingly, the data breach occurred not by cybercriminals but by pharmaceutical and insurance companies, who purchased the data for their own commercial advantage. But let's set aside these sophisticated cyberattacks for one moment and focus on how just the day-to-day operations of the scheme are going to impact on Australian families. I'm genuinely concerned that, without proper safeguards in place, this scheme will put victims of family violence and their children at risk. I listened to some of the comments made by the member for Bruce. We need to ensure that the various agencies—courts, police and government departments—are able to liaise with one another and share critical information in a timely manner. I understand that the Digital Health Agency has established a family safety program to work with these stakeholders and manage risks associated with the inadvertent disclosure of private information to perpetrators of family violence. But the suggestions put forward to manage the risk of harm are, in my view, deficient and compromise the utility of the child's My Health Record. Options put forward to manage the risk to victims of family violence include suspending their child's record or simply not creating one in the first place. I understand that the government is aware of these limitations and is consulting with stakeholders to ensure that these concerns are addressed, but it's really not good enough that the government's response to such a complex issue is simply to tell one parent to suspend the My Health Record of their child. I also echo the concerns highlighted by the Law Council of Australia during their appearance at the Senate inquiry last night that the current definition of parental responsibility under the act actually exposes the scheme to misuse by perpetrators of family violence. Under the Family Law Act, there is a difference between an order for parental responsibility and an order which provides for a parent to spend time with the child. A parent can have an order for parental responsibility without being granted an order to spend time with the child. Notwithstanding that a judge has decided that, because of a history of family violence, it is not in the best interests of the child to spend time with the parent, the parent will still be able to access the child's health record. It is imperative that this scheme does not operate in a vacuum and that this act and, specifically, the definitions used around care arrangements are consistent with the principles and provisions of the Family Law Act. There are a number of very serious issues around privacy and security that we are yet to resolve. There is no doubt that these issues require further scrutiny. In saying that, I hope the comments I've made during the course of my speech on this debate don't frighten others away from the scheme. There are many people out there who may genuinely benefit from My Health Record. The point is that it has to be an informed decision. Every person will need to think about their own personal circumstances and decide whether the risks outweigh the rewards. But for many Australians that won't happen, not because they choose for it not to, but because they simply aren't aware of the fact that a My Health Record has been created in their name. Under the government's opt-out system, it won't matter that you didn't know. It won't matter that, if you had known, you would have rejected the idea. It won't matter that you didn't realise the opt-out time frame had expired. All that matters is that your most personal and private information is being collected by the government and you did nothing to stop them. I do have some sympathy for the government. I can't imagine that getting accurate information out into the community was an easy task, and so an opt-out scheme would no doubt significantly increase the number of people captured under the scheme, but the information being collected is the clearest example of private and personal information. When we are concerning ourselves with this sort of information, I think we need to make sure that those of us who are handing over our medical histories to the mercy of a government server are doing so with our eyes wide open. In conclusion, I offer my support to this bill, but it is qualified support. I want to make it clear that I will continue to speak with my Senate colleagues to determine what, if any, amendments should be made following the release of the committee report. 18:07 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Modern health care is being transformed by new research, truly integrated approaches and new technologies. The Sunshine Coast is at the forefront of these developments. Our emerging healthcare hub is a perfect example of how this blend of technology and medicine is the future. The Thompson Institute, part funded by $5 million from this coalition government—our government—brings together psychiatry and counselling with cutting edge MRI technology to understand the physical mechanisms that lie behind mental illness. The research programs being funded by our government at the Thompson Institute will use detailed scans to understand a longitudinal study of the physical changes in the brain which are driving serious mental illness among young people and people with dementia in my community. I'm optimistic that, working closely with the Health Minister, I'll be able to secure funding in the future to expand this work to look at the physical changes which underlie post-traumatic stress disorder for our some 15,000 veterans on the Sunshine Coast, and our emergency service workers and those who did work in emergency service work. Away from the Thompson Institute, we're seeing integrated healthcare approaches in the federally funded eating disorder pilot now under way in my electorate. With $3.2 million in federal support, the local Sunshine Coast primary health network is working closely with the Butterfly Foundation to create a new integrated and in-depth approach to treating these insidious conditions. In Mooloolah Valley, a beautiful part of my electorate, another organisation, endED, has teamed up with the Butterfly Foundation, with $1.5 million in federal government support—our government support—to provide an integrated solution for the treatment of eating disorders. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you're going to find this difficult to believe, but there is not one residential facility in Australia that caters for and treats people suffering from eating disorders. But there will be one, very shortly, in my electorate of Fisher, thanks to our government's contribution. Our $1.5 million contribution of taxpayers' money will help those who are suffering from these terrible diseases. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank endED's founders, Mark and Gay Forbes, who are absolutely leading the way and leading the charge on the treatment of eating disorders in Australia. Along with this bill, when it becomes law, they're going to ensure that all of a patient's information is available to the practitioners that are working to aid that patient's recovery so the treatment can be consistent but flexible and responsive no matter which practitioner is available at the time. Towering over all of these projects is the coast's new $1.8 billion Sunshine Coast University Hospital. A cutting-edge facility with all of the latest equipment, this hospital provides the central local nexus around which patients' treatment can cluster, giving them consistent care without the need to travel to Brisbane. In microcosm, what is going on with our emerging 21st century health hub on the Sunshine Coast is a clear example of the same benefits that will be derived nationally from the My Health Record. My Health Record mixes digital technology with the work of everyday clinicians to create a more powerful understanding of a patient's condition. By creating a single hub of information from which different treating clinicians can draw, it ensures that treatment can be consistent but flexible and adaptive. It allows patients to go to exactly the right practitioners for them and have their information follow them, accessible at just a moment's notice. Like endED Butterfly House, My Health Record will help to provide a more supportive and less stressful process of treatment by preventing the need for patients to remember all of their treatment history and test results or to explain their condition to new doctors and new nurses again and again. Equally, by providing a central repository of information, it helps to prevent any pertinent facts being lost and helps to stop inappropriate treatments being inadvertently delivered. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that health professionals in Australia are united on the value of the My Health Record in improving patient outcomes and avoiding preventable deaths. The president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Tony Bartone, said 'The electronic record can save lives.' He has described how the earlier version of the My Health Record saved the life of a Brisbane GP's patient. With access to the information that was in the patient's electronic record, the hospital's doctors were able to make the decision not to give the diabetic patient, who was in a coma, the usual antibiotic that would have been administered for sepsis. Had the hospital delivered that antibiotic, the patient would have had a severe reaction and most likely would have died. As Dr Bartone put it, 'That is a powerful example of the value of an electronic health record.' This week, we have rightly been speaking a great deal about aged care. At this time, we should be doing all that we can to improve the provision of aged-care services in Australia and, in this, the My Health Record will also make a difference. As Leading Age Services Australia's CEO Sean Rooney said: By enabling information sharing between the various parts of the Australian health system, including aged care, digital health has the potential to enable programs and initiatives that integrate care, wrapping it around the needs of patients … Patient focused care is what we need in aged care and throughout the healthcare system. And that is what the My Health Record delivers. Victorian Healthcare Association CEO, Tom Symondson, has even gone so far as to implore Australians to remain in the system and has said that those who opt out will miss out on the chance for better treatment. So the clinical value of a My Health Record is clear. But with so much personal information stored, it is understandable that individuals have had concerns about their privacy. In the original design of the system, the government took comprehensive steps to ensure that records would stay secure. All data on the system is stored in Australia, protected by high-grade security protocols. This data is not stored in a data centre overseas. The system has been regularly tested throughout by our nation's top cybersecurity experts, who constantly look for weaknesses that could be exploited. It is protected by encryption, secure gateways and firewalls, authentication mechanisms and malicious content filtering. The Australian Digital Health Agency's Cyber Security Centre constantly monitors for external threats and works closely with the Australian Cyber Security Centre, the Australian Signals Directorate and our government to deal with any suspicious activity. At an individual level, the existing scheme gives Australians considerable control over who can see their personal information. Individuals can set their own access controls to say which practitioners can see which information and which documents. They can choose whether or not particular information goes into their My Health Record at all, and they can choose to receive notifications if a new practitioner accesses their information. So they will be put in control of their information. They can choose whether the information can be used for research or not and, in the final resort, they can choose to have their My Health Record deleted. These precautions and more are why, for the past six years, with six million Australians already registered on and benefitting from the system, there has not been a single security breach. Let me just say that again: for the past six years, with six million Australians already registered on and benefitting from the system, there has not been a single security breach. Unfortunately, some in this place want to try and cause fear and havoc. Not a single breach. However, we know how important it is that the public has confidence in this system, and we have listened to that feedback. In particular, some members of the public and privacy advocates have expressed reasonable concerns over the fact that law enforcement agencies and other government departments could potentially access a person's sensitive health records for purposes other than treatment without a proper judicial process. Others have expressed the concern that section 17 of the My Health Records Act requires the system operator to retain some personal information for 30 years after the death of an individual on My Health Record, even if that individual has requested that their record be deleted. This bill therefore makes two simple but critical amendments to the procedures surrounding the system to make explicit and unambiguous the duties that exist on the My Health Record system operator when it comes to handling personal information. The bill will remove the ability of the system operator, currently the Australian Digital Health Agency, to disclose health information to law enforcement agencies and other government bodies without a court order or the patient's express consent. Although this has been the stated policy of the current system operated to date, it has remained an area of possible future dispute, and this bill lays that possibility to rest permanently. The bill will also require the system operator to delete health information it holds for any consumer who has ever cancelled their My Health Record. This will override the requirement to retain information for 30 years after an individual's death where they have requested that their record be removed. The amendments can be briefly and simply described. However, these practical and concise changes have been widely welcomed by the community and endorsed by Australia's leading public advocates for privacy and human rights. Acting Information Commissioner and Acting Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk welcomed the proposals, which she stated would 'give the community greater control over their health information' and 'create certainty and enhance privacy safeguards for all Australians'. Australia's Human Rights Commissioner Edward Santow echoed these sentiments, saying that these changes 'will give greater certainty about how individuals' health information will be used in the My Health Record system'. I'd encourage all my constituents in Fisher to find out more about My Health Record before the new extended opt-out deadline of 15 November this year. I encourage them to be fully informed, to understand the system and the privacy controls available to them. And I encourage them, when they are fully informed, to stay opted into the system, to enjoy the significant benefits that it will bring. If any of my constituents are unable to find the information that they need in order to make an informed choice, my office and I will be very happy to answer any questions that they may have. It's important that we grow and maintain public confidence in the My Health Record system. The system will avoid unnecessary hospital admissions, reduce overdoses and allergic reactions, better coordinate care and facilitate better treatment decisions. In the context of the 21st century medicine going on on the Sunshine Coast and all over Australia today, it is the right solution and will only become more necessary over time. 18:22 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I follow the member for Fisher, who speaks on behalf of one of the most advanced hospitals in Queensland, the Sunshine Coast Hospital, in the middle of his electorate, down to the bayside of Brisbane, where I represent the seat of Bowman and where there is extremely strong support for the medical health record. It's been an incredibly long journey. It goes back I think to the late 1990s, when the major medical groups recognised the obvious importance of using initially computerised records and then the internet to store incredibly important medical data. I guess people forget that for a long time we've been ceding our personal health information to government-funded professionals. Medicare-funded doctors hold paper records, and they're easily accessible to the entire staff of a medical practice, which presents significant security risks in and of itself. We tend to discount that, and we now make this proposal that, like every other developed country, we need to move to a situation where we can absolutely store these records in perpetuity with patient consent so that the key and appropriate people can access that information. And of course as we've moved forward there's been this primary health record development, a central holding of records. Obviously Apple has moved in parallel to use their health app platform on their devices to allow complete patient control of health information that they choose to place in the device. That's actually a counter approach being pushed by Apple, which I think is completely reasonable. The ability to opt in to having other parties sharing access to your health information is a very important power. What these two have in common is an incredible increase in the amount of patients' central control over their own health information. Having worked in medicine since 1989, I can remember that at every turn there have been squabbles and debates as beleaguered patients have attempted just to get their own health records from their GPs. Simply changing from one GP to another was, for many, a very stressful process. We forget that patients in many cases had lost complete control of their own health information because of some very unfortunate event whereby the relationship with the medical practice that they'd been attending had broken down. So, we tend to almost forget the difficulties of the status quo when proposing this new approach. The most disappointing element of the debate today will probably be that, once again, the once great Labor Party and party of health reform has increasingly become paralysed in its Medicare based defence. It's very hard to get the Labor Party, once the great party of social reform, to be in any way imaginative anymore. To see them nickel-and-diming these important legislative amendments today is pretty disappointing. I would have expected a Labor Party opposition health spokesperson to come in here today and say, 'This could have been tidied up much better, but let's face it: where we have to head as a developed economy is some safe repository, with the best technology available protecting that information from the obvious misuse that we are fearful of—that is, unauthorised access by work cover and private insurers.' We all share those concerns. I think we are all united in knowing that the Australian Digital Health Agency is absolutely taking the best advice from other countries that have tried these elements and have built in the best we can do. That's all you can ask of a government. To see the series of barely sublethal, critical comments from the opposition is pretty disappointing for anyone who's worked in the health sector. And I'm delighted there is finally a doctor on the other side who maintains his registration and there is a pharmacist on the other side. So slowly the Labor Party is running out of excuses for not having a coherent approach to something as simple as an electronic health record. Those who have worked in the sector for many years will appreciate there are literally billions of dollars of health costs—not millions or hundreds of dollars but billions—through poor communication within an advanced medical system. I don't have to explain that we've got the four platforms—the four tiers of Medicare, the health state system, the federal government running Medicare and then councils getting involved in vaccination. There are providers all over the place. There is health data being collected in schools and in childcare centres. Every one of these is a basic case, an almost unarguable case, for doing the very best we can. We don't begrudge an opposition keeping a government honest, but we need to remember that 10 years ago the shoe was on the other foot. There was an apt opt-in arrangement and the then Labor government couldn't get any engagement. No matter how many people they popped in shopping centres handing out free apples, they couldn't get enough people to go onto this electronic health record. That is why we have reached the point today of an opt-out arrangement, and I hope a bit later to explain that we have done that very efficiently. As I walk around my electorate, the first thing I notice is that most people don't care overly about their health information. They don't know a great deal about it. They presume it's tucked away safely somewhere. To be honest, in my electorate, just over two per cent of people have opted out. That's a tiny proportion of a community. So let's be entirely honest here that, as we move into this increasingly online era, younger Australians don't hold these completely obsessive privacy concerns. They take a far more balanced approach to information. Young people are increasingly asking: 'What's in it for me? What's the net balance? I'm quite happy to throw heaps of personal information online as long as there's something coming back for me.' It's hard to imagine a more compelling case than when you are unconscious and in an emergency situation, with well-meaning health professionals around you who need to know more than just guessing your age, getting your blood pressure and then looking round and asking, 'Does anyone know this person?' We need to get to a point where it can be quite rapid, that once you have identified an individual very quickly there are a series of gates that allow health professionals and emergency workers to access basic information. It's complete common sense. It's hard to imagine how many incredible tragedies could be avoided by the provision of basic information in this way. Having worked in a public hospital, I understand that at many times staff wish they could just access GP information. You don't even need to begin to pick out just how much money is spent on repeat investigations because one health provider over there did one but the information is not online. It may even be online but not available to the hospital and so the tests are all done again. The cost of this is hundreds of millions of dollars. In any other case, this would be an overwhelming argument for moving ahead as the technology allows us to. The system has been well invested in. We have learnt the lessons from the UK where huge amounts of money was invested—in many cases, wrongly—by engaging large information providers to put together these systems which ultimately failed and the UK government had to back out of. We are the beneficiary, almost leapfrogging places like Europe, because we have waited to get a system that works and have applied it. Today is about disclosure, deletion and delay. In delaying the opt-out period until November 15 we are giving Australians even more time not to feel rushed about that decision to opt out. What does opt out mean? Opt-out means you can say, 'I do not want to have the empty electronic shell record become a reality next year.' After the department and the Digital Health Agency have worked through all of those opt-out requests and have ensured that those individuals will not be entering the system then they will create these empty shells upon which information can be loaded. After that period, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews—welcome to the chamber—either the patient or the primary carer of that individual, who already has all the data, can place it into that electronic repository in that file. The information is already held by that same individual; the shell is simply populated by that carer, in this case a family physician. That's a fairly routine process that will happen as of next year. The decision around deletion was one of genuine concern, and I'm glad to see that this legislation is addressing it. A number of people generally, even since 2012, have found that somehow they've ended up with a health record through a well-meaning relative or a consultation with a doctor they can no longer remember, and they hold great reservations and don't want that record to exist. All of their health information now, as a result of this legislation, can be completely wiped from that record. We note there is still archival law that requires this information to be held until 30 years after death or for 130 years. These are long periods, but let's be honest: this information was going to be sitting somewhere in a file, with way more government funded employees having potential access to paper records than do in an electronic system. The last point to note is that anyone attempting to access the system leaves a fingerprint allowing them to be digitally identified and for action to be taken, so there are many strengths to having this digital system. The last thing this legislation does, which has been mentioned by a number of speakers before, is to up the requirements around disclosure of information rather than leaving it to the Digital Health Agency—whom I do not want to impugn; they've done an incredible job, since 2012, of not releasing a single scintilla of health information to anyone. That's not bad—it's a Bradman-like record on consistency—but people aren't satisfied with that; they want to go to the next step and have an absolute guarantee that no information in the future will ever be released without a court order or a warrant. That's a genuine, judicially assessed process to determine that this information is absolutely in the public interest before it's released. At this point the Labor Party are dancing right around the margins of the debate. Having been the party with the bravery to bring an electronic health record concept forward—and here we are finishing the job without taking cheap shots—they are raising concerns that at some point in the future a minister may be able to delegate an authority to change the way in which information is disclosed. These requirements exist in almost every form of legislation that comes through this place regarding the holding of important information. Quite clearly we have the need for basic, serious examples of where there are concerns with how things have been structured. I don't think that has been put articulately by anyone who is opposing this legislation. People have these vague, indirect concerns about a little bit of information possibly being in a record that is still around in 30 years time, but they completely forget the status quo is that our health information, like our personal information, has been spread generously around the public domain often without citizens even realising. The stakes around health information are enormous. We have moved now beyond the era of blockbuster drugs into increasingly tailored, incredibly expensive cures that work only in identified individuals. That's going to mean we will increasingly be reliant on higher forms of evidence derived from better designed trials that have specific subpopulations of people with particular genetic backgrounds. Some cancer treatments work on this kind of genotype and not on that kind, and nobody knows any of that until we've done these kinds of tests. Most Australians, I'm absolutely confident, would willingly share their data for the purposes of developing a better cure, but that simply cannot happen without an electronic health record. We've had debates over the weekend on the tragic circumstances around the Defqon.1 music festival, where there were two tragic fatalities due to drug overdoses and another 17 people were treated for collapses and another 700 for unrelated reasons. That is a real disaster for those festival organisers. While we're all waiting on the toxicology results, and we pass our condolences on to the distraught families in this incredibly tough time for them, ultimately we need to ask the question about the immediate availability of health information in those circumstances. I can only imagine that many of those first responders would have been emergency and ambulance trained, and there would have been doctors on site. I can say very confidently that they would have been highly trained and ready for some of the toughest circumstances, but the lack of information would be incredibly difficult for them. There are young people with diabetes or other chronic diseases, all of which can be confused with drug overdoses. Then we have this difficult issue that they could have collapsed from the drug itself, the MDMA, or they could have collapsed from impurities. There is this great debate about whether drug testing should be allowed in these festivals. Increasingly, I think people are stepping away from the precipice and saying we need the evidence that drug testing is going to make a difference, particularly in the absence of informed consent inside a festival, where many people are intoxicated or using drugs at the time that they're bringing them in for testing. What people genuinely want in these circumstances is adequate information. The electronic health record offers us that opportunity. Few would dispute that Australia has among the top handful of health systems in the world, with the most highly trained health professionals, so we need to make sure that we have a purpose-built, fit-to-last electronic health record that can do the job for this great nation. The Medicare system has a GP centred approach. It's one that we're extremely proud of and will defend. We defend the team based arrangements that exist for the highest need Australians, because the average Australian visits a doctor around seven times a year and accesses way more Medicare services than that. When that occurs, Australians who wish to will have all of that information on a medical health record. 18:37 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I'm really pleased to be able to participate in the debate tonight on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. It's always good to follow the member for Bowman, a doctor himself—an ophthalmologist. I'm really pleased to have Dr Andrew Laming, the member for Bowman, in this parliament and work alongside him, because he knows a lot about health, as you heard from his speech just then. It's very good to have him in this parliament. This is important legislation that will indeed strengthen our health system. I congratulate the minister for his leadership and dedication to ensuring Australians benefit from the My Health Record. This legislation is about consumers having control. I planned to speak on this legislation yesterday, but unfortunately I was unwell. I actually had to go to emergency yesterday because I had high blood pressure and had to get that sorted out and checked out. But, if I had had the My Health Record, when I was at emergency I would have been able to say: 'Look, here's my history. This is my medical history. These are the doctors I've seen. This is the medication I've taken before.' It certainly would make it a lot easier for people in my electorate and for patients right around Australia. When they're seeing a doctor interstate or going into emergency at a hospital interstate or even outside the city where they live, in a different part of their state, it would make it a lot easier than having to repeat their health records over and over again. Of course, as a consumer and the person who can run the My Health Record, you can decide what goes into it and what is not in it. So I say to the people in my electorate: as a consumer, you have control, and I would encourage you to sign up. The My Health Record benefits each and every consumer in three ways. Firstly, there is access to your key health information in an emergency, as I've just described. Secondly, it is a convenient snapshot of your health. You can go in and check and see exactly what's in there. You can print it out and carry it with you, if you want to, or it's there online. Thirdly and most importantly, it gives you control over your records. You decide what goes into your record. The first benefit of eHealth, of course, is access to records in an emergency, and that will ensure that, if you are in an emergency, your medical records can be accessed very quickly. And, if you look at what happens, our healthcare costs across the board—not only as a federal government but for different state governments and through private health insurance—continue to go up. Obviously, there is a lot of paperwork and a lot of record keeping involved, and, as you can imagine, this system working properly with all Australians that want to be in it signing up to it will save a lot of red tape and time for health professionals in emergency wards. We know that state government hospitals have quite busy emergency wards. Often the doctor can spend half an hour with a patient, but then they can spend another half an hour doing the paperwork, whereas if they've got these My Health Records and they have a snapshot of what medication you're being prescribed by your home GP or what previous surgery you've had done, that would save a lot of time and may actually bring down costs, not just for governments but in the private health sector as well. Unfortunately, even the healthiest of us, as we approach middle age, seem to be on a myriad of drugs, and each time we go to a GP, there is a new or improved version of that drug. If you were admitted to hospital unconscious, would your partner or your family know what drugs you were on or, importantly, what dosage of drugs you were taking? All of these things can take time when time might be of the essence. In a medical emergency, authorised healthcare providers will be able to check your health information, such as allergies, medicines and immunisations. This will save time, and that time just might save your life. The eHealth records will ensure that you don't have to have extra tests and that medical practitioners can focus on giving you the medical assistance you need. That's the first benefit. The second benefit is that these records are a convenient snapshot of your health. Fortunately, emergencies don't happen every day for most of us, and it is that everyday access to your records that is important. When you go to see a GP, the GP needs to be aware of your medical history. Not all of us always see the same doctor, and each time we see a doctor we have to go through and talk about our medical history. Again, we have to know what drugs we are on and what the dosage is. We also have to go through our history of what operations we had and when. Fortunately, in my own case, I've actually been seeing the same doctor since I was a baby. Not many Australians would be able to say that, but my doctor, Dr Kerry Curtin, had his own practice in Bracken Ridge in my electorate where I grew up. He's now moved to SmartClinics at Carseldine, just near the Bald Hills Bunnings, and I followed him there, so I've been going to the same doctor since I was a child, and now I'm in my mid-40s. Dr Curtin is very good, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the great health service that he has given not just me but also many people in my electorate. Dr Curtin would probably be around 70 years of age now, and I would also say to doctors who want to continue to work into their 70s: thank you for the wisdom that you provide and also for passing on your knowledge to younger doctors who are coming through. Because of the experience that I've had with my own doctor, I think health ministers need to make sure that doctors who are older—over 60—stay in the workforce should they choose to do so, because they have an important role to play. I also would say to people that, as the years pass, for operations that we thought we might have had five years ago it suddenly becomes 10 years. It is important that the GP has a chronological list of operations and when a particular disease or condition was discovered. Many in the community don't have a long list of chronic or acute conditions. However, it is just as important for them when they see the GP to ensure that they don't leave anything out of their history. As I said before, not everyone sees the same GP every time. A lot of people go to a clinic. It might be a large bulk-billing practice where they attend the same clinic but see a different doctor each time, or they may even attend a different clinic as they change addresses and so forth. Again, this access is about control. You know that e-health has your records and you have security in knowing that your records are there when you need them, either during a GP visit or in an emergency. The third benefit I mentioned was the control over your record, and I come back to the issue of control. You do indeed have control over your record. You, the consumer, have the power and control over your personal medical information. And you can cancel your My Health Record whenever you like. You have the power to decide. Today I had a young couple from my electorate of Petrie who were visiting Canberra, Robert and his wife. They were enjoying a bit of a break for the week and came into parliament today. I was able to show them around a little. I invited them to come in and watch question time and I met with them beforehand. I said to Robert that I was going to speak on this legislation in the House tonight, and I asked him what he thought about My Health Records. Without a hesitation he said: 'It's great. I'm a pretty healthy person, Luke, but I have been to many GPs. I go to the local clinics near to me, and if it's a clinic I haven't been to before, I have to go through my medical history.' Robert continued—and these are his words—'I think it's great. It's about control. I have control over my records, not some suburban doctor who might not have the most up-to-date IT system. My records might just be in a filing cabinet, for all I know. My Health Record will all be together and I can view it and restrict the information where I deem necessary. Yes, it is about control.' So, that was some good personal feedback from constituents in my electorate. And Robert is right: he will have control of his own health records. Apart from the three benefits I've mentioned tonight, there is an also important aspect of this legislation that I will touch on while I have the time, and that is security of the e-health records. Security, of course, can be an issue around IT, not just in the Public Service but in the private sector as well. In terms of the private sector, I received an email from one of my own doctors whom I had been to for a check-up, a specialist, and got an email to inform not just me but other patients that records had been accessed. So, it is important. It wasn't anything that I was particularly worried about, but security is important. I've also heard the debate about the fact that people might have been worried about the Big Brother approach to the information being held by government. Some members who have spoken on this bill tonight spoke about 900,000 Australians who decided to opt out, once it was changed from opt-in. It's good that there are almost six million people who have opted into My Health Record. But 900,000, to me, in a population of 25 million, doesn't sound unreasonable. I would expect that 10 per cent or even 20 per cent of people in my electorate would say: 'Well, I'd rather not have my records there. I'm concerned about what the government's doing or what people will have access to.' As someone who has now worked in government as a member of parliament, I'd say, 'Look, don't worry about it. The health minister doesn't have time to worry about what John Smith is doing or about his records.' But I do understand that people do want to opt out, and I think that's perfectly reasonable for the people who want to do that. It is up to them. I would encourage people to join, opt in and take advantage of the My Health Records. But, if they choose to opt out, then they have that option. People should always have the choice. Members opposite have also raised concerns about partner separation, which is valid. In my experience, judging by the number of people who I've spoken to in family breakdown who have come into my office, it seems that ex-partners who want to can always easily find addresses, which isn't a good thing. But I think that this system is quite secure and I would encourage people not to be concerned about that in particular. It's interesting that members opposite also want us to spend millions on a government advertising scheme. I'm happy to raise that with the health minister, the Hon. Greg Hunt. He may want to run an Australian government funded advertising scheme for this, but, because there have been quite a few members from the Labor Party tonight who have encouraged us to run a government funded scheme on this issue, I say to members opposite: if we do that, then don't say, 'Oh, no. That's all about political advertising.' In conclusion, as I've said, almost six million people have signed up. Only three per cent of the population have opted out. I encourage people in my electorate to get onto the my.gov.au website and create an account. There'll be some ID questions there. You'll need a user name, an email and a password. I encourage you to do that and take control. It's not that hard to do, but, if you do have an issue and you live in my electorate, feel free to call or email my office. I'd be very happy to assist. If you live outside my electorate, contact one of the 12 senators in Queensland, and it is the same throughout every state. I'm very pleased to be able to support this bill. 18:52 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise tonight in support of this important bill. The My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 will amend the My Health Records Act 2012 to strengthen its privacy protections. The changes remove any doubt as to how seriously the Australian government takes the security of information stored in the My Health Record system. This security is paramount. It is imperative that people's health records are kept private and secure. It's also critical that people's healthcare services are the best they can be and that the system continuously improves. The system is already delivering important health and electronic outcomes for Australians through avoided hospital admissions, fewer adverse drug events, reduced duplication of tests, better coordination of care for people seeing multiple healthcare providers and better-informed treatment decisions. These outcomes make the system work better for Australians. The president of the AMA, Mr Tony Bartone, said in The Age newspaper on 23 July 2018: The electronic record can save lives. A Brisbane GP recently told a Senate inquiry how the earlier version of the My Health Record saved the life of one of his patients. He said that the hospital was able to access the information that was in that electronic record and made the decision not give the diabetic patient, who was in a coma, the usual antibiotic that would have been administered for sepsis. This person had a severe anaphylactic allergy to that antibiotic and, if it had been given, would have been killed. That is a powerful example of the value of an electronic health record. Already six million Australians have a My Health Record, and the system has been operating without incident since 2012. Notwithstanding the performance of the system to date and that its strong security and privacy controls were developed in close consultation with stakeholders, it's important that we move quickly to reassure the public of the government's commitment to the privacy of each individual's health information. The bill will remove the ability of the system operator—in this case, the Australian Digital Health Agency—to disclose health information to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies without a court order or the consumer's express consent. The bill will also require the system operator to delete health information it holds for any consumer who has ever cancelled their My Health Record. To support these amendments, the opt-out period has been extended by a month, to 15 November 2018. This provides time for individuals to discuss My Health Record with their trusted healthcare provider and then decide for themselves whether they want a My Health Record at this point in time. The president-elect of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Dr Harry Nespolon, supports the amendment strongly. On 31 July 2018 he said the following in a press release: The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners … commends the Federal Government's willingness to strengthen the privacy provisions under the My Health Record Act … … … … Changes to the legislation that remove any questions about who may be able to access the records ensure that the records will be able to be used in line with the RACGP's position statement on My Health Records. Choice is central to a health records system that will remain sustainable and usable into the future. People will be able to set their own access controls to limit access to their whole My Health Record or to a particular document in it. They can choose what information goes in. They can choose to be notified if certain things occur, such as if someone new accesses it, and they can choose whether their de-identified information can be used for research or public health purposes. And, importantly, they can choose at any time to cancel their My Health Record. This choice is important for stakeholders such as the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner's Acting Australian Information Commissioner and Acting Privacy Commissioner, Angelene Falk. On 1 August 2018 she said: Significantly, the proposed amendment to allow an individual to permanently delete their record will give the community greater control over their health information. Human Rights Commissioner, Edward Santow, tweeted on 1 August the following: I particularly welcome the Act being amended to require a court order before releasing any My Health Record information without the individual's consent. This will give greater certainty about how individuals' health information will be used in the My Health Record system. It gives me peace of mind when people like Angelene Falk and Edward Santow publicly say the system will protect the privacy of Australians. The My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 will especially benefit those in our community who are less well-off, those who frequently change their address, and those in rural and remote areas. It is the more vulnerable in our community who may find it challenging to navigate the healthcare system effectively. Making healthcare outcomes better for these people will make their lives better. When more people are healthier and when they recover quicker from ailments, the whole community benefits. When a doctor can immediately see the clinical information of a person they are seeing for the first time, they can move more quickly and more effectively to cure their new patient. A digital record that is safe and secure is a wonderful health service. It is the natural extension of the technological advancement that we've seen revolutionise our modern world. We've seen the downside of technological advancement, certainly, and there are a lot of people out there who say technological advancement is pure evil. Well, this new application of wonderful advancements in digital and online technology will be a massive power for good in our country. I commend to the House this bill and the amendments that provide certainty for Australians and I look forward to not opting out of this brilliant new health reform. Unlike the previous speaker, the member for Petrie, Luke Howarth, I have not had the same doctor since my birth, for obvious reasons, and I'm glad that we live in a country where people come first and where they can opt out if they want, for it is choice that makes our country the great country that it is. 19:00 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I've been listening to the debate this afternoon and into this evening about the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. To some on the other side, this has been a case of some humour where they have proffered that they can joke about this issue—and they have. Ha ha. To me, this could not be more serious. In every community that I've ever served, one of their basic priorities has been the health and wellbeing of the community—both physical and mental health. What's this bill all about? This bill, for those who are listening to this debate, is all about having a healthier and happier, therefore, Australian community that is looking after wellbeing. It absolutely has a clear intention of having a better health system. I don't care which government is in power in this nation; they all have a responsibility for the health and wellbeing of their community. That's why any misinformation around health annoys me. Not many things annoy me, as you all know. I don't get annoyed. I don't get angry. I don't get upset. But I do get annoyed around the issue of health—and that is the important issue that we've been talking about today—being used to perhaps divide our nation and divide people's thinking on how important issues like we are discussing this evening are to the people of Australia. Why was it that somebody had the intention of drawing all the information they possibly could from all people's health records—just because they thought it was a good idea? I don't think so. I think they did this because they believe it would have a health outcome that's beneficial to the people of Australia. I think they did this because they know that, if they have the opportunity, if they have the wherewithal and if they have the facilities—that is, the mechanisms—so we can implement this, we can make a difference to the lives of thousands and thousands of people across Australia. Why do I say that? We have not been in the casualty ward when someone comes to you as a hospital admission because the medicine that they've taken has reacted badly in their system or in relation to another medicine they've taken because the practitioner didn't know, when prescribing, the full information held by the clinician who was looking after the patient originally. There are hundreds and hundreds of hospital admissions because of legal drugs that people have taken or had prescribed to them. It came home to me only recently when a dear friend who has passed away now was given during his treatment—you are not going to believe it—a drug he was allergic to. And so, at a crucial time in the protection of his life, he just happened to get a drug that he was allergic to. We had no idea why he wasn't responding in the way that he should have been with the drugs he'd been given. Sadly this went on for too long until he was left in a position where not a lot would work. We are not blaming anybody for that. My mate was sick. It's one of those things that happen. It was reversed as quickly as possible, but it was too late, so it's personal for me when we talk about how an issue like this can directly affect a patient. How can we reduce those hospital admissions? The only way we are going to do that is through shared information, which will come only from those like myself that are willing to share their health information. We do it as a collective. I understand that the member for Goldstein immediately raised concerns about this issue when it was announced. He said to his community and to the leadership that he'd be an opt-out and wouldn't be participating, because he felt there was a risk that people's health records 'could be hacked'—I think those were his terms. Therefore this legislation endeavours to go as far as we possibly can to protect individual health records. If we can achieve this, we'll have fewer drug related adverse events. It's similar to what I've just been talking about. If we can have similar outcomes in prescription drug events and not cause the detriment, it's a win-win situation, but only if we have information on record that a clinical practitioner can access very quickly. Recently a friend on holiday fell ill. No-one knew what was going on. There was no reason for the illness, but it was severe, it was chronic, it was happening and there was no answer for it. The first thing you'd want to reach for is the individual records from their GP or My Health Record. If you can access that very quickly then it doesn't matter whether you are in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or Tasmania; you are virtually protected on the road. I happen to be of an age where I know thousands of people—they call them grey nomads—who are on the road for more than half the year before they park their caravans and come home to Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania or wherever. A whole cohort of people are now moving around this nation unlike we've ever seen before, needing their health records to follow them to get treatments as they go around so that their lifestyle is not inhibited and they can keep doing what they want to, so they can go to a Brisbane hospital and My Health Record will say, 'This is what this person's been having, this is what works and this is what doesn't work.' Another advantage is when they are on the road and get to Brisbane, they don't have to go through the whole process again of referral, blood test, examination, information to the doctor, doctor reads blood test and then represcribes, hopefully, what they were receiving before, when that information could have been derived from My Health Record. That's how I understand it anyway. You reduce duplication and churning within the health system. That has to be a benefit, because that opens up opportunities for other people to be using those benefits and using them faster, getting quicker application for the drugs that they need, the health care that they need, the doctor that they need, the hospital that they need and the care that they need. So it's a matter of common sense that has driven this whole process. There's not just one person looking after an individual; there are a team of healthcare providers managing the overall health of an individual. I heard the member for Bennelong say, 'I'm glad I live in a country where people come first.' I'm living in a country where there could be at any given time a number of professionals looking after me or my family—perhaps one of my grandchildren—at the same time. You'd want all of them to know what's going on with the program that they are dealing with. You would want every one of them to know that it was a coordinated approach to whatever was happening with your child, your grandchild or, in some cases, your great-grandchild. Suppose you're seeing multiple healthcare providers and you're here in Canberra. I can tell you: I've been crook in Canberra. I've been so crook I ended up at a hospital. I thought I was going to die. They decided that I wasn't going to die, which I was very relieved about, and I got amazing care at that hospital. It took a long time for them to see me. I thought I'd die before they did, but I didn't die before they did. It turned out it was just one of these things that you catch here in this building or on planes. I don't know where you catch it, but it certainly can be difficult. We can all handle it, but I think we take away more than we bring in. So I would like to think that, when I walk into that hospital, they can immediately go to My Health Record and say: 'Yes, we've got you on record. We know what's happening here. This is what we need to give you. This is how you'll be attended to.' The advantages of that are ongoing, so I can see that. The other thing is that healthcare practitioners benefit from being able to derive information, because you're going to get better treatment if they all know what's going on. If you've got professionals dealing with you and they all know what's going on, you are going to get better treatment and you're going to get it faster. There have been detractors in the move to this, but we have to understand that we've got the facility and the opportunity. That's why I'm supporting this bill, because I think there are health benefits for the Australian people. I know that, if we were not in government today and the opposition were in government today, they would be arguing for exactly this, and we might be arguing, 'Oh, you mucked this up and you mucked that up, and the rollout of this has been a disgrace,' but we'd only be arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm putting to the House tonight that the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 is a bill that should be supported. It shouldn't be amended. It should pass this House unanimously with the support of everybody, because it's going to be your child or grandchild that we will be dealing with one day, and this can benefit them. I think we all know that. Already six million Australians have access to My Health Record. It's not enough. It's a bit like immunisation: you need everybody in the system if you're going to get the best out of the system and the best outcome for whoever you are. A lot of people, as I said before, might not move out of their general area for most of their lives, but more and more Australians are moving. There are six million Australians already signed up for this. If we can double that, the amount of monetary savings to the outlays of local, state and federal governments, could be quite amazing. That's money we can pour back into hospitals, back into GPs—who are our front line—back into state services, such as the ambos that come and address difficult situations and triage you on the spot and back into the opportunities to have greater healthcare opportunities at a local level. So, there are only pluses, all the way through this bill. There are only benefits to this community. So, I commend the bill to you. I hope we take this opportunity to pass it with enthusiasm and give people the freedom to opt out if that's what they want to do. I accept that. But I encourage everybody to participate in the My Health Records program, which will make a huge difference to all those people who are getting to that time when they need help. Whether you're of a very young age, whether you're in midlife or whether you're in old age, this is of benefit to you. 19:15 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. I think the contribution by the member for McMillan covered a lot of the really important points. We're at a time today when we as governments have to look at how we utilise technology and the capabilities of the technology that is available to us to reduce the cost and the burden of red tape on our society. And I want to put on the record that I thank those opposite for putting in place a system such as this when they were last in government and also put on the record that I have signed up and registered for My Health Record, because I believe it is not only in the best interests of my future health and the management of anything that may arise as I get older, sadly, but, equally, of benefit to the Australian people. I want to touch on an experience that I had on a recent visit to Taiwan early in July. We met with the deputy minister for health, and we discussed at length their electronic health system. It is a system that has a card with your photo on it and a smart chip. When you go into your local doctor, into the hospital or into a pharmacy, you swipe that card and it gives the medical practitioner, the pharmacy or the hospital access to your health record. But it provides access to your full medical health record. The benefit is that, whether it's the GP or the pharmacy or the hospital, they can see instantaneously what your health record has been and also, importantly, as the member for McMillan touched on his contribution, the drugs you're presently taking, the drugs you may have tried to take in the past but had a reaction to and the drugs they may be thinking of prescribing that may create an adverse interaction with the drugs that you're already taking. I think this is where the My Health Record system has the potential to go. But the value of the potential in this system is the number of Australian people who take part in it. It's pleasing to see that some six million Australians have a My Health Record. Importantly, as I touched on earlier, the system has been operating without issue since 2012. Any system of this nature will always be looked to be refined and improved upon. That is the nature of a new system such as this. But the importance of this system to me is the fact that it creates the capacity for the transfer and the accessibility of information. All of us in this place regularly speak about the importance of the information age and the ability to access and use information and data to make better decisions. I think that is the core strength and the core importance of the My Health Record. It gives our medical professionals, whether they be our local GP, whether they be the specialist, whether they be a hospital or whether they be a pharmacist—and I would suggest many of us in this place have more than one medical professional that we interact with over the course of a period of time—the ability to see at a glance your medical history so that they can make the best decisions on your health or a diagnosis of a health condition and so that they can give you the best advice possible for you to take action in regard to your health. We have been talking in this place over the last few days about our aged-care system. One aspect of our aged-care system that is becoming increasingly difficult to manage is dementia. A system like My Health Record can provide enormous benefit to our senior Australians who are suffering from dementia in that they can rest safe in the knowledge that the medical practitioners who are providing them advice and treatment and looking after them have full access to and a full understanding of their medical situation. I think that is incredibly important. I understand that, as with any new system such as this, some people have concerns about privacy. I had no such concerns, because I believed that the system was well set up from the outset. But it's always worthwhile to take the opportunity to improve systems such as this, which have an enormous amount of private data and information, to ensure that the privacy settings and the security that attaches to that are at the best level they can be so that the Australian people can be confident that access to their private medical information is limited to those who they give permission to. That is the core importance of this bill for me—that we strengthen the privacy protections to ensure that Australian people are confident that the My Health Record system is going to protect their privacy and their confidential medical records from access by those who are not permitted to access those records, or for nefarious purposes. The Australian people should feel confident that the system that has been put in place—and I'm sure it has support across both sides of this parliament—has the security measures and privacy protections in place that allow individual Australians to provide their medical practitioners with the access necessary to ensure they get the medical treatment they deserve. If I look at the medical interactions I've had over the past few years, it would have been worthwhile for my medical practitioners in a number of fields to have access to necessary medical information without sending referrals, letters and paperwork. All of those sorts of things would be done in a streamlined, efficient system. I think the member for McMillan outlined it very, very well in his contribution. If we improve the efficiency and the transmission of information, and the ability for our medical practitioners to access that information on an appropriate basis, one of the things we do is immensely increase the efficiency of our medical system. Increasing the efficiency of our medical system is extraordinarily important, and is one of the reasons I supported My Health Record from its inception and support this bill. The cost savings generated can be reallocated to providing additional services and funding for our hospitals, our medical practitioners and our Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. There are a whole range of opportunities created by improving the efficiency and efficacy of our medical records system and the access to that medical records system by our medical practitioners. There are also enormous cost savings in reducing incorrect diagnoses or prescriptions of medicines that may create unwanted interactions with other medicines that people are already taking. There is plenty of evidence of people being admitted to hospital as a result of medicines being prescribed in a situation where the prescriber, the pharmacy, has done nothing wrong but wasn't fully aware of the other medicines the person was taking, and it's created an interaction that has created a health issue for that particular patient. All of those things cost time, money and angst for families across our country. The value of My Health Record and this bill in terms of improving privacy and security is in ensuring, as much as practicable, that we reduce the possibility of those events occurring. The value of reducing those events occurring is that the Australian people can trust that our medical profession is fully appraised of their personal medical situations. The greatest benefit is that it allows Australians who have serious medical conditions, and the rest of us, to be confident that the medical treatment that we are getting is the best in the world. I think our system actually is already one of the best in the world, but we can always improve it. I think the full use of My Health Record and creating confidence in the Australian people—as I said previously, we already have six million on My Health Record, but it would be great to see it at 10 million, 12 million or more—will ensure that the detail that we have in our system and the information we have in our system of people's personal situations ensures the delivery of the best health outcomes we can for the Australian people on an everyday basis. If the result of that is that we generate savings, then the best part of that is that we have the ability to reinvest those savings in our health network to make it even better for the Australian population on a day-to-day basis. And on that basis, I fully support this bill. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT National Security 72 19:29 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt Four years ago, on 23 September 2014, my staff and I were leaving this building. It had been a long day. It was cold and dark, and the conditions matched my mood. Part of this mood was because of my conviction that this country would experience a terrorist attack. In fact, earlier in the year, on 14 July, I stated in this House that eventually and inevitably an event would occur in this country, on this soil, of the magnitude of the Bali event, or just a terrorism event—just. On that fateful evening, I knew the security level had just been raised to 'high' by ASIO and the government. I knew that our agencies were gravely concerned about ISIL and the number of those in Australian influenced by this insidious group. I also knew that ISIL had just issued a fatwa which called for the death of soldiers and civilians in countries including Australia, and that Western intelligence agencies were attempting to assess the impact of this fatwa. They wouldn't have to wait long. I also knew that our intelligence and security authorities had just conducted raids in Sydney and Melbourne which sought to disrupt an ISIL plot to abduct and kill random members of the public. On that night, as we were leaving, a highly regarded journalist rang my staff member on his mobile phone to advise him of an incident at the Endeavour Hills Police Station. It involved the serious wounding of two police officers in what appeared to be a terrorist attack. Given that the police station was some 300 metres from where I had previously lived for many years, this literally struck particularly close to home. I went back upstairs to my office, and as the evening unfolded we learnt the true horror of the event that had taken place—that a young man aged 18 had attempted to attack and kill two counterterrorism officers. Both officers were seriously wounded. One officer suffered life-threatening injuries and the other officer, though seriously injured himself, had shot and killed the young man—a young radicalised man who was carrying out an ISIL-inspired terrorist attack. After that dark night, we learned that this was one of the first ISIL-inspired attacks outside the Middle East—in fact, the first of its type in the Western world. As a consequence of that attack and its aftermath, as well as the Anzac Day plots, the Lindt Cafe siege and other events, the security landscape of our country has changed forever. Australia had on that night its first bitter taste of ISIL-inspired attacks. ISIL attacks continued not just in this country. There were the Paris attacks in 2015, the Brussels bombing in March 2016, the Manchester Arena bombing in May 2017 and, even recently, the 13 July Pakistan bombings that killed 149 people. But this first attack, the Endeavour Hills Police Station attack, was thwarted by the bravery of the two officers, particularly Officer A. The shot fired by officer A literally ricocheted throughout the world. It demonstrated the deadly intent and reach of ISIL and their resolve to kill and terrorise police officers, even in countries like Australia. It also indicated that deadly force would be used to protect our country's interest, and it was used by Officer A. Today, after these four years in which our world has changed I contacted those who are, I'm proud to say, my friends, Officers A and B, and asked them if there is anything they would like to say this to House and to the Australian people four years on. Officer A sent me the following message: 'I am proud of my service to my country and equally proud of the continued dedication of my former colleagues within the national joint counterterrorism teams who continue to thwart terrorism attacks here, to keep Australia as safe as possible, and acknowledge the contribution of the community in working alongside police and the intelligence sector to keep thwarting those who wish to do our great country and our interests harm.' 'When I reflect on it, if I was asked would I give my blood sweat and tears again to keep this nation safe, then the answer is a resounding, "Absolutely". Our soldiers, sailors and Air Force have performed with distinction on operations abroad and peacekeeping missions. When it comes to keeping the public safe from harm, then my small part was to hold the thin blue line and I am happy to have done that.' 'On the cusp of National Police Remembrance Day, I pay tribute to all Australian policing colleagues who paid the ultimate price, whether feloniously slain or killed on duty. 'Policing will always endure the challenges thrown at them by criminals and terrorists because that is why we are the police—to protect good from evil.' Officer A received the Victoria Police Valour Award and AFP Bravery Medal, the highest honours both organisations have for bravery. Officer B received an AFP Bravery Medal and the Medal for Courage from Victoria Police. As long as I remain in this place, I resolve to remind the public each September of the bravery of Officers A and B and to ensure we never forget their sacrifice, and that of our police and security agencies, in keeping us safe, particularly on that dark, dark September night. Endometriosis, Stillbirth 73 19:35 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Earlier this month, our government announced that we would provide more support for women with endometriosis by helping to educate employers, doctors and nurses on how to manage this terrible disease. It is estimated that, on average, women with endometriosis can miss up to 11 hours per week of work. Endo causes pain and it costs women for treatment and missed days of work, and some women still often don't feel comfortable talking about it. Women often feel more comfortable telling their employer or their colleagues that it's a migraine or an upset stomach rather than terrible period pain or endometriosis because, let's face it, most women still don't want to talk about their periods at work or say that tissue like that which lines the uterus is growing throughout their pelvis, causing terrible pain and complications. To help women explain what endometriosis is, Safe Work Australia is developing workplace specific materials to educate employers on endo so that they can provide support to women who suffer from this awful disease. Tonight I want to acknowledge an incredibly brave woman who is helping so many other women feel they can finally discuss and explain what endo is in the workplace and to family and friends. That incredibly brave woman is Emma Watkins, who is better known to most Australians as the yellow Wiggle. Last night Emma explained her struggle with endo on ABC's Australian Story. Endo has impacted Emma's work and her health, echoing the struggle of so many other Australian women. Emma has been incredibly brave and open in her battle with endo, but not all women feel as comfortable explaining endo. Awareness and education remain critical parts of our approach to endometriosis. Our government has announced that half a million dollars will be invested to educate nurses and doctors as part of the $1 million committed in the 2018-19 federal budget. Australia's first clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of endo and the first in-depth tertiary unit of study in endometriosis for Australian nurses through the Australian College of Nursing and Dr Melissa Parker will also be developed. To help Australian women, our government has invested nearly $5 million to date to combat endometriosis. I want to acknowledge the member for Canberra and the member for Forrest, two wonderful women who have worked with me to achieve so much in such a short time for endo sufferers, and, of course, the Minister for Health, who listened and acted so quickly. This evening, I'd also like to raise another issue that primarily impacts women. It has been drawn to my attention by some other wonderful women, Claire Foord and Jenny Hurley, through their work at Still Aware in South Australia. This is an issue that, like endo, has gone under-recognised, undertreated and under-resourced for too long. The tragic fact is that, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, around 2,200 babies are born still in Australia every year. This is about double the number of road fatalities every year. While we all know about road fatalities and how to prevent them, too many women don't know about stillbirth—the risk factors and signs that could save their unborn baby's life. At the moment, there is no mandatory education or training for clinicians and no mandatory information provided to women when they are pregnant. Educating expectant mothers on the signs to look for, including reduced fetal movement or unusual fetal movement and safer sleeping positions when pregnant, could help save an unborn baby's life. The message is clear: if you are concerned about your baby, don't wait; seek medical assistance immediately. For the mums and dads who have experienced the terrible tragedy of stillbirth, support is available from organisations like Still Aware, and I encourage everyone to visit their website, stillaware.org, to learn about stillbirth, safe pregnancy and available support for families who have suffered the terrible tragedy of stillbirth. I believe it is issues like these that highlight the importance of women in parliament. These are issues that primarily affect women. Men are supportive husbands, partners, dads and brothers, and they are affected terribly when tragedy strikes or when they see their loved ones in pain, but they do not and cannot physically go through what women go through. I am proud to be part of a government that is addressing these critical issues for women and their families, and I'm committed to ensuring that they remain at the top of our policy agenda. Indi Electorate: Community Engagement 73 19:40 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi As an Independent member of parliament, it's my privilege to represent the interests of everybody in my electorate, regardless of politics or background, and results are made possible by communities across north-east Victoria coming together to act. Connecting Community to Canberra represents a case study in community action, and a flyer has been produced by my office. It highlights some of the ways that people from right across this marvellous electorate of Indi have engaged with Canberra and parliament and our federal political processes. It's one of three case studies being produced by my office, and I have to say that, in the nine months of this year, over 20,000 individual constituents have made contact with my office. Out of an electorate of 100,000 people, that clearly shows their strong engagement. Many of these constituents have asked me to take action, make representations, get the government to do something, discuss ideas or solutions, ask for actions or respond to government inquiries. And many requests ask that I take action to, and in, parliament, and I do. And I've been absolutely delighted to also invite my community to come to parliament to learn how the system works, to advocate and lobby, to get to know our House and, in the process, to better understand our democracy. This case study that I'm launching tonight is available from my offices in Wangaratta and Wodonga and is also available online. It shows that over 200 volunteers have taken part in my Canberra Back of House program, with up to four Indi constituents coming and learning about volunteering every week that we're sitting. Tonight, I'd like to acknowledge Pauline, Annie and Kandi; Donald and Jacqueline, who are also part of the Australian National Internships Program, and Dan, who is part of the ADF Parliamentary Program. They are examples of the volunteers in our office. Over 13 advocacy groups have been supported at Parliament House to press their issues to decision-makers. Over 100 schools and over 4,000 students have come to Parliament House to see how parliament works, and I acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Education Office and the terrific job they do. But Connecting Community to Canberra works in more than one direction. Communities come up here, learn how parliament works and then invite ministers to come to Indi, and I've been delighted and grateful to the eight ministers who, at the invitation of my community, have come to participate and learn about issues on the ground. I've also been delighted that 13 young people's events have been held so that I can gather young people's ideas, bring them to Canberra and invite the young people to come to Canberra themselves and press their points. Many constituents say: 'How can I be involved? What can I do?' I'm delighted to say that, on the back of this flyer, there are explicit directions on what you can do if you'd like to be more keenly involved, and there are links. First, inform yourself about your issue. Then, write a letter. It's always important to put it in writing. Perhaps you might want to put together a petition. Perhaps you might want to come to my office and meet some of my staff and, always, you're invited to come to parliament and volunteer. My communities are ready and eager to engage with Canberra, with parliament, and they're ready and eager to participate in the political process and develop their own solutions to the issues that they face. This case study represents what I call 'the Indi way'—how we get things done in Indi and how we engage with politics positively to create effective, exciting and vibrant communities that are full of opportunities. And I welcome new residents to Indi with a copy of this case study and invite them all to participate in 'the Indi way'. In closing, I particularly thank all those community members who have made their way up the Hume Highway. They have given me four days of their time and, in the process, have taken back to my community and to their networks a great passion and love for our wonderful democracy. Black Springs Community Association 74 19:44 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Tonight I wish to bring to the attention of the House the work of the Black Springs Community Association. The Black Springs Progress Association was established in 1959 and earlier this year in April at their AGM it was decided to transition from a progress association to an incorporated community organisation. Fifty-nine people from the district attended the meeting and there was overwhelming support for change. Including the word 'community' in their new title also acknowledges the surrounding areas and towns that are involved in the group. This includes Porters Retreat, Mount David and Shooters Hill. The Black Springs Community Association is working hard to build community spirit and bring the community together, which is particularly important in this time of drought. A number of events are in the planning stages. A community meet-and-greet has been organised for December at the local hall. This will involve a sausage sizzle, and no country event is complete without one of those. The local hall has been described as the heart of the community. Next year will also mark 60 years of the association and so plans are afoot to mark that milestone as well. A festival has been mooted which is expected to take place in September and will feature various stalls, markets and activities. While the group are working to bring new life into the community, they are also very aware of their history. April 2019 will mark 200 years since European explorer Charles Throsby arrived at Black Springs. The area has a rich Indigenous, pioneering and bushranging history, and 2019 will be a very busy year. A new village plan is being developed and there are moves afoot to secure new playground equipment for the sportsground, to have amenities at the tennis court upgraded and to have a paved area for the front of the hall installed. The association is also designing a new logo. Members of the Black Springs Community Association include Elsbeth Alexander, who is the secretary, Racheal Maher, who is the treasurer, and Christine Healey, who is the president of the association. Well done, Christine, for all of your hard work. I would also like to acknowledge Dominica Lemmich, Annette Hill, Holden Smith, Lachlan McEvoy, Greg Healey, Sally Watton, Maureen Behan, Anne Wilson, Janette Dwyer, Leon Dwyer, Allan Dumbleton, Julie Harris, Alisha Gibbons, Megan King, Nancy Dennis, Peter Shephard, Maria McGrath, Theresa Mazzotti, Valeria Mazzotti, Owen Gibbons, Harry Gibbons, Linda Gibbons, Michelle Swaan, Ceanne Barron, Belinda Costa, David Costa, Barry and Mary Jane Hoolihan, Antonia Maguire, Jill and Brien Ross, Michelle Collocott, Michael Gibbons, Tahnee Gibbons, Kathy Beesley, Brian Beesley, Anthony McGrath, Glennie McGrath, Karel Hogan, Kevin Hogan, Alexandra Tuson, Rod Tuson, Jenny Capel, Don Capel, Andrew McClure, Mark Kellam, Glen Belon, Lisa Belon, Belinda Jane Maney, Armando and Julie Giovannetti, Brian Alexander, Lois Gibbons and Eddie Gibbons. As can you see from that rather lengthy list, the Black Springs Community Association has very much succeeded in bringing the local community together, and all of those folks who I have just named and acknowledged in this House tonight have worked very hard to build community spirit at Black Springs, which is in the high country in the Great Dividing Range. I would like to acknowledge and thank those members of the Black Springs Community Association for their hard work and dedication to making life better for the people in their district. They have gone about their task with energy, enthusiasm and also great passion. I think one of the wonderful things about living in the country is that our country communities have that wonderful community spirit and, when we face difficult times, our country communities come together. The Black Springs Community Association has been instrumental in bringing the community of the Black Springs district together for the common good. There are exciting things happening at Black Springs, and I again thank and acknowledge all of those wonderful community members of the Black Springs Community Association. Infrastructure 75 19:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Last weekend I attended the New South Wales ALP Country Labor conference, and I drove along the Pacific Highway from Port Macquarie to Foster, a beautiful part of the world. I had the opportunity to drive on the legacy of the investment made by the former Labor government in duplicating the Pacific Highway after years of inaction by the previous Howard government. We invested some $7.6 billion in the project over six years, compared with $1.3 billion by the Howard government over 12 years. My journey was a stark reminder of the ineffectiveness of the National Party. According to the last census, the electorate of Lyne, which includes Foster, has the second lowest average income in the country. Just to its north is Cowper, the sixth poorest electorate in the country. One electorate further on is Page, the fifth poorest electorate in the country. It's no coincidence that these are seats that have been taken for granted by the National Party. The fact is that they need better representation. The National Party currently have no plan for regional economic development. Regional Australia does need a serious economic development plan, and Labor has one. It starts with an increase in infrastructure investment to end the years of coalition cuts. According to the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, if we stick with those opposite, federal infrastructure investment expressed as a percentage of GDP will halve from 0.4 to 0.2 per cent over the coming decade. Much of the focus of a Labor government would be investment in public transport in capital cities, but we must also address regional economic development. The nation must confront traffic congestion in those capital cities, but one of the ways we can do that is by encouraging the growth in our regional cities. Regional Australia has an important role to play. As well as improving transport in the capitals, Labor wants to empower regional centres so they prosper, so they can absorb some of the intense pressure of national population growth. The fact is that many Australians, including some of those newer to this country, are open to living in regional Australia if they can find jobs there. That's why we invested in the NBN in regional Australia: to take away the tyranny of distance and to change it from a disadvantage to a comparative advantage for business to be located in regional centres which have lower overheads than businesses located in the CBDs of our capital cities. Labor will also target regional jobs growth through infrastructure investment and via our city partnerships program. We want to work with councils, state governments, the private sector and regional development organisations to craft transformative economic development strategies appropriate to individual communities. What are the relative comparative advantages that particular regions can bring to provide the support of government to make sure that that growth in jobs happens? We also want to improve road and rail links between capital cities and regional centres. For example, the high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra will see a city such as the one we're in now, Canberra, or Newcastle being well under an hour from the CBD of Sydney. What that will do is improve the livability of those regional cities, but it will also improve the economic opportunity for businesses to be located there. In the same way, quicker access to Melbourne would drive increased jobs growth in cities like Ballarat and Bendigo. Of course, regional Australia also requires, as my colleague the member for Whitlam has been relentlessly campaigning for, 21st century fibre based broadband. That is so important to providing opportunity, yet those opposite are happy for the people they represent in this parliament to struggle along with 19th century copper technology. Talk about a lack of ambition! The fact is it will take a Labor government to energise regional Australia. We understand that regional Australians are hurting at the moment. They're hurting due to the drought but also due to a lack of political support, in many cases, from those very people who they send to represent them in this House. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 19:54 NOTICES 76 NOTICES

Tuesday, 18 September 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks) took the chair at 16.00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Granites, Mr Kumunjayi 78 16:00 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I wish to defer to Kumunjayi Japanangka Granites, who was born in 1950 and died recently, in June of this year. Kumunjayi Granites chaired the Central Land Council between 1994 and 1996. He is remembered as a senior law man, a pastor and educational champion. He knew the value of a well-rounded bilingual and bicultural education. As a young man he trained as a teacher. He completed a Bachelor of Education and later undertook postgraduate studies. Kumunjayi was an ATSIC councillor and served on the Yuendumu Community Council, including a period as its president. He was a candidate for election for the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, contesting the seat of Stuart against his nephew, Labor member Karl Hampton. Until close to his death he worked as an interpreter, mentor and mediator in his home community of Yuendumu, three hours north-west of Alice Springs. He was born there in 1950 and raised in the community by his parents from the Mount Doreen and Granites areas. Kumunjayi was widely related to families across Central Australia. In the CLC’s oral history collection, Every Hill Got a Story, he spoke about his grandfather from the Lake Mackay area and connections on his mother’s side from Alekarenge and Willowra. In his time as the CLC chair, Kumunjayi focused on the repatriation of sacred objects. In 1994, he travelled with the inaugural CLC chair, Wenten Rubuntja, to Sydney to collect sacred objects bought overseas by a businessman to bring them back home to their rightful owners. During a CLC symposium on the return of sacred objects in 1995, an effort to persuade museums around the country to return these objects, he spoke about the urgency of this unfinished business. Around the same time, Kumunjayi began to make a name for himself as an artist. His works are held by public and private collections throughout Australia. Kumunjayi Granites was farewelled at a large funeral last Friday in Alice Springs, and I was privileged to be in attendance. I knew this man from the mid-eighties. He was someone who I didn't always agree with, to be fair, but who was prepared to stand up for what he believed. He always advocated for his family and his Warlpiri communities. He leaves a proud tradition and a great legacy. He is someone I am proud to have met and known as a friend. Lyne Electorate: Financial Assistance 78 16:03 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I want to alert the House to the federal financial grants and other grants to local government bodies in the Lyne electorate. The federal coalition government will contribute $2.4 billion to 546 councils around the nation. Financial assistance grants, roads to recovery, bridges renewal, federal black-spot money and heavy vehicle safety and productivity funds are the lifeblood of many these regional councils. For instance, Maitland will receive $6.9 million this year, including $864,000 in financial assistance grants—general purpose grants. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council will receive $9.2 million this year, including $1.14 million in general purpose financial assistance grants. MidCoast Council, one of the biggest combined councils in the state of New South Wales, in my electorate of Lyne will receive $17.8 million this year, including $2.23 million of financial assistance grants. Recently, I was proud to announce that the coalition government, under its signature policy Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, has committed $5 million to the upgrade of Bucketts Way, a very important artery for commerce in the Lyne electorate. At the MidCoast Council, similar programs in the last round of Bridges to Renewal provided co-funding for 13 regional small bridges, and another million dollars, roughly, for a similar bridge at the bottom end of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council local government area. Unfortunately, Dungog Shire Council has been left behind in the local government stakes, with a huge area to cover and no roads that are under the responsibility of the state government—they are all local government roads. It received in total $2.56 million. It has a huge road and bridge liability, but the formula is not working for some of these local government bodies. I met with the mayor. She has advocated around the corridors in Macquarie Street and she is turning to the federal government for help. She went to the New South Wales local government minister and various other ministers to seek help for their bridge and road funding, and was told that perhaps they could source commercial loans from a bank. I couldn't believe it; I had to resuscitate myself! Black spot funding is another source of funds, and I would like to see much more money go into this, but we've already increased funds to local government and I look forward to fighting for more in the future. (Time expired) Pharmaceutical Industry 79 16:06 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I rise in support of the pharmaceutical success story in my electorate of Lilley. Sanofi Consumer Healthcare, based in Virginia, employs more than 300 locals at their manufacturing facility. Sanofi has tapped into the lucrative Chinese market, with a trusted Australian-made labelling on its product that has helped drive sales in that region towards $1 billion. By making the decision to set up manufacturing plants in Australia, Sanofi has chosen to pay a level of wages consistent with our status as an advanced economy. There are 300 workers in my electorate who benefit from Sanofi's decision to set up in Virginia, on Brisbane's north side. Inevitably, some aspects of Sanofi's supply chain are not Australian made. The raw ingredients for many of its supplements simply cannot be grown on a sufficient scale in the Australian climate and must be sourced from overseas. Nevertheless, there should be no reason to deny Sanofi's deep connection to Australia or to question the Australian-made endorsement its products receive, particularly when the same endorsement is given to other goods assembled, manufactured or elaborately transformed in Australia by Australians from local or imported ingredients. I commend Sanofi for their ongoing service to the electorate of Lilley and for their commitment to the Australian-made ethos; long may it continue. I also refer to the ongoing blatant tax avoidance by many of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. An Oxfam report released today has found that four of the biggest pharmaceutical companies operating in Australia have avoided four times as much tax as they have paid. Tax avoidance by these four multinational companies amounts to $215 million in Australia, the equivalent of five million medical prescriptions each year. Nor is the tax-dodging behaviour of these big four confined to Australia. Oxfam estimates that their tax avoidance costs advanced economies nearly $4.8 billion in lost revenue and robs developing countries of an additional $146 million per year. Typically, these big four pharmaceutical companies avoid paying tax in advanced economies by booking most of their profits in tax havens in Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands and Singapore. Where tax rates are as low as zero per cent, these companies have notched up profit margins of 31 per cent. In Australia, their combined profit margins are a negative seven per cent. The booking of high profits in tax haven countries and low or negative profits in countries with decent tax rates has been well documented by my colleague, Gabriel Zucman, from the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. By now, we know well the consequences of multinational profit shifting: higher inequality, entrenched corporate power, a massive redistribution of the tax base away from countries like Australia and the undercutting of our world-class health and education systems. Tax avoidance on such a grand scale impoverishes all of us, not just in the developed world but in the developing world also, where it is a threat to the Sustainable Development Goals. They will simply not be able to fund health and education— (Time expired) Calare Electorate: Agricultural Shows 79 16:09 Mr GEE 261393 Calare There is a devastating drought gripping Central Western New South Wales at the moment, but when times are tough in the bush our country communities come together. One place that this happens is at our country shows. I recently had the pleasure of attending a number of country shows, it being show season in the central west. One of them was the Burraga Sheep Show and Country Fair. It was another resounding success. It was the 59th annual Burraga Sheep Show and Country Fair, and I'd like to acknowledge the hardworking committee that made the day such a success, including president Neil Francis—well done, Neil—treasurer Charles Lamburn and secretary Barbara Pearce as well committee members Leon Booth, Ken Stapleton and Chris Francis. The show wouldn't be possible without the help of many volunteers, including Shirley Stapleton, Alex Booth, Kerry Francis, Sandra Stapleton and Ross and Katrina McDonald. A big thank you to Bathurst Citizen of the Year, Vicki Wilson, for opening the show and for her ongoing work with drought relief locally. Congratulations to Rhyannah Larnach for organising the showgirl competition, and to 2018 showgirl Tahlia Milbank. There was a huge array of handicrafts and activities. There was something there for everyone. So I'm looking forward to the 60th Burraga Sheep Show and Country Fair next year. I also attended the Eugowra Show on the weekend. It was the 105th annual show at Eugowra. It featured ute barrel racing, a demolition derby, dog jumping, and spectacular fireworks. Again, there was something there for everyone. I'd like to congratulate president Tony Toohey, who was awarded a life membership for 40 years of service to the Eugowra Show Society. I also congratulate secretary Sean Haynes, treasurer Kevin Townsend; chief pavilion steward David Herbert, the entertainment coordinator Hugh Ellis, and showgirl coordinator Janet Moxey. I'd also like to congratulate the 2018 showgirl Kahlia Townsend. I also acknowledge St Joseph's Catholic Primary School's P&F President Alison Haynes and her team for catering on Friday, as well as Eugowra CWA President Margaret Swift and the committee for catering on Saturday. Eugowra Show also featured the unveiling of the new Eugowra flag, which was designed by year 6 St Joseph's student Ashton Gates. That flag features Parliament House, which is of course made from Eugowra granite. So there is a very close connection between this place and the wonderful town of Eugowra. I would like to thank all of the folks there at Eugowra for putting on such a wonderful show. I thank all of our hardworking volunteers across our region; they are the fabric of our country communities, bringing us together even when times are tough. The tremendous crowds that have been supporting our country shows have been truly heartening. Long may it continue; you can't beat a country show. (Time expired) Greenway Electorate: Schofields railway station 80 16:12 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway In my electorate of Greenway, we have seen enormous growth as the north-west sector continues to expand. Suburbs such as The Ponds, Kellyville Ridge, Stanhope Gardens, Schofields, Quakers Hill and Riverstone continue to grow, and access to public transport remains a critical issue. On Friday, I was very pleased to be able to stand alongside Labor's spokesperson for infrastructure and transport, Anthony Albanese, the New South Wales Labor shadow Treasurer Ryan Park, and Dr Annemarie Christie, New South Wales Labor's candidate for the state seat of Riverstone to announce that Labor will commit $30 million in funding for commuter parking at Schofields train station, with federal and state Labor each delivering $15 million for a multistorey commuter car park. Schofield station is a hub of commuter activity. Commuters travel to and from Blacktown, Parramatta, Strathfield and directly into the city and back home each day. Unfortunately, each weekday, the existing car park is full before seven o'clock in the morning, and this means commuters rushing to catch their trains are forced to park in surrounding streets, sometimes walking for 20 minutes or so just to get to the station. This is a huge frustration for residents and their families, and it's only going to get worse as we continue to expand. They're not just parking somewhere safe; they are parking on dangerous terrain which is poorly lit. They get caught in the rain. They sometimes end up having to park in places that are dangerous for traffic. Local residents are reporting now that the number of cars parking them in and in front of their driveways is simply unsustainable. This chronic lack of commuter parking impacts on people's quality of life; it's a daily frustration for local residents. So improving access to public transport is a top priority of mine and it is a top priority for Labor at a state level, and one that we have advocated for very strongly. That's why we've announced a $30 million joint commitment for this project to address these issues. This is also going to take pressure off nearby Quakers Hill and Riverstone and train stations—their commuter car parks are also filling up very quickly in the morning. I want to thank the thousands of local residents who have continued for many years to support the campaign to improve commuter parking in the Greenway electorate. Now I call on the federal Liberals and the New South Wales Liberals to match this $30 million funding announcement and get the project done. Residents simply want it done. It is unsustainable. And we cannot ignore the voices of local residents on this issue. This will make a significant improvement to people's quality of life. It needs to get done. Therefore, I call on the Liberals at the state and federal level to match this commitment, to make it happen for local residents, because their quality of life should be uppermost for all of us as their representatives. Safer Communities Fund 80 16:15 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Crime is a concern for residents in my electorate of Swan, and we are in the crime belt of the suburban area of Perth. I have spoken before about a recent spike in crime in parts of my electorate, and of how the state Labor government has taken its eye off the ball on crime and has actually cut the police budget. Today I want to speak about this issue in the suburb of Karawara. I've been receiving correspondence about the issue from my constituents in Karawara, and one resident recently wrote to me and said: Yesterday afternoon our street (Kwel Court) was turned into a crime scene. There was a fight between a Meth affected person (from one of the housing Authority units) and one of our neighbours. This particular person was picking a fight with everyone he sees. It eventuated into a bloody scene, and there were still pools of blood on our street this morning. Another resident has separately written to me about ongoing issues that his family has been facing. He said: My family, as well as neighbours, are extremely worried … with deep feelings of insecurity for last several months. I am writing this in reference to continuous harassment with break-in attempts to my residence unit from some unsocial elements. These unknown people keep damaging my fence and trying to get into my place illegally during the dark night every now and then. Banging and bursting my backyard fence is becoming a normal routine practice for them. These have been done at least 8 to 10 times in last few months. These examples reflect the concern of residents about crime issues in the Karawara area, many of which, according to residents, seem to be associated with a small number of social housing properties. I know the local senior sergeant of Kensington police is aware of the issues, and he has organised raids on a number of addresses recently. However, concerns remain. So some of the residents of Karawara have provided a petition to the City of South Perth for CCTV cameras in the Karawara gardens area, to assist in catching offenders and to help residents to again use the area safely. I commend the residents for their petition and will support them in their push for more CCTV in the area. Petitioners have said that they rarely feel able to use the Karawara gardens due to the frequent antisocial behaviour. I note that the coalition has a strong commitment to crime prevention infrastructure under the Safer Communities program, and I'll work to support the Karawara residents and the City of South Perth to progress an application to the Safer Communities Fund. The Safer Communities Fund delivers on the federal Liberal government's ongoing commitment to keeping Australians safe and secure. In previous federal funding rounds, we have secured funding for CCTV cameras at Belmont Forum, CCTV cameras at Abernethy junction commercial precinct, lighting upgrades in the neighbouring town of Victoria Park, and 70 CCTV cameras at the new Belmont community centre. Kingston Electorate: Winter Appeal 81 16:18 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise today to acknowledge the generosity of my local community during my recent winter appeal. Each winter, my office acts as a drop-off point for donations of food, beanies, scarves, blankets, toiletries and animal food. The donations go to vulnerable members of the local community who are struggling over the cooler months. This year, I've been absolutely overwhelmed by the generosity of our community. Over 90 individuals and 20 community groups have brought in donations. Many of these people were not well off themselves but have given what they can to help those in need. Throughout the appeal there have been some truly heartwarming stories of kindness and generosity. Before my office had even put the word out for this appeal this year, I had community members who had been knitting and crocheting blankets, beanies and scarves all year, asking if they could drop them off. One woman, who has a hearing impairment, brought in hand knitted scarves and beanies she'd been working on for some time. Another woman, who had crocheted at least 10 blankets, said she crochets to exercise her arthritic hands. The students and their families from Morphett Vale East Primary had an end-of-term drive for donations, including a 'wear your pyjamas to school' day, which raised extra money for the appeal. And the Ahmadiyya Muslim Women's Association brought in car loads of donations generously provided by members of their association. The residents of Moana Mews Retirement Village also generously put together donations. Many sporting clubs got involved too: Christies Beach Surf Life Saving Club donated sorely needed toiletries. Other local groups and organisations that donated included the 1st Reynella Scout Group; Aldinga Knitters and Hookers for Charity; Coorara kindy; The Cove Sports and Community Club; Cove Tigers Netball Club; 50 plus Activity Club from O'Halloran Hill; Fleurieu Peninsula Family History Group, Goodstart Early Learning Childcare Centre Sheidow Park, in Hutt Close; Lions Club of Hallett Cove; Neighbourhood Watch group 57 Morphett Vale; OzFeathers; Port Noarlunga Bowling Club; Seaford Meadows Early Learning Centre; Spectrum Art Group; Stepping Stone Morphett Vale and Wakefield House. Thank you, thank you for all the efforts of our community and to the groups and to the individuals. We made an unprecedented amount of donations to local charities in our area. I extend a deep thanks to every person and community group, because your contribution made a difference. We make sure that we ensure, as closely as possible, that these donated items go to our local area for our local community. Together, we have helped people in our community stay warm and put food on the table. Thank you again. Lang, Mr Gordon 81 Sydney Electorate: Shopping Trolleys 82 16:24 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I represent a very congested electorate. It's geographically small, about 44 square kilometres, and it's shrunk in the time I've represented it. When I first became the member for Sydney it was over 60 square kilometres. The reason the electorate has continued to reduce in size is because it's grown up. We're a much more densely populated electorate than we were 20 years ago. That's brought particular problems. It's meant that as a community we've had to really focus on urban amenity, making sure we have the health and education services, the public transport, the parks and recreation and good urban design principles that make it pleasant to live with our neighbours. One of the things that has been troubling me and my constituents lately is the extraordinary selfishness of people who take shopping trolleys from shopping centres and just dump them. They dump them in our urban waterways, dump them in our canals and streams, dump them in our parks and dump them on our footpaths. Of course, councils across Australia have taken steps to prevent this happening. Some councils mandate that supermarkets have to have the coin deposit or the automatic wheel-locking technology, and they fine supermarkets that don't collect trolleys quickly enough. All of this adds to the cost of groceries—someone has to pay for that new technology or for the retrieval of the shopping trolleys. On top of the ugliness, the inconvenience, the obstacle course that people are leaving for their neighbours, when they leave their shopping trolleys on the footpaths they're adding to the grocery costs of every single other shopper as well. It is beyond me. I understand that in a seat like mine a lot of people like to walk home from the shops. I encourage them to walk home from the shops. You can get one of those little pull-along shopping trolleys, that my mum had 40 years ago, for 20 bucks. You can buy them off eBay very cheaply, indeed, and I would be delighted if more shopping centres made them more easily available to customers so that people can pack their things in shopping trolleys and pull them home. Local government must make sure that they are working with shopping centres to prevent the dumping of shopping trolleys. But, more than that, people have to be good neighbours. For goodness sake, I urge the people who are habitually taking trolleys from shopping centres and dumping them on the streets to think twice. Think about your neighbours—struggling wheelchairs, pushing prams on the footpath. Think about the urban environment. Think about the costs you're adding to the cost of other people's shops. Have some consideration for your neighbours. It's only by having that sort of consideration that we can live in harmony in our densely populated cities. Canning Electorate: Tonkin Highway 82 16:27 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I rise today to continue fighting a battle that the people of Canning should have already won. I'm referring to the extension of the Tonkin Highway. The Tonkin Highway, as I've explained many times in this place, currently terminates in the north of my electorate at Thomas Road. It needs to be extended south through the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale and into the heart of the Peel region. Our region is one of the fastest growing in Australia. We now have suburbs in what was recently farmland, and high frequency traffic on what are still country roads. The roads weren't designed for this kind of use. It's not safe, as evidenced by the tragic number of car accidents and fatalities, particularly on Thomas, Karnup and Mundijong roads. If that weren't reason enough, extending the Tonkin Highway would also fast-track local economic development. It's a critical piece of infrastructure to attract business and grow local jobs for people living in towns like Serpentine, Mundijong, Jarrahdale, Pinjarra, North Dandalup and beyond. I've argued the case for this development many times in Canberra. The people of Canning have enthusiastically supported my efforts. They want this to happen. And earlier this year we were successful. The coalition committed $581 million for the Tonkin Highway's upgrade and extension. That would facilitate the extension of the highway south, past Mundijong Road, and connect it to the South Western Highway. The funding was announced in partnership with the McGowan Labor government in a joint media release between the Prime Minister and the Premier. We thought this was a massive win. The coalition had committed over half a billion dollars to a project that would transform our region, and it appeared to have the Labor government support. But since then, our region has had nothing but disappointment. The WA Labor government has refused to commit to the Tonkin Highway extension. In fact, during the recent Darling Range by-election, where the Tonkin Highway extension was a major issue, Labor said nothing. WA Labor has let the people of the Peel region down yet again. Labor is happy to fill our region with crowded suburbs but won't invest in the sort of infrastructure needed for local jobs and the growth of real communities. When people can live and work in one place, they will put down roots and make that community their own. That's what we need in the north of Canning. An extended Tonkin Highway would improve local safety and help create the conditions for local jobs. Labor may take the Peel region for granted, but the coalition has delivered and will continue to do so. The Tonkin Highway extension is essential for the future of our region, and I will not stop fighting for it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 If no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. There being no objection, I call the member for Corio. Corio Electorate: genU 83 16:31 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Karingal has a rich history in the Geelong region, having been established in 1952 when a group of Geelong parents formed a playgroup for their children, each with a disability. Now known as genU, they ensure support and services for nearly 4,000 of the most vulnerable members of our community and employ around 1,500 Geelong locals. In February 2016 the City of Greater Geelong decided to donate land in Ocean Grove to genU for new disability housing. The council—like genU, like those on this side of the House—know that everyone deserves access to safe and stable housing. Knowing that their community is as committed to supporting the vulnerable as they are, the council are taking responsibility and doing what they can to back that commitment with action. In developing this land, genU aimed to ensure disabled young people and their families in the electorates of Corangamite and Corio had access to a vital resource during a time when council had noted a 'desperate shortage of community based accommodation, particularly for young people with disabilities'. This was a step to be universally celebrated, improving the lives of young people living with a disability. It's hard to imagine anyone who would not celebrate it, and yet the member for Corangamite actually tried hard to stop it from happening. On 16 February 2016 the Geelong Advertiser reported: Corangamite MP Sarah Henderson hit out at the Geelong council yesterday over a potential giveaway of land worth up to $1 million to local disability services provider Karingal, for housing for young disabled people. Ms Henderson urged Geelong councillors to defer a decision on whether to bequeath the double block in Ocean Grove for the development of supported disability accommodation, saying the council should focus on its "core services". This is hard to believe, but it's true. Instead of urging the council on, she actually reprimanded them. She in effect said that it wasn't their place, that they should focus on other issues. Most of the time, being against disability support would be a courageous move for a politician, the kind of courageous move that gets rewarded by the electorate with a short career. But this is the Liberal Party, a party which has now chosen the member for Corangamite as its new Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services, even though she tried to stop her own local council from taking care of people with a disability through the provision of housing in her own community. How can we trust the assistant minister to champion the development of this critical infrastructure in communities across the country when she works against disability housing for her own constituents? It's clear the council was doing its part to address an important issue and help a local organisation deliver life-changing outcomes. The federal government has gone missing in Geelong on this issue, like it has gone missing on every issue. Thankfully, the member for Corangamite did not win this fight. GenU did receive the parcel of land from the City of Greater Geelong, and a new youth disability house will open soon, with nine residents to be moved in by Christmas. This is great news for these people and for the electorate of Corangamite, but it's high time people in Corangamite had a member who stood up for their community instead of working against them. (Time expired). Dunkley Electorate: Rail 84 16:34 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley In my maiden speech, I talked about the need to invest not just in the inner city but also in the outer metro regions, as well as in the country. I talked about the need to invest in transport, particularly in rail and fast-rail infrastructure projects, to create polycentric capital cities across Australia and states of cities. I also talked about these things many years ago when I was CEO of the then Mildura Development Corporation and when I was spokesperson for the NorthWest Rail Alliance. Imagine, for example, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were in a place like Mildura, Shepparton or Wodonga, and you could get to and from Melbourne in two hours or less. Imagine what this would do for the decentralisation of businesses from our capital cities so that they are more spread across the states, and for the movement of people, as well as resolving many of our issues around urban congestion. I've seen some of these examples in the US and in France. One example is Bordeaux to Paris, which is about the same distance as Mildura to Melbourne, about 5½ hours drive. But in Mildura, for example, you have no train, and from Paris to Bordeaux it's only two hours and 10 minutes. If we can do this, we can help to decentralise our cities and also decentralise our states. It's fantastic to have seen the member for Bennelong's work in this regard with his report Building up & moving out: inquiry into the Australian government's role in the development of cities. I strongly encourage members of this place to read this wonderful report and the recommendations from it. In my own electorate of Dunkley, which is a peri-urban seat, rail infrastructure has been one of my key focuses. And, for a project that has been talked about for over 90 years now, I'm the first in 90 years to have secured funding for the electrification and duplication of the rail line from the outer metro suburb of Frankston, in my electorate, to the inner regional town of Baxter. This is the biggest single transport infrastructure project ever in the Dunkley electorate, and it will become a reality as a result of funding commitments from the Liberal-National government at the federal level and the Liberal-National opposition at the state level. In Dunkley, we have $228 million of budgeted funding secured through my advocacy in federal funding for this project. This has been matched by Matthew Guy and the Victorian Liberals, particularly through the efforts of Michael Lamb, the Liberal candidate for Frankston, and Donna Bauer, the Liberal candidate for Carrum. We have now a total of $453 million towards this project, which will improve connectivity, free up parking, create more than 4,000 local jobs, reduce road congestion and more. The Prime Minister visited my electorate 11 days ago to recommit to this important project, and I'm also pleased to see Michael Lamb having secured $30 million for multilevel car parking in my electorate as well, in Frankston. Food Safety, Food Labelling 84 16:37 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Like most Australians, I'm astounded and concerned about the scourge of food fraud and food sabotage occurring in this country, including in my home of Western Australia. Like all of us here in this place, we're concerned with the dreadful crime that is the strawberry sabotage we have witnessed, which is brutalising local industry and harming Australian consumers. Strawberry suppliers, as we have seen, have now resorted to scanning produce for metal contaminants as the crisis of these fruit-tampering cases continues to grow. Western Australian growers have warned that the strawberry industry is on the brink of collapse due to the widespread and shameful strawberry sabotage, which is nothing less than a dreadful crime. I implore my constituents and all Western Australians to continue to support WA growers by continuing to purchase strawberries that are available and cutting up the fruit before consumption as a precaution. I know it's a hassle, but it is worth it to support the very hardworking strawberry farmers right across the state. Some might also consider going to a local strawberry farm. There are many more than you think around the outer suburbs of Perth and in south-western WA, and it's beautiful in the springtime. Strawberries are in the peak of their season, and you can go and pick them yourself. For my constituents, you could head to Russell Farm Strawberries on Thomas Road in Anketell, enjoy a day out and support your local farmers. This wicked crime of food sabotage is most awful, and the sooner we get to the bottom of it and it stops, the better. It also comes in the wake of the very unfortunate fake honey scandal we're witnessing in this country. This has the potential to shatter confidence in honey sold in Australian supermarkets. We've all seen the joint Fairfax-ABC investigation which uncovered a startling prevalence of fake, adulterated honey on Australian shelves involving the iconic Australian brand of Capilano. That investigation found that almost half of the honey sampled, sold on Australian shelves and marketed as pure honey, was not honey at all. It proved that our current testing program is behind, compared with global technologies. What is worse for consumers is, of course, that we don't know what things are in these not-honey products. You are buying an imported blend of something, and you don't know what it contains. It's a terrible shame that large honey companies are driving down prices and tarnishing the good name of Australian honey by utilising cheap imports backfilled with syrup and other unknown substances. I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of Robert Costa, who has paid for the testing of the fake honey on the shelves, and also Jodie Goldsworthy of Beechworth Honey. I'm an amateur beekeeper myself and I know that it takes one bee, through its whole lifetime of six weeks, to make one teaspoon of honey. So, honey is not cheap and we shouldn't expect it to be cheap. If we drive beekeepers out of business with cheap, fake money we endanger nothing less than our whole agricultural industry. Goldstein Electorate: Sandringham District Netball Association 85 16:40 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Deputy Speaker, on a topic close to your heart, last Saturday was the Sandringham District Netball Association's grand final awards presentation. Mayor Laurie Evans, Professor John Royle from the Jack Brockhoff Foundation, Felicity Frederico and I were honoured to be there to celebrate the premiers, best and fairest players, coaches, umpires and general excellence in community service. There was no shortage of talent in each division. Congratulations to the grand final winners: 13A, Mavericks Pearl; 13B, Sandy Starlet Comets; 13C, Beau Rock Brack; 13C reserves, Brighton Beach Blazes Green; 13D, Haileybury Heartbreakers; 13D, Beau Rock Aqua; 13E, Minties Peach; 15A, Sandy Starlets Electrons; 15B, Sandy Starlets Jupiter; 15B reserves, Sandy Starlets Saturn; 15C, Starlets Mercury; 15C reserves, Minties Silver; 15D, St Finbars Flames—by two points!; 15D reserves, East Brighton Vampires Crimson; 17A, Tigers MD; 17B, Firbank Weston; 17C, Sandy Starlets Meteors; 17C reserves, Tigers BW; 17D, Minties Turquoise; Open 1s, Mavericks Onyx; Open 2s, St Finbars Emerald—again by two point!; and Open reserves, Firbank Lightning. In addition, well done to all the Runners Up, the Best in Final and Best and Fairest recipients. I would also like to recognise the Umpire Award recipients for 2018: the Ann Ryan Award for Excellence in Umpiring went to Hilary Wallace; the Umpire Commitment Award to Alannah Yaksich; the Umpire Rookie of the Year to Gabby Lennon; and the Umpire Development Award to Nicole McDonald. The Sir Jack Brockhoff and Lady Ursula Brockhoff Community Service Award had a number of nominees, including Kay Davis, Rachel Pears, Kris Pierce, Emily Higgins, Amanda Adams and Cheryl Huxtable. The recipient this year was Gary Nash. Good on you, Gary. Keep up the good work. Gary has been involved in SDNA for 25 years. Previously, Gary has held both the vice president and president roles and is a life member of the association. He was instrumental in a number of the upgrades at the current netball site. Gary is a bastion of netball in the Bayside community. Congratulations to Gary, his wife, Chris, and his three daughters, Chelsea, Kelly and Courtney. I would also like to acknowledge the SDNA executive for their ongoing commitment to sporting and community excellence. To Shane Peters, the president, Robin Batt, the vice president, Emma Collin, the secretary, Samantha Heldsinger, the treasurer, Wendy Wroblewski, a general member of the committee, and Graham Skull, also a general member of the committee, and Kris Pierce, who is a co-opted member and a superstar in the community, we honour your contribution to the fantastic electorate of Goldstein but more critically to the development of netball for young women and boys in part of our wonderful Goldstein community. Telecommunications 85 16:43 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Demand for new mobile phone technology is fuelled by communication—talking, texting and ever-emerging trends for how we communicate in our world. Our community understands the need for new mobile communication infrastructure. But if you're in the business of communication, you should practise what you preach, and that's not always the case. I've been contacted by a number of constituents in suburbs in Kingsford Smith, including Coogee, Maroubra, Mascot and Kingsford regarding the installation of new mobile phone infrastructure by TPG. They're angry that they haven't been properly consulted either by TPG, or their representatives, during the planning process, particularly for contentious sites near homes and schools. There's been a failure of communication. In one instance, TPG's contractors began digging in a Coogee street before the required public consultation period had actually concluded. Big telcos like TPG have an important obligation to our community as part of an industry code. The Mobile Phone Base Station Deployment Industry Code contains provisions relating to appropriate consultation when selecting new sites for mobile phone base stations. Some of these provisions seem to have been ignored. Installation works shouldn't be started before any community consultation has been concluded. Public consultations shouldn't be dismissed as a tick-and-flick exercise for the big telcos to do what they like. I'm disappointed in the company's approach to our community and their engagement on an important issue. I made TPG representatives aware of my disappointment when I met with them in my office last Friday. I've heard from residents who say that TPG has been completely unwilling to come to their local community, sit down with locals and discuss alternative sites. It's clear there needs to be more local participation in the planning for new mobile phone base stations and greater transparency from TPG in our community. I've called on TPG to arrange an in-person community consultation with affected residents to explain why these sites have been chosen and to discuss alternative sites with our community. It needs to answer these questions and address the concerns of residents. It's time to establish trust with the people of Kingsford Smith. I've also written to the Minister for Communications and the Arts on behalf of our community to formally express my concern at TPG's community engagement. I've also called on the minister to provide residents of Kingsford Smith with information that the department has used to determine that these developments are safe. At a time when TPG is looking to get bigger, through a potential merger with Vodafone, it shouldn't forget its obligation to our community and its obligation to consult. Postle, Professor Glen, AM 86 16:46 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Last week my community in Toowoomba again lost one of our finest when Professor Glen Postle AM passed away after an illness over recent years. University of Southern Queensland Vice-Chancellor, Professor Geraldine Mackenzie, described Glen Postle as 'an inspirational figurehead to the university for more than 46 years'. Glen joined the then Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education in Toowoomba in 1972, and he had a very long and distinguished academic and research career at USQ, as it later became known—so much so, that he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to education. Glen was—in his extracurricular activities, if you like—a patron of Toowoomba Older Mens Network in recent years, and he was a founder of both the Toowoomba Flexi School, which focused on providing education opportunities to young people who had difficulties with the traditional education formats in secondary school, and also the Toowoomba Education Centre. Interestingly, he was the eldest grandson of legendary sprinter Arthur Postle from Pittsworth in my electorate, who was, at the time, the fastest man in the world. This was back in the early 1900s. It was fitting, therefore, for Glen to be the final runner in Toowoomba of the Commonwealth Games baton relay that made its way through our city earlier this year. The Toowoomba community stands very much behind Glen's family, his wife, Sonya, his daughters, Eve and Julia, and their families. We joined them—Glen's friends and associates from across the community—at his funeral service at Centenary Heights State High School last Saturday. In this time of grief, they must be so proud of his legacy and the fine human being that he was and continues to be for all of us. In local media last week, USQ Chancellor John Dornbusch said that Glen lived by the belief that 'by sharing and caring for others, you grow' and that he'll be remembered 'for his many kindnesses, his integrity, his passion and his leadership'. Glen gave so much of himself to others and was a friend to all of us. He will certainly be sorely missed. Community Radio 86 16:49 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to talk about the great contribution that community radio makes in my electorate, in South Australia and all around the country. In Adelaide, we have some amazing community radio stations, including Radio Adelaide, Three D Radio, 5EBI, RPH, Coast FM, which I'm proudly the ambassador of, Radio Italiana, Fresh FM, Radio ENA, a Greek radio station—just to name a few. These great organisations are predominantly staffed by dedicated volunteers. They are great ambassadors for the community. Recent statistics state that one in four Australians receive their news from or listen to community radio stations every single week. There are over 450 radio services across Australia, including the stations I just mentioned. Community radio plays a very important and tremendous role in our community. It provides services to ethnic communities, people with disabilities and Indigenous Australians. Stations, such as Fresh FM, provide services to young people. Others provide local news and services that are unfiltered and tailored for their local target audience. I for one think that we are a richer society for the small investment that we make in community radio. I've been lucky to speak on Dave Hearn's Coast Talk show on Coast FM, which I am the ambassador for as well. He has a wonderful program about politics and things happening in the political sphere. I am very pleased that I appear on that program every few weeks. Dave is an example of what most community radio announcers are. Dave is a former police officer who turned DJ. He has over 10 years experience on air. How does community radio differ from commercial radio? Apart from the obvious, the producers and announcers on Coast FM and Fresh FM can really explore local issues in more detail with authenticity and authority. I'm proud to say that Tim Roberts in my office is a life member of Fresh FM, which has a similar story. It was started by a small group of volunteers who wanted to create a youth radio station because the big commercial radio stations were not covering the issues and music. For those of you not from Adelaide, Fresh FM is now part of the furniture on Adelaide airwaves. It wasn't always the case. Like most things these days, a small group of volunteers had to fight for this service. Today young people have a service that provides not only music that young people enjoy but important shows like Wavelength, which deals with issues such as homelessness, suicide and youth unemployment. These are important community services that provide real benefits for the community. I also want to pay tribute to community radio stations Radio Italiana, 5EBI FM and Radio ENA, who do a magnificent job for the ethnic communities. Their hard work and dedication are of great benefit to the community. They should all be proud of it. (Time expired) Working Holiday Maker Program 87 16:52 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I commence by acknowledging our guests who have come into the Federation Chamber. They were in the main chamber earlier. I acknowledge them all. It's great to have visitors. Last week I met with a group of local backpacker hostel providers in Bundaberg. They aim to turn around the sometimes negative perceptions of backpackers working in the regions. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, we fought long and hard to establish Taskforce Cadena to crack down on the exploitation of foreign workers in this country, and it has been very successful. We do need to ensure that the good and positive stories get out, because it is an important part of regional communities, an important part of the regional workforce and an even more important part of regional tourism, which drives our local economy and jobs. At any one time in my region there can be a need for between 1,000 and 5,000 people to do seasonal farm work, depending on the time of the year and the crop. While backpackers do provide a mobile workforce, we must never forget that they are first and foremost tourists in our wonderful country. We should ensure that they always have a positive experience. The overwhelming majority of them certainly do. Without those backpackers our local producers could not get their crops off and could not meet the demand from China, South Korea, Japan and all the places right around the world that demand our wonderful first-class produce. I congratulate East Bundy, North Bundaberg and Dingo Blue backpacker hostels, who have formed the Bundaberg Hostel Association in order to build a positive and reliable organisation that can better service the tourists, the farms and the community. I think this is a great indication for us locally. I know that they are out talking to people like the Bundaberg Fruit & Vegetable Growers, the Bundaberg North Burnett Tourism Organisation and other backpacker hostels right around our region. They are such an important part of what we do. Those people may want to pick sweet potatoes, get out amongst the macadamias, be in the tomato fields or pick zucchinis, capsicums or any of the other local horticultural produce. You need that mobile workforce, and those people who are here on working holiday-maker visas do make up a large part of that seasonal demand. Those discussions, I am sure, will continue. They do want to build the reputation of the region and work with the community to create positive change. I think that is a great outlook. My advice to anyone out there, right around the world, who wants to come to our country as a working holiday-maker is to come up to Queensland and get yourself into the Hinkler electorate, between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. There is so much to see and do—regardless of whether you want to sit on the beach, down at the bay, or whether you want to head into Bundaberg. I congratulate, right now, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks on their 50th anniversary this year; it's a local, family owned company that exports Bundaberg Ginger Beer right around the world. It is an opportunity for tourism. It's an opportunity to do some work while you're here and have some fun. It is important that we continue to manage our local reputation, and I congratulate the Bundaberg Hostel Association. Newstart 87 16:55 Mr HART 263070 Bass This week we saw the release of a report from Deloitte Access Economics that found that lifting the rate of Newstart by $75 per week would help boost the economy, particularly in regional Australia. This report was commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service, which described the current rate of Newstart as a 'national embarrassment'. I agree. Australia's social safety net should allow people to put a roof over their head and food on their table. Unfortunately, for recipients of Newstart this is not the case. Newstart has not increased in real terms in 24 years, but the cost of everyday essentials has drastically increased. Just this morning I was contacted by one of my constituents, Brad, asking for action in regard to the current rate of Newstart. Brad is studying to become a teachers aide. He's also required to look for a certain number of jobs every week and attend weekly meetings with his employment service provider. Brad has been telling me about the struggle he faces to manage on Newstart: 'Because prices keep going up, and we keep getting the same amount of money, it makes it really hard to live. I would be more inclined and motivated to work and look for jobs if I knew there was food in my belly and at home in the cupboard, and all my bills were paid.' Almost all of his payment goes to rent and electricity. Often he goes without meals, because he simply cannot afford otherwise. Brad tells me how difficult it is to find the motivation to look for work and to keep up with his studies whilst facing constant financial stress. It's clear from Brad's story and others like it that the current system is simply not working. It's time for a major overhaul in the way employment services are delivered in Australia and a serious review of unemployment payments. I note that my Tasmanian colleague Senator Abetz has called for a reintroduction of the Green Army Program, supposedly to address unemployment and, in particular, youth unemployment in Tasmania. I would argue that programs like this do nothing to help people like Brad who need support while studying and/or looking for work. Rather, they only serve to further entrench poverty through cheap labour schemes. Brad's power, food or rent will not be paid for by participation in a Green Army scheme. We need new solutions providing meaningful work for and assistance to Australians in need of a job. This is why Labor, if elected, has committed to a root-and-branch review of Australia's welfare payments. A real increase in these payments, and addressing poverty traps created by complex legislation, cannot be delivered from opposition. Australians should be able to rely on our social safety net if and when they need it, and not have to make the decision between putting food on the table or a roof over their head. We hear talk from the other side about people who are lifters or leaners. People like Brad are lifters. They are studying to get themselves ahead. They need our support and assistance. Moore Electorate: Roads 88 16:58 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I wish to inform the parliament of a strategic new road project which will improve transport links for the Moore electorate: the Whiteman Yanchep Highway. The City of Wanneroo at its December 2017 council meeting resolved to advise Main Roads Western Australia that the city supports the proposed alignment of the Whiteman Yanchep Highway, Gnangara Road to Neaves Road, and the proposed alignment of Neaves Road to Flynn Drive. The city also supports Main Roads making an application to the Western Australian Planning Commission to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme and endorses these respective road alignments. These projects will further improve road connectivity between the cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo and the electorate of Moore. Connecting the Moore electorate to key residential, commercial and employment areas and transport routes is essential to providing greater amenity for residents and opportunities for capital growth. Since 2013 the federal government has extended the Mitchell Freeway north to Neerabup Road and Hester Avenue. Connectivity has been further improved by creating additional capacity on key arterial roads by investing $50 million in a new grade-separated traffic interchange bridge over Wanneroo Road at the Joondalup Drive intersection and $65 million in a similar traffic flyover bridge over Wanneroo Road at the intersection with Ocean Reef Road. These measures will improve east-west traffic linkages, complementing key transport routes such as NorthLink and connecting with industrial areas to the east such as Wangara and Malaga as well as population centres such as Ellenbrook. In addition, a further $31 million has been invested in the widening of Wanneroo Road to a dual carriageway between Joondalup Drive and Flynn Drive to service the Neerabup industrial area, with construction works nearing completion. There are also plans in progress to extend the Mitchell Freeway to Romeo Road and subsequently connect the Mitchell Freeway to Indian Ocean Drive by 2050. Meanwhile $23 million has been invested in widening Marmion Avenue to a dual carriageway all the way to Yanchep, directly connecting Moore with the northern coastal suburbs. The federal Liberal government has a strong plan to connect Moore to key residential, commercial and employment areas and transport corridors to promote local economic development, create employment and provide greater amenity for local residents through investment in key road infrastructure. COMMITTEES 88 COMMITTEES Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Committee 88 Report 88 17:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to speak on the report Building up & moving out, a title which in just several words goes to the heart of the issues that cities, both capital and regional, across Australia are grappling with today. I want to congratulate the chair of the committee, John Alexander, the member for Bennelong; the deputy chair, Sharon Bird, the member for Cunningham; all the committee members; and the secretariat for their hard work on this report. Whilst I don't endorse all of the recommendations in the report, I think it is truly a fine example of the work that can be done in the parliament in order to secure a consensus reform agenda moving forward. Indeed, many of the proposals in the report are certainly worthy of support, and I hope that the report garners more attention from the media than it has up to this point. There is no doubt that Australia has been, for a long period of time now, the most urbanised country on the planet. The national government, if it is going to truly represent the people of our great nation, must be involved in cities, in urban planning and in policies that are directed towards improving the productivity, sustainability and livability of our cities. That must include both capital cities and, importantly, our great regional cities. There is a need to grow regional cities and to support decentralisation in order to take pressure off, particularly, the east coast capitals. The report makes a number of recommendations. Indeed, there are an unusually large number of recommendations in this report, some 37. Recommendation 1 is for a national plan of settlement. This is certainly worthy of consideration by government. A national plan of settlement, it acknowledges in recommendation 2, must include work also by states and territories and communities, which 'link vertically across different levels of government'. The report goes on to talk about the need for urban planning. I've told the story of being sworn in as minister in the Rudd government in December 2007. As a new minister I received briefings across aviation, shipping, transport and the range of issues that you have to deal with as a minister. One of the things that concerned me was when I asked who did the planning work in the Commonwealth department I was told, essentially, that there wasn't a planning unit. They had all left. That's why we established, when we were in government, Infrastructure Australia and the Major Cities Unit—to make sure that we brought planning back in, to make sure that the key performance indicator of the Commonwealth wasn't just whether money had gone out the door but what was actually done with those funds. Had it achieved its objectives? Part of the Infrastructure Australia agenda is to go back and make assessments of projects when they've been completed and whether they've fulfilled the benefit-cost ratio that was expected when the project was approved by Infrastructure Australia. And there's no doubt that we can do much better. The committee recommends support for high-speed rail, particularly where you have the large populations around Australia. What that means, of course, is the corridor between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. There's no doubt that can be a major benefit to both the urban development in those capital cities and, most importantly, to the regional cities along the route, including Australia's largest inland city, the capital here in Canberra. There are a range of other recommendations that go to making sure that we get better planning, making sure there's a recommendation that the Commonwealth provide support for research when it comes to cities. That occurs in most countries that are advanced economies. They have those sorts of units providing that best-practice agenda. We don't, here, in Australia. We rely upon various think tanks and universities, but there isn't a central body, such as the UKCRIC, that's recommended as the model for it. Interestingly, the committee recommends a re-endorsement by the Australian government of the Creating Places for People and Urban Design Protocol for Australian cities that was developed while I was the minister. This was worked out with industry. It was, essentially, an urban design protocol to make sure that we got best practice. The key to facilitating a public support for increases in density is convincing local communities that an increase in density will lead to an increase—not a decrease—in their quality of life. Part of that is about urban design, making sure that green spaces are built into any design of major urban centres. It is about making sure that we look at sustainability of buildings, of energy, of water, of all those issues that the government has walked away from in recent times. There are a range of other recommendations, including that a senior minister be appointed to look at housing. Housing affordability is an issue in which this government, frankly, has dropped the ball. It is good that this committee report is supporting the issue of housing being an important national responsibility. Housing isn't just about building places for people to live. It's about building communities. It's about making sure that issues of housing affordability and the nature of those communities are identified. In terms of the other recommendations, there is support for smart cities, making sure that new technology enhances the quality of life in our cities. One of the reasons why people gather in our urban centres is because of agglomeration and what it can do in terms of quality of life. And there's no doubt that technology can be a major facilitator of improvements in liveability and sustainability, if it is applied properly. So smart cities technology is particularly important, and I very much support that recommendation. When we were in government, under Brian Howe and Lucy Turnbull we established a process of assessing the planning mechanisms which were in place for our capital cities. This report recommends that we have an assessment ongoing through the National Cities Performance Framework, and that is something that is certainly worthwhile. In terms of other recommendations in the report, it goes through the importance of engaging with the different levels of government. I say to the government, and particularly to the new minister—they change so often these days!—that rather than talking about the rhetoric of their so-called infrastructure investment that is, of course, off into the never-never, that this report is worthwhile and provides a policy framework. It doesn't provide everything, but it is a step forward. With the governance arrangements, I think it ignores the fact that many of the governance arrangements that this government has put in place have essentially been distractions, including the establishment of the Infrastructure Financing Unit in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to do a job that Infrastructure Australia is tasked to do in its legislation. But I do commend the report. I think it provides a constructive contribution to the debate on urban policy in this country. 17:12 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce It's a pleasure to follow the member for Grayndler, who, in his parliamentary career, has focused above all other portfolio issues on the issue of infrastructure and cities. He is that most dangerous of species as a minister or a shadow minister because he actually knows about his topic in a very deep way—frankly, more than many of the bureaucrats that he would meet. I will just state my interest in this at the outset. In a previous life I was the executive director of metropolitan planning in the Victorian government. I've worked for both sides of politics in planning, and was mayor of a large metropolitan council. So I have some familiarity with the issues canvassed in the report. To my eye, the report is generally fine as far as it goes; it's not groundbreaking. As the shadow minister said just before, it's a consensus reform agenda. Sure! But the problem, though, if we're being honest, is not the lack of knowledge, it's not a lack of ideas and it's not that we didn't know everything which was written in the report, if we have some basic familiarity with urban planning and cities policy. It's the complete lack of political will to implement good urban policy by this government. There are a very few members opposite who I would say really get this stuff. They care about it, they're reasoned and they want to engage in the debate. I have lunch with them sometimes in the dining room and we talk about these things. The member for Bennelong is one and, indeed, the member for Ryan is one of the few people in the chamber who understands urban policies and cities. And look what they did to her! Sent her off, killed her! But I would say that we should contrast that with Labor's proud record in government under the member for Grayndler. He created the Major Cities Unit and produced the annual State of cities reports—which were downloaded millions of times. Labor accepted that the Commonwealth does have a role in monitoring, evaluating and holding the mirror up to the states, local governments and the industry to reflect how things are going. Labor established the Urban Policy Forum, the convening power of the Commonwealth; created the Australian Council of Local Governments; and conducted a review of capital city strategic planning systems. Even in opposition, Labor implemented the shadow minister for cities portfolio, putting pressure on the government. They eventually responded. Contrast that record with the government's record, and even treading water and doing nothing would have been better than what we've seen the government do. They abolished the Major Cities Unit, they disbanded the Urban Policy Forum and they failed to produce the annual State of cities reports, so we don't really understand what's happening in a cohesive, time-series way. And they failed to appoint a minister for cities. This report does recommend that we have a minister for housing, because the government doesn't have a minister for housing. When I entered the parliament the only new infrastructure project funded in Victoria was Puffing Billy, which is not exactly a form of public transport. It's a tourist train. They have no national urban policy. When you look at the government's record—not what's in this report—there are a few members opposite who are like screams in the night of common sense, compared with what the government is actually doing. I know the member for Bennelong has put effort into this report, and I congratulate him for a good summary of decent, sensible urban policy. But there is one issue in there that I know is a pet one for him: the issue of value capture. The former Prime Minister—poor old Malcolm, wherever he is—championed this pet issue as if it was something new, the notion that when you rezone highly valuable urban land it's a good idea to capture a bit of that wealth you've just created for the landowner, who often gets a windfall gain because they happen to own a piece of land that's been rezoned from industrial to residential or whatever it may be. The notion that you should get some gain back to the public purse, back to the community, instead of letting often thousand per cent windfall gains pass into private pockets is not exactly new. Neither is the notion that if government builds an expensive piece of infrastructure—for example, the Melbourne City Loop—the landowners who benefit enormously from that infrastructure should contribute. These are not new ideas. They were done in the 1970s and 1980s in Melbourne and, indeed, financed much of the City Loop. It's lovely that the government can talk about these things, but if we're honest about value capture we could also have a look at the record of the Liberal Party in Victoria. Frankly, I think Matthew Guy, the opposition leader, should be strung up before a royal commission for his performance as planning minister on value capture, because in one stroke of a pen he rezoned the whole of the Fishermans Bend industrial estate, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and turned it overnight into land worth billions of dollars. The public record suggests mates of the Liberal Party. The truth has still not been told about that. He gave away enormous sums of money to landowners for no good reason. There was nothing captured for schools, nothing captured for parks, nothing captured for local roads, nothing captured to contribute to major infrastructure. We've seen the planning scandals in Victoria from the now opposition leader, seeking to be Premier and lead the state, in the Ventnor scandal, and the truth is finally starting to come out. We haven't even started to shine light on what went on in Fishermans Bend, and that's a case that should be told. It's hypocrisy for the Liberal Party to talk about the benefits of value capture, when having a look at how the putative Premier behaved as planning minister. The report does, I note, talk about the different levers that are available to governments. Of course, local governments, state governments and Commonwealth governments have different roles and different levers. Tax settings is one in the Commonwealth domain. The report is kind of cute—a little bit sad, really. But it does bell the cat, if you connect the dots. In paragraph 8.36 it says the Centre for Urban Research at RMIT University suggested 'Australian Government taxation policy, like negative gearing, supports investor activity in housing markets and contributes to affordability issues.' That's committee speak for 'Negative gearing combines with capital gains taxes, pouring petrol on the property market fire and shoving up the cost of housing.' Other submitters acknowledged that we do have a problem in Australia, where housing is seen as the most attractive asset class, not something that human beings should live in. The smartest thing to do if you're a wealthy person is to walk down the road one Saturday morning and bid up the cost of an existing house. The report beats around these issues. It acknowledges the problem, to be fair; it does include the truth, if you can take a moment to connect the dots, but the recommendations are nothing short of pathetic in that area: get a minister and try to think about it. I suppose that's all we can achieve in the current political environment, but that is a debate that needs to be had. In my remaining few minutes, I have to touch on infrastructure. If we're contrasting the fine words and noble sentiments in this report with what the government have done in infrastructure and cities policy, you have to say they have no credibility whatsoever. The recent independent analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that in the current forward estimates the Commonwealth's contribution to infrastructure, measured as grants to states, is falling—projected to fall from 0.4 per cent of GDP to 0.2 per cent of GDP. Yet we hear in question time and elsewhere that the government has a $75 billion infrastructure package. Well, the truth is: that is a scam; it is a sham. There is nowhere that anyone can find the list of what this mythical $75 billion package is. But, when you scratch, and connect the dots from dodgy little press releases and announcements from when Malcolm used to pop up on a tram or in a paddock here and there, you see that it includes things like contingent liabilities to the East West Link. It's not real cash; it's a promise that, 'Maybe if the people of Victoria voted for a Liberal government then we'd give them money for a dud road project,' or concessional loans to the troubled WestConnex project—not real cash, just a concessional loan that'll be repaid, but that counts in the $75 billion. My personal favourite, from the nonsense from the former Prime Minister, was the $10 billion Melbourne Airport rail link, which he just popped up in Melbourne one day and announced. I actually said—it was during the nominations period for the lord mayor—that if he'd wanted to run for lord mayor he should've just nominated! Funnily enough, I think that federal governments, in planning infrastructure, should coordinate with the states, not just have prime ministers pop up randomly or when they get off a plane and announce a project—as the report says. I asked the then Assistant Minister for Finance, during the estimates process, the budget consideration in detail, 'What's in this $75 billion sham infrastructure package, and how is it actually funded?' And he could not explain, because there is actually only $24.3 billion of infrastructure funded in the government's budget, not $75 billion. The idea that you can build a $10 billion Melbourne Airport rail link without any taxpayer funding is utterly farcical. I will finish by reading a couple of quotes from independent experts who have questioned the government's approach. Marion Terrill of the Grattan Institute has warned: If infrastructure projects are never going to make a commercial return, the government should stop pretending they will. And if they are worth building at all, the government should fund them transparently on-budget. Adrian Dwyer, the head of peak industry group Infrastructure Partnerships Australia said: 'There are only two ways to pay for infrastructure: tickets and taxes. You cannot finance your way out of a funding problem.' The report, as I said, is worthy, as far as it goes. It has noble sentiments. But there is no sign whatsoever, if you look at the government's track record and study the budget papers, that they're actually serious about investing in cities or investing in infrastructure. They need to come clean and stop talking about this $75 billion infrastructure package as if it were anything more than an episode of Utopiastyle slogan. 17:22 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin This is an important report, and I like to think of it as, in all likelihood, the longest and undoubtedly most sincere love letter the member for Grayndler has ever received! I will go on to explain why, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, and you may well be sympathetic to that perspective, and I'm sure you'd be sympathetic to him receiving such a letter. This is a very important report. It deserves close reading and proper debate in this place and in the community. More than that, it deserves a serious response from government. Whatever the government does, Labor will give this report, the work that underpins it and its recommendations their due consideration. I think, though, it is important to remember that the report and its recommendations do not appear out of nowhere. It was very pleasing for me to have been present for the contributions of the two previous speakers, the member for Grayndler, and, of course, my friend the member for Bruce, who touched upon some really critical questions about how we fund and finance public infrastructure. These are critical questions for government, and matters that require very close exploration as we try to distinguish between the rhetoric of the present government and its much less impressive record. In making a contribution to the debate on this report, as a member of the committee, I should acknowledge the excellent work of the chair, the member for Bennelong. I think all of us know the passion that he has for cities and for transport, and it was a pleasure to work with him and to share some of his enthusiasm. Can I also acknowledge the work of the member for Cunningham, the deputy chair, who made a very significant contribution to this report—in particular, in focusing on the needs of our regional cities, a critical part of meeting Australia's settlement challenge, our infrastructure challenge and, indeed, our productivity challenge. Also it would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work of the secretariat. I think this is a very important and impressive document, and that it is so is not so much down to the work of the members who participated in the hearings but to the work of the secretariat. All of us in this place know what a privilege it is to work with the staff of parliamentary committees. On this occasion, they did a particularly outstanding job. I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity to work with them and particularly pleased to have the opportunity to acknowledge that in this place. This report has built together a body of evidence across a wide range of issues that affect Australia's cities and built a body of evidence and a series of recommendations that are a road map for significant public policy change. What emerges, beyond dispute, from reading the report is this: our cities must be at the core of our national debate and be a core concern for our national government. We are the most urbanised nation in the world, if we exclude city-states, but our national government has only intermittently recognised this. I'm very proud to be part of a Labor tradition—a modern Labor tradition from Tom Uren and Gough Whitlam, from Brian Howe and of course the member for Grayndler—which has acknowledged that this has got to be a central part of our national challenge. We will not be a prosperous nation if we do not have livable, sustainable and productive cities, particularly our major cities, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth—and I should obviously mention Adelaide in this context as well, even though it faces some different challenges from the other major mainland capitals. Our challenge really is to combine two things. We need to continue to harness the great benefits of economic agglomeration, which are doing great things for many people and many businesses in Melbourne and Sydney in particular, but also to recognise that this presents great challenges. There are challenges that directly impact productivity—and it is pleasing to hear the government talk about the imperative of congestion busting now, but I'll come back to that in reference to my love letter to the member for Grayndler. But the cost is impacting on people's lives, including the lives of too many of my constituents. I don't want to be reading A Tale of Two Cities as a modern-day descriptor of life in Melbourne or Sydney, and that is unfortunately a realistic prospect, for all the reasons that have been set out by previous contributors on the Labor side. This report recognises that national planning is critical to ensure that we continue to harness the great benefits of agglomeration whilst ensuring that our cities remain livable and affordable. Obviously, the focus on housing is a really critical part of this puzzle. But—going back to the member for Grayndler, as I'm sure he'd like me to—in large part the recommendations contained in this report take us back to the future. They take us back to about 2013, to the sort of institutional framework that the Rudd government had for dealing with cities, transport and infrastructure. And that's a good thing. It's very pleasing to see the unanimous recognition by all members of the committee, members from both parties and an Independent member, that that was a framework that was and remains fit for purpose. Of course, the other side of this is that we've had five wasted years, five years of refusing to invest in urban public transport until much too late, five years of not continuing to develop our understanding through the State of The Cities reporting and the work of the Major Cities Unit. What is going on in our cities? What are the patterns of settlement? What are the patterns of development? We've had five years of not having the benefit of the work of the Housing Supply Council, and all of us understand what a cost that has had. So it is really pleasing to see recognition of the importance of that architectural framework and of course to update it. The member for Grayndler touched effectively on the central recommendation in this report, the first recommendation, which is pulled out at greater length throughout the report, of moving towards the adoption of a national plan of settlement and ensuring that this is a cooperative enterprise, pulling together national government, states and territories and local government. It is a road map for the sort of cooperative federalism that one might have hoped could have been a feature of that white paper on the future of federation, which was announced with such fanfare and went absolutely nowhere. This is an opportunity to refresh that debate and to have another go at seeing our national government work together to overcome some significant constitutional hurdles to ensure that Australia's national interests are being advanced, regardless of the differing views and the differing imperatives, too often, of different levels of government. I think the focus on housing is very important. We need a debate about housing that—as the member for Bruce so effectively put it in his contribution—isn't just about treating it as an asset class like any other but looks to its fundamental importance to how we all live and indeed how our communities function. The report also has some very effective work that goes to our thinking about how cities work as ecosystems. I commend that aspect of the report to all members, and, perhaps, senators too, because I think these are issues that should not lead to any great partisan divide but are critically important to understanding how most Australians in the suburbs of our major cities are living their lives and to how we can more effectively respond to those challenges. The work that is done in thinking about the structural role of government is important. I think it should not be regarded as an immutable template, but it shows some deep thinking about how national government can get better at coming across all of these challenges, and, of course, implementing those in conjunction with other levels of government. I am pleased to see the report recognise the good work of the Liberal government in New South Wales in establishing the Greater Sydney Commission. I think that is a model worth understanding and exploring for other state capital cities. In making some concluding remarks about the report and its significance, I want to restate that it is a very important contribution to an important and vital debate in Australia, but it leads us to some significant challenges in this place. One challenge is a fundamental one: Is there the political will to carry forward the debate contained in this report? Is there the will within government to carry this forward? We've had a number of ministers with responsibility for cities. I hope that the member for Aston can go further than simply talking about congestion busting and look at some of the structural challenges that his role requires be done justice to. There's a big challenge for all of us, because the challenge of making more-livable, more-sustainable and more-productive cities isn't simply a technocratic one; it's also fundamentally a democratic one. We've got to find more ways to involve those millions of Australians who live in our cities, in particular in the growing outer suburbs of our major cities, in shaping the decisions that determine their lives—the places where they live, the places where they work and the places where they raise their families. This democratic involvement is a critical part of the challenge posed for all of us by this report. 17:32 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I also welcome the timely publication of the Building up & moving out, the report of the inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities into the Australian government's role in the development of cities. I also want to acknowledge the contributions from the members for Grayndler, Bruce and Scullin and their much deeper expertise in these issues than mine and their extended interest in them. I am, however, disappointed in the lack of government speakers on this report, because it is a pretty good report. It's a report with support from both sides of the House. With Australia's population reaching 25 million and over 90 per cent of Australians living in our cities and towns, urban planning and cities policy has never been more important. In Melbourne's west, the area that I represent, we're at the coalface of the challenges of urban growth in Australia. I've spoken many times in this chamber about our demographic change. Melbourne's west is the fastest growing region in the fastest growing area in Australia. In the last decade Melbourne has added nearly a million new residents and is forecast to surpass Sydney in size and become the largest city in Australia. Melbourne's west has grown at twice the speed of the rest of Victoria. That population growth has meant that all of the challenges that Australian cities face we feel most acutely in Melbourne's west. The committee, in this report, concludes: The evidence presented to the Committee indicates that Australia's current population growth and changing demographics are placing increasing stress upon our cities and regions. Urbanisation, the ageing of the population and the transformation of the economy towards service and knowledge based industries are causing profound changes in the urban and regional landscape. As I say, we see that firsthand in Melbourne's west. The committee also points out, importantly: The outcome of these changes— for good or for ill— will depend very much on how they are managed. I draw the chamber's attention to this conclusion, because the last 12 months have seen a series of calls for Australia to respond to the challenge of population growth by drastically cutting Australian's immigration rate. Senator Hanson, the member for Warringah, the member for Dickson and even suspects like Bob Brown have all been preaching from this same hymn sheet. Immigrants have all too often been the battering ram for our country's problems—for rising housing prices, straining infrastructure and loss of jobs. The committee's conclusion represents agreement that it is how we plan for population growth, regardless of the source of that growth, that will determine what our future cities will look like. For decades Australia has had bipartisan support for our immigration program. Reforms of Australia's immigration system, emanating from an unlikely source—the newly-elected Howard government in 1996—but then largely being supported and continued by governments of both political persuasions, have dramatically changed the scale, nature and composition of our immigration intake. The creation of a demand-driven skilled migration program at the beginning of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history resulted in more people in raw numbers coming to our shores than ever before. These people have made a significant contribution to Australia. The Treasury, the Reserve Bank and the Productivity Commission all agree that immigration has had a positive effect on the Australian economy over the last two decades. Indeed, a 2018 joint report from the Treasury and the Home Affairs department cited research that estimated that immigration was responsible for nearly one-fifth of the growth in GDP per person enjoyed by Australians over the past 40 years. Indeed, it went so far as to suggest that 'migration helped the Australian economy successfully weather the global financial crisis and the slow global growth and poor economic conditions that followed'. We can put in context the contribution of immigration to Australia's economic growth. It's often argued that the mining boom saved Australia during the GFC. While the RBA estimates that the mining boom raised real GDP in Australia by six per cent, by 2050 immigration is predicted to add more than 40 per cent to Australia's GDP. That's more than six times the impact of the mining boom. This economic growth is a function of the way that migrants have flourished on their arrival in Australia. Contrary to populist arguments, it wasn't Chinese demand for Australian resources that helped save Australia from the GFC; it was Chinese migrants. Migrants raise the labour productivity of the Australian economy as overwhelming they are high skilled, young and able. They make the budget bottom line stronger and they give more than they take. By whatever measure of economic and social success in a community that you can think of, Australian migrants have thrived and their children have done even better. Across employment, entrepreneurialism, earnings and crime, migrants generally do at least as well as those born in Australia and frequently do much better. When immigrants are blamed for poor infrastructure and rising house prices we need to call this for what it is: it's politicians blaming immigrants for their own failures. The member for Warringah is the prime example of this. The previous federal Labor government committed more funding for urban public transport infrastructure than every government going back to Federation combined. That was investment commensurate with the scale of population growth in Australia. Chief among those investments was the $3.225 billion invested in the Regional Rail Link project, which separated regional trains from urban commuter trains, significantly increasing capacity on urban commuter routes and constructing new train stations in Melbourne's west. Labor also committed $3 billion for the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel, increasing capacity by 60 per cent on the Sunbury line through my electorate and connecting Melbourne's west to the rail, health, higher education and employment hub in Parkville for the first time. But in 2013 the newly-elected Abbott government took a rusty knife to urban transport infrastructure investment, withdrawing Commonwealth funding for the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel that Labor had committed and delaying by two years the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel—the most important infrastructure project for managing population growth in Australia—all while the member for Warringah called for a pause in migration in Australia. He'd stopped running and he'd stopped responding to the growth, and he blamed immigrants for his failures. Despite the obstructionism of the federal coalition government, the Andrews Labor government has now broken ground on the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel on its own. It's heartening to see that one of the committee's recommendations is to 'actively promote investment in the development of a public transport network that is capable of meeting the goal of the 30-minute city'. Transport infrastructure decisions that governments make or do not make now will shape our cities for decades. Time matters. Long-term transport planning and infrastructure investment must continue to keep pace with population growth. Melbourne is forecast to reach a population of 7.7 million by 2031. We need to ensure that the next big investments in expanding road and rail capacity in corridors of rapid population growth are well in place before we reach the next crush point. In the past I've spoken about the importance of the Melbourne Metro 2 rail tunnel, running from the Werribee line through Newport to Fishermans Bend, increasing capacity for my electorate. The committee report also recommended to: … ensure that governments at all levels: …    …   … Actively promote investment in the development of a public transport network … Active transport: that is cycling, walking or using non-vehicular transport to get from A to B. And in Melbourne's west, we need to make active transport infrastructure a priority. Investments in active transport infrastructure will reduce pressure on our roads and public transport networks, particularly during peak hours. Good active transport infrastructure is about making it easier for anyone to choose to cycle safely or to walk to school, TAFE, uni, the shops or wherever. It won't be the right option for every person for every trip, but more than one in every two vehicle trips in Melbourne today is of less than six kilometres in distance. With the right infrastructure, a trip like this would take just over 20 minutes on a bike. Many of these trips could be made on bikes, and every trip that is made on a bike frees up capacity on our roads and on our public transport networks. That is why this is a serious mainstream infrastructure issue that affects everyone in Melbourne, and in Melbourne's west in particular. It's not only about congestion either; numerous studies show that cycling and increasing walkability decrease the risk of heart disease, cancer and general causes of death in our community. This means that people not only have a more liveable life but that they live healthier and longer lives. Active transport also reduces pollution and increases an area's liveability. Despite these benefits, Melbourne's west has a relatively low active transport utilisation rate. This is because we don't have the same infrastructure as the rest of Melbourne. Our cyclists and pedestrians are forced to compete with thousands of truck movements a day on our residential streets. There are 20,000 truck movements a day in my seat alone. In Brunswick, nearly one in every five people cycle to work. In Footscray, a suburb of the same distance from the CBD, it's just one in 20. Why do people cycle at nearly four times the rate in Brunswick, despite those suburbs being the same distance from the city? Why do people cycle at nearly three times the rate in Thornbury as in Newport, another suburb at a similar distance from the CBD? The answer is that if you're cycling from Thornbury you're not competing with 20,000 trucks on residential streets. People don't feel safe cycling without the right bike paths and barriers. Melbourne's west is still mourning the tragic death of Arzu Baglar, who was struck and killed by a truck while cycling to a friend's house in my electorate. We need investment that increases bike safety and encourages more people to cycle. Just last month, an Infrastructure Victoria report showed that in Sunshine there are around 20,000 daily trips that could happen by cycling and walking which weren't happening. We need federal government leadership to turn these potential active transport journeys into actual active transport journeys. Cutting immigration won't make our problems easier to solve or our governments better. Instead, we need a plan, as this report argues. 17:42 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I rise to note the report from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities. At the outset, I would note that this is government business but it appears as though the only people contributing to the noting of this report are those from the opposition. I wonder what that says in terms of the government's commitment to this area of policy? Recommendation 29 of the report deals with the City Deals program. It talks specifically in terms of: … developing more sophisticated interactions between the various levels of government and the private sector … in coming up with a City Deal. That more sophisticated interaction between levels of government and the private sector, from my experience in Geelong, is exactly what has not occurred with the government's City Deals program. There has been a high degree of dysfunction in terms of the ambitions or aspirations expressed by the federal government in relation to Geelong, compared to marrying them up with what is being pursued by the region more generally—and, indeed, by the state government. If the City Deal is to mean anything then it has to be about a better working relationship, where there is a commitment across not only the two tiers of government but stakeholders as well, including local government, about the overall program for a city. Coming from Geelong, the premium on having coordination of that kind is great. There are, naturally, a range of competing aspirations expressed by people within our city about how they would like to see it developed, but being able to come to a place of a coordinated single voice, to come to a place of a plan which is also supported by state and federal government, will enable some progress to occur—and the better the process which gives rise to that plan the better the development in the context of the city. That's not occurring right now, and that's why Labor has talked about a City Partnerships program, because city partnerships are about trying to empower the stakeholders in the regions, the local governments, and, in the case of Geelong, organisations like G21 and the Committee for Geelong, along with the chamber and the Geelong Trades Hall, to make sure that there is input at a grassroots level about what the aspirations for our city are. This is really important, because it's absolutely essential that, going forward in this century, we start building regional Australia. I think it is fair to say in the first century of Federation there have been some magnificent cities built in this country, but if we are to meet our destiny as a nation then cities like Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong have to be as much a part of the national story going forward as Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. It's not going to happen unless there is this kind of coordinated, ground-up, grassroots development of plans in places like Geelong. In Geelong, there are a couple of aspirations that have been spoken about and that are sought to be pursued by a number of stakeholders such as the Committee for Geelong, G21 and the council. I want to mention two of them today. These are the sorts of things—and it would be great, if there were ultimately government support—that we as a community would like to see come to fruition. The first is the building of a convention centre in Geelong. Already, Geelong is a fantastic place to have a convention, up to a certain number of people. It's a place which is close to major airports—Avalon, obviously, but also Tullamarine. But there's also a discreteness about having a convention in Geelong, where, when the convention finishes at 5 o'clock in the evening, you don't lose all the delegates. There are restaurants that people can go to. There is a kind of a storyline of the convention that extends beyond the working hours of nine to five. Regional centres are actually really well placed to hold conventions. That's why Geelong's business visitor economy is already very large—in the year 2017-18 some 363,000 delegates visited Geelong—which represented almost $222 million in direct economic expenditure within our region. But our problem is that we don't have a large space that can seat, for example, a thousand people in classroom style, and, because of that, we miss out on really big conferences, national conferences of national organisations. If we had a convention centre, the natural benefits of having a convention in a place like Geelong would all be there, but we'd have a venue in which we could do it. It would represent a huge economic opportunity for a place like Geelong. Getting a convention centre in Geelong has been an aspiration of our community for as long as I've been involved in public life in Geelong. It would be precisely the kind of project which would be worthy of a partnership between governments at all levels to try and bring, ultimately, to fruition. The second project I'd like to mention is the Geelong Waterfront Safe Harbour Precinct development project, which has been particularly championed by the Royal Geelong Yacht Club. Geelong is where it is because of Corio Bay. Our relationship with the water is innate with who we are as a city. It's why Geelong was created when it was, and the Port of Geelong is the oldest industry in our town. But there has not just been a commercial relationship with the water; there's been a lifestyle relationship with it as well—a place of recreation. Indeed, the Geelong Yacht Club was created in 1859. It was one of the first organisations in Geelong. Predating that was the first running of the Passage Race, a yacht race from Melbourne to Geelong, which is the antecedent of what is now the Festival of Sails, which happens across the Australia Day weekend and is one of the largest events in Geelong today. This boasts a sporting image that predates the Ashes and predates the Melbourne Cup. It is one of the oldest sporting events in Australia. The Geelong Yacht Club and its environs are at the heart of Geelong's connection with the water. As the city has been redeveloped over the last couple of decades, Geelong's lifestyle qualities have become part of our economy. People who are living within the greater Port Phillip Bay metropolis are choosing to be based in Geelong and this is a huge economic opportunity for Geelong. But our connection with the water is very central to that lifestyle. The Geelong Waterfront Safe Harbour Precinct development project is about providing a centrepiece along the Geelong waterfront, at the Geelong Yacht Club, that would be at the heart of the Festival of Sails and would be the focal point of our connection as a town with Corio Bay, our connection as a town with the water. Specifically, it would involve a new wave-attenuator, a new public pier and visitor berths, a redevelopment of Victorian Sailing School, which is a campus of the Newcomb Secondary College, a facility that provides, for 1,000 students across 59 Victorian government schools, an opportunity to engage in water safety and boating education. It would be a redevelopment of that and, through that, there would be an enhancement of the yacht club's Sailability program, which operates for people with a disability, in partnership with 12 community organisations and schools—a great, great program. It would also improve the public realm. Right now, when you walk along the waterfront, the yacht club is kind of in the way. You can't walk through it. This would connect the waterfront and the Geelong Yacht Club together so that people walking along the waterfront can go the whole way and there would be seamless access as a result of it. It really would be a fantastic development that would help to define the lifestyle city that Geelong is increasingly becoming. Those two projects are examples of the kind of projects that should find their way, through a collaborative approach, into some partnership between governments of all levels. Were projects of that kind to be done, it would really help in the development of our city, which is an important part of the development of regional Australia. 17:52 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert There is no doubt that infrastructure and transport are critical for building cities up so that they can grow and develop with strong private investment from business. Townsville is the largest city in northern Australia and as such we have a great deal to offer to the South Pacific area and Asia, and not only across the three jurisdictions of Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia. I would like to focus on the infrastructure needs of my community. Unfortunately, what we are seeing from this government is just an array of cuts. We have had cuts to our health service, cuts to education and, of course, we have cuts to infrastructure. These cuts mean less business confidence in regard to private investment, but they also mean cuts to jobs. Last year, the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, cut infrastructure investment from $8 billion in 2017-18 to $4.5 billion in 2021-22. Guess which state bears the brunt of most of the Morrison government's cuts? It's Queensland. Almost a quarter, in fact 21 per cent, of the infrastructure cuts in 2016-17 will hit Queensland. At budget time last year, Queenslanders were promised $2.2 billion in infrastructure funding. However, the 2017 budget revealed that the state will actually receive only $1.8 billion. This proves that Queenslanders simply cannot trust this government to be up-front with the facts when it comes to actual infrastructure funding. The LNP government have cut funding for fixing dangerous black spots on local roads by $17.3 million. They have cut funding for major road upgrades by $276.5 million. They have cut funding for upgrading the roads that the cattle industry rely on by $20.2 million. And they have cut funding for upgrading roads that connect communities and regional towns across Northern Queensland by $50.7 million. That is nothing short of disgraceful, given that connectivity for those people who live in rural and remote Queensland is of major importance. But the news actually gets worse. The Parliamentary Budget Office has found that Commonwealth investment will fall from 0.4 to 0.2 per cent of GDP over the next decade. For us, that means more job losses, particularly in the area of apprenticeships for our young people. With all of these cuts, you would think that this year's budget would be different. But a leopard never changes its spots. There's nothing itemised and nothing in the budget for Townsville. I have written to then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, twice but, just like the budget for Townsville, I've got nothing back. Townsville has been very loud and clear in our calls for funding regarding vital infrastructure from the LNP government, but our calls seem to have been ignored in the main. Townsville has for a very long time been demanding long-term water security, energy infrastructure, funding for the port expansion and development of industry. Labor has been on the front foot regarding these vital infrastructure projects, because Labor is aware that projects of this nature will create much-needed local jobs, boost the local economy and increase industry confidence. That is why Labor has committed $100 million for long-term water security, $200 million for energy infrastructure and $75 million for the Port of Townsville expansion project. And Labor would create a whole new industry in Townsville with the presence of the Royal Australian Navy's Amphibious Assault Ships, otherwise known as the LHD vessels, at the Port of Townsville. This would create new jobs and further diversify North Queensland's economy. Enabling an increase in the activity of LHD vessels at the Port of Townsville would support real local economic development for Townsville by helping to grow the local Defence maintenance industry. The regular docking of the LHD vessels at the Port of Townsville would allow for a continuous program of maintenance work and would be expected to support between 200 and 400 new and ongoing jobs. It would also facilitate important exercise activities, including, most critically, those relating to the joint amphibious capability of the ADF—but nothing from Prime Minister Morrison. However, I can say that, after 197 days of us calling on the LNP government to match Labor's commitment of $75 million for the port expansion project, the Prime Minister did finally announce the government's funding for the port project. This has also been matched by the state government, Minister Mark Bailey and the member for Townsville, Scott Stewart. Prime Minister Scott Morrison visited Townsville when he was the Treasurer, but he did not commit one cent for infrastructure at that time. Then, after a huge internal fight for LNP leadership, Prime Minister Scott Morrison came to Townsville to announce that he would fund the port expansion project, in the hope that he probably would shut us up. But I am just getting started. Because the Prime Minister still has not matched Labor's funding on water security, energy infrastructure and the LHD vessels, the clock is ticking away, and quickly. On vital water and energy infrastructure, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is 506 days behind Labor's commitment. That's 506 days where Townsville has been forced onto water restrictions, 506 days where small businesses are struggling to pay their energy power bills and 506 days of absolute arrogance and inaction of this government that Townsville residents have had to endure. Labor is not stopping there on delivering for regional Queensland. Labor has also announced that we will invest $500 million to deliver a staged upgrade of Queensland's inland road network. This will deliver up to 3,000 kilometres of better, safer roads and up to 300 wider, stronger bridges. Labor's announcement will see an estimated 13,000 direct and indirect jobs created in Queensland over the next decade, along with an additional $2.5 billion economic boost to the regional Queensland economy. Half of Queensland's economic activity takes place outside of Brisbane. Queensland is Australia's most decentralised state. For too long, crucial regional roads have not received the attention they deserve, including the Barkly Highway between Mount Isa and Cloncurry, the Capricorn Highway between Emerald and Rockhampton, the Mitchell Highway from Cunnamulla to Charleville, and the Kennedy Highway between Cairns and Mareeba. Queensland transports the greatest volume of cattle by road compared to any other state and makes up half of Australia's cattle herd. The industry employs around 20,000 Queenslanders. This investment not only improves safety on key freight routes but also helps reduce the cost of transporting cattle to market. The investment is a big boost for the Queensland economy, particularly regions feeling the impact of drought. Just like every infrastructure project that Labor invest in, we will insist on Australian materials and Australian jobs, and we will make sure that one in every 10 of those local jobs will go to an apprentice. The coalition government fails the fairness test on investment and infrastructure, and it certainly fails the investment test in areas like Townsville. This is clearly evident when one considers what this government is refusing to fund and also when considering the government's complete and utter incompetence in underspending $4.7 billion on its own infrastructure investment commitments in its first four budgets. This brings the country to a standstill, and it is because of this inactive government. Only Labor will invest in the infrastructure that regional communities need, and only Labor will invest in infrastructure that will kickstart the country again and create Australian jobs, particularly apprenticeships, for our young people. The facts are very simple: Labor delivers jobs and the LNP do not, because they spend their time looking after the interests of big business and the banks. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is too busy protecting his own job, rather than focusing on and protecting the jobs of real Australian workers in regional, rural and remote Queensland. 18:01 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm pleased to speak on the tabling of this report, Building up & moving out:inquiry into the Australian government's role in the development of cities. My electorate of Moreton is on the south side of Brisbane, less than 10 kilometres from the CBD, and, like all urban areas in Australia, the population is growing. It is getting busier and more congested. The national population is growing by about 1.4 per cent a year, so it's essential that governments invest in infrastructure. We need to be connected, and the people who live in Moreton need to be able to access the CBD quickly and easily. Investment in infrastructure is vital, and so is planning for the residents of the future and their future needs. That is why crucial infrastructure like Cross River Rail is so important for the residents of Brisbane and those who visit. It is why the Queensland Labor government is proceeding with the Cross River Rail link, which will dramatically increase the capacity of the network, which is currently approaching bottleneck status. Six years ago, in 2012, Infrastructure Australia, an independent body, approved the Cross River Rail and rated it the No. 1 infrastructure priority in Australia. But, sadly, the Abbot, Turnbull and Morrison governments have refused to back this decision. A Shorten Labor government will help end the gridlock in South-East Queensland by investing $2.24 billion towards the congestion-busting Cross River Rail project. In Moreton, this will mean more trains, more often. It will take cars off the road and get traffic moving. Commuters living on the south side of Brisbane will spend less time in transit and more time doing the things that are important to them. The immense benefits of this project include faster, more reliable travel times across South-East Queensland, including to and from the Gold Coast and north to the Sunshine Coast. It will also be a major boost to the economy, with 7,700 jobs in the construction phase and 550 ongoing operating jobs, as well as the productivity boost that comes with it. But it's not just commuters who rely on our rail networks to be efficient and fit for purpose. The Inland Rail project, when it is completed, will comprise 1,700 kilometres of freight rail line that will service some of our nation's most important agricultural precincts. It will eventually be one of our most important pieces of infrastructure. Labor supports the Inland Rail project. It is a classic nation-building project, but we do need to get it right. Getting goods to port more quickly reduces costs. Producers will be more competitive. They will be able to invest in increased production, which will create more jobs and economic growth in the community. But, sadly, Inland Rail is already well behind schedule. Construction was meant to commence more than two years ago. The project route is still to be aligned, and environmental approvals are miles away from being finalised. Of concern in my electorate is that Inland Rail, which starts down in Melbourne, stops in Acacia Ridge in the middle of my electorate, 38 kilometres from the Port of Brisbane. It wasn't until this year's budget that the coalition government turned its attention to the problem by jointly funding a $1.5 million study with the Queensland government. I guess late is better than not at all. But south-side residents are still in the dark about how Inland Rail will proceed from Acacia Ridge to the port. Will it need to pass through the existing tunnels, which would not allow double stacking, or under the existing overpasses? They don't take double-stack trains. Will it impact on some of the green spaces that we treasure in our area?. We just don't know. A community consultative committee is being formed to gather and disseminate information regarding Inland Rail and to bring the community's representative views to the committee. The views of the community are always important. They are the people who will use this rail transport system. For the passenger train network, if part of the network is in need of an upgrade it can make the daily commute a nightmare. There is one level rail crossing in my electorate. That is not only frustrating to commuters, including pedestrians, using the rail and roads around it but also extremely dangerous. South siders know that it is long past time to find a solution to this dangerous level crossing at Coopers Plains. The Liberal National Party-led Brisbane City Council has previously funded half the cost of two crossings on the north side of Brisbane. But, strangely, they will only commit—not 50 per cent—15 per cent to this extremely dangerous Coopers Plains Crossing. It's one rule for north of the river and another for the south. Labor at both the federal and state level is prepared to sort out the mess. How? We'll fund it fairly: one-third from the federal government, one-third from the Labor state government—and we just now need the Liberal National Party's council government to stump up their share. I'm not even asking for 50 per cent, just one-third, just like he did on the north side on two separate occasions. Then south-side residents won't have to take their lives into their own hands when they use the Coopers Plains railway level crossing. I held a community barbecue last Saturday at Tarragindi, just a few suburbs away, but even there residents were outraged about this crossing. They were fed up. One resident told me she needed to use the level crossing to take a family member to respite care for her husband. They were held up for ages by the boom gates at this crossing. She was so fed up and frustrated that she was tempted to park on one side and try to walk through with her husband, who has some incapacity. She wanted to risk walking across the level crossing rather than wait an eternity for the trains to pass. She ended up giving up. He missed out on the care and she missed out on the respite. This crossing at Coopers Plains is putting lives at risk. It's time for the Liberal National Party's lord mayor, Graham Quirk, to treat south siders the same as those on the north side and fund the council's fair share of this crossing. How could it be any fairer than a third, a third and a third? Infrastructure investment should not stop with rail. Major roads in south-east Queensland are becoming like parking lots during some peak commuting times, with urban areas expanding out from the CBD, Brisbane's urban suburbs now stretched almost uninterrupted all the way from the CBD to the Gold Coast. A Shorten Labor government will invest $1 billion to widen the M1 from Eight Mile Plains on the eastern edge of my electorate down to Daisy Hill. They'll widen it to eight lanes as well as widen the M1 to six lines from Varsity Lakes down to Tugun. These critical roadworks will get the cars moving on the M1 again. For too long, the Gold Coast has been ignored by the Liberal National Party members of parliament that represent it. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison, ATM, governments have had no plan to make our cities and urban fringes well-connected liveable spaces. The ATM project has failed. We need to encourage diverse, vibrant communities. What have they done? Let's look at the ATM government's record. They've abolished the Major Cities Unit. They've disbanded the Urban Policy Forum. They've failed to produce an annual State of Australian cities report. They failed to appoint a minister for cities until 2015, and even then it wasn't a cabinet position. They have no national urban policy. The Morrison 2018 budget had no real investment for policies or programs for Australian cities. They failed to allocate a single dollar of new investment for public transport, despite expert warnings that traffic congestion is acting as a handbrake on economic and jobs growth in our cities. Labor understands the infrastructure needs of Australians. The former Labor government has invested more in urban public transport than all previous governments combined since federation. Labor created the Major Cities Unit and produced annual State of Australian cities reports, which were downloaded millions of times and were a great blueprint for progress. We established an Urban Policy Forum and created the Australian Council of Local Government. In opposition, Labor has committed to funding public transport projects in cities around the nation. A Shorten Labor government, if lucky enough to be elected, will invest in properly integrated transport systems involving public transport and roads; invest in active transport solutions which connect with public transport, education and employment hubs closer to where people live; improve housing affordability through the use of urban planning, land supply and other incentives; drive the alignment of funding for smart and sustainable urban infrastructure; align greater housing density with public transport corridors; promote jobs growth in outer and middle ring suburbs through direct investment—for example, through investing in research precincts around universities and hospitals, through the consideration of incentives for the location of business and through supporting innovative funding models for local government in high-growth areas. We will also facilitate the transition to renewable energy by supporting urban innovation and green urban growth—for example, net zero carbon and livable precincts. The future of Australian cities and the urban areas surrounding them is exciting. In South-East Queensland, improving transport links between the CBD and urban areas right down to the Gold Coast will create a more livable environment and provide an economic boost, as well as boosting productivity. So I'm excited for what a Shorten Labor government would do if elected and what it would mean for my urban electorate of Moreton. It would mean better housing, better public transport, better roads, more affordable housing, more jobs and a cleaner environment for our children and our grandchildren. It's time the curtain came down on the Morrison muppet show and that we let a Shorten Labor government start building the infrastructure that Australia needs. 18:11 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi It gives me great pleasure tonight to stand and support this very important report. I've proudly been a member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities and contributed to its work. While this report, Building up & moving out, is really important, it works hand in glove with another report prepared by this parliament, earlier this year, called Regions at the ready: investing in Australia's future.Together, these two reports are a really important body of work to shape governments now and in the future on our regions and on our cities. I have been absolutely delighted to be part of both of those inquiries. I acknowledge the work not only of the secretariats involved but also the many community and industry people who helped us do them. Tonight in my speech I want to talk about a few ideas related to this report. I want to talk about a few of the recommendations in the report and why they're significant. And I, like many of the other speakers tonight, would like to draw attention to my electorate, not so much as a needy electorate but more to talk about some of the amazing developments that are happening in my community and to make the link between how these reports work and how our communities can respond. What's really clear from both these reports is that the regions are ready. Our communities are ready. Our regional RDAs are ready. Our institutions are ready. The experts in our community say that it's time—it's time for growth, for development, for more people, for more infrastructure. The really important thing we need is planning and a national strategy, and that's the role, if ever there was a role, for our governments. In calling for these reports to be considered, I note that the work has been done and the communities are organised. Now it's for government to come in with its high-level policy. Let me just talk briefly about my electorate of Indi. For those of you who don't know it, the northern border is the Murray River, and the southern and eastern border is the Great Dividing Range. It covers 28,000 square kilometres and contains 100,000 people. We've got this most amazing freight route, Melbourne to Sydney, that passes right along the north-west side of my electorate. It's the Hume Highway. We've got the wonderful Albury-Wodonga airport, located in Albury, which does a fantastic job servicing the communities. We've got the Logic inland port just out of Wodonga, which provides, on the intersection of the major highways, a rapidly growing industrial area for highways, for freight, and, hopefully in the future, for an aeroplane. So my community is definitely at the ready. What I would like to talk about tonight is the role that government can play. I particularly want to focus on one of my communities. Colleagues, you might know my community of Benalla. It's on the highway, two-and-a-bit hours from Melbourne, with 10,000 people. Over the last period of time there's been enormous interest in Benalla as a community to invest in, particularly in terms of manufacturing. I was talking to the mayor today, and he told me that, in the next five years, we're going to have over 500 new jobs come to this small community of Benalla. If we have a multiplier effect of 1.5, we're going to have 750 new jobs, which is roughly 10 per cent of the population who will be newcomers. We've got the jobs. We've got the people coming. But what we don't have is the overarching planning or the strategy from the Commonwealth and the state. We've certainly got the interest from the local community, but we don't have it all working together as to how these new jobs are going to be supported with infrastructure. Let me name the jobs: we've got a precast concrete factory; we've got an aged-care facility with 120 beds; we've got Commonwealth investment in the munitions factory that's going to be up to 100 jobs; we've got a hydroponic tomato business—50 jobs up, and maybe up to 200 jobs by the time we get to the fourth stage. So here's one community that's—and there are very many other communities in my electorate that are—getting the jobs and where manufacturing is alive and well. It is interesting to look at the ABS projections of growth for that community, for Benalla: it had a growth rate of 0.3 per cent, but actually it's going to be closer to 10 per cent, so we've just got this misalignment. I will talk about this report tonight and some of the recommendations in it that would really make a difference to Benalla and other towns in my community. We need a national plan of settlement. All of us are over the cities getting bigger and bigger. We need to have a plan, for the whole nation, of where people are going to live. We need to integrate these plans with states and territories, local government and regions, and all the different levels of government. These regional plans need to explore connectivity with and between regions. We need to develop options for investment, based on realistic appreciation of our characteristics. We need to explore options for local action and investment. We need to explore options for strategic decentralisation of government services, and also for working with education as one of the drivers for growth. Another recommendation in the report talks about transport networks and allowing for fast transit between the cities and the regions. Let me spend a few minutes talking about how important transport is, particularly public transport, in north-east Victoria. We've been arguing for a very long time with the Victorian government about their V/Line services. We have also been working with ARTC, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, and I'm really pleased that they've come to the party, and the Commonwealth is investing over $235 million in improving our train line between Melbourne and Albury-Wodonga. But we're not quite there yet, because, while we have the investment started, we need a commitment and we need the money from the Victorian government to put on modern, new, speedy, clean carriages. So to Daniel Andrews and your government as you face election: can we remind you about the north-east rail service and our need for quality rolling stock. A commitment would be very useful, thank you—because it's public transport and, particularly, transport with our cities, that really adds to the liveability of our communities. And that's recognised in this report. There are a couple of other recommendations that I'd like to briefly cover off. One is recommendation 29, which talks about city deals. We've been talking in our sister report, Regions at the ready, about regional deals. In particular, I would like to talk about Albury-Wodonga. Wodonga is in my electorate; Albury is in the member for Farrer's electorate, but that community operates as one. Tomorrow, members of those community groups and, in particular, the RDA, Regional Development Australia, are going to be visiting Canberra for two days and meeting with a large number of ministers and staffers to talk about a city and regional deal for north-east Victoria and southern New South Wales. For me, one of the most important and useful things I think we could do in our city deals is to bring our educational institutions together. Albury has a branch of CSU; Wodonga has a branch of La Trobe; we've got Riverina TAFE; and we've got Wodonga TAFE. All I can do is just imagine, if we could bring those four educational institutions together into one polytechnic institution, what an amazing driver it would be for growth, innovation and change, and it would do many of the things that these reports call out for. In bringing my comments to a close, I would like to say that I've been so excited to invest my time and energy and to work with my colleagues on both of these reports. I acknowledge the work of the committee and the various chairs that have brought this to a close. Imagine if we could do what we really want to be able to do. Imagine if in 50 or 100 years time we could look back and see we got this planning right, that our major cities were hubs of innovation and growth and that people wanted to come and live in them because they had the lifestyle and the jobs and they were buzzing places, full of innovation and creativity. I've got a niece who grew up in my local community, near Wodonga. She is currently working in Berlin. She says she loves Berlin. It's an attracter for all the young people of Europe. I say to my niece that I hope that before I'm too much older we might be able to say the regions of Australian, and particularly north-east Victoria, have got that zing and that attraction, such that young people from all over the world want to come and live in regional Australia, not only because we've got the jobs but because we've got the innovation, we've got the lifestyle and recreation and we've got the telecommunications and transport infrastructure that works so well. So my closing comments to Sussan Ley, the Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories; to Michael McCormack, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development; to Bridget McKenzie; to John McVeigh; and to the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg are: we need your help now to take the recommendations from these two reports. Give us a quick and speedy response from the government so that we can begin work on doing what we need to do, which is building up, moving out and making our regions reach their potential. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 102 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Parliamentary Representation 102 18:21 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I've been reflecting over the last couple of days on the poor state of affairs within the government, particularly on its representation of women and the possibility that after the next election it will have five women in the House of Representatives. I understand that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he doesn't think that quotas should be introduced or there's a problem with bullying within his organisation but he believes that everything is hunky-dory, despite the protestations of a number of leading women from the coalition. While I was reflecting on this I thought I would look back and see why Labor has been so successful. I first came into this place in 1987, which is a bloody long time ago. When I first came into this place the Labor Party in the House of Representatives had only eight women, there was only one woman in the coalition in the House of Representatives and the total proportion of women on both sides, in both houses, was 11.6 per cent of the total membership of the parliament. Contemplate that. When we think about what this parliament should be, who it represents and what it should look like, surely we should be saying that, as near as possible, half of the representatives in this place should be women. By 1994 the number of Labor women in the federal parliament had increased, thankfully, from 11 per cent to 14.4 per cent. Today it stands at 47 per cent. That's not an accident. That's by dint of a number of very, very important people—women in particular—taking the initiative to change the way we do business, to make it the responsibility of the Labor Party to ensure that representation of women was properly accounted for within our membership and within those people who represent the community in this parliament. It grew out of some great initiatives. Long-term Labor community and women's campaigner Leonie Morgan had seen the work of EMILY's List, an organisation established in the United States in 1985 to fund campaigns for pro-choice Democratic women, and advocated strongly for the establishment of a similar network to support Australian progressive women candidates. Leonie joined with women such as Kay Setches, Joan Kirner and Candy Broad to build support for the idea, in Victoria first and then nationally. And it was in 1996 that EMILY's List was launched here in this place. Those determined women understood the importance of providing support to get women into parliament, and, after a campaign which involved Carmen Lawrence, Julia Gillard, Helen Creed, Jenny Beacham, Judy Spence, Meredith Burgmann, Jan Burnswoods, Carolyn Pickles, Anne Levy, Molly Robson, Sue Mackay and Fran Bladel, the ALP passed its first affirmative action rule as far back as 1994. It's not hard, I say to the Prime Minister. This required women be—a very modest target—35 per cent by 2002. Despite this landmark achievement, the following federal Labor preselections resulted in the number of women preselected falling. So other action needed to be taken. It's important that the action taken was around driving change and getting the Labor Party to understand that we needed to increase that representation so that it was 50 per cent. And so a new target was set. We stand here today—and I see my colleague next to me here—proudly, looking at the fact that, beyond the next election, there's a very high likelihood that, if things come to pass as we would hope, well over 50 per cent of Labor representation in this parliament will be women. And that's something I think we all should be extremely proud of. I certainly am. As I look at the despondency in the government benches and see the women jumping ship in the way they've been doing, talking about the bullying that has been happening in what must be a pretty awful organisation, I see no protection from and no advocacy for their position by the Prime Minister. In fact, I saw him standing aside as, only yesterday, one of their potential candidates resigned and said that she was not going to recontest—not because she didn't want to be the member but because of bullying within the organisation. We all know that parliament can be rough and tough and all that sort of stuff—and we've heard people talking about women 'manning up', for god's sake! Let's be clear about it. We know what some people in the government believe of women, and one particularly offensive individual, Liberal MP Trevor Evans, called Labor women in politics 'cardboard cut-outs'. How bloody offensive! In our leadership team of four people are two women: the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, Tanya Plibersek, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong. We're proud of this. An honourable member interjecting— Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Yes—would you describe them as cardboard cut-outs? I certainly wouldn't. I want to talk about other jurisdictions, and the Northern Territory in particular. Fifty per cent of Northern Territory elected representatives are women; 66 per cent of their cabinet are women. It can be done. You just have to have the will to do it. And, with great respect to all the males in this place—and I see the member for Leichhardt sitting here, who I think shares many of my views around this particular subject—we men have just got to accept that, in this place, women are equal, and they should be equal, and we should set targets to make sure that affirmative action works for women in the community. How can the Prime Minister possibly think it's okay that, beyond the next election, they might only have five women in the House of Representatives in the coalition? How can that possibly be okay? Forty-six per cent of the Labor Party membership in my electorate of Lingiari are women, and I've been really fortunate, during the course of my life, to have really strong women involved. There were those from my own family, obviously: my aunties—they wouldn't put up with rubbish, I can tell you—and my mum. I'm proud of the way in which they inculcated in me the respect we should have for everyone in the community and, most particularly, to appreciate that women can have whatever role they choose. If they choose to be politicians then you should support them in doing so. That's really important. But there was one particular woman, who, for me, was a bit of a hero, who worked in partnership with a great man, who was one of my mentors—Nugget Coombs—and that was Judith Wright. Now there was a woman who had attitude and was able to express it! I've been blessed in my time in this parliament. Currently 50 per cent of my staff are women—these are good women: Jo Nicol, Kirsty Hunt, Bianca Doyle, Caitlin in my Canberra office. They are wonderfully strong women and very assertive women, let me tell you, who have no trouble putting me in my place. But I want to reflect on a number of others who had a significant influence on me and on their assertiveness in making sure I understood, from their perspective, the need to acknowledge women. I briefly want to mention Margaret Gillespie, who was my first chief of staff and who went on to become the national secretary of the CPSU; Carol Burke, who, sadly, is no longer with us, who was a really, really wonderful woman, a wonderful human being, who taught me a great deal about the respect I needed to have; and my own partner, Elizabeth. Let me tell you, if you want to see some assertive people in your life, meet my partner, Elizabeth, and our two daughters, Frankie and Tessa. If you think that they would cop the crap that's been coming out of the Liberal Party, you'd be sadly mistaken. I applaud them for standing up for their rights and for the rights of all women. Drought 103 18:32 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn As we all know, drought is widespread across Queensland, New South Wales and parts of Victoria. So what can be done about it? Of course rain is the answer; however, we can also look to the future and talk about dams and capturing the rain that falls on this parched land. As we all know, Australia is famous for its droughts and floods, but when it does rain we must capture the rainfall and store it in a proper manner. We must still keep the environment in mind when doing this—and environmental flows are just as important for the people upstream as they are for those downstream. We have a population of 25 million, and we—that's our Australian farmers—are feeding up to 75 million with what we produce. We have a good growth rate. It's been uninterrupted. It's been in the positive area for the last 27 years. Our farmers help the economy and have helped give us this good, continuous growth, so we must protect and droughtproof them for the future. There's an old saying, 'You don't know the value of water until the well runs dry.' It's getting dry in many locations. Dam levels are dropping across Queensland, New South Wales and other dry areas of Australia. We must continue our investment in agriculture. It will mean a better future for us all. In my electorate of Flynn, young people are starting to return to the land where there's a good return on investment. They've really hit the jackpot of late with crops like chickpeas, blueberries, macadamias and avocados. These guys and women are prepared to put their hard-earned cash and backs into this new farming, and they are reaping the rewards. But we as a government must support them with proper infrastructure. I'm talking about good roads and, of course, dams, weirs and on-farm water storage. This is most important. Our agriculture GDP has jumped from $48 billion to $60 billion in the last year. With proper infrastructure there is no reason that we can't meet $100 billion a year in agriculture. This is why it's so important that we go ahead with our dams. In Queensland, Rookwood Weir is all but finalised with the state government. The feds and the state are going 50-50 on Rookwood Weir. This is going to be a bonanza. It should be finished, they say, in about 2022. The Fitzroy catchment area is the second-largest catchment in Australia, behind the Murray-Darling. I've seen major floods in 2008, 2011 and 2013. When it rains, it rains, as the member for Leichardt knows. It takes just one cyclone and metres come down. It is up to us, the Australian government, to work with the Queensland government in making these dams a very viable option. It does not affect the environment at all. In fact, it lessens some of the freshwater rushing out onto the Great Barrier Reef. Freshwater is not too good for the Great Barrier Reef, so the less water we put out there, the better. It's a cycle and you can never stop it, because when it rains, it really rains. Rockwood will get underway and that will create about 2,100 jobs in construction. But, from then on, it will be farming jobs. There are no limits to what that will produce. We've already had a lot of interest from new farming groups wanting to partake in buying water allocations. What we must do is make sure the water is affordable. In Bundaberg, for instance, we have plenty of water in the dams around Bundaberg, but the ability to pump that water onto the cane fields is proving too hard financially. Consequently, the water is still in the dams. Also, the price of electricity forbids the farmers from using the water in Paradise Dam and Monduran Dam. There's millions to be made in agriculture. We just need to get the water to the farmers at the right price. In the North and South Burnett shires, the farms along the Boyne River, which comes from the Boondooma Dam, have been cut off. This has affected blueberry farmers, nut farmers and other farmers along the river. North of the Boondooma Dam and south of the Boondooma Dam, the farmers have just had to make do with what they have. The Queensland government has cut off the water and diverted it into the Tarong Power Station, having elected to leave the farmers without water. This is being looked at closely by the residents, the North and South Burnett shires and me and I've asked the federal government to put a feasibility study in place so that we can evaluate where we go. They've got the soil types and we've got the farmers. What we need is a constant, reliable source of water for the North and South Burnett. We can extend the Boondooma Dam, we can extend the Claude Wharton Weir, and we can pipe water from Paradise Dam back to the Coalstoun Lakes, a very rich-soiled area. We can do lots of things, but I need a feasibility study to satisfy everyone so that we can go ahead with this project. For instance, the big dam at Emerald is less than 20 per cent full at the moment. This will cause hardship down the track. That dam looks after irrigation farms and we have about 12 coal mines in the area and they all need water, apart from the townships. The cattle and the grazing also takes a little percentage of all that. Unfortunately, back in 2008 there was a bladder or balloon placed across the Bedford Weir just near Blackwater. Unfortunately, there was a family having a picnic below the Bedford Weir wall. You wouldn't believe it, but the bladder burst open and water gushed down the river, which is called the Mackenzie before it goes into the Fitzroy. Unfortunately, a young girl drowned. For that reason bladders, bags or whatever you want to call them are now illegal, so there will be no more balloons placed on top of dam walls to increase the volume of water that can be put in the dam. So it's back to having more weirs, dams or on-farm storage built. Farmers said that, if the governments of the day do not want to spend money on weirs and dams, let them build their own on-farm storage. This works very well. They capture five to eight per cent of the water that falls on their land. If a broadacre farm that gets about 30 inches a year can capture five to eight per cent, it would be enough water to keep that farm going for two years. We have a decision to make. We need the water infrastructure, whether it is dams, weirs or on-farm storage. This is a must. This is the time to do that sort of work. You build on-farm storage when it is dry. You can't do it when it's wet. We hope the wet season is not far away, but it will come and it will be wet. One thing that will stop a drought is a deluge, a good downpour. Tasmania: Hospitals 104 18:41 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Today Tasmanians buying their local daily paper the Mercury read that our state's health system is now such a shambles that patients are laying on the floor of the Royal Hobart Hospital. There were 58 people in emergency yesterday waiting for admission. Some of them were laying on the floor. At least two men waited for 72 hours for admission because no beds were available under the Liberal state government. There is no natural disaster underway. There is no emergency. There is no pandemic affecting Tasmania. It's an absolute disgrace. This is the new normal under the federal Morrison and state Hodgman Liberal governments—patients waiting in misery on the floor of an Australian hospital. It's really Third World stuff. It's unbelievable. With $11 million cut from Tasmanian hospital budgets and cuts locked in until 2025, there is little sunshine on the horizon under the Liberals. We all know that you can't cut your way to better care. If you turn up at the Hobart emergency department, you had better bring a packed breakfast, a packed lunch, a packed dinner and your pyjamas. Don't think calling an ambulance will get you admitted sooner. For the past five years under the Liberals ambulances have ramped in increasing numbers at both Hobart and Launceston General. The media has simply stopped reporting on it because it is no longer unusual. It's dog bites man. Why report it when it happens all the time? It's business as usual to see five, six, seven or even more ambulances with highly trained crews twiddling their thumbs while harried hospital staff do their best to open up beds. It's an absolute disgrace. No-one pretends that managing health is an easy job. It can be diabolically difficult to balance increasing health needs and expectations with budgets, but the Liberals came to power in Tasmania five years ago telling Tasmanians that they had all the answers. Five years later things are worse than they have ever been. The arrogant health minister simply refuses to listen and to learn. The health minister has demonstrated time and again that the job is beyond him. He should resign or be sacked. This is not Labor playing politics. Frontline workers and health experts are tearing their hair out. Dr Simon Judkins, the president of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine said this: Governments need to implement solutions now to avoid increased risk of complications, errors, death and increased costs to the health care system. Anecdotal evidence from our members point to deteriorating conditions at the … Royal Hobart … significantly impacting the emergency departments’ ability to deliver quality, timely care to patients when they most need it. Dr Judkins also said: … increased demand on emergency departments, which happens every winter, are predictable, and proper planning has the potential to correct our current scenario. Often Governments claim that winter demand is unprecedented – but we know that it’s not; it happens every year. And I must point out that we're no longer in winter, we're in the spring, and that the facts and the figures are alarming and they are damning. The acting Premier, Jeremy Rockliff, said of the situation overnight in Royal Hobart, 'Oh, that's not acceptable; we're very concerned about that.' He has it within his power and the power of the state Liberal government to fix this mess—to unfreeze the two per cent pay freeze they've got on public service workers and to put more staff into the hospital. It's within his power to do it. The facts and figures are alarming and damning. Patients presenting to emergency departments requiring urgent medical attention are being left in emergency departments for longer. Just two-thirds of urgent emergency department patients in 2016-17 were seen within the recommended 30 minutes. More than half of Tasmania's public hospital doctors work unsafe hours that put them at significant risk of fatigue, including three-quarters of intensive care specialists, with the Australian Medical Association saying that the strain and the pressure on our public hospitals are having a detrimental impact on the health of our doctors. The health of the people whose job it is to look after the health of patients is being affected because of the cuts under the Liberals. It's an absolute disgrace. Public hospitals are a fundamental plank in the nation's health system, but under the state and federal Liberal governments, they are underresourced and overstretched. Doctors, nurses, allied health and care assistants and other hospital staff are constantly called on to do more with less. According to the Hodgman Liberal government, Tasmania is currently—apparently—blessed with economic bounty. We are basking in a time of plenty! For God's sake! If we can't properly fund our hospitals and look after our sick and our elderly when things are supposedly so good, what's it going to be like when the economy takes a turn for the worse? If this is as good as it gets, it's not good enough! Under the state and federal Liberal governments, one in four Tasmanians wait outside the clinically recommended time, the worst in the country. Twenty per cent of Tasmanian patients wait more than a year for a hip replacement, five times the national average. Forty per cent of Tasmanian patients wait more than a year for a knee replacement, six times the national average. Twelve per cent of Tasmanian patients wait more than a year for a cataract extraction, eight times the national average. Ten per cent of Tasmanian patients wait more than a year for a hysterectomy. Premier Will Hodgman and the Tasmanian Liberals have shown time and again that they would rather buckle to the federal government than stand up to it. While the federal Liberals have ripped millions out of Tasmania, they have simply stood by, mute. Other premiers stand up for their states, but not Will Hodgman. If elected, a Bill Shorten Labor government will invest more in health, including an extra $30 million in Tasmanian hospitals, to address elective surgery waiting lists. Under the Liberals, 6,000 Tasmanians are now waiting for elective surgery, with one in 10 waiting almost a year. The government implies that elective surgery is not essential, and therefore not really all that important. But it includes vital procedures, including knee and hip replacements, cataract surgeries, tonsillectomies and hysterectomies. Too many Tasmanians are living unnecessarily with pain and inconvenience simply because the Liberals refuse to invest properly in elective surgery. Labor's $30 million investment will see almost 3,000 extra elective surgery procedures carried out, dramatically shortening the queue. A Shorten Labor government will also restore TAZREACH, a program that allows medical specialists to visit regional areas, saving people the stress, time and cost of travel. This will have significant benefits for people in my electorate. Labor's commitments will also give Tasmania's health workforce a significant boost, gearing up the state to attract new doctors and nurses as result of hundreds of additional hours of operating time. A Shorten Labor government will invest more in every single public hospital in the country, with an extra $2.8 billion in funding for more beds and shorter surgery waiting times. Labor's Better Hospitals Fund will see $2.8 billion extra investment from 2019 to 2025, fully reversing Liberal cuts and funding more beds in emergency departments and wards, more doctors, more nurses and more health staff. This funding will be targeted to reduce emergency department and elective surgery waiting times, which have blown out under Liberal cuts to Medicare and hospitals. The national average waiting time for elective surgery is the longest on record. The number of hospital beds available for elderly Australians is the lowest on record. The number of people presenting in emergency departments is the highest on record, yet one in every three patients considered urgent is not seen on time. The situation in Tasmania today is an absolute disgrace. I can only echo the comments of the Tasmanian Labor leader, Rebecca White, who said what's occurred is absolutely unacceptable. She said: We need to do better and the government needs to acknowledge that and properly fund health services, properly staff health services and make sure that patients aren’t let down like the stories we’ve heard today and others. It’s just so terrible and I don’t think that any Tasmanian thinks that this is acceptable any longer. It's certainly not acceptable. Telecommunications 106 18:51 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to speak on the importance of mobile phone coverage across my electorate of Barker. On being elected in 2013, I was excited to see the coalition government's Mobile Black Spot Program rolled out across the nation, and I looked forward to my electorate reaping some of those dividends. The coalition recognised in the lead up to the 2013 election that in order to attract investment in telecommunications in rural, regional and remote areas government needed to incentivise telecommunications companies to make that investment in those less densely populated areas of our nation. The program has been highly successful, with more than 600 of the total 867 base stations already delivered across the country, under the first three rounds of the program. The program has seen more than $680 million generated in co-investment from state and local governments, carriers and businesses and from local communities themselves. This is a direct result of our government's initiative. Round 4 of the program is underway, with the database being reopened last week. This process will give all Australians an opportunity to add any black spots that were not included in the database in 2016. Round 4 will open for applications later in the year, which will deliver yet more towers and better service to many towns and regions all across the country, but this won't go far enough. We need this program to proceed past round 4. In fact, we need this program to proceed past round 5. Indeed, I'm actively advocating for this program to become a rolling program. There are so many black spots around the country that need addressing. I'm not advocating to ensure every square inch of desert and mountain range is covered. That's unrealistic. I'm talking about areas that are populated and in high-risk bushfire areas, on our roads and on our highways. I am advocating for improved coverage for those who live and work in towns and regions, produce our food and fibre, run our regionally based businesses and our farms and educate our children in regional communities. This program must continue. It must be a rolling program, and that's what I'm advocating for. Before those opposite think, 'Here's an opportunity for the Labor Party to criticise the Mobile Black Spot Program,' I thought I might put on record a couple of the differences, if you like, between our program over the last five and a bit years and the six years that preceded that. Mr Deputy Speaker, it won't come as a surprise to you that, despite those opposite being in government for nearly six years, between 2007 and 2013, there wasn't a single dollar—not a single dollar—invested in upgrading mobile telecommunications in rural, regional and remote Australia. Effectively, if there were a scoreboard on this topic of mobile black spots fixed, it would read: Labor, zero; coalition, 867. If the scoreboard flipped over to investment generated, then the scoreboard would read: Labor, zero; coalition, $680 million. In fact, I think the poorest point in this debate was the lead-up to and during the 2016 election, where Labor failed to commit even to the ongoing rolling out of base stations funded under round 1 of the program and failed to commit to continuing the round 2 rollout if they won government. Of course, that gives us a window to what we should expect from the mobile phone black spot program were those opposite to be successful at the forthcoming election. Under our government, you'll see the program continue, and, if I'm successful in my advocacy, you'll see a rolling program, fixed long into the future. If those opposite are successful at that election, what we'll end up with is going back to the zeros. There will be zero investment and zero additional towers, because, while those opposite—and I'm grateful that one of the members sitting opposite does represent a regional community—can often talk a big game when it comes to regional community, the scoreboard tells us a very different story. Now I'd just like to take an opportunity to refer to a couple of sites that I long campaigned for and, I'm very pleased to say, towards the end of this year will be formally switched on. Kalangadoo, in the south-east of South Australia, is a notorious blackspot. This is a significant community. In fact, I spoke about the very successful Kalangadoo netball club today in the House of Representatives during members' statements. But this is a community that's been bedevilled with almost zero mobile reception forever. I'm pleased to say that, as a result of round 3 of the program, Kalangadoo will receive a new mobile phone system—indeed, an upgrade to the NBN tower, which this government also provided to that community, to ensure that we receive mobile telecommunications in and around Kalangadoo. Those living at Kybybolite can also expect a positive outcome. I acknowledge that that's been some time in the wait, and that had a lot to do with issues around roaming and the Productivity Commission's review into this. But I'm very pleased to say that the Kybybolite tower is now in the final stages of planning, and it will be built. I'm very hopeful that it will be operational before the end of the year. Why am I so passionate about mobile phone reception in regional communities? Well, these devices are now the No. 1 piece of safety kit for anyone who lives rurally, remotely or regionally. Whether you're travelling on one of our roads or you're working remotely on one of our farms, the most important piece of kit is your mobile phone. I've spoken about this in the past. My father is 70-plus. He works remotely. He thinks he's got the capacity of a 30-year-old. I think he wishes he still had those capacities. We worry incessantly about the fact that he works with heavy machinery, he takes risks he probably shouldn't and that, if something goes bad, he won't be able to lean into his pocket and make that phone call—whilst he's got his phone with him, it's rendered useless because of the lack of coverage in many of the areas where he farms. My father is one man. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Australians living in rural, regional, remote Australia—millions, in fact. There are millions who go to work every day and, like I'm sure those opposite would agree, we want them all to come home safely at the end of the day. That's why I'm so passionate about mobile phone connectivity. Sure, it delivers productivity outcomes for our nation. Sure, it means checking out your favourite Wikipedia page is made a little easier, but ultimately for me it's about safety. It's about ensuring that help, when needed, is attainable. It's about ensuring that those that go out and work hard on our behalf can be assured that those perhaps sitting behind them creating the kind of safety nets, in ambulance and other key services, are there when they need them. I think in this nation there has been a great compact, and that compact has been the compact between those that live in metropolitan areas and those that live in rural areas. Over time we have worked to ensure that compact meant that, in turn for the great dividends that are delivered from regional Australia, regional Australians can expect connectivity. Initially, it was roads. Then came fixed-line phones. We now need to make sure that that compact is honoured. And, in a modern world where this is your device of choice, where this is your most important piece of safety equipment, that compact, if it's to be honoured, is about mobile phone telecommunications connectivity across our country. Chifley Electorate: Infrastructure 107 19:02 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I wanted to talk tonight about a debate that's occurring—or you can see the waves building in this debate—and how it relates, in particular, to my part of Western Sydney. The debate that I'm referring to is in reference to this push by Senator Dean Smith from WA to have a discussion about population policy. I've enjoyed travelling to WA and have been there regularly. I didn't realise that there was a crush of population that was impacting on Senator Smith's psyche and that he felt compelled to push this, but whenever population debate gets mentioned there are a number of us that wonder what is actually being mentioned here. Is it about population policy or is it about scapegoating certain groups of people for the failure to make the right decisions and the right calls in other areas? I watch with interest a debate where we're talking about the size of Australia—25 million. A lot of our neighbours are way bigger. Before some get excited and argue that I am in some way pushing for this 'big Australia' policy—and this comes up from time to time, given our term in government previously—that is not the case. Certainly in Australia, with its population, people in some parts of the country feel the growth, but in other parts of the country they don't necessarily feel the same. I am deeply concerned that certain groups of people are being scapegoated, particularly migrants that are being scapegoated as being responsible for all the congestion that's occurring in some of our major cities, the way that our cities are growing and expanding and the type of daily inconvenience—which is a serious inconvenience. I represent a part of outer Western Sydney, an outer suburban seat. My friend the member for Lalor, here, also represents an outer suburban seat. I have seen the distances travelled in her seat, and obviously we share, we parallel, those experiences our constituents are having. But population growth that is not matched by long-term planning and the parallel commitment of investment by governments to ensure the building of infrastructure is what lets down the people of big cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne, where the freer movement of people in the city, within the city footprint, is one of the big issues that are being faced. If Senator Dean Smith wants to look at population policy he should go back to his party room and get them to take a much clearer view about the way that federal governments have failed the regions through a lack of longer term commitment to investment in infrastructure. At the federal level we're seeing a drop in infrastructure funding in relative terms, and we're seeing state governments in both New South Wales and Victoria being forced to increase significantly their investments because of the failure of leadership at the federal level. I hear the Prime Minister talk about congestion busting, particularly in my part of the world, and then the throwing in of dollars to signify that there is a commitment being backed up by money to bust congestion. Let me tell you, in my part of Western Sydney that money is not going into the things that will actually free up the movement of people in Western Sydney. I still have people stuck for ages, crammed like sardines in trains from the most western part of Sydney into the inner city every day on the western line of the Sydney rail network. On every major motorway in Western Sydney there are long lines of lights as commuters from the furthest parts of Sydney's outer boundaries travel into the city for work. You can see this early in the morning, from 5.30. They are crammed on the M7, M5, M2 and the M4. On the M4 now, because of decisions of coalition governments, they have to contend with tolls on roads that were paid for previously. The infrastructure of railway stations is not keeping pace with growth. We have 1950s railways that don't have amenities. For example, we encourage people to use public transport, but there are no public parking stations at railway stations to allow people to get their cars there and then get onto a train instead of being stuck on motorways. We have to beg for a Medicare licence for an MRI machine in our local hospital because the government won't stump up the money. People in our hospitals right now pay hundreds of dollars upfront to get an MRI scan to work out if they've got cancer, because the money isn't being put in. Some of the schools in my area are being listed on maintenance backlogs because federal funding to the state government is being clamped. The state government then looks at cutting back maintenance, because it's the easiest thing in school budgets to cut back on when funding isn't available. We're seeing all these things but, by the way, $10 billion is going into Sydney for infrastructure. Do you know what project it's going to? It's going to the Western Sydney Airport—one project. So when I hear 'congestion busting' in my part of the world, and I'm being told there are billions of dollars going in, am I to say to people: the way to fix your clogged motorways, stop you from standing for ages on public trains, improve the quality of your local hospitals and free your schools from being stuck on maintenance backlogs is through an airport? Give me a break! They'd tell me to have a Bex and a good lie down. That is the way decisions are being made in Sydney. The needs of outer Western Sydney simply cannot be ignored any more. We shouldn't have to beg for an Medicare licence for an MRI machine at a hospital. We shouldn't be jammed on every single motorway; they should be investing in other motorways for future growth, particularly the M9. We shouldn't have to see commuters crammed like sardines for an hour travelling on the western line of the Sydney rail network. And we shouldn't have to wait for upgrades to public transport. There should be better funding flow to schools, especially public schools, in my area. We should have an NBN rollout that actually goes ahead rather then being promised, stalled and then given no idea when it's going to happen. There should be further thought, for example, on opening up—we're talking about new rail lines being opened up while other existing rail lines aren't being attended to—the corridor on the M7 in Western Sydney, for example, and putting in bus lanes. Public transport would operate right down the M7 that connects north-western Sydney to south-western Sydney. It would be able to be scaled up very quickly and provide for access across our region. That corridor exists right now, within the easements that are sitting right in the middle of the M7, one of the biggest motorways in Western Sydney, and no thought has been given to that. This is the type of thing that needs to be thought of longer term, the type of investment that should be made to free up movement in a region, Western Sydney, that will dwarf the east of the city in years to come. And it is where, I might point out, the number of elected representatives from Western Sydney will probably outstrip what you would see in Tasmania, South Australia, and, dare I say—with the greatest respect to my friends in WA—WA as well. We need to have a serious look, backed up with a serious commitment to investment, at our part of Western Sydney and parts of Melbourne and Sydney—and I suspect, in time, Brisbane will experience the same growth—at where we can see a better movement of people and a much better way for those regions to exist and thrive and grow. I hope that in any discussion about population policy we will see less of the scapegoating on particular groups and more of an accountability by governments who should be doing better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The question is that grievances be noted and I call the member for Grey—my second-favourite electorate! Rural and Regional Health Services 108 19:11 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know you hail from Port Augusta and you understand the electorate very well. We have a crisis in rural Australia, particularly in South Australia and in my electorate, in the provision of doctors in rural areas. I have a history in rural health, over the period before I came into parliament. For 10 years I was on the Kimba District Hospital and Aged Care services board. I spent seven as chairman. And I spent a period as chairman of the Eyre Peninsula hospital association, and I'm very sorry that structure no longer exists. The Labor government in the state, in their wisdom, decided that hospital boards were superfluous and took all administration, essentially, to Adelaide. I finished up on that role and moved to others in the community in 1996. While it was not specifically the hospital board's role, periodically we were the lead agency when it came to recruiting new doctors to the local town, Kimba. It was never easy but we managed to find a doctor each time. They were, at best, difficult to find. On the other side of the ledger, the nation was at that time, in the 1990s, plagued by over-servicing from doctors in the city. Eventually, to address this problem, governments decided that we would train fewer doctors. There were too many doctors at that time. So the training numbers were cut. I underline the fact that even though there were too many doctors back in the nineties we still struggled to get them out to the country. Eventually, that surplus was reeled in and doctors became even more difficult to attract to the country. As Australia's numbers dropped, I guess supply had been restricted for too long, the intake at universities. Over a fairly short period we developed a deficit of doctors and began to import serious numbers of overseas trained doctors to fuel that shortfall. It was a lifesaver for the country. When we imported a doctor we could insist they go and practice in a certain location. We could say, for instance, 'If you want to enter Australia you can go to Port Augusta for the next five years,' or Coober Pedy or Ceduna or Kimba. So we filled the shortfall in the regions by importing these doctors. Of course, we didn't tell our locally trained doctors were to go when they completed university. They could go and set up wherever they liked. I just want to put on the record that I thank those doctors who have come from other places in the world to serve us. Without them, we would have been in an even more dangerous situation. It is ridiculous that Australia cannot train enough of its own. In fact, we should probably be exporting doctors to the rest of the world. So the training track was opened. To put us into 2017: 3,211 started medicine in university last year. There are 14,389 in total in our university system, so we're turning out about 3,000 a year. By my calculation, Australia needs about 33,000 GPs. We're turning out 3,000 a year. That's allocating about 700 doctors per patient. So obviously we will soon have more than enough doctors. We should, as I said, even be exporting doctors perhaps. But already—and I have been warning about this for five years—there are reports of overservicing in the cities. How about that? History is repeating itself. At the moment, in the Grey electorate, I've had a look at the Rural Doctors Workforce Agency's website, and I've found that they are advertising for 30 doctors throughout the Grey electorate. I know of two more single-doctor practices that are recruiting, and they're not on that website, so I know we are at least 32 short. If we assume that each doctor can properly service about 700 patients, Grey should have around 170 full-time-equivalent doctors. We're 32 short. That's a pretty dangerous level. It's almost a 20 per cent shortfall. The problem is that we are burning out the good doctors, because they're working longer hours to try and meet the demand. And what's happening is that, in some places, doctors are actually withdrawing their support for the local hospital. They don't want admittance rights. They don't want to visit people who report to the hospital. In Port Augusta, in fact, SA Health has had to employ locum doctors to provide that service. That comes at an enormous cost. I have another hospital a little further south. It's in a cluster of towns. All but one practice have withdrawn their services from the hospital, so it's loading extra onto those who are doing the right and proper and good thing. The government has appointed Professor Paul Worley as the National Rural Health Commissioner. I've met with him on two occasions. He has a number of good ideas that he is progressing. He's a good man. I applaud his appointment. We're also investing heavily in ramping up rural training, and, hopefully, this will help. But I'm less than convinced that it will be sufficient. My experience tells me it will be insufficient. We need to question what it is we need to entice doctors into the country. I know they don't want to come. They've got partners who are astrophysicists. They've got children who need to go to high school, and they don't want to send them to the local high school. There's a whole plethora of reasons why they don't want to live in the country. At the moment, we have about 500 registrars in South Australia, and about 250 of these are receiving training in the country. My understanding is, though, that only 50 are actually living in the country, so it brings into question what their long-term intentions are. I think it's pretty plain that they'll be returning to the city. I know of a local doctor who had brought in a number of these registrars. He said: 'We make better doctors. There's no doubt about that. They enjoy the experience, but, almost to the person, they go back to the city.' Recently, an eight-year-old from my home town of Kimba, Edie Rayner, wrote an impassioned plea to the doctors of Australia to come and live and work in Kimba. It went viral on the internet. She was featured recently on Weekend Sunrise, where our mayor, Dean Johnson, told us that the package for a single-doctor practice in Kimba would include a free surgery; a free four-bedroom, solid-construction house to live in; and a free car. The last doctor asked for six chickens. He's willing to give them a dozen chickens, and there's a good chicken coop at the doctor's house. And it would include an earning capacity of around $400,000 a year. Clearly, money is not the issue. We need something else. I have written a paper that I've had for a couple of years. I've been hawking it around for a few years. It's called 'The challenge of supplying doctors where Australia needs them'. It is advocating for postcode-specific Medicare provider numbers. That means that, if you want to go and practise, you can't go and set up in North Adelaide—well, you can; in fact, there's no restriction on where a doctor might set up, but you're not going to get a public subsidy to practise there. Given that around 85 per cent of a GP's income probably comes from the public purse, surely, the public has a say in where the service is delivered? It's beyond comprehension that we would pay someone to deliver a service where there are already too many doctors. I think the time has come to say: 'Well, if you want to be a doctor you have to go and live in Port Augusta, or Coober Pedy, or Ceduna or Kimba. That's where we will provide the Medicare provider number.' I know that the AMA and others will resist this. They will say that it's a restraint on trade and that doctors are a private business. But they're only a private business in so much as they operate their own books. In fact, they run on public money and I think it's time that the public actually got what it needed from the system. If you look at a schoolteacher, when they come out of university they can't just go and set up a school down the end of the street because it's convenient to their house; they actually have to go to the school where there's a job. If you look at a nurse, they can't set up a hospital down at the end of the street; they actually have to go to the hospital where there's a job. But in the doctor's case, we allow them to go wherever they like. Of course, we would need a transition period; we would need some grandfathering rules. We'll protect those who have an investment in local surgeries now. But, having said that, I can tell you what most local surgeries are just about worth if they were put on the market; it's about the bricks and mortar. It's not like the 'good old days', as it were. But it's time for change, and I cannot just stand by and see my community starved of doctors. When you have low numbers of doctors then the push comes on to restrict services in the local hospital. And if you restrict services in the local hospital, it's harder to recruit good trained staff. So when, as happened recently in my local hospital, a young lady comes in too late to get to another hospital to deliver a baby, the baby is delivered on site. But, of course, as the years go on, there will be less and less nursing staff there that have the training to deliver babies. It's a dangerous mix. We need to get doctors back out in the country, and I think we've run out of carrots and that's why we need a stick. This report advocates just what that stick is. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B and will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:22